The election debacle of 2009

HOA_Logo

——————————————————————

The following is from 2009-2010 timeframe when the board of that time refused relinquish power after losing the HOA board election due to their own paperwork mistake.

——————————————————————————

If you believe the individuals that continue to claim to be your HOA board, you would think things are just peachy in Tiffany Woods.

Here is the reality

We currently have no board according to the Florida state arbitrator who just ruled we must endure another HOA board election on January 19th.

Arbitrator: Summary Final Order

To refresh your memory, the old board was comprised of the following people:

        Gary Underwood

        Judy Starks

        Cathy Starns

        Bob Penn

        Linda Lockey

        Kathie Holland

        Pam Fields

Vote for anyone BUT these former board members on January 19th…

Nominate yourself or someone else…anything to get these people off the board once and for all!

During their tenure, these individuals hired a new management company (Pinnacle Property Management-PPM). PPM was given their full support to oversee the March 17th election of new board members for 2009-2010.

This was their election and their rules.

We now know, 2 of those board members voted for too many people on their ballot. During the count, someone from PPM realized the mistake and improperly kicked them back for revision. Of course, this was likely after it was realized their disqualification would ultimately change the outcome of the election…thus voting off the very board members that hired PPM!

No winner of the election would be announced that night. However, everyone present was assured the neighborhood would be promptly informed of the results after the lawyer had time to resolve the discrepancies in the voting process.

Three weeks later and against all odds, the lawyer they hired gave an opinion that the 2 ballots in question were indeed invalid and therefore the winners of the election were as follows:

Linda Lockey: 26 votes

Janel Dixon: 27 votes

Greg Holt: 26 votes

Josue Nieves: 26 votes

Doug Welson: 26 votes

Steve Dobbins: 26 votes

Mike Mazur: 25 votes

See the entire legal opinion from the attorney they hired by clicking here!

This was their management company, their lawyers opinion, and their mistake. Yet, while they claimed to accept responsibility for this election debacle, they refused to accept the legal opinion of the lawyer they hired to resolve the election issue. They instead made it impossible for the newly elected board members to take control of the association. PPM was no help either. However, one might understand PPM's reluctance to rule against those responsible for hiring them in the first place.

After weeks of stonewalling, the old board eventually filed for arbitration with the state of Florida. Their case was dismissed as defective simply because they claimed to be the board and you cannot sue to be on a board you already claim to be on. The dismissal was then presented to the neighborhood in a newsletter claiming how the state arbitrator had somehow recognized them as the board. This was an absolutely false statement. (See the Final order of dismissal) However, based on this outrageous claim, PPM released control of our association records to them anyway.

The old board had screwed up the arbitration filing and basically hi jacked our association records. With no solution to this mess in sight, members of the newly elected board sought legal advice at their own expense. Several legal options were available. However, the cheapest and most expedient was to properly file the arbitration and hope for the best.

The arbitrator has just ruled and our neighborhood must now endure yet another board election to resolve this issue once and for all.

The old board could have spared this neighborhood a tremendous amount of time and money by simply conceding the election and working with the newly elected board members. Instead, they have dragged this process out as long as possible and spent over $4000 of our association funds on what many would consider unnecessary legal fees. They continue to deny these claims, however, this itemized list of HOA checks and invoices tell a different story….and this is just what we are aware of. The late payment of bills, the lack of a 2-person check signing requirement, and the fact the association was charged a reconnect fee after not paying the electric bill, are just a few of the many other things that have come to light only after an investigation of the HOA records.

So when you innocently hand over your voting proxy to one of these friendly so called board members. Just know it is you who will pay for their mistakes….and they have made many!

Better yet, get involved by nominating yourself and running for the board.

Otherwise, make sure you sign your proxy (voting rights) over to someone who will vote for anyone other than these former board members! 

Watch the videos below and see what the attorney and property management company hired by the 2008-2009 board of directors said about the 2009 election results:

 

 

History of the HOA’s takeover of the Wall

The Tiffany Woods HOA elections have evolved into “proxy wars.”

Stay with me and you'll see why many long term residents in Tiffany Woods have no faith and refuse to support or participate in our HOA.

In my humble opinion, the election events from back in 2009-2010 destroyed our HOA. The result has been in an association that collects dues and does little more than minor landscape maintenance.

After contesting an election the board members of 2008-2009 set up, managed, and lost according to their own attorney; they still managed to retain their seats/power. They could have spared the Tiffany Woods HOA 2 years of legal limbo and conflict by just accepting the directive of the attorney and management company they hired. They did not. (All the details regarding this botched election with video can be found here.)

After multiple denials, this board finally admitted to spending over $4000 in association funds on legal fees regarding the election debacle of 2009. A huge waste of money and resources. The wounds created among friendly neighbors from the crazy period cut deep and feel fresh with many to this day.

