MEETINGS & MINUTES.......more or less a mess
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Marcia Fields
Feb 7, 2012, 5:57:14 PM2/7/12
to Victoria Village Homeowners at Colorado Springs
(report #4 in series focusing on problems with amendment information
and petition process; either 1 part long or 2 parts shorter - I
"voted" for long but if you want insight into Botched 101, hang with
me)
Let's jump right into the December 21, 2010 meeting minutes. The
board meeting was held shortly after the final workgroup session held
November 30, 2010. Those minutes state.......
"Motion was made by Betty to approve Declaration and cover letter
changes AFTER ATTORNEYS MAKE CORRECTIONS (emphasis mine). Gayle
seconded the Motion. Motion passed with 5 votes in favor, Sydne and
Rick abstained".
Makes sense, get the final working draft to attorney.......upon
return, then approve.
Now to the January 18, 2011 minutes on the subject which are as
follows.........
"Governing Documents: Sydne will correct and update. Kerry will send
the final draft to ORCH (sp.) to review. Once the attorneys have
completed their review, the board will approve it and select the date
to send it out and the return date".
So WHERE IS the actual recorded vote to approve the final draft of the
Declaration sent to owners for our vote? What's stated is what they
WILL do, what they INTEND to do. We have the right to know how each
director voted to approve, disapprove or abstain on this revised
governing document and when! Are we to assume how they all might
have voted, play a guessing game? Not acceptable in any rationally-
run HOA.
One argument to the court in my objection was that per those Jan. 18,
2011 minutes, there was NO approved Declaration revision (plus no
members' mtg. held from whenever it MAY HAVE been approved(?)......
before the first notice of the amendment with the final draft and
voting instrument (the consent/reject form) were sent out, late
February. Then it was too late for such meeting. The association
(board) had not met 2 necessary requirements, ie., to send owners TWO
notices of the amendment (while we only got one) and conduct a duly-
called members' meeting. The judge recognized this lack of
requirements and ruled accordingly.
February 15, 2011 minutes make no mention of the revision or status;
the voting packet was sent 2 weeks later.
March and April minutes make short reference to ongoing process.
********May 17, 2011.....(Meeting & Minutes) - At beginning of the
segment dealing with the revision/petition that occurred toward the
end of the meeting, Rick Poole announced that the vote count was 89
For and 15 Against. How 'bout that?! Correct! Then the full board
and manager engaged in an astonishing discussion on the subject of
petitioning the court. Amazing Questions like.........had they met
the 2 notices and 1 members' mtg. requirements?!?! Revealing
comments, as in.....the manager stated a workgroup did not count as a
meeting (members'). A motion that had been made and seconded WAS
WITHDRAWN during this discussion. President asked manager to get
critical answers from attorney before they could proceed.......but did
he? Did the board get answers they needed?? What did they DO with
information if obtained? The discussion ended in agreement that
after getting answers, would then decide (vote?) if would proceed to
petition the court since had the 86 consents needed. But WHERE IS ANY
MENTION in the May minutes of this important 10-15 minute discussion?
Not a word, not a peep on the subject matter. Keep in mind this
meeting was held 8 days AFTER the voting deadline of May
9th.*************
This is the meeting the board wants to return to and amend in a "vote"
they "remember" taking to initiate the petition process. Pfoosh! they
did no such thing but decided had to hold off until later for some
answers.
In a 12/29/11 letter to me from the president wanting to clarify
that......."the Board had already directed the attorneys to file a
Petition with the court. This was done in June/July of
2011".......gives no clue how each one voted and when. The June and
July minutes simply give a brief status but nothing on any petition
vote 'cuz they didn't take an open vote at either mtg. Neither can
board tell us because their decision-making all along in this process
has been haphazard and unrecorded.
