The confusion persists and the evidence gathers

It's really interesting that Carol Ebsen made note in past meetings that the board made a motion to pay her $250.00. In fact this was explained to Judge Connolly. It seems that the board simply came up with a figure of $250.00 for her day in court.
At this months meeting, Carol Ebsen showed the board members a note from her employer (Apparently her status has changed from an owner of a business to an employee. Another flip flop). This letter apparently substantiated that she makes $250 per day which exactly matches the amount that the board decided to pay her! Now was this just luck that the board members came up with the figure that she apparently makes? Not likely. I can't imagine that anyone would think that $250 per day (cash) would be acceptable to pay Carol Ebsen who lost her fight in court. Not even New Concepts Management Group charged for their loss in court.

The flip flop of details abound. First she said that the board simply decided to pay her $250.00. Then in her news letter, she stated that she "charged appropriately" Now she tries to substantiate her income with a letter. If we go to court for none compliance, she may be required to present her tax documentation to substantiate her income since a letter will not suffice.

It is about time that the other board members started thinking for themselves. Realize that I have been correct all along and get over their losses in court. It's time to start managing and stop fighting. When you are wrong, you are wrong. The only reason that court action has been invoked is because of the lack of thoughtful dialog with members (yes me). They finally found someone who will stand up to them and they are not used to that. Now for the most part, the board members hate me (I'm ok with that since they hate me because I'm right) and don't care to indulge in dialog.
This kind of attitude leads to court action.

The solidarity of the board members, to me, smells of protection. Board members are there to enable the enjoyment of members, assure good health and maintain properties. In my opinion, they have no idea about health issues. I realized this after listening to them tell an owner with a 4 year old girl to put masking tape over the window where the mold was to stop the water coming in. What a disgrace.
They have no idea about enjoyment since they have fought tooth and nail to try to maintain an illusion of doing nothing wrong. What a disgrace
They have no idea about maintenance, since they only have around $400 per home for maintenance, they have condemned decks, poor asphalt with weeds growing out of cracks and not enough money to meet maintenance requirements. What a disgrace.

Not everyone on the board is a culprit of the errors. Mainly the one's who have served on and off for 15 years and think that they own everyone. It is however time that the quiet ones started to speak up and express their feelings. The losses in court reflect on everyone who voted for the illegal activities which resulted in court action.

December 11th Beating

Here are the notes from the December 11th meeting:

A few people arrived to announce that they are running for the board. Christine Drum will run and Dennis Nolan will run.

I had a chance in the "home owner" input part of the meeting to ask a question. My question was as follows:

"I'm here to find out how we resolved your illegal activities regarding the $250.00 charges by Carol Ebsen"

They did not address this question for me. So it remains to be seen how the judges instructions will be adhered to. He specifically instructed the board to "immediately return the money to the maintenance funds" I noticed that Carol passed a check to Paul Bozoni, our manager from New Concepts" This may have been the $250.00, I have a note into Paul Bazoni to clarify via email how this is to be resolved. I copied the board members too.

Carol presented a sheet of paper to the board members regarding her earnings. The illusion for the homeowners was that this sheet of paper verified that she makes $250.00 per day, or that she lost $250.00 for her day in court. This has nothing to do with the judges instructions. I could not believe that they took a vote to accept the data. John Rettger asked that this be tabled until the next meeting. He was shot down and the vote passed with John Rettger opposing the vote. I have no idea what they were trying to do. I do know that another visit to court will require that Carol produce her tax return since a letter is not proof of earnings.

John Rettger tried to introduce, for discussion, elimination of late charges and introduction of the covenant rule which states that the remedy for none payment of dues is 6% per annum. That is around 72 cents per month. This would be a reasonable fee and is in line with current mortgage rates.

George Plew is in charge of calling the real estate agents to have them remove their signs. They will have 5 days to remove the signs. After this, he is the volunteer that will remove them. This, I believe, is his pet annoyance. There are way too many signs in place. People want out as the fees go up, as arm rates adjust up and as the owners realize what the heck they have bought into.
My real estate agent warns people about RV3 when they are looking to buy. She knows about the management capacity of RV3 and would feel bad about selling a home there. So the word gets around. It takes a long time to reverse this stigma and we have not started yet.

A lot of homes at RV3 were purchased with arm mortgages. I know that to live there, the cost is around $1150 mortgage, $160 fees, tax and insurance. The ARM mortgages will raise the payments and very soon, the price to live at this facility will be in excess of $1350 not including taxes/insurance. People will want out but they won't be able to sell. More foreclosures and empty homes. I did visit the homes that Carol listed as debtors. 3 of them were abandoned.


Keep posted. My next web log will involve the discussion of the newsletter which slandered me and illegally published a list of debtors. I will outline a 2 hour discussion with my lawyer.

Happy Christmas.

George Plew Involvement in unlawful Entry

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C9-97-264

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Robert William Brady,
Appellant.

Filed October 14, 1997
Reversed
Klaphake, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. K3-96-4313

S Y L L A B U S

A search warrant sought and obtained after two separate illegal entries to confirm the presence of growing marijuana plants is not a genuinely independent source, and items seized pursuant to such a warrant must be suppressed.

O P I N I O N

KLAPHAKE , Judge

Appellant Robert William Brady was charged with fifth-degree controlled substance crime after police seized marijuana and other items from his townhouse and another residence. Following an omnibus hearing, the trial court declined to suppress the evidence. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, submitted the case on stipulated facts, and now appeals from his conviction. We reverse.

FACTS

On August 14, 1995, George Plew, vice-president of a Coon Rapids townhouse association, received a complaint of water leaking from a townhouse at 1529 121st Avenue N.W. Plew and Joseph Grant, another association board member, went to the townhouse. Grant climbed through a window when no one answered the door. Once inside the townhouse, the two men discovered the source of the leak. Plew also discovered 16 growing marijuana plants in the basement and reported to the Coon Rapids Police Department that he had observed a marijuana growing operation.

Officer Pantelis responded to the call. After speaking with Plew, Pantelis entered the townhouse without a warrant and observed what he believed to be growing marijuana plants. He then called Investigator Robert Trusler, a Coon Rapids police officer assigned to the Anoka-Hennepin Drug Task Force.

When Trusler arrived at the townhouse, he spoke with Pantelis and then entered the townhouse to observe the marijuana plants. Trusler later applied for a warrant to search the townhouse, which a magistrate issued.

During execution of the warrant, officers found several marijuana plants, bags containing marijuana, assorted paraphernalia used for growing marijuana, two handguns, several boxes of ammunition, and packaging for two additional handguns that were not found during the search. Officers also found various documents linking the residence to appellant. The documents indicated that appellant had another residence in Bloomington.

After Trusler verified that appellant actually resided at the Bloomington address, he requested a search warrant for that address. During execution of a warrant on August 15, police arrested appellant. Officers also found four marijuana pipes, marijuana rolling papers, and approximately $1,800 in cash during the search.

Appellant was charged with fifth-degree controlled substance crime under Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 1(1) (1994), and being a felon in possession of a pistol under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(j)(3) (1994). At an omnibus hearing, appellant sought to suppress all the evidence against him because it was seized after the unlawful entries into the Coon Rapids residence. The trial court rejected appellant's arguments.

