The blunders persist.

Everyone now has a new payment book. You will notice two items which disregard your legally binding covenant rules:

First is that you are charged after the 15th. Your legal agreement with RV3 states the following regarding nonpayment of assessments: ref article IV Section 8

"Any assessment not paid within 30 days after due date shall bear interest...."

Second, the charge for late fee is $20.00 which equates to around 144 percent per anum. Your legal agreement with RV3 states the following regarding interest for nonpayment: ref article IV Section 8

"Shall bear interest from the due date at the rate of 6% per anum"

You can download your covenant agreement at the following address:

http://www.machineautomationproducts.net/rv3/

Looks like we have hired another management company with total disregard for the legally binding agreement that the owners have with the association known as Riverview Third.

I have requested another payment book that is to be in concert with my Covenant Agreement.

Cedar Management Company

Here is the introduction letter from Cedar Management.

Cedar Letter.jpg

Cindy can be reached at:
763-767-6324 direct office phone
866-491-2051 direct office fax
763-439-4726 24/7 Emergency phone
763-574-1500 corporate office

email cindy@cedarmanagement.com

Hip Hip Hurray NCMC Has Gone Away

I met with Pat today. She informed me that the management company "New Concepts Mangement" have been fired. They got 60 days notice. We have apparently hired a new management company. They will have internet details which will eliminate the requirement for paper charges and copy charges (sounds like what I have been talking about forever).

Pat is still hurt about my comments regarding her brand names. She claims I called her a peeping Tom or something along those lines. The blog still remains. Her mind just can't understand that the writing is discussing what other people call her. If she ever came to my home and was looking at OR in my window, I would justify some of my own names for her. She claims that she "they" have the right to enter a home courtyard in order to inspect the windows. She is wrong of course, and may be trying to justify or hide her obsession with power. She has no rights whatsoever when she trespasses beyond the gate of a homeowner.

We got into a discussion regarding the high association rates. Over the years, Pat has paid in the range of $32,000 total for fees to Riverview. It's a little difficult to calculate this but not hard to estimate it based on a mean average number over 30 years.
What has she got for her $32K? I guess a new roof, garbage removed, siding and insurance. Is that value? Maybe.

The fact still remains that the board has not put sufficient money away for the big ticket items. A little like social security. Todays payments pay for todays requirements. Eventually, they go out of business.

RV4 is in trouble too. They have not responded sufficiently to homeowners complaints about swing sets. They turned to the city who will now deal with the situation. If they were cash rich, this would not be an issue.

12174 Drake is for sale at $109,900. It seems to me that Carol Ebsen was gleefully rubbing her hands together last year because the housing prices were going up. If I remember, she attributed it to the boards efforts to keep the area in a good condition. What happened? Prices have dived. Your property is worth less. When Pat was telling me how they took care of the place, I bent over and started to pick out the sand from all the cracks in the road. It's a disgrace. She blamed it on me for not voting for a one time fee to correct the issue. I do believe that it was a majority who disagreed with her on that issue and I do believe that $164 per month is enough. It's time to handle cash properly. Maybe (maybe) the new management company can help and maybe (maybe) the board will empower the new management company to do a good job.

Dropping Like Flies

Some objectives were discussed at the June 11th meeting. A lot of the time was spent with Pat and George arguing back and forth about procedural issues. George has resigned as president due to too many board members interfering with issues. John Rettger has resigned and another board member apparently resigned a few months ago but must have forgot to inform anyone.

So two spots were open. 2 home owners were present who put their names into the hat. I of course offered up my name and actually, I was nominated by George. Not surprising that the other two homeowners were voted in. Not to fear. I will be at the meetings pushing the issues that need to be pushed and watching over the body of people who make decisions at RV3.

Kelly was voted in. I'm impressed with here because she had, and was reading, the covenants. I hope she understands that the covenants are a legally binding contract between RV3 and the home owners and that it trumps any RV3 rules which are not in compliance such as the charges we currently have for late payments which far exceed the 3% per year dictated in the convenant contract.
Actually, the board has been informed by their lawyers that anyone who challenges the charges in court will probably win. I might pay late to test it!

Elaine was voted in too. She was on the board previously and is back. I believe she is a good listener.

Welcome to the board Kelly and Elaine. Remember that your votes hold you responsible and liable in a court because RV3 does not have liability insurance holding you harmless. State law requires you to have liability insurance but as you have maybe noticed, State law for RV3 is simply a foot note. I suggest that you vote with conviction and not emotion. If you are not sure, you should abstain from voting.

If you need advice, George is very knowlegeable. I suggest you consult with him outside of the hot head meetings in the hut.