August 16, 2011 meeting - After remaining quiet for most of mtg., at
the end director, John Smith, cut loose.....he was livid because the
attorney wanted more information, specifically on the workgroups,
before filing the petition in court. Banging on the table, he called
the attorney "incompetent" twice (see what you're missing!). It was
in late June or July, 2011 that an owner, who had been keeping updates
on his computer at the workgroups in 2010, provided Mr. Sullivan with
what changes had continuously been made. Why the last-minute request
from the attorney on workgroups and so upsetting to Mr. Smith? Did
the attorney know when the board actually voted to approve the final
draft? Or did someone convince him all was in order and that the
Nov. 30, 2010 workgroup was more than it truly was? If the attorney
had no reason to question that, then it was accepted under a false
pretense as the required members' mtg. when it was not such. LOTS of
questions and no answers yet.
Key to the issue........would any reasonably intelligent director
really believe that the final workgroup session of 11/30/10 could
somehow be transformed into a members' mtg. WHEN.......the poor-
quality notice for this purported "members' mtg." did not suffice
(from judge).......course not, that notice wasn't meant for such
purpose.......changes to document still being made at that
session........NO final review done by attorney AND.....it had NOT
BEEN APPROVED by the board for another 6 weeks or whenever!! But it
ended up in the petition as the "members's meeting" they needed.
How? And will there be another attempt to "remember" just when they
actually voted to approve the Declaration revision and try to attach
it onto minutes
from over a year ago?? Two directors from that time have already
left the board.
They cannot use the January 7, 2010 members' mtg. because it pertained
to the first set of the attempted revision which had been abandoned in
March 2010 and subsequently changed for the next try.
Another volcano-hot question......Who came up with the idea to use the
Nov. 30, 2010 workgroup session as a purported members' mtg. to meet
that requirement and would ensure the petition drive toward the court
could continue??? I've asked 2 main questions of the board in early
January. No reply, hence on January 23rd, I formally requested a
hearing with them and other related parties to include the attorney,
Mr. Sullivan, per the association's Alternative Dispute Resolution
policy to more closely examine this failed and troubled petition
process.
November 14, 2011 illegal executive session.....have already detailed
what occurred at their intriguing meeting in Report #3, in 2 parts.
The November 15, 2011 Annual Mtg. where the focus should have been on
their answering our questions and "selling" their marvelous concoction
to those present and then to rest of community as we still awaited the
judge's decision. Ask yourselves, readers, why weren't they excited!,
enthused!, eager! to convince the village how great and wonderful
their revised New Thing really was?! What we got were some vapid
mumblings and the tired mantra that....."it was in the best interest
of Victoria Village". How so???
January 6, 2012 - held an illegal unannounced executive session (was
mentioned 11 days later at the 01/17/12 board mtg.) and one correctly
announced and held during that board mtg. to decide what THEY (apart
from any input asked of owners) would do to either recommence another
attempt quickly or close out effort for time being.
* * *
If this membership stands for the shrouding in secrecy that occurred
in this revision/petition process by substituting open voting with
some hazy, murky "consensus", important decisions made with NO
accurate recording of when and how each director voted,
etc........then the board knows you will fall for anything. It's how
autocratic rule is put in place and tyranny takes over. Dictators
dictate to their subjects on just how it is, no questions
asked.....and if any are asked, no response. However, owners lack of
interest and scant participation in this lengthy process only
encouraged the board to jump the tracks and wander away from Colo. law
as in............
MEETINGS - CCIOA -33.3 -308 -2.5 (b) - "At an appropriate time
determined by the board, but before the board votes on an issue under
discussion, unit owners or their designated representatives shall be
permitted to speak regarding that issue. The board may place
reasonable time restrictions.........(and for opposing
views)......shall provide for a reasonable number of persons to speak
on each side of issue".
Yes, we have the Open Forum at beginning of board mtgs. but we don't
know what will be discussed or possibly voted upon until picking up an
agenda at the mtg. Not real effective. Far better if the agenda was
put on the assoc.'s website at least 48 hours in advance of a mtg.