Following a trial based on stipulated facts, appellant was convicted of the fifth-degree controlled substance offense. Appellant seeks review of his conviction, challenging the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in concluding that the search warrant was a genuinely independent source of the evidence seized?

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that the evidence seized in the townhouse search must be suppressed because the officers unlawfully entered the townhouse to “make sure” marijuana was present before they sought the warrant. As we warned in State v. Lozar , 458 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. July 31, 1990), a “true confirmatory search” requires suppression of the later-obtained evidence. Id. at 429; see also Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533, 540, 108 S. Ct. 2529, 2534-35 (1988) (to determine whether warrant is independent of illegal entry, one must ask whether it would have been sought even if what actually happened had not occurred); 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.4(f), at 299 (3rd ed. 1996) (warrant tainted if police entered dwelling merely to see if there was anything worth getting warrant for).

According to the Supreme Court in Murray ,

[t]he ultimate question * * * is whether the search pursuant to warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information and tangible evidence at issue. This would not have been the case if the agent's decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry.

Id. at 542, 108 S. Ct. at 2535-36.

As Professor LaFave explains,

what counts is whether the actual illegal search had any effect in producing the warrant. Surely this covers any case in which the search truly was “confirmatory”- i.e. where the police, without regard to whether they mistakenly believed they lacked probable cause or correctly believed they had probable cause, nonetheless wanted a greater assurance that evidence was in the premises before expending all the time and effort inevitably involved in obtaining and executing a search warrant.

5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.4(f), at 299.

Here, both Officers Pantelis and Trusler entered the townhouse without a warrant after Plew stated that the townhouse contained marijuana. [1] This raises serious concerns as to whether the officers believed Plew. Furthermore, Trusler admitted that he entered the townhouse to ensure that there was illegal activity in the townhouse. At the omnibus hearing, Trusler testified as follows:

A. I wanted to confirm, you know, for my own -- to satisfy my own interest or curiosity that it in fact was a marijuana growing operation.

* * * *

Q. You went into the residence to make sure that what was in there was actually some kind of illegal activity; isn't that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. It was after you found that that you determined it was time to get a search warrant, correct?

A. Correct.

(Emphasis added.) In addition, the trial court specifically found that Trusler entered the townhouse to confirm the existence of the marijuana growing operation and sought the warrant only after that confirmation.

Independently applying the Fourth Amendment case law to these facts, we conclude the search was “confirmatory,” and all evidence obtained as a result of the warrant must be suppressed. See Murray , 487 U.S. at 538, 108 S. Ct. at 2534 (discussing search now, warrant later scenario); Lozar , 458 N.W.2d at 439 (confirmatory search requires suppression of later-obtained evidence); 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.4(f), at 299. Because we are reversing based on the illegal confirmatory search, we need not reach the other claims raised by appellant.

D E C I S I O N

Because the evidence used to convict appellant was unlawfully obtained and should have been suppressed, we reverse.

Reversed.

The Newsletter - November

The memorandum regarding RV3 was sent out this week. Written such that the smell of "la culpa" is eroded from the board and wafted over to me. Carol has stated that maintenance is not being done due to the fact that the owner of 12168 Drake would not follow the rules he was given when he purchased the property. The owner has always followed the rules, always paid dues on time, always paid fines and paid illegal charges. The fact is that the decisions made by the board along with the lack of ability to figure out what is right and wrong, has caused the costs. Clearly, the fact that they have lost both law suits indicates that they have "tienen la culpa". For the uninitiated, that means "they have the culprit responsibility".

As for the weeds, I simply made a mistake and quoted the wrong law. In fact State statute 515B.3 101, item (11) states:

(11) impose charges for late payment of assessments and, after notice and an opportunity to
be heard, levy reasonable fines for violations of the declaration, bylaws, and rules and regulations of the association;

This was copied and pasted from the state statutes. Riverview III NEVER gives an opportunity to be heard. They simply fine and expect payment. You will notice the word "reasonable" when talking about fines. The judge did elude to this at court time.

Carol Ebsen and New Concepts have drummed up another problematic decision. They have moved money from the "legal" fund to the "maintenance" funds. This money was a $250 bill charged by Carol Ebsen (the memo points out that Carol charged appropriately) to Riverview III for her day in court.
They have defied Judge Connolly's instructions. His instructions clearly state 2 items.

1. Carol Ebsen was incorrectly compensated and
2. The board of RV2 should immediately return the funds.

The next action will be a re visit to court to explain to Judge Connolly that RV3 manipulated the movement of funds but that Carol Ebsen was still incorrectly compensated. He will not be pleased at all and in fact the penalties for such manipulation could be other than monetary. This is called contempt of court. Rewards for contempt are outstanding. Even 3 foot weeds can't hide contempt.

She charged $250. This is cash. In order to get $250 from your work place for a days work, you need to be making around $390 per day since you will pay taxes. This equates to around $100,000 per year. I would suggest that she makes nowhere near this amount. So we will have to produce receipts. As judge Connolly said "How do I know how much she makes?"

It has always been claimed that the board made a motion to pay Carol $250 for her time. However, in this memo, Carol points out that she "Charged Accordingly". This is the reason that we have minutes. Her statements are documented and approved by the board.

The memo also noted that the Judge requires the association to "transfer" the $250 paid to Carol. According to the verdict, Judge Connolly is requiring that RV3 RETURN the money.


Have a happy Thanksgiving.

November 13th Meeting

I was a little late getting to the meeting. When I walked in, Gene Sullivan was in the process of elegantly chewing out the board. The flavor of his discussion was that the board are viewed as acting out of emotion, have lack of communication with members. There is a general perception that they lack fairness. He wants the board to start listening and have compromise in mind.
He wants the board to start having dialog with members. He told the board members that they view Mr. Williams as an agitator and that Mr. Williams feels like David trying to fight Goliath. This is the point where George in true form leaned back in his chair and laughed.

Gene Sullivan also said that the board needs to re-think the possibility of signing up a group of landlords, home owners etc and forming an entity. I'm not sure what the objective would be since the board has learned the hard way that they have to follow the rules.
They are not "in charge", they are "in place" to implement our covenants.
Gene Sullivan, waived his charges of $120 per hour for court appearance and eluded that the charges were not discussed. I believe that Terry is the one who told us that $120 per hour is the charge. In fact, previous postings on this blog spot discusses the subject. Of course, Gene charging $120 per hour to lose a law suit does send an interesting message. I think he has done the right thing. He also handed a check to me for my court costs.

He told the board that the Judge agreed with the weeds fine. However, this is incorrect. I have attached the relevant conclusion which indicates that I did not prove that RV3 violated statute 515B 1-112.
RV3 Court 2 Conclusion.jpg
This is because unfortunately, I picked the wrong state statute which has nothing to do with charges without actual cost.

The big win of course is that now the board has to get $250 back into the maintenance fund. It is illegal for board members to be compensated as stated in the rules. I don't know how they will achieve getting the money back in but I will be gaining the information soon.

The news letter has been written. Carol took over the writing. She has started off explaining away her payment of $250.00. Still in her whipping mode, it looks to me like she feels the need to CYA by writing an explanation regarding her second loss in court. She has also decided that delinquencies are going into the newsletter. Not only are they going to foreclosures (Per Paul Bozoni) after 90 days delinquency, but they will intimidate the culprits. I will be looking carefully at this. I think it is wrong and I will be looking at the law. John Rettger asked if we should be calling these people to try to understand their dilemma and the board told John that they would be breaking all kinds of harassment laws (Al Dittbrenner).