See yall at the next meeting.

In The Flavor Of Continuous Improvement

Dropping like flies?
One board member has resigned the post at RV3 due to decisions made by the board and another board member who has not been present for the last 3 months is most likely going to be removed.

New Members?
I would gladly serve on the board for RV3 on conditions that I am there to assist members and help define a better future for the members.
I would also gladly erase this web-log and start using it for the benefit of the RV3 association. With higher postage rates now at 42 cents per letter compared to 39 cents, the association has got to start wondering about better methods of information dissemination. I know that 3 cents is not a big deal, but with 148 homes, this borders on $5.00 extra cost to mail out 1 letter. Add this to 15 cents per copy for management paper charges and we are talking significant costs. Besides the lower cost for internet information, more can be transferred at zero cost.

We know that some people don't have internet connections, but we should also be aware that these people frequent the public libraries to use the computers and internet. Everyone has the ability to get the information. Everyone has the ability to drive costs down.

Votes:
Board members need to understand that their vote can hold them liable in the event that the action or decision of the board is not legal. Take the case of the late charges. Our covenants DICTATE that members will be charged 3% per annum. Instead, we continue to charge at overwhelming rates which is actually against the law since it breaks the contract. The covenant contract is an agreement between the association and the home owner. Actions which oppose the covenant rule can be litigated in court. Board members who vote for items that are illegal, can be held liable in court. Voting "NO" to such action renders the board member harmless. Board members do not have liability insurance which would normally cover them for court action. Home owner associations are required by State law to carry liability insurance. Unfortunately, State law is simply a foot note for our board members.

Have a great Memorial Day!

Illegal charges by Carole Ebsen is covered by our management company.

After a threat to file in district court, the board agreed to have $250 put back into the maintenance fund. Carol still gets to keep the money she took from the maintenance fund, but our management company has reimbursed the money. Deputy Jane F. Morrow clearly declared that Carol Ebsen was incorrectly compensated and that $250 was to be immediately returned.

This is not me stating that Carole Ebsen and board members operated outside of the law, This is a judge specifying that they operated outside of the law. I am simply the messenger they wish they never had.

Following is the conclusion emailed to me today from Paul Bozonie: I classify this [after proof of guit] as an addmission of guilt. I now consider the case closed. One eye is still open keeping a careful watch on these people.

Reimbursement to the Association's general operating fund account #136-5012 will be made from a reimbursement check of $250.00 from a outside source for cost reimbursement given to Carole Ebsen. This was approved at the regular Board Meeting on May 14, 2007.

Join The Club

Interesting article on AOL. Most of the articles were comments from members and board members (mostly complaining) but this one was interesting. I wish we had this person managing RV3.

8. Iam an Association Manager of numerous associations. I find the comments made an every day common item in my trade. Owner to owner conflicts are exactly those owner to owner, not the Associations. It is imperative that each owner READ their governing documents as to what the Association can and cannot do...owner to owner issues should be resolved by the owners. If there is a dispute about Association responsible items then the Association needs to step in and resolve the issue. I find COMMUNICATING is the best medicine in resolving disputes. Owners in Associations believe the Board of Directors are the Landlord. They are not landlords. They are a duly elected volunteer serving on a board of directors for a CORPORATION. They have a fiducary responsibilty to the Association (Corporation). I find alot of complaints about the Association being directed to the Board members. But, when the Association needs the owners participation (Annual Meeting time; the need of committee members, etc.) for owners to fill vacant seats on the board your cant fine one. Empathy is a huge problem within Associations. An Association is only what the MEMBERS make of it. Overall, I love my job and my Associations. Yes, board members get fustrated and want to take inappropriate actions right away. This is a knee jerk reaction. Managers need to be on top of those fustrations and knee jerk reactions and guide the Board through the resolution process as with the members. Great topic, glad to see today. Everyone enjoy your community and love thy neighbor....

20. Reply to #8, Associations mostly are dictators, i was a condo owner and there were 2 brothers in 2 different units out of 12, they sided with other elderly owners and bunched up on me , I was 45 at the time and it was really like hell ,they let another unit rent out when you were not suppose to, and I had my 2 older cats with me and I kept to myself and never mentioned cats and one thing lead to another and there were all kinds of threats and just nasty people, I just don't respect older people like I use to, some can be very bad til the end. Anyway the 2 brothers would get other condo owners to side with them when other people were breaking rules worse than me, bottom lone if they target you, look out!, and to this day I do not believe it was because of the cats, I am a very good and quiet person but I got pushed to the limit for no reasonable answer. I will not buy another condo again. They really are dictators and find people to take their sides and make you look bad. Sorry lady your wrong.