There are a few agendas on the assoc.'s website in the Archives from
several years ago so it can be done.
Case in point: the grounds maintenance contract is up for renewal or
replacement.......it's the most expensive contract next to Z&R's.
Bids are being obtained and companies to be interviewed at upcoming
February 21st mtg. with a possible vote taken then or perhaps in March
(yes! they DO take some open votes at board mtgs. just not on the
critical and expensive effort to revise the Declaration). But who
knows about this important decision to be made shortly?? If you have
strong feelings, pro or con, on the current company, Greensprings, the
February and March meetings need to find you there or contact board
beforehand.
Per usual, this is being forwarded to the board.
Whew! Up next...........# 5, a Wrap-Up.
Marcia A. Fields
and petition process; either 1 part long or 2 parts shorter - I
"voted" for long but if you want insight into Botched 101, hang with
me)
Let's jump right into the December 21, 2010 meeting minutes. The
board meeting was held shortly after the final workgroup session held
November 30, 2010. Those minutes state.......
"Motion was made by Betty to approve Declaration and cover letter
changes AFTER ATTORNEYS MAKE CORRECTIONS (emphasis mine). Gayle
seconded the Motion. Motion passed with 5 votes in favor, Sydne and
Rick abstained".
Makes sense, get the final working draft to attorney.......upon
return, then approve.
Now to the January 18, 2011 minutes on the subject which are as
follows.........
"Governing Documents: Sydne will correct and update. Kerry will send
the final draft to ORCH (sp.) to review. Once the attorneys have
completed their review, the board will approve it and select the date
to send it out and the return date".
So WHERE IS the actual recorded vote to approve the final draft of the
Declaration sent to owners for our vote? What's stated is what they
WILL do, what they INTEND to do. We have the right to know how each
director voted to approve, disapprove or abstain on this revised
governing document and when! Are we to assume how they all might
have voted, play a guessing game? Not acceptable in any rationally-
run HOA.
One argument to the court in my objection was that per those Jan. 18,
2011 minutes, there was NO approved Declaration revision (plus no
members' mtg. held from whenever it MAY HAVE been approved(?)......
before the first notice of the amendment with the final draft and
voting instrument (the consent/reject form) were sent out, late
February. Then it was too late for such meeting. The association
(board) had not met 2 necessary requirements, ie., to send owners TWO
notices of the amendment (while we only got one) and conduct a duly-
called members' meeting. The judge recognized this lack of
requirements and ruled accordingly.
February 15, 2011 minutes make no mention of the revision or status;
the voting packet was sent 2 weeks later.
March and April minutes make short reference to ongoing process.
********May 17, 2011.....(Meeting & Minutes) - At beginning of the
segment dealing with the revision/petition that occurred toward the
end of the meeting, Rick Poole announced that the vote count was 89
For and 15 Against. How 'bout that?! Correct! Then the full board
and manager engaged in an astonishing discussion on the subject of
petitioning the court. Amazing Questions like.........had they met
the 2 notices and 1 members' mtg. requirements?!?! Revealing
comments, as in.....the manager stated a workgroup did not count as a
meeting (members'). A motion that had been made and seconded WAS
WITHDRAWN during this discussion. President asked manager to get
critical answers from attorney before they could proceed.......but did
he? Did the board get answers they needed?? What did they DO with
information if obtained? The discussion ended in agreement that
after getting answers, would then decide (vote?) if would proceed to
petition the court since had the 86 consents needed. But WHERE IS ANY
MENTION in the May minutes of this important 10-15 minute discussion?
Not a word, not a peep on the subject matter. Keep in mind this
meeting was held 8 days AFTER the voting deadline of May
9th.*************
This is the meeting the board wants to return to and amend in a "vote"
they "remember" taking to initiate the petition process. Pfoosh! they
did no such thing but decided had to hold off until later for some
answers.
