| Author | Post |
|---|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 02:12 pm |
|
Dorothy, Dorothy, Dorothy
I was there and as a person that enjoys where I live and that enjoys my neighbor and friends. So I heard things in a total different frame of mind than apparently you did.
As usual you don't report all of the facts in order to decieve. You failed to mention that the heaters to the pools are turned off in the summer months and in 2 -3 months the budget will be back in the in the projected range.
The great thing about having the Citizen available to all residents they can keep up with the finances of their community. And it is a better source of the truth than a BLOG SITE entry!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 12:27 pm |
|
Truth is, you weren't there, right? None of the revisions to the content of the meeting you offer are reflected on my tape.
"We are $25,000.00 in the red. That's right." Answer to question on the Treasurer's report.
I was, in fact, present.
I took the precaution of taping the proceedings...I also presented the figures printed in the May, 2008 financial report.
I also received copies of the Committee Report to the board re: bookkeeping procedures in which it is revealed...not by my analysis of the report, but by the committee that "they often hired unqualified bookkeepers, at best to keep their books".
Those items reported on May 1, 2008 as Expenditures over $1,000.00, begins with entertainment expenses are as follows.
Entertainment Expenses....$4,101.23
Pool Maintenance...............$3,557.10
Insurance...........................$2,491.00
Legal Expenses..................$2,228.00
Gas....................................$12,041.07
Electric............................... $1,977.80
Water and Sewer................$1,118.44
Salaries and wages............$11,648.64
Payroll taxes....................... $1,010.62
As you can see, this rate of expenditure simply cannot be sustained...
Now, whatever the "Disclosure fee" represents cannot be applied to the "Voluntary Sections, since they do not have any financial obligation to the club, and of course, the heroic folks in Section 6 have no obligation now, or in the future...
And so, Avery dear, when you add in the comment of the Board that for the first time the board spent the revenues of anticipated in 2008...to cover operating expenses in 2007...(No amount announced) it obviously reduced the total available to operate on in this year.
Of course, none of next year's legal expenses for an appeal of the award of "legal fees" has been announced...but was estimated that it was probably going to be in the "neighborhood of $30,000.00".
Concerned Citizens legal expenses were paid by VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, and amounted to a little over $30,000.00 over a five year period, and included the payments of dues for those of our supporters who could not pay them.
The financial statements in the past 4+ years published in the Citizen record that beginning in the fall of 2003, the club has been paying over $2,000.00+ for legal fees per month on average, and the estimate given by the Board was that it had paid out about $20,000.00 per year until they filed lawsuits against 39 people...16 of whom paid, and 26 of whom did not. This past year, the total legal fees came to nearly $80,000.00!
In short, Avery dear, the Board has not, and is not able to manage the money it's extorting from unwilling or willing owners, and admits it in print.
Some of us have been trying to alert the Board to these deficiencies for a long time, only to be defamed in the Citizen as "a tiny fraction" of the owners, unlawfully expelled, and harassed...
IN THE END, WE HAVE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT THESE MATTERS FROM THE START!
DOROTHY
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 07:59 pm |
|
Dorothy, Dorothy, Dorothy
In response to your twisted minutes of the meeting.
1. There is no urgent problems paying bills. The utility bills are always mentioned when other monies are needed for unexpected expenses. If you read the financial statements listed everymonth in the Citizen you could keep up to date with the situation. They keep tight reins on all spending!
2. The only mention of raising the dues was when a resident asked why there was limited money to spend on repairs. The raising of hands was to demonstrate that some residents would support it and some wouldn't. You know that the dues are reviewed in Nov. and only then! Other methods of lowering utliltes were mentioned from the audience.
3. There was no mention of the law suits in the meeting, other then you were asked what it cost for your group in legal fees, you stated ( $30,000. ), and it cost your community about $40,000.
4. The Board of Directors has finaly come up with "Policies and Procedures" directives so that when there is a question on policy and procedures they have it in writng. That way it doesn't change from year to year. Great idea right?
5. Your silliest is this one. Officers have changed, only certain board members are legaly qualified to sign checks so the list changes.
6. The only motion made by the Treasurer was to set up a method of funding the "Facilities Improvment Reserve Fund"! The report on the existing reserve account is available ( to members ) in the office as he explained! It was also pointed out that all information that can be legaly made available is available to members. An example of illegal information would be the personal and private information of community residents.
One benefit it gives members is the fact they can appoint some one to represent them at the meetings.
7. They send copies to the addresses they have to the owners weeks before the sections come due! One person called, said they never got their copy, they moved years ago, the county records still have them at the old address. Did you check the financial records in the Citizen? Dorothy, the disclosure fees are from property transfers this year. 3 houses a month in the areas housing market isn't bad. That doen't include houses that don't go through realtors.
Once again
How it really happened!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 01:04 pm |
|
Good Morning all.
Long time, no see. Are we resting or what?
Back at the reportage. I was able to attend the last meeting until September of the Board of Directors.
1. It seems that the most urgent problem the board is facing is finding a way to pay their utility bills. Gas and electric has soared to approximately $15,000. per month according to last month's financial statement. (I received a notice from SRP that my own bill will rise by 6.7% in 2009.
2. There were the usual mindless solutions offered...such as the ever popular raising the dues...which a large majority of those present rejected....then, install solar heat...(no $$$) etc. etc. etc.