So why did this board fight so hard to maintain their position of power?

The Wall

You may remember how someone drove into our front wall a some years ago, which resulted in a section of it coming down on Cathy Starns property. It took upwards of 6 months for this to get fixed. Only after Seminole County code enforcement sent her a violation letter, did Cathy do her part to get this section of the wall repaired. Cathy made it very clear she was not happy about dealing with a problem she felt was not hers. Instead of working to resolve this situation, she appeared to start taking on a more adversarial relationship with certain members on the board at that time. (Maybe 2007?)

The HOA of that time was getting complaints from homeowners about why the wall had not been repaired. The insurance company representing the motorist that hit the wall, reported to our HOA Cathy was stonewalling efforts to pay out this claim to her.

Once again, it wasn’t until Seminole County sent out a code violation letter to Cathy, that the repairs were finally complete. Cathy accused board members of instigating this code enforcement letter. An allegation that has been denied. Regardless, the letter may have worked.

While it wasn't needed for this particular incident, the current board members of the time started looking into the insurance policy the HOA had established for the front wall. Remember, they had 6 months of irrate homeowners calling them wanting to know why the fix was taking so long. Could the HOA find a quicker solution with the HOA insurance?

Ironically, it was discovered the association didn't even own the front wall according to our By-laws. Counsel to the board concluded if we had filed a claim, it could have been denied and we could be paying premiums on a worthless insurance policy.

It was also discovered neighbors with a wall on their property likely have insurance for their section of the wall as part of their standard homeowners’ policy. The HOA policy was for the front wall only. So there appeared to be a duplication of coverage.

The board of that time weighed all these factors, their limited budget, and more. They came to the conclusion that funding a potentially worthless insurance policy was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. So they allowed that insurance policy to expire.

This did not sit well with Cathy Starns. This had become very personal for her. She garnered the support of sympathetic neighbors and launched the “Save our Wall” campaign.

That next HOA meeting was quite a circus. I recall seeing Bob Penn for the first time at an HOA meeting. He made a heartfelt statement about how the HOA should not be placing such a burden on a neighbor like Cathy Starns, who has so many other challenges in her life. Judy Starks reiterated this sentiment. However, when all the emotional rhetoric subsided, one big issue remained. How do you insure something you don’t own?

The board commissioned and reviewed 3 different attorney opinions on this issue. Changing our By-laws to take ownership of the wall was the only solution recommended. However, the cost of doing so ranged anywhere from $2500-5000; money the HOA did not have budgeted. Also, at least 75% of the lot owners in Tiffany Woods would have to approve this change. The attorneys warned that getting a 75% approval could be difficult, because those without a wall on their property may take issue with subsidizing those who do. This issue consumed a tremendous amount of this board’s time and energy. More than half of their 12 month term was spent on this one issue. I was following along as close as I could and attended many of the meetings to offer support/ideas.

Up to this point, I can honestly say I had no preconceived notions about Cathy or anyone else in our neighborhood for that matter. I absolutely understood Cathy’s frustration, but it was becoming quite clear the board had enough information to make an educated decision one way or another. I raised my hand, requested they make a decision and consider finally moving on to other issues. They agreed and voted to table the issue. The cost to pursue a By-laws change appeared to be too high and not in the best interest of the neighborhood as a whole….at least not for now.

I only share this antidote, because Cathy now apparently believes I was part of some kind of conspiracy with the board at that time and had orchestrated that entire exchange. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was just frustrated that our board appeared stuck and needed to get on to other business.

She called me that night immediately after the board meeting and asked “why do you hate me?” It was a bit strange, yet cordial phone call. I explained I hate no one. Especially someone I’ve never really spoken with other than saying hi to on the street. She went on to say how she felt the board was ignoring her concerns. I told her, if she felt there was valuable information not getting through, run for the board. While I don’t regret sharing this advice, don’t think I haven’t kicked myself for that one…:-P

What we witnessed that next HOA board election was the beginning of “Proxy Wars.” Cathy recruited some politically savvy allies in our neighborhood and basically turned election night into a simple formality. It wasn’t about the candidates, their speeches, or qualifications anymore. It was just about who had collected the most proxies from neighbors that didn't really want to be bothered with the HOA.

One person was now voting with the power of 10-20 and could just vote themselves or the people they wanted onto the board. You can imagine the bad blood this created between the previous board and these newly elected proxy wranglers. I wasn't running for the board at that time and it was perfectly legal. It seemed a bit shady and unnecessary at the time. However, I was willing to give this new board a chance.