In a 12/29/11 letter to me from the president wanting to clarify
that......."the Board had already directed the attorneys to file a
Petition with the court. This was done in June/July of
2011".......gives no clue how each one voted and when. The June and
July minutes simply give a brief status but nothing on any petition
vote 'cuz they didn't take an open vote at either mtg. Neither can
board tell us because their decision-making all along in this process
has been haphazard and unrecorded.
August 16, 2011 meeting - After remaining quiet for most of mtg., at
the end director, John Smith, cut loose.....he was livid because the
attorney wanted more information, specifically on the workgroups,
before filing the petition in court. Banging on the table, he called
the attorney "incompetent" twice (see what you're missing!). It was
in late June or July, 2011 that an owner, who had been keeping updates
on his computer at the workgroups in 2010, provided Mr. Sullivan with
what changes had continuously been made. Why the last-minute request
from the attorney on workgroups and so upsetting to Mr. Smith? Did
the attorney know when the board actually voted to approve the final
draft? Or did someone convince him all was in order and that the
Nov. 30, 2010 workgroup was more than it truly was? If the attorney
had no reason to question that, then it was accepted under a false
pretense as the required members' mtg. when it was not such. LOTS of
questions and no answers yet.
Key to the issue........would any reasonably intelligent director
really believe that the final workgroup session of 11/30/10 could
somehow be transformed into a members' mtg. WHEN.......the poor-
quality notice for this purported "members' mtg." did not suffice
(from judge).......course not, that notice wasn't meant for such
purpose.......changes to document still being made at that
session........NO final review done by attorney AND.....it had NOT
BEEN APPROVED by the board for another 6 weeks or whenever!! But it
ended up in the petition as the "members's meeting" they needed.
How? And will there be another attempt to "remember" just when they
actually voted to approve the Declaration revision and try to attach
it onto minutes
from over a year ago?? Two directors from that time have already
left the board.
They cannot use the January 7, 2010 members' mtg. because it pertained
to the first set of the attempted revision which had been abandoned in
March 2010 and subsequently changed for the next try.
Another volcano-hot question......Who came up with the idea to use the
Nov. 30, 2010 workgroup session as a purported members' mtg. to meet
that requirement and would ensure the petition drive toward the court
could continue??? I've asked 2 main questions of the board in early
January. No reply, hence on January 23rd, I formally requested a
hearing with them and other related parties to include the attorney,
Mr. Sullivan, per the association's Alternative Dispute Resolution
policy to more closely examine this failed and troubled petition
process.
November 14, 2011 illegal executive session.....have already detailed
what occurred at their intriguing meeting in Report #3, in 2 parts.
The November 15, 2011 Annual Mtg. where the focus should have been on
their answering our questions and "selling" their marvelous concoction
to those present and then to rest of community as we still awaited the
judge's decision. Ask yourselves, readers, why weren't they excited!,
enthused!, eager! to convince the village how great and wonderful
their revised New Thing really was?! What we got were some vapid
mumblings and the tired mantra that....."it was in the best interest
of Victoria Village". How so???
January 6, 2012 - held an illegal unannounced executive session (was
mentioned 11 days later at the 01/17/12 board mtg.) and one correctly
announced and held during that board mtg. to decide what THEY (apart
from any input asked of owners) would do to either recommence another
attempt quickly or close out effort for time being.
* * *
If this membership stands for the shrouding in secrecy that occurred
in this revision/petition process by substituting open voting with
some hazy, murky "consensus", important decisions made with NO
accurate recording of when and how each director voted,
etc........then the board knows you will fall for anything. It's how
autocratic rule is put in place and tyranny takes over. Dictators
dictate to their subjects on just how it is, no questions
asked.....and if any are asked, no response. However, owners lack of
interest and scant participation in this lengthy process only
encouraged the board to jump the tracks and wander away from Colo. law
as in............