3. There was a question about the wisdom of continuing their lawsuits against 26 owners, in only four of the eighteen sections, by appealing.
If the Appeals Court agrees to hear Maxwell's demands for more fees the liklihood of his prevailing when three separate Superior Court Judges have already refused to award them, is remote....the certainty is that the club will pay him more billable hours, and that if they are awarded, the owners will have no choice but to go into the next higher court with another appeal, and more attorney's fees that the club will have to pay, until some board at some time, calls a halt to his tormenting owners at the board's direction.
4. One fact is clear at this point. This board has decided to use the old Soviet model of succession. They have arbitrarily extended the length of their own terms, and now are printing page after page of policies and procedures for nominating new candidates.
Ditto the Citizen. I will be doing my best to obtain copies of the most recent "directives".
Also, at some point in the future, the members will nominate someone with some background in business procedures who will be able to develop and spend within the limits of the budget.
5. Another peculiar act, (taken last month by the board) was to add several others to the list of those who can sign checks against the club's bank account.
6. The Treasurer tried to move a motion for an outside audit, but it failed.
Vicki Wirtz also suggested that an outside audit could help them find the missing $100,000.00 from the reserve account.
I was sorry to see that an old board member, Mr. Fleschner had been ill and hospitalized. I am also very sorry that the four members I was representing are too ill to attend, and that the continued torment inflicted on them by this board is jeopardizing their recovery.
I still say, that Mandatory Membership in a club that offers zero benefits to those who do not use the antiquated and inadequate facilities, is a goofy idea, and an un-American violation of the rights of property owners.
7. Oh, by the way, I also discovered in last month's Minutes, that the club will, AT LAST, send copies of the Second Amended Declaration of Restrictions (SADR) via the US Mail to someone.
It is unclear at this time to whom, but it seemed to infer it would be to realtors so that owners could not claim they were not in an HOA.
There was more, but I will be following the collapse of our property values, and the rise in dues for the forseeable future to pay for forcing Dreamland owners to join a private club.
|
DreamlandMan
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11th, 2008 03:34 am |
|
A response to Mr. Dick Schinke, guest commentary, East Mesa Independent (3-10-2008)
Hey Dick!
You never told us in your post what your actual involvement with Sunland Village East HOA really is. The only way readers have of knowing anything about you (and that's not much) is by reading the EDITOR'S NOTE at the end of your biased ramblings. According to the Editor's note, Mr. Schinke is MANAGER of Sunland Village East. Manager of what? Golf course? Sales staff? Real sloppy on the part of East Mesa Independent..........
.............Is he manager of the Sunland Village East HOA? I believe he is, and that seems to be the assumption. That being the case, HIS PAYCHECKS COME FROM THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAT'S HAS A CONTRACT WITH SVE HOA.......MEANING THE BOTTOM LINE IS: His paychecks are made possible because of HOA fees, etc., paid directly from wallets and purses of Sunland Village East residents.
Mr. Schinke's description of how wonderful HOAs can be sounds very much like what a fellow by the name of Jim Jones said a few years ago when he described to people in Jonestown how tasteful and thirst-quenching the KOOL-AID he'd prepared for everybody to drink is.
Hey Dick, you and I both know there most likely are many residents of SVE disgruntled with the partnership between SVE HOA BOARD MEMBERS and your MANAGEMENT COMPANY, but you can't dare to admit that, if you did, you would be unemployed.
One more thing, take a look at the title of Mr. Schinke's propaganda. It's called: Working With HOAs Can Be A Positive Experience. That tells us he works with HOAs (community residents serving as board members). That's what HOA management companies do.
Mr. Schinke, you are way too transparent.
East Mesa Independent, shame on you for insulting your readers and a lack of journalistic standards regarding properly identifying Mr. Schinke.
Give us someone who knows how to make a point by writing something above a 6th grade level.
Why Dick Schinke?
Your newspaper can do better than that. Come on......Some of us out here actually are intelligent.
Last edited on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 03:36 am by DreamlandMan
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 01:44 pm |
|
Added note to the Stimulate Payment message;
And could be as high as $600. per person.
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 1st, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
A friendly note from a friend in Dreamland Villa to seniors that may not file taxes and all other readers.
Many Social Security recipients are eligible for the " Stimulus Payment" ! You do need to file a tax return to receive it! Go to http://www.irs.gov you can print the forms and instruction sheets or check with your money people!
$300. per person is $300.
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 1st, 2008 11:42 am |
|
One of a pair of attorneys wrote an editorial on the basic nature of HOAs. I was struck by the arguments he presented...including the statement that they should be outlawed in the US.
When will the State of Arizona get with it and put a stop to this little gangs of despots?
I am corresponding with these two, and will let you know their responses. Dorothy7
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29th, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
Dorothy,
you are dueling with an un armed person. No brain. no pain. Hard to make any sense with this type. All happy in Nightmare Villa and anything the club wants to do is just fine with him or her ? Anyway keep trying , you might get through the fog and make this person see the light. Doubt it but keep trying.
R
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29th, 2008 03:53 pm |
|
averymatte wrote: Dorothy
your #3 is incorrect, the people in the cases pay only the 1 month late fee for the year it was in court, after that it will be monthly!
no reason to comment on the rest you put 1/2 of the facts on one, what parts of the rest do we believe?