I do agree that initiation of foreclosures on aged delinquencies is the only method to fix the problems. We do need more money and we are increasing the association fees AND we have thousands of dollars hanging out there not paid. The association has a duty to paying members to make sure they collect fees rather than simply raising the fees.

We'll keep you posted.

Clarification re Funds Paid to Carol Ebsen

It's looking like the board members who voted for a $250 payment to Carol Ebsen have the responsibility of getting the money back into the maintenance fund. I'm not sure who made the motion to pay Carol, but only a few people make motions on the board. Isn't that right GEORGE!
I'm certain that Carol had some outside discusions regarding this. It will be fun to see how they deal with this. My guess is that Carol will pay back the money and come up with some receipts showing us all her loss at work. I know she doesn't like people to know how much money she makes but we can count on me studying the expenses.

Remember, when you vote for the conclusion on how to handle this, be careful. Think of the consequences rather than the Carol factor. You guys are becoming a poor example of a board of directors. This reminds me of Enron mini. I can't wait for the next home brew newsletter. Carol needs to be removed from her position. She will kick and scream, but she has to go.

Thank you for the board members who listen and think for them selves (you know who you are). And for those of you who simply attend without saying a word (you know who you are), start speaking up and lets get this stuff right for a change.

Court Case#2 Decision is made

Carol Ebsen is required to immediately return the $250 she was paid by the board for her last court case appearance. Riverview Third Association is directed to pay my court costs of $60.00

My case regarding the $25 weeds fine failed since I did not prove that RV3 violated state stat 515B 1-112. They violated other laws but not this one.
Both parties have until November 16th 2006 to appeal. I shall study the weeds fine and try it again.

Total cost so far caused by a stubborn board who don't listen:

4 hours (estimated) for Gene Sullivan @ $120/hour = $480
Court Costs = $60

Return of Carol Ebsen money = -$250

Total cost to Riverview Third = $290.00

Hopefully they will get the message soon that members have a right to be heard or have a third party hear them.

Good Meeting

Three people missed the meeting tonight. Carol the President, Greg and Lori. A motion was made to remove Lori with some discussion from John Rettger who was wondering if we should talk to her. The vote was as unanimous as it can get for a 5 person vote. Lori has missed 5 months and I agree that this person is a silent board member which does no good.

George Plew moved that Marlene should be voted in. Marlene who stated that she was only there to observe, accepted the position and thanked the board. She sat in Carols chair.
Our new manager is Paul Bozonie. Apparently, Paul is a VP at New Concepts Management.

I asked why the meeting had changed date without informing members. George explained an anomaly which created this.

The meeting was run by Pat. She did a very good job and this has to be the best, non-emotional, respectful meeting I have ever attended. Board members were allowed to talk without interruption and people listened.

Congratulations. Now if we could only pass this expertise on to the missing members.

Pizza Notes

3 people are selected to run for RV3. Everyone is unanimous in that fines are required and everyone is unanimous that the boards methodology behind fines is against State law. People need an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to resolve their issues before being fined. We will know about this after our court conclusion.

An issue that came up was one regarding the fact that too many people call board members at strange times in the evening. This wears out members and causes people to quit. There is an answer to this which is: People need to address their concerns to the management company. Of course, that has been difficult because the management company rarely responded in the past.

Discussion regarding people wanting to put in large gardens. What about when these people leave? They have typically left the next owner to tend the garden and the new owner may not want to work the garden. This issue covers a lot of items that may be requested by the owners. The answer to this problem is simple. The board can offer that the owner pay a deposit. That way if the owner leaves the property "out of compliance", then the board may use the deposit to correct the issue. If the owner returns the property to the original condition, then the deposit is returned.

It turns out that we have an owner occupied home in RV3 which is a meth house. Anoka county raided the building but broke into the wrong place. Oops.

A discussion regarding RV3 as it pertains to being a business. This business is running with an income of around $266,400 per year. This association is not run like a business. Poor planning has been sited as the problems and the reason we only have $400 per home for maintenance. Members rarely came to a meeting with something nice to say about the board except when requested to read a prepared statement by the president. Most arrive ready to fight. Businesses don’t normally operate in this mode. Businesses normally have more compassion.

There were concerns that our management company are charging too much. No one is going out for bid on insurance, land maintenance (grass/snow etc). This is a very high priority for most businesses. Companies are on the continuous trail for better bids. Even a 3% savings on grass/snow would equate to around $2000 savings.

The board members got their orders from Carol that the meeting this month is moved to October 16th. Plus, the meetings have changed from the rules book directive. Yet again board action contrary to standards of conduct set out by our rules. No one knows that the meeting this month is early and people may arrive on the wrong date. People are not important though. Board members want to gather and discuss the upcoming court conclusion and prepare. It’s them against us.

Riverview Third hired Gene Sullivan to appear for Al Dittbrenner and Carol Ebner in Anoka County Court last week. You can download the presentation here: Court Action Items

The issue of paying Gene Sullivan (New Concepts Owner) $120.00 per hour is still up for grabs. State Law requires associations to provide indemnification insurance. This insurance is supposed to cover for law suits. It provides a professional Attorney to present the arguments. Yet again we have blatantly disregarded State law, and the president has directed the people we pay to protect her. Hopefully, you can understand the conflict and why State law dictates indemnification insurance. Our management company wants to keep the business and any resistance to what the president wants may jeopardize that business. So they comply with board decisions. The presentation was very poor and I would have expected that Gene spend at least a few hours researching the issues before his presentation.

What really needs to happen is that Gene Sullivan needs to approach the board and state:

“We like your business and want to keep you as a customer but, you can’t operate in this way and things need to change. If you don’t want to comply with the rules and covenants and State law, I will have to terminate our relationship.”

Now that’s what I call a strong moral company who I want to do business with!

Jury is almost in

The court action against Carol Ebsen and Al Dittbrenner is complete. I can say with confidence that this is going to be a slam dunk. The 2 areas of concentration for the judge were as follows:

The judge eluded to the fact that the recipient of a weeds fine deserves the opportunity to resolve the issue and be heard before the fine is applied. The boards' representative Gene Sullivan (New Concepts Management) produced a document which he said was sent to the plaintiff. The judge pointed out to Gene that this document simply states that "a fine will be imposed" and there is no chance for the recipient to react. The conversation was clearly in response to our state laws in 515b which particularly discuss the issue of warnings and requests for action before fines are levied. It was also argued that this document was not sent out. My guess is that the document was sent to the rental property and not the billing address which is my home. This has been a problem issue for most of the time.

Regarding the $250.00 payment made to Carol Ebson for her time in court. The judge held his hands up in the air and told Gene "how do I know what her real costs were?" Then he asked Gene if he would be opposed to making Carol return the money to the maintenance fund. Gene said that it would be ok and that Carol would probably be ok with that as long as "she was able to come up with her real documented cost and get paid". He just let everyone know here that she simply picked a number out of the air and can probably come back with a more realistic number.