MEETINGS - CCIOA -33.3 -308 -2.5 (b) - "At an appropriate time
determined by the board, but before the board votes on an issue under
discussion, unit owners or their designated representatives shall be
permitted to speak regarding that issue. The board may place
reasonable time restrictions.........(and for opposing
views)......shall provide for a reasonable number of persons to speak
on each side of issue".
Yes, we have the Open Forum at beginning of board mtgs. but we don't
know what will be discussed or possibly voted upon until picking up an
agenda at the mtg. Not real effective. Far better if the agenda was
put on the assoc.'s website at least 48 hours in advance of a mtg.
There are a few agendas on the assoc.'s website in the Archives from
several years ago so it can be done.
Case in point: the grounds maintenance contract is up for renewal or
replacement.......it's the most expensive contract next to Z&R's.
Bids are being obtained and companies to be interviewed at upcoming
February 21st mtg. with a possible vote taken then or perhaps in March
(yes! they DO take some open votes at board mtgs. just not on the
critical and expensive effort to revise the Declaration). But who
knows about this important decision to be made shortly?? If you have
strong feelings, pro or con, on the current company, Greensprings, the
February and March meetings need to find you there or contact board
beforehand.
Per usual, this is being forwarded to the board.
Whew! Up next...........# 5, a Wrap-Up.
Marcia A. Fields
concerned homeowner
Feb 7, 2012, 6:20:59 PM2/7/12
to Victoria Village Homeowners at Colorado Springs
YOU ARE IN THIS FOR THE MONEY. who you kidding lady!
Lets all Ask Marcia, how much money $he wants U$ the home onwner$ to
give her? I hear its over 20,000 dollars. I guess Mrs fields has a
jaded interest in this situation. Of course she is gonna complain
about everything, how else she supposed to get her hands on $$$$$.????
SHe expects us to give her our hard eanred money while she sits and
moans and gripes on this website. You and all your buddies that want
this 20,000? Why don't you go and knock on everyones doors with your
hand out and ask them to chip in their fair share for your lawyer. I
did not piggy back on to your crap and i don; think I should have to
pay fer it either!
So..........why not speak about that now Mrs fields????
Man, I can't wait to see who you are......you are a piece of work!
Lets all Ask Marcia, how much money $he wants U$ the home onwner$ to
give her? I hear its over 20,000 dollars. I guess Mrs fields has a
jaded interest in this situation. Of course she is gonna complain
about everything, how else she supposed to get her hands on $$$$$.????
SHe expects us to give her our hard eanred money while she sits and
moans and gripes on this website. You and all your buddies that want
this 20,000? Why don't you go and knock on everyones doors with your
hand out and ask them to chip in their fair share for your lawyer. I
did not piggy back on to your crap and i don; think I should have to
pay fer it either!
So..........why not speak about that now Mrs fields????
Man, I can't wait to see who you are......you are a piece of work!
Mark
Feb 7, 2012, 10:55:17 PM2/7/12
to Victoria Village Homeowners at Colorado Springs
Hello "mf.runs.a.rumor.mill" and welcome to the VictoriaVillage.net
discussion board.
You have an interesting perspective on this. I share your disgust
with the amount of our money that has been wasted, but I think your
anger is directed at the wrong party. How do you feel about the
$40-50,000* the board has spent of our hard-earned money to twice try
to push through amendments to the covenants while violating Colorado
law? If the board had followed the law, we wouldn't be having this
conversation as the Judge would have ruled to install the amended
covenants and that would be the end of this particular story.
I don't blame Marcia for wanting to recover her attorney fees at all.
Why shouldn't she? She believed the board did not act in accordance
with the law and has every right, as we all do, to put up a vigorous
defense. Apparently she was right. She put her own personal money at
risk to back her belief that she was doing the right thing. The
individual board members didn't put up their own money, they went to
court with our money. The board chose to file the action. They are
the ones that forced the showdown. The board was given every
opportunity to engage in a meaningful conversation to change the
course of events that led to the legal action that ended up incurring
10s of thousands of dollars in costs.