Avery: You do not know that to be a fact. I sat and watched the proceedings. The Judge will issue his order and judgment I assume after Maxwell returns from Disneyland on your nickle.
As a non-party to these actions, I know only what was said and done in court...
Neither do you. Dorothy
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29th, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
Dorothy
your #3 is incorrect, the people in the cases pay only the 1 month late fee for the year it was in court, after that it will be monthly!
no reason to comment on the rest you put 1/2 of the facts on one, what parts of the rest do we believe?
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29th, 2008 09:10 am |
|
averymatte wrote: Dorothy
So there have over 2000 Club members acting unamerican as you put it, preventing you from getting your way. Isn't that strange. They are living in the community that they chose to live in, playing in the community that they chose to play in and you have found fault in a system that you disagree with so they are to stop! Stop! Dorothy has something to say! Years a go the Board, the Club and the residents changed something! The courts ruled it was legal.
The over 2000 Club members resume their retirement lives enjoying the community and they are so unamerican, tyrants, communist and dictators!
WRONG! Again Dorothy!
Dorothy responds:
As you know, there are 2,500 owners who are unrepresented in your statement, Avery. Unrepresented therein, and in court, and on the pages of the Citizen. You have a very limited understanding of what is occuring here right under your nose.
1. There has never been (excepting Velda Rose Estates) a taking of private property in the State of Arizona, nor a prior case brought upon which a precident was established...ergo, the difficulty in resolving this matter.
The legislature will eventually act if the court fails to do so.
2. I attended a hearing on this case on Tuesday. It was a long interesting argument. Maxwell argued that since the Minute Entry in which Judge Whitten allowed the Second Amendment to remain on our deeds, The Judge has apparently had second thoughts, and has at this time decided that attorney's fees will not be awarded to the club, and that they will no longer be allowed to assess monthly late fees and accruing interest on dues.
3. That means, that the club will be allowed to collect one 15.00 fine per year. Which means of course, that the attorney's fees will not be collected and the monthy late fees will not be allowed. Leaving this marvelous board to pay out another huge legal bill next year, and the next.
4. Nancy Espinosa will have the over $5,000.00 in late fees, and attorney's fees reduced and Judge Whitten will sign a form of judgment.
5. I am convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt that if Judge Whitten decides to find that SADR is a valid document, those who have been held in court all this time, will proceed to challenge that Judgment and the outcome will be as it has been in other states where this goofy idea has been tried. ARMSTRONG v. LEDGES. 2004.
Nebraska and South Carolina...(Maybe North Carolina...I don't have that before me)
6. 40 lawsuits involving the private property of that many owners almost guarantees that the legal battle will continue to rage until the owners find a judge who will protect them in their "persons and papers and property" from these predatory lawyers, and greedy dishonest, out of control boards.
7. I was involved in another lawsuit with another Arizona HOA in Scottsdale. It took almost 4 years to resolve in favor of the owners. The legal fees incurred by the association left them bankrupt, and unable to obtain the liability insurance required by law. Their premiums went from $36,000.00 per year to over $75,000.00 for minimal coverage. When they tried to increase the dues to to pay their attorneys and insurance, the owners simply voted them out and asked the court to appoint a receiver. (This was a true association established by HUD that managed the recreational facilities, painted the houses, maintained all landscaping on the the surrounding fences and actually repaired the roofs, sidewalks, parking areas and paid for the water. )
8. ALL THIS EXPENSE AND DAMAGES TO THE OWNERS HAS OCCURRED HERE BECAUSE THE CLUB FAILED TO MAIL COPIES OF SADR TO ALL OWNERS AND TO ALLOW AN INFORMED VOTE ON THE ISSUE BY ALL THE OWNERS.
THE SENIOR OVERLAY IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
(Please try not to lapse into the "owners did it". That's a lie. I have seen the ballots cast and counted at the January 2004 meeting (which Vicki received from the court) and only the club engineered that! A true ballot was cast by only 323 members of the club under the rules in place at that meeting.) No where near 2/3 in favor, either.
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
Dorothy
So there have over 2000 Club members acting unamerican as you put it, preventing you from getting your way. Isn't that strange. They are living in the community that they chose to live in, playing in the community that they chose to play in and you have found fault in a system that you disagree with so they are to stop! Stop! Dorothy has something to say! Years a go the Board, the Club and the residents changed something! The courts ruled it was legal.
The over 2000 Club members resume their retirement lives enjoying the community and they are so unamerican, tyrants, communist and dictators!
WRONG! Again Dorothy!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28th, 2008 12:39 pm |
|
averymatte wrote: Dear Dorothy
When you apologize for the letter that you, R & C sent, that for some odd reason doesn't mention the facts you are now trying to pass off as what really happened.
The majority of the residents know the rest of the story! And your version isn't it!
The fact that you continually insist the minority should have the final say sounds like something out of the liberal left's handbook!
Avery: The "odd" reason is that what I told you was written to the Board after they misrepresented our letter of warning. They have had it for years. No one disputes that fact.
The real reason they refused to publish the corrections to their interpretation is that they must continue to lie about their motives and activities. I have nothing for which to apologize to you, or them.