Gene who was paid $120 per hour to appear in court will be paid around $480.00 if he includes his driving time. His case was weak and he simply pointed out parts of the "rules" that state "fines can be levied" and various other irrelevant items. I term them irrelevant since the declarations and covenants always rule when there is a discrepancy. Clearly, there are discrepancies. For an owner of a management company getting paid $120 per hour to defend board members, I would be ashamed of his presentation. They will be even more ashamed when the case is lost and documented. Gene told me that he needs to be neutral however, he clearly does not understand the laws as they pertain to homeowner associations and is clearly on the side of the losing board. I conclude that he is only trying to keep the account and keep the president happy. Too much "old boy" network going on if you ask me.

This will be time for Carol to reflect on her actions and realize that she goes too far and should resign after having the court direct her to return the funds she obtained. This will be her second loss this year where she is slapped.

Rest assured that any pay stubs produced from her employment will be copied to me since I have a right to all documentation. This will be scrutinized to the Nth degree since Carol is a part owner in her business and in essence can write her own ticket. As the judge asked "do you have her pay stubs?" I will also be watching for an effort to push this off onto either management or "the other board members" We will deal with that too.

We are in wait mode and I expect a quick decision within one week.

Will All Homeowners leave. We Need Our Secret Meeting

What do they have to hide from all of you homeowners?

Yes folks, tonight the meeting is secret. 2 homeowners were present, They had to leave. I suppose that the secret meeting was probably something to do with either one of those homeowners. I just realized.... It's me!. Yes, they are discussing the up coming law suit and how they will handle it. They are also discussing how they are going to handle me in the future because this is really wearing them down. I keep applying pressure and they don't like it.

Anyway here are the highlights for the 10 minutes worth of homeowner input:

Funds have been allocated for the year and they are apparently over budget. Poor money management? I suppose. No need to go to any more meetings regarding repairs because your request may be denied since they have no money. They will argue the expense of the blacktop and roof repairs and I will argue lack of foresight from the past. This has all happened on Carols watch.

Al Dittbrenner had his garage door and light repaired and wanted reimbursement. I suppose that's OK but then he requested money for the electricity that the workers used. They spent 5 whole minutes on this. They had no idea how to figure out how much electricity costs. This is a subject that they all should know. Have they never looked at an electric utility bill and tried to figure it out?
Our management company representative said that they should get the Electric bills for the month before and pay the difference. Won't that be a surprise if the last months bill is actually higher! Does that mean he owes us money?

They wanted to pay him $25.00!

Thank you George for suggesting that we find out how much money was spent before actually paying the bill.

For those of us who are interested in continuous improvement, here is how electricity figures:

Electricity in the State of Minnesota costs 9.15 cents per killowatt hour. Thats 9.15 cents per hour to run a quantity of ten - 100watt light bulbs. Your off peak charges are 3.95 cents.

So, if a drill was used we have to know the power a drill consumes. This is 850 watts or .8KW. So in order to run the drill for 1 hour, you would need to pay .85 x 9.15c = 7.7 cents.

Lets make this clear, in order to spend $25.00 on a drill, you would need to run it continuously for 13 days for the 24 hours each day. Since workers only put in 8 hours, that means that the drill needs to be on for 40 days including weekends.

Come on Al! get real. $25.00 is half of your electric bill man. Don't accept it! you won't feel right!

The Court Date Is Set

Tuesday October 10th is the date for our court case. By now both Al Dittbrenner and Carol Ebsen have the summons to court.

You would think that they would simply return the weeds fine since the court cost to the association will be large. I did send a warning shot across the bow and let them know that this was pending but they took no action.

The arrogance persists.

Next court action is now pending

I filed for court action today against Riverview third. This after they spent a whopping 6 seconds on my request to refund $25.00 for weeds. Thanks to George who actually reminded the board that they needed to make a decision and discuss my question. Obviously, the last law suit was not incentive enough for them to sit down and start listening to complaints.
Also sited in the suit is Carols $250 charge for her day in court. I have requested that this be returned to the general maintenance fund where is came from.

We should get a court date in about 2 weeks.

See yall there.

Board May Approach Helmuth & Johnson to Get Money Back

Our incompetant board hired Helmuth and Johnson to put liens on properties. This is typically done when situations get very bad. In our case, we do it because Al Ditbrenner wants to get home and simply lien everyone. It is also due to the fact that dominant board members don’t know what they are doing.
Helmuth and Johnson do not care if the Association is acting outside of the law because the concequences are the concern of the association and not the Law Firm. So, the money won't be coming back.
One day, some of the board members (they know who they are) will step back and realize that people simply dislike them because of their incompetance and power hungry ways.

More huge costs for RV3 Association

Yes folks. The lack of reason and empathetic listening is costing Riverview Third thousands of dollars. This leads me to believe that we may be at the critical point where incompetant board members will be let go. Here is the latest blunder which has cost a fortune:

Just got off the phone with my attorney. The good guys win again.

My story is this. Last August I was presented with a bill from the association for $400. This included 3 fines for police calls in July, 1 fine for littering, and 2 fines for damage to the siding and the $250 charge for driveway damage.. Upon checking with the police, I discovered that there were no police calls for July. I then sent the association a letter stating that based upon a lack of evidence for the police calls, no repair on the driveway, and no evidence that my tenants had damaged the siding or littered I would not be paying the money. The letter I got back stated that the charges stood and that the board would file a lien against the property if I refused to pay. Several letters were exchanged over the next few months and the late fees piled up. In January, the rental charge hit and I refused to pay that. In April, the board sold my debt to a lien company. Besides paying the $600+ that the board alleged I owed, the lien company also prepaid my monthly assessments through the year and tacked these onto the amount I was said to have owed. I received a letter from the lien company demanding payment of approximately$2200. I ignored the letter, waiting for them to take me to court. Early this month I received a letter from Helmuth and Johnson (attorneys for the lien company) informing me that I now owed around $3500 and that my property would be sold at a sheriff's sale on September 6th. That's what I was waiting for. I contacted my attorney, gave him my documentation, and let him go to work. The result is that all action has been dropped against me. Helmuth and Johnson has decided that there was no basis for any of the charges and has recommended that the lien company go back to the board and attempt to collect from the association. This decision is important because besides representing the lien company, Helmuth and Johnson has also represented the association in the past.

The upshot of this is that two law firms on opposite sides of the fence have now reviewed the declaration, bylaws, rules, and the small claims court verdict and agreed that the board's use of fines is not acceptable. We should be confident that any action any of us take in court against the board will be upheld.

My next step is to request that the board reimburse me for my attorney's fees. Since the board's fraudulent actions (the attorney's language) caused me to hire an attorney to defend myself, they are at fault for the damages. If the board refuses to pay, I'll be glad to see them in court.

Len Lorence

August 28th 2006 Muting

Where to start:

One of the board members wanted stairs on the deck. That flew through just fine.
Board members want to get house numbers installed on the rear of the homes. The only reason for this is so they don’t have to run around the front of the home to get the house number when they find weeds or dog poop.

Board decided to halt late fees for one particular homeowner who owes lots of money. The premise here is that if he keeps up with an extra $100 per month to get caught up, they will waive the late fees. George opposed this.

