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.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
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:
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.
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.pdfCounty 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
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.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
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.
Alan Williams
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:
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
Subject Case S2-06-255 and S5-06-265
Date: June 15th 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 6th 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.
- Charges to members with no services provided ref Chin v
- We will discuss various charges that have been applied where no association expenses have occurred. We will discuss the required changes.
- Charges for weeds etc where no service is performed.
- We will discuss various charges that have been applied where no association expenses have occurred. We will discuss the required changes.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)