We do not force people to pay tribute to help us resist. Those who so generously support us do so because they do not support your actions, and refuse to submit to the fraud you have perpetrated upon them. Considering the facts: Those who resist are forced to pay the costs incurred by the Board for lawsuits against them. Forty lawsuits are in court today. ALL of them filed by the Board against resistors. Now, what you have here is fourteen board members expelling the only representatives of opposition because they cannot afford to have the other side heard. Fourteen against three! And they still can't defend their actions.
They dare not allow our side to be represented in the Citizen.
I am not allowed to offer corrections to the Minutes, so that they may continue to misrepresent the issues before them at meetings.
How foolishly people hand their personal safety to these little bands of wanna be tyrants. Being "popular" with that bunch is not worth giving up your rights to be secure in your person and property, and your rights to free speech.
Surely you must know that once they force people to join their "social club", those people have a right to participate in meetings. If, as they say now, they can expel anyone who disagrees, then you're inviting them to violate your rights too. wake up! Dorothy7
The day they remove that fraudulent document from my deed, and all those who do not want it attached to their private domicile, is the day I stop demanding that they start behaving like Americans again.
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26th, 2008 04:29 pm |
|
Dear Dorothy
When you apologize for the letter that you, R & C sent, that for some odd reason doesn't mention the facts you are now trying to pass off as what really happened.
The majority of the residents know the rest of the story! And your version isn't it!
The fact that you continually insist the minority should have the final say sounds like something out of the liberal left's handbook!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
Dorothy7 wrote: averymatte wrote: Yes R & C
according to your letter 4/3/04 you wrote, and signed by you two and Dorothy
"After a preliminary meeting, which certain actions of solicitors, acting on behalf of the Board, issues of the Citizen, and to the matters were discussed, local representatives of this group assured us that they could sucessfully challenge the SENIOR OVERLAY, the legitimacy of the amendments to the original authorizing documents"
the senior overlay was threatened. Dorothy responds once again: Avery, dear Avery, you have quoted something correctly for a change!!! Thank you!!! THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT GROUP DID IN FACT, THREATEN TO GO AFTER THE SENIOR OVERLAY. THAT GROUP was, in fact threatening to go to court and prosecute the Board for a violation of their civil rights. THAT GROUP'S DEMANDS were as stated. They asked us to cooperate with them in turning over evidence we have, and we have refused to do so....NOW you've got it! Dorothy7
You are trotting out a worn out straw dog Avery dear. The people threatening your senior overlay was a national civil rights group...LULAC...who (can you believe it?) took offense when a solicitor told a resident Hispanic owner "if they didn't sign the petition a family of Mexicans with a houseful of kids could move in next door."
They notified concerned citizens and asked us to turn over our affidavits to that effect. We refused, and told the club so that they could discipline their solicitors before this group filed a complaint against them.
We refused to co-operate because our committee of concerned homeowners did not want to lose the senior overlay.
.This old saw has become awfully dull, and just doesn't cut it anymore...everyone knows it. It comes under the header..."No good deed goes unpunished by this club."
It might interest you to know that I personally delivered this explanation to the club and asked them to publish it to correct their interpretation of our letter...they refused to publish it then. I went to the Publisher of the Citizen...he had closed the doors and gone out of business as Global Publishing...
Now, you know the REST of the story. Will you apologize?
Dorothy7
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26th, 2008 12:41 pm |
|
AVVERRRY
FORTY YEARS AGO IT WAS TIED TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW NOW IT IS NOTHING. NO LAW. PERIOD. WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO BEAT ON THE FIFTY FIVE OVERLAY? DO YOU NEED A BRAIN TRANSPLANT?
THE FIFTY FIVE OVERLAY IS NOT A LAW !!!!!!!!!!!
R
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26th, 2008 12:35 pm |
|
R & C
Forty years ago it had the 55+ overlay and it sure helped keep it what it is today. A senior retirement community! What it was when you moved!
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 01:53 pm |
|
AVERY WHATEVER,
NOTHING HAS BEEN SETTLED IN COURT! RULING HAVE BEEN MADE ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT THE EVIDENCE, BUT HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT, THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN SOMEDAY. NO THREATS JUST THE REALITY.
THE FIFTY FIVE OVERLAY DOES NOTHING FOR THIS COMMUNITY OR HELPS ANYONE WITH THE MESS THE CLUB HAS CREATED. CALL OFF YOUR DOGS AND RESTORE OUR PROPERTY TO THE ORIGINAL AS THE FARNSWORTH'S BUILT IT OVER FORTY YEARS AGO. YOUR STRONG ARM SCARE TATICS WILL BITE YOU IN THE END.
R
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 01:00 pm |
|
So your explaination is, that they (That group) could challenge the 55+ overlay, and because of this R & C and you signed a letter demanding that the Board resign and if they did you wouldn't follow through with any legal actions!
Either the letter was poorly written (not explaining what you wanted it to say) or it was just as written! With your expertise with the written word you must not have read it before you put your signature to it!
Or it was what it implied!
You mentioned beating dead dogs! Everything that any dissident brings up weekly has been settled in court. In the tribs Vent, the Speak Out, articles by Vicki, Bill and Dorothy everyone is ranting on the procedure that they claim wasn't legal. It has been settled in the courts. It was legal, the community voiced it's opion and now the community is trying to move on! Let it move on!
