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.

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