The city of Coon Rapids sent a letter to the board condemning one of the decks. Decisions were made by individual board members to go ahead and replace the deck. The discussion was that the City only gave them 20 days so they had to react before the meeting. They need educating or they need to be honest. The city hands out violations and explains that it is possible to appeal. Even besides this, the housing inspector (Michelle Posch) will allow the association meeting to take place and waive the 20 days. This of course is a classic case of not knowing how to communicate.

One member (Gloria) has internal damage (due to water penetration via the roof and siding) and the association told her that even though the damage may have been caused by bad workmanship on roofing or siding, she is responsible for getting insurance to cover the inside of the home. What they fail to realize is that poor workmanship can be litigated and if the cause of the internal damage is due to outside work, the court will find in favor of the plaintiff.

Riverview 4^th wants to meet with Carol. Carol said that she had some email communications regarding this. She has had other email communications regarding RV3 issues. This is the same person that told me (yes I have it in writing) that her email was for her work and she did not use email for RV3. Do we have a liar on the board or am I missing something?

Lots of discussions regarding using homeowners for deputy style reporters. Yes folks, they want to use neighbors for the dirty work. Imagine the fun that’s going to be. John Rettger was obviously against this. He explained that having neighbors report on neighbors was not right.. Al Dittbrenner also agreed that this would not be a good idea.

Anyway, besides this they already have whining neighbors at the meetings complaining about dog poop. Get real people, dog poop on your neigbors ground doesn’t prove your neighbors dog actually had a bowel movement there. I can’t wait for that argument.

I spoke at the meeting regarding a $25 fine I had received last year for weeds. I had to remove the weeds AND pay the fine. Here is the argument: John Rettger was fined for a driveway issue. 2 months ago, the board members voted to return the money because no service was provided. I think that was a good decision. However, I see no difference between a fine for driveways and a fine for weeds. In both cases, no service is performed. According to the last RV3 litigation conclusion,

CHIN v. Coventry Square holds that extra fees are invalid where there is no relation to actual expenses incurred by the association.

Carol said that they would discuss this at the end of the meeting. Of course the meeting almost adjourned when George said that they owe a discussion on my question. Al Dittbrenner simply overpowered and said “we already discussed this. Nothing more to talk about. These fines have been ok for the last 30 years”

OK like that constitutes correctness. Due to the lack of capacity to communicate or listen to RV3 members such as me, I have decided to file at Anoka County Court House. I will be inviting Al and Carol to the court discussion. Filing fees plus Weed fees will cost the association $85 and Carols time, and Al’s time will cost $500 (we already set precedence on that) and this time, since people get paid for court, I will be asking for $250 also.

Total association cost for lack of empathetic listening skills = $835.00 if I win and $500 if I lose.

I guess the weeds fine will cost the association a lot of money either way.

The Process Is Complete

Checks were sent out and to recap here is how the process progressed:

Management company pushes board towards control of rental property
Board decides on illegal extra charges for landlords
Landlords group points out the inconsistency with the covenants
Board members and group argue for 10 months due to disagreement
Landlords warn of pending law suit
Management company realizes they bit off to much to chew.
Management company account manager gets fired due to lack of ability
Landlords takes Riverview to court and wins law suit.
Board pays non-compensated board member using association funds
Law suit indicates other possible illegal activities.
Board members return funds to landlords equating to illegal charges.
Board members learn a lesson? Maybe.
Board members realize they have zero power over the covenants and must abide by the covenants
Some board members retire based on too much stress
Board starts slow process of learning to communicate and extinguishing the power trip
Management company showing signs of weakness
Management company gets a little more aggressive towards board and starts directing them

See everyone at the next meeting.

Lack of Urgency

I'm hoping that the management company cuts checks soon. They are overdue returning illegal funds by 6 weeks. When they get non-payment by a Riverview Third member, they charge an APR rate of around 154 percent.

We will soon get into an interest charge argument (discussions are not possible with these people) led by me. The board will argue "we only voted to give the money back at the last meeting". Guess what, your vote does not count. The law instructed you to return illegal funds and gave you a date of July 5th to appeal. It is now August 6th with no action.

This is what I call lack of focus, lack of urgency, poorly run management company, and certainly poorly run board system. I have noticed however that the urgency of the board changes when payment to board members is involved. This association HAS to be the most difficult account f0r New Concepts Management Company. They should raise their rates and change the name to "Old Concepts Management Company" I don't experience ANYTHING that this management company does that is "NEW".
The only thing they seem to use the computers for is billing, accounting and email. God forbid they should contemplate a "new concept" like internet hosting so members can opt out of the US mail system.

Of course, the internet solution allows an association to run their own business without a management company so thats kind of scary. Someone should really check out various options such as:
www.internet4associations.com

Look Ma! No Hands!

Sorry I didn't make it to the meeting. I decided to watch my son pitch strikes to everyone in the game tonight. Not many human beings take time out to better themselves or try to figure out how to make things better. My boy has a passion for his sport and excels at it. I think we may have a few board members pondering the idea that things could be better.

The reason that this is entitled "Look Ma! No Hands" is because of the notion that there may be a better way to ride a bike or run an association. I have posted the July newsletter for download from this website. Click here >>> July newsletter

About one trillion people can access this for free. We decide however to print it and mail it.
Just think, for a small investment, Riverview third could install both cable and internet with a deal from Comcast which would create a very positive thumbs up from the worn out residents. The internet can be used for everything that the management is currently doing. Mind you, only forward looking people with insight could agree. Instead, the nay sayers will talk about people who don't have internet. The same nay sayers that decided that more police calls were to rentals. I wonder how many people at Riverview really have internet? Certainly the complaints regarding this blog came from internet users.

I'm convinced that the reason we die is to prevent the old habits lingering on. We need to get the old habits on the board to move aside and let the fresh new thinkers move the association ahead. The old habits are costing us money. It's also about time that management companies looked outside the box and started to think internet. If Wells Fargo can do it, so can we. If your mortgage company can do it, so can we. When newer management companies come knocking with new technology, the lower level management companies will be forced to move aside. Not to worry though old habits die hard and before we know it, we will have 2 board members who have served for over 15 years. They should keep the lower quality management companies thriving.

Happy Global Warming

What a breath of fresh air!

I've never really wanted to look at the newsletter in the past. Really, it just depressed me because of the consequential fines information and general oppressive print.
I just read the News letter dated July2006. Nice job, well written and quite frankly, a document that will allow people to sleep with a smile on their face. This is perfect. Allowing people to plant flower beds and take care of a trophy asset gives way to pride and ownership.

We can all learn lessons from this class communications vehicle......

It's about 4:30 p.m. right now and I will pinch myself around 6:00 p.m. just in case I'm dreaming. I might even frame the newsletter.

Being a board member pays big dividends

Per communications with Mnagement:

Regarding Carol's $250 for court. This is what Carol felt her time in court was worth and the Board agreed. As the management company we could have charged $120 an hour for my presence as it is outside the management contract. I however did not charge the association for this one court appearance.

So it would seem that the figure of $250 was what Carol "felt" her time was worth. This still rubs against the grain since according to the rules, members are not compensated. At least they quit arguing, they finally answered the question. I wonder how much money was given to Carol in 2005 for her time spent on Riverview Third? We will have to find out if there were any other payments made to Carol for her time.

I hope you all feel good that money you pay for association fees are used for what someone thinks they are worth. This is terrible.