Your scare tatics, the Club picks on the sick and weak is in every article you write Dorothy are outragous! The residents are obligated to go by the rules, whether age restrictions, parking RVs, weed control, zoning or paying their dues,Etc! No matter their health or physical condition! The majority of us are old and have some ailments!
Why don't we change formats? Lets think positive!
You make a list of all the positive things that the Concerned Citizens of Dreamland Villa have done for the good of the Community as a whole since 1/1/2004!
I will start a list of all of the positive things the Club has done for the Community as a whole since 1/1/2004!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 01:42 am |
|
averymatte wrote: Yes R & C
according to your letter 4/3/04 you wrote, and signed by you two and Dorothy
"After a preliminary meeting, which certain actions of solicitors, acting on behalf of the Board, issues of the Citizen, and to the matters were discussed, local representatives of this group assured us that they could sucessfully challenge the SENIOR OVERLAY, the legitimacy of the amendments to the original authorizing documents"
the senior overlay was threatened.
You are trotting out a worn out straw dog Avery dear. The people threatening your senior overlay was a national civil rights group...LULAC...who (can you believe it?) took offense when a solicitor told a resident Hispanic owner "if they didn't sign the petition a family of Mexicans with a houseful of kids could move in next door."
They notified concerned citizens and asked us to turn over our affidavits to that effect. We refused, and told the club so that they could discipline their solicitors before this group filed a complaint against them.
We refused to co-operate because our committee of concerned homeowners did not want to lose the senior overlay.
.This old saw has become awfully dull, and just doesn't cut it anymore...everyone knows it. It comes under the header..."No good deed goes unpunished by this club."
It might interest you to know that I personally delivered this explanation to the club and asked them to publish it to correct their interpretation of our letter...they refused to publish it then. I went to the Publisher of the Citizen...he had closed the doors and gone out of business as Global Publishing...
Now, you know the REST of the story. Will you apologize?
Dorothy7
Last edited on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 01:47 am by Dorothy7
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 10:53 pm |
|
Yes R & C
according to your letter 4/3/04 you wrote, and signed by you two and Dorothy
"After a preliminary meeting, which certain actions of solicitors, acting on behalf of the Board, issues of the Citizen, and to the matters were discussed, local representatives of this group assured us that they could sucessfully challenge the SENIOR OVERLAY, the legitimacy of the amendments to the original authorizing documents"
the senior overlay was threatened.
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
YES AAVERYYRYMATTEY,
AND IT WAS A COMPLETE AND HONEST VOTE RIGHT ? DO YOU WANT AN HOA OR NOT ? RIGHT? NOTHING DEVIOUS LIKE SIGN THE CLIP BOARD TO SUPPORT THE CLUB AND THE FIFTY FIVE OVERLAY AND EVERYONE WHO SIGNED YOUR CLIPBOARDS KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING FOR , RIGH T???
WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!\
R
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 11:57 am |
|
R & C
you wrote " GUESS HE (Avery) DOESN'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS BUT TO POST THE SAME TIRED MESSAGE MANY TIMES"
I made a statement and asked a question, which you didn't answer!
59% of the residents in the voluntary sections paid their 2008 dues, do you think they may find Dreamland a great place to live?
Here is another statement;
According to the law, Only the majority of residents of Dreamland could make changes to the existing CC&R's that made membership into the Club mandatory! They did. Your group challenged it! The court ruled that it was legal and binding!
I am sure the court was made aware of all of the accusations that your group has and still repeats (same and tired accusations)! And yet it was decided in favor of the Community!
Yes! There is an old and tired fact, which many people have forgotten! Rule by the majority!
Someone called into the Indepentent, 50%+1 should may be 80%+1.
If it was and they didn't get what they wanted they would want it to be 90%+1! They want the rules changed after the fact!
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21st, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
DID YOU NOTICE THE DUCK AND WEAVE OF OUR FRIEND AVVERYMTTAY? GUESS HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY ANSWERS BUT TO POST THE SAME TIRED MESSAGE MANY TIMES
R
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 11:41 am |
|
| I wonder what the fact "59% of the non mandatory sections residents paid their 2008 dues means." ? Wow! It must mean that people move to and live in Dreamland Villa because it is a great place to live. It could mean the neighbors and area is what they want. Can you imagine that! People enjoying a 55+ community with all of the facilities, friendly people, close to all the medical faclities, shopping centers, etc! Has everything a person needs.
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 04:50 am |
|
Gee, Old Averymatty reached way down in his treasure chest for that letter ! Brings back old memories, Like the January 2004 meeting where hundred were sent home and not allowed to vote. Remember that one? Wonder where Mrs Ullman was that day? Hope she didn't miss that great example of democracy.
Bingo, pot lucks and fifty five overlay, now that makes for a happy Nightmare Villa community
R
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 03:50 am |
|
readers
Word for word a letter sent to the Dreamland board of directors, signed 4/3/2004
From:
Concerned Citizens of Dreamland Villa
To: Dreamland Villa Community Club Board of Directors.
This past week, we were contacted by a national public interest organization that has offered both legal and monrtary help in our efforts to compel this Board, and the two past Boards, to cease and desist in its unlawful efforts to force all homeowners in Dreamland to become part of an HOA, a voluntary corporation, and a voluntary club.