I believe the board and the association's Attorneys are fully
responsible for this mess and all of its associated costs. The bottom
line is that a small fortune has been wasted because there are people
that want to take shortcuts and have made the choice to not follow the
law. Once the law correctly followed, the covenants will be changed.
If the law continues to be ignored, the vigorous defense and waste of
our money will continue.
Let me provide you with a very very similar situation. I own a unit
at another association (Louisiana Purchase II in Aurora, CO) that is
also represented by ORCH attorneys. The board of this association
started down the same path to replace their covenants about 1 year
after Victoria Village started. Their covenants were successfully
installed in December 2011 following the exact same process as was
attempted by the Victoria Village board. The difference? They got it
right the first time. They held the mandatory meetings, they
responded to the community feedback, they followed the law correctly,
and they were successful the 1st time out. Total costs? I've been
told they were under $15k.
I don't know who you are and whether you voted for or against the
covenants, or simply did nothing, but none of that really matters.
Your passion is apparent and admirable, I just hope it can be directed
at the issues and not the individuals. I hope you become comfortable
enough to reveal your identity and engage in meaningful conversation
to help move the community forward.
-Mark Olson
*My rough estimate as I can't seem to get my hands on a full
accounting of all of the costs
On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, concerned homeowner
> ...
>
> read more »
discussion board.
You have an interesting perspective on this. I share your disgust
with the amount of our money that has been wasted, but I think your
anger is directed at the wrong party. How do you feel about the
$40-50,000* the board has spent of our hard-earned money to twice try
to push through amendments to the covenants while violating Colorado
law? If the board had followed the law, we wouldn't be having this
conversation as the Judge would have ruled to install the amended
covenants and that would be the end of this particular story.
I don't blame Marcia for wanting to recover her attorney fees at all.
Why shouldn't she? She believed the board did not act in accordance
with the law and has every right, as we all do, to put up a vigorous
defense. Apparently she was right. She put her own personal money at
risk to back her belief that she was doing the right thing. The
individual board members didn't put up their own money, they went to
court with our money. The board chose to file the action. They are
the ones that forced the showdown. The board was given every
opportunity to engage in a meaningful conversation to change the
course of events that led to the legal action that ended up incurring
10s of thousands of dollars in costs.
I believe the board and the association's Attorneys are fully
responsible for this mess and all of its associated costs. The bottom
line is that a small fortune has been wasted because there are people
that want to take shortcuts and have made the choice to not follow the
law. Once the law correctly followed, the covenants will be changed.
If the law continues to be ignored, the vigorous defense and waste of
our money will continue.
Let me provide you with a very very similar situation. I own a unit
at another association (Louisiana Purchase II in Aurora, CO) that is
also represented by ORCH attorneys. The board of this association
started down the same path to replace their covenants about 1 year
after Victoria Village started. Their covenants were successfully
installed in December 2011 following the exact same process as was
attempted by the Victoria Village board. The difference? They got it
right the first time. They held the mandatory meetings, they
responded to the community feedback, they followed the law correctly,
and they were successful the 1st time out. Total costs? I've been
told they were under $15k.
I don't know who you are and whether you voted for or against the
covenants, or simply did nothing, but none of that really matters.
Your passion is apparent and admirable, I just hope it can be directed
at the issues and not the individuals. I hope you become comfortable
enough to reveal your identity and engage in meaningful conversation
to help move the community forward.
-Mark Olson
*My rough estimate as I can't seem to get my hands on a full
accounting of all of the costs
On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, concerned homeowner
>
> read more »
Sharon
Feb 8, 2012, 3:31:44 AM2/8/12
to Victoria Village Homeowners at Colorado Springs
Well said Mark!