So they charge unreasonable fees outside of covenant rule, they make up their own rules regarding charges for specific groups and finally, they have nothing to worry about since any court action will give them a bonus of whatever they feel like.

Something stinks and I'm going to sniff it out.

AS far as the management charging $120 per hour. I understand the rate, but why would they volunteer to appear at court since they are not lawyers and according to the last court visit, they knew not how to handle rental policies nor did they know how to pick lawyers who could write legal documentation that can hold up in court.

I also understand according to St. Paul Pioneer Express, that New Concepts Management have written some articles for magazines, and I have studied the New Concepts Web Site. Apparently, rental management is a core competance. Oops!

The busy world of management

Here we are into week three after asking the question "please provide me with justification for paying $250 for Carol's time. The management company has explained to me that they are too busy to deal with this and have other important issues to deal with. I kinda wonder about that when I find out that the management company are spending time sending emails to other members and asking them to contact me because I'm getting out of line. The suggestion was that this blog has half truthes. Interesting that they send emails behind my back but don't bother to point out any half truthes to me so they can be fixed. The fact is. All items on this blog are the truth. Any opinions are mine built with input from Meetings with the board, neighbor discussions and experiences.

I have a great idea: Why not simply answer the question and then you won't have to spend any more time on this.

I can help. There are only 3 answers to the question. Any one will work for me. Here they are:

1. We don't have an answer really. The board just picked a number out of the air and there it was.
2. We do have an answer. Carols time off work cost her about $230.00 for the day and the rest is for expenses such as mileage etc.
3. We are not going to answer the question.

Above all, the management company needs to understand that a members questions are supposed to be answered. That happens to be state law. These questions are taking the same path as last time. In that case, it took about 4 months to get answers. The answers were really not satisfactory. Of course when one is trying to dodge an issue, one tends to dodge the questions. I understand that.

Regarding time spend on associations, maybe our management company has too many accounts. I wonder if anyone on the board ever asked the question: "how many accounts do you take care of?", or "how many hours do you spend on our account?".

The management suggests that in order to make change, one should run for a position on the board. Oh really, That seems to suggest that while the current members are on the board, there will be no change. I do tend to agree with that but the problem with working for the "board" is that one puts oneself in a poison pot. Who would want to do that. I would suggest that the board members who have served too long remove themselves from the positions and open up the seats. People will be more inclined to volunteer when that happens. These particular incumbent board members are the cause of lost law suits, arguments, yelling matches and general unrest in the community.
A quick chat with a previous board member said it all "I had to get out. It was driving me nuts"

Fix the half truthes in this blog.

It has been pointed out to me that the monthly fee of $149 I site is a half truth. The real number should be $159.54 to be precise. This also affects the rate at which River view charges. Since the $20 fee's are charged ($240/year), that does not equate to 165 percent as I have half truthed. It turns out that the rate is 150.43 percent. I was apparently off by 14 percent and some change. I would hope that the focus should be on the huge rate that is charged by RV3.

In terms of half truth, really it was 85 percent truth since I was off by about 15 percent. The numbers were approximate and served to highlight extortion. I have now clarified that the extortion remains and the numbers are correct to within 2 decimal places.

Another half truth to clear up. The next meeting is on the 24th of this month. NOT the last Monday of the month.

Keep me posted with incorrect items on the blog. In want to make sure that everything is correct.

St Paul Pioneer Express reports "Battle Lines Drawn

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/14990811.htm

They don't know what we know. Soon They will be aware of the law.

The Abusive Power Continues

When you don't pay your association fees, there needs to be a consequence. If you read the covenants,

Declaration of Covenants.pdf (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD)

the consequence is that you are charged 6 percent per year. That turns out to be 1/2 of a percent per month. In our case, since we pay $149, you should be charged about 74 cents per month. Our association charges you $20 per month. This is 165 percent per year. People have gone to jail for less extortion than that. In fact, I think Wells Fargo would be shut down for those rates. The reason they [Banks] don't charge those rates is because of the law.
Why would Wells charge you 6% for $150,000 loan and Riverview charge 165% for 150 bucks? No one has ever explained to the board that this is wrong. Excuse me, if they did, the board took no notice.

The practice of charging you a fee for [say driveway] problems, and not performing the repairs is illegal and against the covenants. Don't pay them. The worst that can happen is that you have to spend $60 to file suit in Anoka. You will get your money back and then some.

It's time for some board members to take a rest from their duties and let some fresh open minded people take over the privileged duties of serving. We have people on the board that have served through almost 12 years. One in particular has been there since Moby Dick was a minnow.

I know how I'm viewed. I'm "lawsuit" guy but I was correct and the abuse has to stop. In fact you would all be well served if I was on the board. Honesty, Integrity and concern for the rules would be the focal points. I don't like to see people abused. I spent my time and effort for a $210 court case. I don't need the money. I wanted the abuse to stop. This has been instrumental in making the board sit up and think. They still don't know what to do and they simply wish I would go away so they could be comfortable again.
I'm not going away and while I have 2 eyes, at least one of them will be focused on Riverview.

I will report on the next meeting which will be held on Monday July 31st. At least the knowledge of my reporting will enable the members to think before getting into a whip cracking session.

The British are coming, the British are coming

This 4th of July, I will probably celebrate independence from the British more that anyone else. It's good to be in a country where you are free from excessive taxes, rationed health care (1 million on the waiting list to get into hospital), and general oppressive government. It was pure chance when I called the Coon Rapids Herald that I spoke with a chap by the name of Peter Bogley. Peter is an English guy who takes care of stories in the Herald. He understands the court case and will publish the story. He will talk to the president of Riverview Third to get that side of the story.
I'm thinking that the president will think it's a joke. Just imagine, she answers the phone and an English guy starts talking to her. She might think it's me or she might think it's a joke. If not, the chances are the president will have no comment or have some kind of foot in mouth disease. It's sad really. The board would spend way less time on this stuff by having a helping attitude. Instead, they hide, fight and tell you to quit sending emails.

There have been 38 downloads of the Conclusion.pdf This is the court legal analysis, and there have been 96 server requests from http://www.rv3.blogspot.com/

I talked to the Herald becauseI think I would like all town home associations to be aware that they are operating outside of the law if they are charging extra fees to a specific group of people. They all need a uniform playing field.

Here is a daring challenge to the board: Come to the table and let me know what you are trying to achieve. I'm still confused and don't know. My assumption has been that you were trying to limit rental properties all together. If that's the case, I can't help, it's illegal.
If you had something else in mind, feel free to post a note on this site so everyone can understand what you are up to. I know that you had discussions regarding getting a group of people together to take care of rentals but when it comes down to it, what you really need is a group of people who can take care of the association since more police calls are reported for owner occupied buildings than rentals. This makes sense since there are 136 owner occupied properties and 12 rentals. The police report we presented to you last year clearly indicates this.

I do believe however, that there is a method for control of rental property. That involves cooperation by all landlords. Here are the items that should be common for all landlords:

1. screening process. Yes there is a method to make sure that your tenant is going to be a good tenant. Which landlord would not like that?
2. Lease format. They should all be the same. This is a contract and it needs to protect the tenant AND the landlord AND the association. The standard MN lease is not enough.
3. Procedure to deal with issues. This would have management involvement and would be required. Its way easier for a landlord to approach a tenant and let them know that they are forced into dealing with this and warn since the management requires action.
4. Rent increases. These are discussed up front and expose the required association increases. This alerts the tenant that there are other people with common interests in the community.