After a preliminary meeting, which certain actions of solicitors, acting on behalf of the Board, issues of the Citizen, and tothe matters were discussed, local representatives of this group assured us that they could sucessfully challenge the SENIOR OVERLAY, the legitimacy of the amendments to the original authorizing documents, and prosecute Board members and officers for engaginginan unlawful conspiracy to attach false documents to the Deeds of Dreamland homeowners, and other unlawful acts in violation of State and Federal Statutes and Acts.
As homeowners, we have no desire to inflict injury on Dreamland, or those of our neighbors who wish to become members of your club, but we apparently have more that sufficient legal grounds to do so, and will proceed unless we recieve written assurances from the Board within seven (7) days, that they will voluntarily strike the documents that have been filed on Dreamland Deeds against wishes of the homeowners, and return any moneys collected through coercion or other unlawful means.
In addition. we are demanding that this board resign immediately, and without prior conditions, in exchange for which we shall agree not to prosecute.
With regret.
Concerned Citizens of Dreamland Villa
Ron Ehininger, President CCDV Caty Ehninger, Vice President, CCDV
Dororthy D Jones, Secretary This 3 rd day of April, 2004
This letter was sent to the Board
When people heard that the senior overlay was threatened, It sure was in this letter. If they heard the pools were in danger, they were! The Club maintains the overlay ( working with the County ) and the facilities. A small group of dissidents could care less if all of this was lost and the area known as Dreamland Villa was listed as another retirement community gone under!
To Many Residents care and it won't happened CCDV!
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
AVERY WHATEVER,
DOROTHY SENT YOU A VALENTINE. TOO BAD YOU CAN'T READ OR IS IT UNDERSTAND ? YOU ARE SPREADING SO MUCH BULL AROUND IT IS HARD TO FOLLOW ANY LOGIC YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD. CLEAN IT UP IF YOU CAN.
R&C
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19th, 2008 02:13 pm |
|
averymatte wrote: with months and months of articles in the Citizen, with CC&R's available, with forms published to withdraw signatures published in the citizen and you say it was a secret! and you forget the word of mouth that goes through the community faster than the speed of light. Secret, No Way! You, dear Avery, have not re=read the minutes and articles in the Citizen beginning in October 2002, and ending today...Let me see, you say the club has discovered recently that 59% of voluntary members have paid their dues?
Yeah, right! I notice too that the less than half notice went unreported. It is nonetheless true...I'll believe the current figure when I'm allowed to verify it with names and membership numbers. Where shall I begin? "We will keep our Constitution and Bylaws"? The Citizen reported just that! Or, is it the years prior to the January 13, 2004 meeting in which they failed to mention HOA, liens, foreclosure and evictions? Or all the months in which they told the signatories that they were signing to "save the senior overlay"? Could it have been when I witnessed a man come into the office asking for a copy of the so-called "New CC&Rs" being told that they would have to mail them to him because they had only one copy? by Howard Zimmerman, President. Was SADR "available by mail if you asked for it? Since most of us did not know it existed, that would have constituted a deliberate deception, wouldn't it?
A fraud is a fraud is a fraud. This whole exercise has been based on the fact that the board chose to pay a lawyer instead of sending copies of the proposed Second Amended Declaration of Restrictions (SADR) to each and every owner to sign, or not to sign. They had money to pay a lawyer, but a mailing was too costly? Yeah, right! again. All the deceit obfuscation and outright lying has been proactively practiced by the club.
Including your statements of lack of "secrecy" based on some figment of your imagination regarding the "word spreading". If Ron Ehninger had not found SADR attached to his deed in 2003, we would not have known anything about it. I live less than a block from Read Hall. I was never solicited. All of my neighbors on this street were solicited. They selected their victims and failed to record the "No" votes at all! Give us a break Avery...I understand there is still proceedings in the case you quote, so let's see what the Judge is doing now before spreading the word. Have you ever heard of Appealing a verdict? The board had an affirmative obligation to send copies of SADR to every homeowner period. They chose not to do so, and have so far paid out thousands of dollars in attorney's fees for that failure. Dorothy
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 10:17 pm |
|
| with months and months of articles in the Citizen, with CC&R's available, with forms published to withdraw signatures published in the citizen and you say it was a secret! and you forget the word of mouth that goes through the community faster than the speed of light. Secret, No Way!
|
Superstition Mountain Man
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 02:59 pm |
|
averymatte wrote: The deciet and distortions her group ( the Concerned Citizens) come up with are amazing. Now the new group they have organized ( Dreamland Property Rights. INC ) has a name that is just as decieving!
Deceit and Distortion is..........
..........Deliberately keeping secret from DV residents the fact that their signatures (collected by DVCC Board Members) would result in recorded (Maricopa County) deed restrictions on their properties.
NOW THAT'S DECEIT AND DISTORTION!
Last edited on Thu Feb 14th, 2008 07:42 pm by Superstition Mountain Man
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 12:32 pm |
|
readers
Dorothy7 wrote
"Surely there is surely a special corner in Hell for those Board members who have proven that they are willing to kill for $200.00 or less.
This has been her attitude with everything the Board of Directors of Club has done that she disagrees with. The deciet and distortions her group ( the Concerned Citizens) come up with are amazing. Now the new group they have organized ( Dreamland Property Rights. INC ) has a name that is just as decieving! The fliers they threw in everyones driveways caused many to think that they were from the communty Club.
