Agent to file a RESTRAINING ORDER!!!

Pretty simple. You need a lawyer to fight it.

In the future, post to facebook and blogs anonymously so you dont get sued. Use public wifi connections. They cant sue you if they dont know who you are.

1. In the US you can sue a ham sandwich for not having enough mayonnaise. I suppose you can also ask for a restraining order against mayonnaise insufficiency. Asking is not getting.

2. The "agent" believes that you either have made, or will make defamatory, etc. statements. The judge may or may not agree. Defamation is NOT protected speech.

Dorie,

Obviously there is/was something on that page which made your Association pay attention to it. Based on what you posted, I suspect that the Association sees it as something negative in nature and is concerned that this negative message may impact sales in the development. If enough sales are impacted, this may reduce property values.

I am not an attorney and I do not work within the legal profession.

Freedom of speech is limited to the public good. Best example, you do not have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. If you do, you would likely be held responsible for any injuries and damages caused by the panic which would be a direct result of your decision to yell "Fire."

Anyone who publishes their written opinions must be concerned about
libel. This is why many forums, have rules on posting. Typically, the best defense for libel is the truth and/or independently verifiable documentation of the basis of that opinion.

Irregardless of who is right or wrong, legal battles cost time, energy and money. Sometimes, this is the whole goal of the legal battle - to cost one party enough time, energy and money that the comply with the requests of the other party. Sometimes the legal battle is about principal and to heck with how much time, energy and money it takes.

Unfortunately the decision to enter into a legal battle can only be made by you. This is because it's you who will be spending the time, money and energy and dealing with any unintended consequences brought about by the legal battle.

Had you approached this forum about ways to address various issues prior to a legal battle being launched, you would have gotten tons of good advice on how to resolve the issue. Since this issue has already gotten to the legal stage the best advice I can offer is:

1) FIND AN ATTORNEY to identify your legal options.

There is typically a clock running on when replies must be made. Therefore, you can't wait as you could lose available options if the clock runs out.

2) You may want to contact the TN ACLU chapter to see if they will take the case on your behalf. I suspect that their decision will depend on the actual specifics of the case. DO this in addition to Step one as you may not be able to wait for their decision - remember the clock is ticking.

3) I would strongly advice against posting any specifics about your case, the address of your website or issues involved until you have gotten legal advice. This is because anything you post can (and likely will) be used against you if it can be.

Hope this helps,

Tim

Thanks Tim. I posted last year about all of the happenings and I decided to launch a page and a public page on facebook for the members of my HOA following the property managment company inviting all the members to check them out on facebook in our news letter last spring. Because our yards look so terrible (the only responsiblity of our HOA), we started posting pictures and facts on the pages and interest/support has grown. I have been hated by this property managment company since last June as I acquired 30 signatures out of 90 owners in a two week period to propose an annual dues reduction by one third that the property managment company of course smugly dismissed in an effort to embarrass me...which didn't work. Check the pages out when you have a chance. I am going to contact the TN ACLU as well as consult with some attorneys. Thanks.

Anyone heard of such a measure?

Sure, a Colorado HOA took a woman to court to silence her incessant tirades against them, won then had most of the case reversed on appeal. However in the mean time she lost her husband of 27 years and her health failed.

Another anti-hoa website was ordered closed and the domain turned over to the lawyers who sued them.

Remember truth is the only viable defense, if you call them thieves, you had better have iron clad proof that they are indeed thieves.

I would love to but you have not provided much of a link. Would you please post the full URL for each site? (That's the part that starts with "http://") I can never find a damn thing on Facebook otherwise.

Agreed. It's all truth.

Interesting...I need to check that out.

Dorie:
This is a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) and your association will lose. SLAPP suits are brought to burden people who speak out with legal fees so they abandon their efforts to seek justice. I hope you have Personal Liability Insurance as this insurance will pay your legal expenses. A woman here in Maryland who filed complaints against her board's secret meetings was sued by the association for millions of dollars and the judge threw the suit out saying it violated her first amendment rights. Fortunately she had personal liability insurance to pay for her defense.
I recommend anyone who plans to speak out against their association to get liability insurance first.
Also, if you are sued, you should consider counter-suiting your association for violation of your first amendment rights.
Jeanne

John,

Thanks for your perspective and your suggestion. Your post ties in an important point about "what is" property value.

The use of the words harm, tirade, and admire in your post suggest that the initial post in this thread might actually be personal for you?

I understand there is research to support the nose dive of property values when murders occur and are broadcast in the media but then again your writing tone carries an assumption that my efforts are solely rooted in the soil intended to reap "damage" towards others and for the sake of damage alone, which is a rather narrow view point.

Do you have research to support that judicial restraint of discussion on and off line about matters within a subdivision met with a possible strong response through the ACLU is in fact damaging to property values or are you simply taking the time to vent feelings of fear and anger "undercover"?

It's a fair question John.