In order to achieve these (and some others), the covenants would need to be changed with a majority vote since the covenants do not tie landlords together. Each landlord has his own rights which equal everyone else’s rights.

Happy July 4th

Charges based on guestimates? GET A RECEIPT!

I have been to a few meetings and experienced board members charging for oil spills on the driveway. Of course the owner claims "someone else did it" and the board maintains "you are responsible". I experienced in one case $250 charged because apparently a square was cut out and black top replaced. In a few instances, the work was actually not performed with the caveate that the work would be performed at a later date maybe when the weather was more cooperative. According to the covenants [Article V exterior maintenance], this is not the method that should be used. Here is the text in the covenants:

In the event that the need for maintenance or repair is caused through willful or neglegent act of the owner, his family, or guests, or invitees, the cost of such maintenance or repairs shall be added to and become a part of the assessment to which such lot is subject.

At this point, there is no cost. They have no receipt and as such, they can't charge. Charges without services are illegal. If you have had this situation, I would suggest you discuss this with your board members. I'm sure they will be glad to understand that their activity is questionable.
Besides this, the driveways are old and decrepid anyway and the association will be required to replace them in the near future. What is the sense in charging for a patch?

When board members operate outside of the covenants, the property owner is not liable at all. That's the law! That is supposed to be the leverage that forces the board to operate within the covenants. Unfortunately, no one has challenged them to this point.
If they charge you without justification, ask for your money back. If they don't respond, take them to Anoka County Court house. If you want some advice, give me a call.

Remember this: The covenant document is a legally binding contract between the association and the member. The board members have NO control over the covenants. They are supposed to make sure that the covenants are adhered to.

The hot heads meet. June 26th 2006

What? No eye contact from the board members? Where they embarrased because they lost in court? I'm not sure. They didn't seem to be happy but then again, what's new. They always seem to have a have a fight on their hands. Even when I'm not there.

A question was asked about Patio Concrete. Neither the management company or board members knew who was responsible. I guess after being on the board for 10+ years, one should know. This, like many other items was addressed by the president by saying "we have not paid for these in the past".
No efforts will be put into this. When we won the court case, it fundamentally exposed the board members lack of knowledge when it comes to the covenants. You should all hear this loud and clear "READ THE COVENANTS"! You are not there to change the rules on the fly. I will be the first to praise competant board members who have a passion for what is right.

We got to my part of the agenda. What fun. They discussed the fact that the lawyers were experts in the area of town house associations. Since they got their butts kicked in court, I took that as a complement. George was a little upset since it was him who pointed it out. He hates it when I'm right. Carol had previously told me in an email that "only items on the agenda" would be covered. However she went off into a tangent regarding emails to her from me and blog spots and blah blah blah. I simply told her that since these items were not on the agenda, we should not talk about them. See the same rules should apply to all parties.
Carol mentioned her loss in court. She is confused. She thinks that she was taken to court. Not so. Read the conclusion from the court analysis and it is clear that Riverview Third Association were sued. She may want people to believe that she was personally sued for some reason. Here is how the notice of judgement reads:

State of Minnesota
County of Anoka
Plaintiff Alan Williams
10744 Yellow Pine Street NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55433

vs

Riverview 3rd Town House Assn
C/O Carol Ebsen + New Concepts Management Group Inc c/o Terry Pratt
12285 Drake Street
Coon Rapids, MN 55433

You can download the truth here: Conclusion.pdf
downloaded covenants here: Declaration of Covenants.pdf

Carol mentioned that someone came out of court happy (that be me folks) and someone would come out not so happy (that be Carol folks). She said it was like a divorce. Yes, she really did say that. I'm not familiar with that so I can't comment.

Regarding another issue of a broken window in the meeting shed. I will note that Al chuckled and said from the side of his mouth "That was probably a renter" How irresponsible is that? I pointed a finger at him and said "You sir are the fundamental problem". He is predjudice against renters. This is what everything is about. I believe that they want rid of renters. I believe that their efforts to charge illegal fees was an effort to get rid of rentals. This person is serving you all. Way to go Al! Show your true colors. I love it.

They don't like this blog spot because it exposes them to the world. Something they don't want. I believe that the 3 people in the audience who told the board members how well they are doing, were planted. The president even handed a speech for one of them to read. How weak is that?

It's my opinion that if they operate outside the law, they are not doing a good job. When they operate with emotions and hatred for homeowners, they are not doing a good job.

They are going to wait until the last minute to decide if they will appeal the ruling. I have a bet. I bet they don't. I wish they would but there are too many items from the legal analysis which comes down like a hammer on their "rules". Well see.
There is an amazing amount of Community interest in this case. I do believe I have created history in Minnesota. Pretty soon, all townhome associations will be changing the "rules". Remember, the lawyers wrote the rules based on what other associations are doing (and a few magazine articles). Expose one, expose all.

A last note for management companies: You need to be up on the law. Your business needs to view situations with a keen eye. You need to put board members in place when they step out of line. Anyone with just a little sense could have seen this court case ending up as a ruling for the plaintiff. We tried as hard as we could to convey this to the board but we were belittled, screamed at and dismissed. If I was a management company (yes I have the capacity). I would fire Riverview Third and tell them to go elsewhere for help.

When it looked like I made too much sense, they told me I was out of order and asked me to leave. I would normally fight such a question but you know what? I was glad to leave. I can only take so much of their lack of ability to handle people. I believe them to be highly emotional and totally unprofessional.

Tally the cost?
Carol charges $250 for her day in court. Page 19 of the rules and regulations which were developed by Carol et al states "MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION"
I guess the rules don't apply to Carol. The management company needs to discuss this with Carol. There are NO receipts or justifications for $250.00. THIS WILL END UP IN COURT VERY SOON. Yes, this time it will be Carol in court on a personal basis. There will be no communication regarding this as requested by Carol. The summons will arrive. There will be court costs for this also. This time, I will be charging for my time and I CAN justify $58.00 per hour.
I don't mind charges for lunch, mileage and obvious costs. but $250 bucks? I think she spent 6 hours in court. That is about $42.00 per hour. (87 grand per year. Give me a break)

Lawyer fees for the "Document" $750.00
Court costs $120.00

Total $1120.00 paid for by home owners of which, I am one.

Next month should be very interesting. MY adjenda is full of effort for Riverview.

See yall soon

PS: I promise, if there is anything on this blog that is not the truth, I will remove it. I want to make sure that my core competence is honesty and integrity.

Nasty Reactions from The President

Carol

This is a classic example of your lack of pro active attitude when it comes to helping paying members of the association. It is combative and shows your lack of ability to deal with people. You display a clear difference between the little frail mouse I experienced in court.

I will not remove you from the copied members of Riverview Board. It is incumbent on you to serve the members. If you can't do that, you need to remove yourself from the position.

If you want, you can check out "Keeping an eye on Riverview" at www.RV3.blogspot.com.

It is my intention to make sure that every member of Riverview Third know who they are dealing with and know the rules. It's time that your whip cracking attitude changes to a servant attitude. That's your job. If you can't stand the heat stay away from the kitchen.