Once again for the information of the Truth Seekers reading the site! The majority of Dreamland Villa residents approved Mandatory Membership NOT THE CLUB as continually claimed by the dissidents. The court has ruled that it was legal and binding!
Dorothy, FYI at the last board meeting it was reported that 59% of the residents in the NON MANDATORY sections came in and paid their dues for the year.
59% of your neighbors in the NON MANDATORY sections paid the dues to be part of their great community!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 11:51 am |
|
Dear Avery; I'm sorry that I have neglected this site for so long...Flu' bug got me and my family...This is a really scarey virus...Thank God my mother hasn't had it....
Now, dear lefty I really tire of repeating the same thing over and over...
Neither side won the first case. It was a simple matter of discovering whether the club was was a HOA, a voluntary non-profit corp., or a planned community.
The club was represented by a law firm retained by their insurance company...Carpenter and Hazelwood. They claimed that the club was a simple AZ corporation, and that in order to sue an AZ corporation, the statutes required that the Plaintiffs be members of that corporation/club. That is it.
No fees were awarded and the Judge decided that we needed club members as plaintiffs.
Case # 2. Vicki, filing alone. No attorney, prevailed. She now has the ballots, proxies and signatures she had been asking to review since February '04, and the Judge decided she was entitled to have. (She agreed to a dismissal when the club offered to "eat its fees" and turn over the documents.) She had no attorney's fees to ask for.
Case#3. 40 cases filed by the club against homeowners. That Judge has filed two Minute Entries as of this morning...Motions are still flying according to the Superior Court site on the intrernet...whether this case will go to appeal will be determined when the matters still at issue are resolved. I am convinced that ultimately the homeowner's will win this case, and the club will go broke paying their lawyer.
Now, we come to Pete Espinosa.
Like Mr. Nelms, Pete's widow is facing foreclosure. A week ago Sunday, Pete died.
He was suffering from kidney failure when he received a Summons on December 13, 2006 from the dear old club demanding penalties and interest on dues he did not owe.
He soldiered along trying to defend himself as his body was driven to a state of collapse by the stress that the threats and harassment of this Board and their attorney created, but that didn't stop them.
Surely there is surely a special corner in Hell for those Board members who have proven that they are willing to kill for $200.00 or less. God Bless Nancy and keep her safe. Dorothy
Cas
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 19th, 2008 08:35 am |
|
averymatte wrote: Dorothy
You are saying the Judge does no research, the one decision I read was based on another case so he must have researched something!
If it is up to the lawyers, one must be better than the other to win 3 decisions.
If it is up to the Defendants and Plaintiffs then one must have done more research to win 3 decisions!
Or could it be the fact that the court could find no fault with the way the issue was handled by the Club! dorothy7 responds: The citation of a precedent was provided by one of the attorneys, in a motion or response to a motion, Avery. Duh! You want a citation? Here it is: Please try to follow the logic of these rulings...they quote almost exactly DVCC set of "New CC&Rs"aka SADR. ARMSTRONG V. LEDGES No. 640PA05. (filed 18 August, 2006 by the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina)
We determine that the Association's amendment to the Declaration which authorizes broad assessments
"for the general purposes of promoting the safety, recreation, health, common benefit, and enjoyment of the residents of Lots in the Ledges as may be more specifically authorized from time to time by the Board"
Is unreasonable.
The Amendment grants the Association practically unlimited power to assess lot owners and is contrary to the original intent of the covenanting parties.
(Note: Avery this clearly states that the "covenanting parties" (buyer and seller) had not intended to submit to this kind of amendment being added to their original declarations.)
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the disputed amendment is invalid and unenforcable. In so doing we echo the rationale of the Supreme Court of Nebraska in Boyles v. Hausmann, 246. Neb. (1994)
The Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska ruled that:
"The law will not subject a minority of landowners to unlimited and unexpected restrictions on the use of their land merely because the convenant agreement permitted a majority to change existing covenants."
The Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina added:
Here, petitioners purchased their lots without notice that they would be subjected to additional restrictions on the lots and subjected to additional restrictions on the use of the lots and responsible for additional affirmative monetary obligations imposed by a homeowners association.
This Court will not permit the Association to use the Declaration's amendment provision as a vehicle for imposing a new obligation for the original bargain of the covenanting parties."
Now, Avery try to follow the logic in the State Supreme Courts of two states within the boundaries of the United States...
These are higher courts than any State's Superior, or Appelate Court...
The logic is impeccable. Think about it. Dorothy7.
Finally, Avery. The Board's attorney in the first case filed was not the attorney of record. They were Carpenter and Hazlewood hired by the Board's insurance company. That case was never heard. Only a decision on Standing was made. The underlying complaint was not heard, or decided. The second, filed by Vicki Wirtz was concluded in her favor. She has the ballots, proxies and signatures filed as votes in the January 13, 2004 meeting for which she filed suit against the club after having pleaded with them to comply with the statutes for over two years! She won, the club lost, and no attorney's fees were awarded. The third is only part way through the system. Stay tuned. So far, the club has paid out over 77 thousand dollars...to collect less than 200.00 per lot. Do you regard that as a win for anyone other than the attorneys? Dorothy7.