For "concerned owner -mf.runs.a.rumor.mill", you are entitled to post
your opinion in this forum, but I strongly urge you to get your facts
straight before spouting off about rumors. No one other than Marcia
and the board members would know about any request for reimbursement
of legal fees, as that is supposed to be kept confidential. There is
NO money to be gained by anyone here! We are all financial losers as
this fiasco has cost thousands of dollars that this HOA can ill
afford, which could have been avoided had the board and the HOA
attorneys operated transparently and followed the law. Per Z&R in Dec
2011 the HOA's legal fees for initially revising the governing
documents without homeowner input were $20,065. Lacking the required
votes to pass the second revised Declaration, the BOARD decided, in a
closed 'executive session' again without homeowner input, to pursue
the court petition, costing an additional $12,063. Since then the
board has had several discussions with OCRH and several more documents
have been produced by to the court, likely $1,000-2,000 more.
Let me be very clear that NO ONE involved in this process is "in it
for the money"; quite the opposite is true! It has cost us all
individually to defend those homeowners who either couldn't or
wouldn't get involved. I want to reiterate Mark's point that had the
board followed the proper legal procedures the HOA would have
prevailed in court. I also want to point out had the board obtained
homeowner buy-in BEFORE notifying owners to vote on the initial
revised documents, owners likely would have voted it in, making the
entire second process and court action unnecessary and saving
thousands now spent.
We should all be thanking Marcia for being the community watchdog that
she has been all these years, devoting her personal time and money to
standing up for what is right, and representing those in the community
who cannot do so for themselves. Her previous actions against the
HOA, in which she prevailed, cost her much more than any HOA
reimbursement she received, as this action likely will as well. Do
not overlook the individual non-financial personal investment in this
process. The time, effort and stress endured by a handful of people
(owners and board members alike) to preserve homeowner’s’ rights and
improve the community, and Marcia's persistent attempts to get the
board to follow proper procedures in a transparent and communicative
manner, are to be commended!
By the way—if you were involved and attended the monthly board
meetings you would know who Marcia is because she has attended the
majority of them for years. If you are truly a “concerned owner”,
rather than listening to rumors perhaps you should make the effort to
get involved and get the facts for yourself.
--Sharon Younie
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
For "concerned owner -mf.runs.a.rumor.mill", you are entitled to post
your opinion in this forum, but I strongly urge you to get your facts
straight before spouting off about rumors. No one other than Marcia
and the board members would know about any request for reimbursement
of legal fees, as that is supposed to be kept confidential. There is
NO money to be gained by anyone here! We are all financial losers as
this fiasco has cost thousands of dollars that this HOA can ill
afford, which could have been avoided had the board and the HOA
attorneys operated transparently and followed the law. Per Z&R in Dec
2011 the HOA's legal fees for initially revising the governing
documents without homeowner input were $20,065. Lacking the required
votes to pass the second revised Declaration, the BOARD decided, in a
closed 'executive session' again without homeowner input, to pursue
the court petition, costing an additional $12,063. Since then the
board has had several discussions with OCRH and several more documents
have been produced by to the court, likely $1,000-2,000 more.
Let me be very clear that NO ONE involved in this process is "in it
for the money"; quite the opposite is true! It has cost us all
individually to defend those homeowners who either couldn't or
wouldn't get involved. I want to reiterate Mark's point that had the
board followed the proper legal procedures the HOA would have
prevailed in court. I also want to point out had the board obtained
homeowner buy-in BEFORE notifying owners to vote on the initial
revised documents, owners likely would have voted it in, making the
entire second process and court action unnecessary and saving
thousands now spent.
We should all be thanking Marcia for being the community watchdog that
she has been all these years, devoting her personal time and money to
standing up for what is right, and representing those in the community
who cannot do so for themselves. Her previous actions against the
HOA, in which she prevailed, cost her much more than any HOA
reimbursement she received, as this action likely will as well. Do
not overlook the individual non-financial personal investment in this
process. The time, effort and stress endured by a handful of people
(owners and board members alike) to preserve homeowner’s’ rights and
improve the community, and Marcia's persistent attempts to get the
board to follow proper procedures in a transparent and communicative
manner, are to be commended!