The first six months they worked on warm and fuzzy mission statements, no parking signs, etc. I honestly had no real complaints other than I saw them rehashing the same stuff previous boards had dealt with many times before. As an all new board they didn’t appear real receptive to the “constructive criticism” they were getting from a couple of previous board members. I’ll bet with a little more attitude than they felt necessary. Considering the circumstances of the election, a little more understanding could have went a long way in healing wounds and uniting the neighborhood.

Instead, strict 3 minute guidelines were put in place. Tiffany Woods HOA meetings were now being run like an Orlando city council proceeding. You have 3 minutes to address the board at the start of the meeting, no questions during the meeting and no discussions of anything not on the agenda. It was very formal and somewhat intimidating. Definitely a big change from our traditionally friendly and open neighborhood HOA meetings.

This new approach frustrated many neighbors. Suspicions of their true intent for this HOA board takeover deepen when they finally started talking about purchasing a new insurance policy for the wall.

Remember, attorneys consulted on this issue in the past had advised our HOA to change the By-laws first to take ownership and then insure the wall. Only after some heated exchanges and pressing the issue, did the new board admit their “intention” was to change the by-laws first. However, purchasing a policy before a by-laws change to avoid price increases and other unforeseen reasons might be necessary. They didn’t want to be “boxed in” making it an absolute. This was the first indication there was a specific goal this new board hoped to achieve.

Next was the thoroughly researched package of information every homeowner was going to receive in order to make an informed decision on changing the by-laws. The package would include a survey. The board would use this survey to determine whether the residents of Tiffany Woods should pursue a vote on a by-laws change/spend the money necessary to do so. At least that’s what we were told at one of the HOA board meetings.

When the package arrived, it was more of a propaganda piece in my opinion. Plus there was no mention of the many caveats of taking these steps. The cost, according to the new board, would be just a $240 filing fee. Nowhere near $2500-5000 estimates the lawyers had given the previous board. Unfortunately, we now know the previous boards estimate was right on the money.

Obviously, this only created more ill will between those who knew better and the board. Neighbors started talking to neighbors, flyers were posted, and battle lines set. The board at this point had basically shut down any communication with those they felt were sabotaging their efforts.

I was definitely in this opposing group as you just don't expect this kind of shady behavior from people that smile and wave to you on the street each day. Looking back, I honestly wish I had been blissfully unaware like most of my neighbors. It was down right disturbing to know the truth.

A day or so before the next board election, a couple of the current board members put out a confusing flyer saying the neighborhood had already approved the by-laws change. Only after the election was over and another “proxy war” win, was it explained the board only needed a simple majority to approve a change in our HOA covenants.

They claimed, the 75% approval necessary for the by-laws change was secured from the “ballot” everyone had received in their package of information about the Wall. A document everyone considered an informal survey about the Wall issue was now being presented as an official vote for a By-laws change?

There were 29 no votes. If all 74 homes had voted yes for changing the By-laws, you’re still nowhere near the 75% necessary. So you can imagine the disgust when the audience at the HOA meeting was told a simple majority was all that was needed.

I don’t see how anyone whether for or against these changes can defend the deception perpetuated by the board at that time. However, something kept nagging at me. How is it possible they got 75% of these initial survey forms when 29 people voted no in this second vote? It was a pretty wide margin even when you consider several no voters now say they were duped into initially signing the “survey” in favor of the change.

I along with several other neighbors made a request to the property manager to see these initial surveys now being considered votes for a By-laws change. It took some time, however, we eventually got a copy of every one of these documents. I expected to find problems, but not to the level that was revealed.

I attended an HOA meeting shortly thereafter and respectfully challenged the members on a very specific point. Share the official count of these survey/voting documents with the neighborhood and prove the initial 75% threshold had been reached. They said they would get back with me to address this easy request, they have yet to respond with anything. I assume it is because they can not.

What this potentially means is anyone can challenge how this By-laws change and the Wall ownership takeover was executed. They could contest/sue our association if any issues arise regarding the cost of maintenance, repairs, liability, or construction of the Wall. In my opinion, this cloud of uncertainty casts a shadow over our HOA to this day.

The passage of time and a lot of luck will be our only salvation from the legal headaches and exposure Tiffany Woods residents may encounter well into the future. Blame squarely rests on those who chose to manipulate neighbors in order to achieve a goal of insuring a Wall we were never intended to own as an HOA. A fact that is abundantly clear by reading the original By-laws of Tiffany Woods.

Personally, I was never against taking some ownership of the wall for various reasons. It just wasn't done correctly and remains a sore issue with many who felt slighted by the process. However, I let it go long ago with the hope new blood might step up and restore some honor to our HOA. If this is you, count on my support.

One of your neighbors in the know,
Greg Holt

One thought on “History of the HOA’s takeover of the Wall”

Comments are closed.