Last edited on Sat Jan 19th, 2008 08:37 am by Dorothy7
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
Dorothy
I admire your courage and honesty in trying to convince Avery whatever about the outcome of things in Nightmare Villa. Alas and Absalyon, no convincing someone who thinks that everything the club does, has done or will do, is just allright and fine and dandy. It is ok to make membership in their club mandatory by devious means at best, it is ok to rig elections, it is ok to shout people down and control all that goes on in the open meetings. Now that is a joke! Open to the good old boys and girls not the rest of us. Have you been over to the club office lately ? Another big joke, they can't even get out the bills to the ones that owe 2008 dues, oh guess that is the ones who have their names highlighted with a yellow hi liter. Go figure. But you are very correct, the course has been set and the DVCC is doomed. Just a matter of time. They can't begin to force all people to knuckle in to their stupid demands. Time will tell.
R
|
Ron & Cathy Ehninger
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 733 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
Dorothy
I admire your courage and honesty in trying to convince Avery whatever about the outcome of things in Nightmare Villa. Alas and Absalyon, no convincing someone who thinks that everything the club does, has done or will do, is just allright and fine and dandy. It is ok to make membership in their club mandatory by devious means at best, it is ok to rig elections, it is ok to shout people down and control all that goes on in the open meetings. Now that is a joke! Open to the good old boys and girls not the rest of us. Have you been over to the club office lately ? Another big joke, they can't even get out the bills to the ones that owe 2008 dues, oh guess that is the ones who have their names highlighted with a yellow hi liter. Go figure. But you are very correct, the course has been set and the DVCC is doomed. Just a matter of time. They can't begin to force all people to knuckle in to their stupid demands. Time will tell.
R
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 10:55 pm |
|
Dorothy
You are saying the Judge does no research, the one decision I read was based on another case so he must have researched something!
If it is up to the lawyers, one must be better than the other to win 3 decisions.
If it is up to the Defendants and Plaintiffs then one must have done more research to win 3 decisions!
Or could it be the fact that the court could find no fault with the way the issue was handled by the Club!
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 10:30 pm |
|
Do you want answers? The Judge does no research...the attorneys and Plaintiffs and Defendants do it. Where, on the header of the petition does it say Mandatory Membership? Where on the that petition does it say HOA? Liens, foreclosure, fines, interest and selling your property at sheriff's auction? Where does it say these will be attached to your deed? Exactly how many months after the petitions were filed did you decide the letters HOA would be used?
Need I go on? All that would have been required was for the board to mail out copies of the so-called "contract", ask the owners to sign and return. Why bother with the canvassing selected owners?
Tell me how one can approve a contract they have never seen? Hmmm??? No, dear Avery, you do not seek answers, only excuses for hiring an attorney without the approval of a majority of members...casting signatures as votes when it is impossible for the owners who signed to know the terms of the amendments you are asking them to approve. Those amendments did not exist. Why weren't the non-club members allowed to see the "New CC&Rs" before they were attached to their deeds without their knowledge or consent?
No, I don't believe the issue is settled, and attorneys on both sides will ultimatley be the ones who prosper while all of us in DV pay for the board's lawsuits against their neighbors. How sad. How very sad. When will you ever learn? Dorothy7.
P.S.As I cautioned you many times...a voluntary board of the untrained and unlettered are no match for the game in which they are now players...with no way to get off the field. Lying won't work forever...too many people know...sueing owners won't work, many can't pay even if they wanted to. Killing these old, fragile people with stress won't work...you still won't get paid, and you'll begin to receive wrongful death suits which will delight your lawyer, and destitute the rest of us...even the club. Think about it. Dorothy7
|
averymatte
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 123 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 12:17 pm |
|
Dorothy
You wrote " I do not believe that a majority of owners voted to become an HOA...and I can prove it. Dorothy7.
If this is true why is it taking years to settle the issue at great expense to your neighbors community. Or is that your plan? By the way the owners approved the issue they, didn't vote. They were approached in person and they approved Mandatory Membership so as all would be contributing to supporting the community!
As to your comments about majority votes. When there are 3 parties running more than likely a majority vote won't be recieved. As you know with apathy rampant most issues are decided by a minority. Which wouldn't work in Dreamland because a definite majority was needed.
Your attack on Maxwell is unwarranted also. There are 2 lawyers involved, both making a living doing what they do. Does that make the one you disagree with a SHARK and the other a minnow? As far as decisions isn't there months of research by the Judges' staff before they are made?
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 588 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18th, 2008 10:31 am |
|
Avery: Sorry to bend your ear twice, but I failed to describe the limitations on the majority in this country..based mostly on the assumption that everyone our age understood that we are not:
1. An Athenian democracy. We are a representive republic.
2. As such, it follows that we are always governed by a small minority of our fellow citizens.
3. President Kennedy failed to garner a majority of all votes cast...
4. Bill Clinton did not get a majority of votes cast in either of his terms.
5. President Bush did not get a clear majority of votes cast in his first term either.
6. I repeat, the will of the majority has never been guaranteed, and is never allowed to violate the rights of the minority. Never.
P.S. I do not believe that a majority of owners voted to become an HOA...and I can prove it. Dorothy7.
|
Dorothy7
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 58 | | | |