The times they are a changing. March Meeting

Deb or Carole not present

George's pet project of cars and snow was on the agenda. He thinks that peoples garages are full of "junk" and that they park outside. He want's all cars towed for violation of the rules regarding snow. I guess he's right but it's a little late now. They concluded that next year they will mail reminders regarding snow rules.

The thing that stands out with this group is that they are always focused on the problems, concerned about fines, and never spend one moment on continuous improvement for the future. No one ever sat back and said "lets discuss where we want to be in the next 5 years". Instead, they seem to be in a continuous unproductive negotiation mode. This is probably because they don't want to spend the time on forward looking projects. If there is no desire to spend time on the 5 year goal, then a separate group of people should be envoked to work on these goals and present them to board members.

For me, a magic wand would produce an area with wireless internet for all at a small cost which would create income for the people of the association, a package deal with Comcast for a group arrangement which would benefit RV3, A closed loop geothermal system for all to tap into, 6 percent per year for assessment late fees per our legal covenant contract, a self operated management system which would pay for a full time employee at the same cost as our current charges, Internet posting of minutes, newsletters and other pertenant detail and a job description/requirements for people on the board.

A board willing to at least evaluate the new technologies would go a long way into the goal of improving RV3. As Deming pointed out, only 15% of your goal requires attention. The remaining requirements simply flow into place. http://www.deming.org/theman/teachings.html

I look forward to using this web site as a tool for RV3.

February Meeting Notes

We now have a new president by the name of George Plew. Carol has stepped down amidst the pressures she has endured during the past year. George stated that his other activities are more important than RV3 and he may step down if this gets too much.

I asked that the board discuss the practice of publishing peoples debts to neighbors. I asked nicely and was met with resistance from George. He said that fundamentally, I was in no position to discuss this and that the board may at some time discuss the issue of embarrassing people. I did point out that this was discussed in MN State statues 515A and B but that both statutes seemed to conflict with each other. Anyway, George was obviously put out that I would have the nerve to bring up such a subject. Interesting to note that they had a closed meeting to discuss a debtor.

My number 2 issue was concerning a meeting I had with my lawyer regarding the last newsletter which was sent out. This letter meets a 3 pronged test for slander and I explained to the board that I was advised to take this to court for the maximum penalty allowed in Anoka county of $7500.

I told them that I would accept an apology but Carol blew up and wondered if I would apologize to Pat for calling her a peeping Tom Nazi. Carol is confused. I only reported what other people call Pat. I also removed the word Nazi since I also believe that other peoples names for Pat are inappropriate to publish. I told them that truth is an absolute defense (Dennis the new guy cracked up laughing) and in fact my writings do not meet the 3 pronged test for slander. Check the previous posts. Only the truth prevails.

I did not get an apology. It's going to be worth my efforts to try this.

It is apparent that the author of the slander is personally responsible. My lawyer informed me that Riverview Third is not involved at all.


All of the overdue accounts past 90 days have been handed over to the lawyers for lien action. I have personally visited the troubled homes and quite a few of them are what the mortgage companies call "abandoned". These are people who got an arm mortgage a few years back. These arms have increased interest rates and the homes are defaulted back to the bank. Of course, we pay $500 per home for lien action and now, the board learn that they can go without fees for 6 months. I have news for them. If the home remains empty for 15 months, they will lose 15 months worth of fees.

Hard times are on the way. The housing flurry for the 90's was created by 2000 people per month moving to Minnesota. Today, that number has dropped to 250 per month. We can expect more signs at Drake street and more people wanting out of an association looking to embarrass them by publishing there debts.

The Votes Are In

Alan = 16 votes
Pat = 36 votes
Dennis Frank = 47 votes
Christine Drum = 45 votes

There were lots of Proxies so I guess that the board members were busy collecting over the holidays.

I voted for everyone except Pat since my objective is to change the face of the board. Congratulations Christine and Dennis.

So the good news is that 2 board members are gone and the other good news is that I'm not on the board. Had I won, It really would have been a big fight since they don't want to serve, they want to dictate. This won't change the pressure I will be applying on the board and I do believe that I can be even more influential in my current role

I know that Christine has read the covenants and that she will be able to hold her own as an independant thinker.

The only other notable issue was Al Dittbrenner letting a home owner know that if she replaces the outside light, they would reimburse her for the light. I guess he doesn't understand that the lady he was addressing was not an electrician and probably could not rplace the light.

A townhome association is supposed to be for people who don't want to mess with the outside of the building and go buy lights. That seems to me to be the job of the association who take fees everymonth for maintenance.

We'll report on the next meeting and the progress with lawsuits.

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.