On the other side of this coin, the "effort to do all within their power" is pattern driven utilization of the legal system and at a nasty and unnecessary cost for my HOA, that could more than likely wind up in the hands of the ACLU if I am restrained from exercising one of my civil liberties in and outside of my modest income neighborhood.

This effort is a way to bring the members to a central meeting point at their mostly cost free convenience and also contributes to the effort of bringing about change for the purpose of driving our HOA funds towards our primary expense which is yard care over finance legal fees tucked into operational expenses that serves as masking tape to cover up the harrassment, intimidation tactics, bullying, demands for money over matters with no legal basis for bearing the title of "violation" whatsoever.

When coming home begins to feel troubling and for many, the idea that property values are a superior objective is exhalting money over the atmosphere of feeling like you are coming home instead of to a war zone because the leadership is operating without the actual ability to lead its members.

I appreciate your candor John and in turn I hope you can appreciate mine. It is helpful to acquire various views and I extend my apologies if this thread "hits home" for you as this was not my intention.

"The only way for evil to flourish perfectly, is for an imperfect people to do absolutely nothing."

Dorie

Excellent advice Jeanne. Thank you! And it is the agent for my HOA that is making the effort to restrain me.

Yes. Give me an e-mail address for you and I'll ask her contact you.
Jeanne

Dorie:

I looked at the first Facebook page and found nothing on it that I would consider actionable. It looks to me at first glance like it is all protected by the First Amendment. An HOA has no legal right to prevent its members from criticizing its actions or its officers. Those employed by or contracted by the HOA likewise have no right to immunity from criticism.

An HOA is a public body and its officers are public persons within the context of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), wherein the US Supreme Court held that a public person or body has no recourse against those who speak against it unless the statements were both knowingly false and made with a malicious intent.

From the Facebook page it looks like the HOA and management company sent you a draft copy of a threatened lawsuit. This is saber rattling at its finest. I myself have drafted many lawsuits that I never filed. Sending a draft copy of a lawsuit to the proposed defendant initially gets their attention but has the unintended consequence of saying that I am not yet willing to fund a full-blown lawsuit. Nevertheless, I would suggest that you seek advice from an attorney and be prepared to defend yourself.

Just a guess, but the HOA and management company will likely have to shell out about ten grand just to get this case started and there is no upper limit to what they can spend. Insurance does not pay for this. While some residents of your HOA will not care at first, the more of their assessments that is spent on this lawsuit means the BOD is going to start taking heat. The costs of a lawsuit must be borne by only 90 homes, so each homeowner is going to have to decide whether to pay special assessments or vote to recall the board. The BOD may win the battle but they will not win the war.

Larry,

Your post made my afternoon.

Thanks!

Lining my rubber duckies up in a row as I post!

Shoot me an email and I will keep you posted.

Dorie

That's why I am getting my ducks in a row before the process begins if it does at all.

Dorie

I cannot back what I said with any hard/scientific facts nor can you so lets us not use that excuse.

I can say that when looking to buy/sell, I search the Internet with a microscope thus anything "said" gets paid attention to. Weighted as to validity yes, but all gets paid attention to.

Were I trying to sell a unit in an association and/or charged with maintaining the value of an association and I "felt/believed" a site/person was harming me/us, I would write a polite letter asking them to stop. Then I would be prepared to SLAPP suit them in a NY Minute. I would also encourage any others in the same position to do so even if my suit failed. Keep SLAPPing them would be my advice.

Now if you feel you have the time and money to defend such suits, feel free. Have at it.

PS

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU (and have been for many, many years) so do not throw them in my face. I can pretty well assure you that my experience with them says they will want nothing to do with your personal vendetta. Please, I encourage you. Contact them and let us know their reply.

www.aclu.org

J,

By all means, if you must convert a feeling into a fact and dismiss the importance of research driven support, civil liberty enables you to do so, both on and off line despite the fact that your feelings narrow your ability to present yourself objectively.

Good for you and your microscopic search related practices when looking to buy or when looking to sell.

Certainly your "advice" is sought by many and acted upon by everyone. Our judicial system no doubt appreciates you.

Thank you for asking if I have the proper resources to defend myself and let's not forget that the question has not been presented in writing by you as caution, but one of warning, which is telling and almost stalkerish.

I guess you will just have to check the facebook pages to see what happens over the next decade or three since you are clearly committed to a hard line drawn on the pavement of ridicule.

Excuse the yards, they look awful and provide the largely consistant visual of what does not improve the value of the property by 5% to 11% according to a report based on study findings released by Virginia Tech University.

Your need to hint about your age, assumption that the ACLU is somehow being thrown in YOUR face, along with your confidence that you understand how the ACLU automatically dismisses what YOU deem to be a personal vendetta, serves to confirm just how "close to home" this thread must be for you compared to the posts of others which carry opinions, helpful information and objectivity.

If you want to know the status of a filed complaint with the ACLU, as a card carrying member of the ACLU for many, many years, I'm sure you can get the "inside scoop" on your own for the purpose of updating yourself and your "crew" on the status.

Have at it.

Dorie

Dorie:

The final claim in the draft complaint is that you intentionally interfered with contractual relations. I did some quick research and found that there are generally six elements that must exist for the plaintiff to prevail. These elements are listed below along with my observations.

The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.

You have that element as there is a contract between the HOA and R Management.

Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.

You have that element as you know there is a contract between the HOA and R Management.

Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.

That element does not exist. In your website you complained that R Management was not performing its contractual obligations to the HOA I do not recall seeing any explicit language asking the HOA to end its contract with R Management.

Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.

You are a member of the HOA, you have an indisputable interest in all HOA contracts, you are one of the beneficiaries of the contract, and you have standing to urge the HOA to terminate the contract with R Management with or without cause.

The contractual relationship is breached.

No breach has occurred; R Management and the HOA are still in a contractual relationship.

Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

R Management has suffered no damages as no breach of contract has occurred.

Bottom line: they ain’t got no case for intentional interference with contractual relations.

Thank you! The bottom line was a sporty sorta chuckle for me. : )

So basically this long "love affair" between the property management company and this appointed board actually works against the property management companies ability to prove that they've been damaged because this appointed board would have to terminate them on the grounds of cow tailing to "me" which means that the appointed board would loose their ability to subject the members to their demands through the property management company in exchange for what appears to be a liberal allowance of increased expenses submitted by the property management company to our hoa when ccontrasted against annual budget projections.

I am now of the impression that the threats made towards me personally, to subject me to a possible restraining order might be exactly what has been needed to prove that there is a combined objective between the appointed board and property management company to run me out of the dwelling place I have called home for a decade.

Or further proof for continued harassment, disguised as legal recourse, as a form of punishment for taking a firm stand about the truth, which when presented by me, isn't subject to all the clever ways its been covered up over the past few years, despite its cost.

Bottom Line: They game ain't tight.

Dorie:
Just some additional information. In the SLAPP suit situation I described the SLAPP suit was thrown out "with prejudice" which is a legal term to say they can't sue for the same thing again.
Jeanne

That's exactly what I did last year.

I have our file from the state from start (2001) to "finish" and what I discovered was very concerning.

A handful of homeowners and a property management company appeared to have conspired to take over our hoa without the knowledge of the legally recognized board and agent in 08.

I make this document driven assertion based on a comparison of state records and actual hoa records I had to fight tooth and nail to acquire as they did everything they could think of to make the process costly and miserable.

This information only confirmed reason for fiduciary doubt that crept into my neighborhood in the first quarter of 2011 but was only a feeling based on happenings that were bizaar and with a paper trail no less.

The amendment would not show up on state records until six months after the takeoverit occurred.

I understand that Tn Non Profit Corp Act is the authority when bylaws are not drawn, which is also not a requirement in Tennessee.

Also, it appears that Az is like Tn based on you description.

The documents on local and state level are not a match for 08.

I would agree with your perspective John had many of my neighbors and I not mostly silently shouldered a perhaps ongoing breach of fidiciary duty by our appointed board and perhaps the aiding and abetting of the agent for our hoa to facilitate various breaches of the appointed board members fudiciary duties.

As members, we have the right to present fudiciary doubt considering the selective enforcement of our Restrictive Covenants along with the harrassment from appointed board members through the assistance of the agent for the HOA.

Ultimately, the appropriate resolution for my neighbors and myself is that an agreement is reached or a judicial order is issued to suspend the ability for fudiciary breach of duties to continue.

There has been quite a bit of damage to members in my neighborhood and you can ridicule the voice for the members all you want, just like the appointed president of my hoa does...a typical tactic of a coward.

Individuals such as yourself would not understand the value of courage if it were to fall into your lap, straight out of the sky in $100.00 bills.

Your participation in this forum is "TROLL" equivilant.

Dorie,since you don't seem to like advice contrary to what you want to read and flame those posters, I expect you will react negatively to my post as well.

We can't help you, we can commensurate with the things you think are happening but none of us are going to drive to Tn (except maybe me since my son lives in Murfreesboro) to fight your battles for you. That is going to require you and your neighbors banding together to change things. If the Board is not acting in a proper manor - recall them but someone is going to have to be willing to step-up and serve in their place. If the MC (who acts at the direction of the BOD) is out of line then the new board can replace them. Of course this will require something more than baying at the moon at how unfair HOA's are; it will require actual work.

Well said.

"We can't help you." If I had comprehended this statement to be the basis for the poster who has only responded antagonisticly, and all but directly alleged that my intentions are self serving and wasteful, then I would have completely ignored the antagonistic posters assertions and will do so in going forward.

My purpose has been to acquire additional information based on the perspectives and opinions of others and not to become a target for antagonisim or to present information that is intended to be annoying to the reader to incite antagonism.

If a poster cannot help another poster, then creating a quarrel for the sake of sport alone (not implying you Glen), is a bit wasteful and self serving from my perspective.