We will see you at the next meeting.

Alan Williams

-----Original Message-----

From: Carole [mailto:instantop@att.net]

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:31 PM

To: Alan Williams

Cc: 'Al Dittbrenner'; 'Elaine Turner'; 'George Plew'; 'Mark Foresberg'; 'Marlene'; 'Terri Pratt'; denise@machineautomationproducts.net; 'Candice & Edward Girard'; 'Cheryl Schroder'; 'David & Lisa Zuk'; 'Elva'; 'Laurel & Linda Llange'; 'Leonard Lorence'; 'Patric Collins'; 'Phylis'; 'Stacey & Troy Gleason'

Subject: Re: Court case conclusion and next steps.

Mr. Williams and all other Land Lords that are not on the Board of

Directors!!!!

Take me off your email list. If you have things to say, put them in

writing and present them to the Management Company prior to the Board

meeting and they will be dispersed with the Board Packets before the

Board Meetings. And your items will be put on the Agenda.

Carole Ebsen

Riverview Third

Judgement in favor of the Plaintiffs

Case S2-06-255 and S5-06-265.

It really didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we were right and that the "lawyers" were wrong. You gotta fight for what's right. We did and we won. Riverview Third Townhouse Association is required to pay back monies charged to all landlords for the new rental license policies. They are discriminatory and against the Declarations and Covenants which were put in place when the property was developed. The aim of the board is to limit rental properties and in fact, as sited in the court documents, this is not lawful.
A few other items of interest should concern all members of Riverview Third Townhouse Association and will be addressed in the next meeting by all landlords. Here are the fundamentals which were outlined to the board members today June 15th 2006:

To:

Riverview Board Members C/O

New Concept Management Group, Inc

5707 Excelsior Blvd. St Louis Park, MN 55416

Subject Case S2-06-255 and S5-06-265

Date: June 15^th 2006

You are probably aware at this time that you lost the court case and will be required to refund all monies charged in association with the new rental policy which was formulated by “the lawyers”’ the management company and the board.

At this time, I would like to point out that Riverview Third Association paid $750 to a firm that did not even read our Declarations or covenants and in fact based all work on what other associations are doing and various magazine articles. The decision from the court is stayed until July 6^th so that the board can get “the lawyers” involved and possibly appeal the ruling. Based on the incompetence of the lawyers and the overwhelming detail supplied by the courts, I expect that the decision will be; not to appeal. The court is clear. Common interests are “INDIVISABLE” from an owners interest.

I have attached the court conclusion for your review. There are a few other items sited by the court which will force our next action items for Riverview Third Townhouse Association. All landlords will be at the next meeting to discuss the following items. I would remind you that the law requires answers to members questions and I list the items here so that you can be prepared.

1. Charges to members with no services provided ref Chin v Coventry Square. “extra fees are invalid where there is no relation to actual expenses incurred by the association.” This particular item will be challenged in court again and discussions need to take place so that Riverview third are redirected away from court action. It’s time to empathetically listen to members and make good policy decision” The idea of shut up and sit down needs to change. We need to focus on the issues and not the time spent on the issues.
   1. We will discuss various charges that have been applied where no association expenses have occurred. We will discuss the required changes.
   2. Charges for weeds etc where no service is performed.
2. Fees paid to Carole Ebsen for her day in court. In this case, the board lost and in fact 4 other paying members of the association were present and won. Either we need to return the Carol Ebsen Charges or pay the members who were wrongfully treated. The board members serve on a voluntary basis and this has a legal standing. Again court action will decide if emotion takes over to the point where no one can make rational decisions.
3. Review of procedure when hiring lawyers and a request to have charges returned to Riverview based on an incompetent lawyer firm. This is our money (not the boards) and we need to follow up on this.
4. Review of the discrimination text which explains that the board has no power over an owner or his delegates (Tenants). In fact the text aims at associations where it is clear that they attempt to limit rentals by landlord manipulation. This is discriminatory because the declarations anticipate rental property.
5. Case law that renders the annual charges invalid even in cases where proper procedures are followed. In other words a super majority vote does not allow the board to have discriminatory charges.
6. Specific items (A broken gate on 12205 Drake) which are apparently not covered by the association. What outside items are covered and a request to pay for time spent on repairs of a gate. 12162 coverage for outside items (windows etc). We will focus in on items that we believe should be covered by the association. These items have not been covered in the past. Len Lorence will site case law indicating that our association is wrongfully withholding repair money.

We will conclude and I will formulate an action item list. This list will move forward in time until we have concluded. Similar to the last list which festered until the court ultimately decided.

Court Action March 2006

Besides the fines that arrive without warning, and besides the fact that repairs are charged for (in the form of a fine) and not performed by Riverview Third Townhouse association, "registration" fees were assesed to landlords. Each landlord has to pay $150 per year for the privilege of owning a home in the Riverview Third Townhome association. This was challenged in court on Thursday March 23rd.
The arguments were that landlords have 2 rules to abide by. The first rule is in the covenants which state that each lot owner shall be assesed uniformly. The second rule comes in the form of new policies which state that a "registration" fee will be assesed.

Carol, the president, represented Riverview Third Townhome Association. She was not her usual pushy self. Instead she seemed to be this frail little mouse that blamed everything on the board members. She stated that she simply goes along with the board members.

When challenged with the fact that the board members have been secrective to the point of not giving out addresses or phone numbers, Carol explained to the judge that she has had tires slashed and windows broken. Unknowingly, she alerted the judge to the fact that people don't like her for some reason. That stands to reason. No one ever broke my windows or slashed my tires. It's simple, there is no respect for members of Riverview Third. Every meeting is combative with someone, and Carol takes the lead to crack the whip. In fact for the past year, the window in the meeting hut has been boarded over.
It's interesting to note that the board members don't want any information given out however, they want to know everything about owners and renters.
The covenants suggest that board members are there for the health and safety aspect of members. Instead we simply have a board member, with several derogatory names attached by various members, who sneakes around looking for infractions. I was discussing this with a particular member at basket ball a few weeks ago. Apparently Pat was peeping in through her window. Don't these people have anything else to do? My friend went out and asked if she could be helped?

The current board are the creation of low value homes. Savvy people looking to buy will find out about the gestapo and stay far away. Notice how many homes are for sale lately on Drake Street et al?
There are 3 new board members at Riverview Third Association. Maybe we can get closer to a civil attitude and a board that embraces technology. Hey, what about high speed internet for everyone? 1 line installation would be very cost effective and 148 people can quit paying in excess of $40 per month.... (that's a whopping 6 grand a month. Suppose we could beat that?). Asking the board to post internet info, meeting minutes, or repair schedules would be like pulling teeth. They would rather pay $2000 per year in mailings. Internet would be way cheaper to send a Christmas letter which, by the way, was absolutely full of consequential fines information. Whatever happened to a welcome letter?

Here are a few facts:
Landlords screen tenants and have control over tenants. If there is a problem, Landlords can evict and take care of the problem. To the contrary with owners. You are stuck with an owner who is not nice.
Landlords also spend multiple thousands of dollars in order to upgrade the homes and make them presentable.
Increased assesments on landlords cause rents to go up. Just another one of those taxes which cripple growth.
Landlords provide people with homes.

Have a great year