By the way—if you were involved and attended the monthly board
meetings you would know who Marcia is because she has attended the
majority of them for years. If you are truly a “concerned owner”,
rather than listening to rumors perhaps you should make the effort to
get involved and get the facts for yourself.
--Sharon Younie
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marcia Fields
Feb 9, 2012, 5:13:52 PM2/9/12
to Victoria Village Homeowners at Colorado Springs
Hello All......
Sheesh! and we thought nasty political ads were bad! The individual,
"concerned homeowner" who threw the dirty bomb is not concerned about
my asking for legal fees. The real issue is contained in Report
#4.......increasing discomfort because am asking more dangerous
questions.
As of this posting, Judge Miller has NOT yet ruled on my fees. He can
decide on awarding me all, some or none of those. The total is
actually $15,344.23 (but the wild claim of $20K sounds better for the
attack).
Here's a genuine example of Rumor Mill............after the Jan. 17,
'12 board mtg., an owner informed me that a director told her the
judge......"had already denied my request.....that I wasn't getting a
penny". Really?! Just one l-i-t-t-l-e problem. My attorney had
not yet filed my response to the association's objection to those
fees; he did so on January 23rd. And since then it's been on the
judge's desk.
But here we have this director going off half-cocked and spreading
such falsehood.
He probably saw a copy of the association's request to deny my fees,
DIDN'T read it carefully to understand what it actually said but then
goes shooting off his mouth.
Those respondents who were attached to the litigation by virtue of
their own objections have been receiving all the paperwork since the
Nov. 4, '11 hearing like motions, objections, responses, etc. to
include the attorney fees' issue. So it's not strictly confidential
to just board and me. And since it is of public record, I think if
someone knows where to look, they can access those documents.
As for "concerned homeowner", through computer technology, I was able
to trace from where their "thoughtful" message originated.....from
their workplace actually.
Oooops.......I think "concerned homeowner" has a lot more to be
concerned about than status of my legal fees!
And a public thanks to Mark and Sharon for their insights into and
helpful explanations to clarify the situation.
marcia ann
Sheesh! and we thought nasty political ads were bad! The individual,
"concerned homeowner" who threw the dirty bomb is not concerned about
my asking for legal fees. The real issue is contained in Report
#4.......increasing discomfort because am asking more dangerous
questions.
As of this posting, Judge Miller has NOT yet ruled on my fees. He can
decide on awarding me all, some or none of those. The total is
actually $15,344.23 (but the wild claim of $20K sounds better for the
attack).
Here's a genuine example of Rumor Mill............after the Jan. 17,
'12 board mtg., an owner informed me that a director told her the
judge......"had already denied my request.....that I wasn't getting a
penny". Really?! Just one l-i-t-t-l-e problem. My attorney had
not yet filed my response to the association's objection to those
fees; he did so on January 23rd. And since then it's been on the
judge's desk.
But here we have this director going off half-cocked and spreading
such falsehood.
He probably saw a copy of the association's request to deny my fees,
DIDN'T read it carefully to understand what it actually said but then
goes shooting off his mouth.
Those respondents who were attached to the litigation by virtue of
their own objections have been receiving all the paperwork since the
Nov. 4, '11 hearing like motions, objections, responses, etc. to
include the attorney fees' issue. So it's not strictly confidential
to just board and me. And since it is of public record, I think if
someone knows where to look, they can access those documents.
As for "concerned homeowner", through computer technology, I was able
to trace from where their "thoughtful" message originated.....from
their workplace actually.
Oooops.......I think "concerned homeowner" has a lot more to be
concerned about than status of my legal fees!
And a public thanks to Mark and Sharon for their insights into and
helpful explanations to clarify the situation.
marcia ann
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages