Failure of Attorney General to Intervene

Despite having legal jurisdiction and a published mandate to do so, the California Attorney General has a policy against intervention respecting HOA violations of law.

I am working to get this discrepancy brought to a head and would like any examples of the CAG refusing to respond/intervene in any area in which she has jurisdiction.

The main problem with HOA's is membership apathy and dismissive attitudes toward complaints and infractions; the attitude that laws are mere suggestions on etiquette.

One of the classic actions by the board was to appoint me to the board and the office of treasurer. When I tried to review financial documents, however, I was told that the board had assigned such functions to the management company and all such documents were "privileged" so I could not review them.

In California you can seek limited injunctive relief in small claims court; the two main areas are election irregularities (the judge can void them) and document access violations. There is a current court case respecting both of these issues.

You assumed that the particular matter that prompted my actions were minimal; in fact they include election fraud, embezzlement and possibly other criminal behavior. The CAG has jurisdiction, but the only action she will take is to send a copy of a complaint to the association. They say that criminal action should be referred to the DA or police. Unfortunately, neither the DA or police will take action without proof which is not available since they deny access to documents.

The reason HOA's get away with as much as they do is because people refuse to do anything about it. That's bad enough, but then the same people dismiss those of us that try to get something accomplished.

My request was for those that are having problems in which the CAG has failed to respond to contact me; with enough examples we can get something done.

Defeatist attitudes are not helpful.......except to the CAG and unethical HOA's.

Here is more info on a Directors right to inspect:

http://www.davis-stirling.com/tabid/1581/Default.aspx#axzz36XDyzG5z

I have no experience with the CAG and have been on my board for 7-1/2 years. You might poke around davis-stirling.com for more insights.

Kerry ... Another notch for living outside a HOA. I feel for Carlos and I know he feels very alone. Certainly Carlos if you have solid evidence of embezzlement run don't walk to either the police or an attorney. I know what you are dealing with. My Board isn't as bad as yours, but I've seen and heard horrible things and do not trust them.

My early career was in banking... I knew two men and one woman who embezzled ... One got eight yrs and he embezzled from the company he worked for. He was next in line to the owner. He lived in a home beside the company owner, embezzled. $800k . He was very well respected in a small community. The next worked as a State Accountant, managed to get about $60k, committed suicide minutes before being caught. The third was the receptionist for a doctor, she got about $5k and one yr. These people all had personalities that fooled people for yrs. Banking taught me to be suspicious of all people. I know that Melissa is steering you wrong when she says it happens to everyone in the community. A lot of Board members use their position for revenge.

Well Carlos, you seem determined to take action through the courts vs. trying to get the apathetic to become involved. Yes, they might not be able to sit on the Board due to the residency requirement. However, they could appoint you their proxy and you could control the vote.

I prefer to try and fix things at the lowest possible level. To me, that would be by gathering proxies or (if you vote by mail) at least informing the non-resident owners of the issues.

However, just because our two methods are different, you are trying to fix what problems you see within your Association. I wish you luck.

The last time I checked a HOA run by owners means the board members are members/owners too. Maybe my logic here is so wrong that someone running strictly for "revenge" or their own agendas got there because someone or many voted for them. The apathy of the Homeowners is the direct result of who and how your HOA is run. So to say someone is NOT for homeowners rights and yet never attends a meeting, runs for a board position, nor participates in their HOA is the one NOT applying their HOMEOWNERS RIGHTS. I think my becoming President and improving my HOA by incorporating the rules properly shows exactly how much I support the rights of my fellow homeowners. Not one lawsuit ever filed against us.

You constantly post things like I am a bully or not empathetic to HO's feelings or made up rights. Why because I post the REALITY not fantasy? Everyone complains my pointing out that "suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors". Like that is some kind unsympathetic statement or not to sue. Statements of which are to the contrary. I worry about that neighbor who is on social security who can not afford their dues. I worry about that single mother who left an abusive relationship with 3 kids. I worry about your own cause for pursuing a lawsuit.

When you choose to sue your HOA you are suing every one of your members/neighbors/fellow homeowner. If the issue is that grievous and beyond approach, then more than you should be experiencing it. If that is the case then you should have a majority of owners that feel the same way. Well with a majority of voters, then one can rally a board recall. One can also change the rules. ALL of which is expressing your HOMEOWNERS RIGHTS according to your contract. Plus none of which takes a lawyer to do. It just takes you willing to do thework.

So say I am not for homeowners rights when I clearly state in my advice the built in rights an owner has written IN their documents, has no clue what they are talking about based in reality. Constitutional rights? Please... Thats just bully emotional hostage talk that I will not fall for nor support. Show me where any HOA document does not state a majority runs the HOA by such a vote by owners applying their rights?

Tim ... I agree with your position on the Geogre Staropoli website,, but don't discount it so quickly. This man is actively trying to change HOA s so that they are more equally balanced and that's a good thing. All the people who have leveled complaints on this website can't all be wrong. He's trying for standardize CC&Rs, similar to a real estate contract. Now wouldn't that be better than trying to cross reference a 100 page document that needs to be cross referenced with another CC&R doc as this association is a small one within a larger association, and oh, by the way, a HO in the smaller HOA needs to be cognizant of the 3rd HOAs rules and regulations. These developments are becoming more and more like that.

I just got off a RE website and I am very discouraged bc there are so few homes without an HOA. The good news is that small builders are recognizing that people want out of HOAs, are doing reasonably good jobs renovating some of,the homes, and they will make money ... I hope!

Carlos ... Tim will try to offer good advice. Melissa is just on the same constant rant and is one of the chief bullies. I am not encouraging you to sue or not to sue. Watch your wallet because attorneys are after it. But don't even bother responding to Melissa's posts. Whatever you say, she will find you at fault bc she has been a former Board President. She paints all HOs who have any complaint with the same brush ... Your the trouble maker! I read early on that people with complaints don't get much support on this website and that is true.

Be honest, make sure you follow the law and guidelines when you seek the financial records. Keep digging but above all protect yourself and your family first.

The money comes from the defendents... Mmm... Pretty much sums it up there. Need I say more to any of your logic? I do not think so. Enjoy your documents and winnings. Sure will be well deserved when one gets their just deserts.... Hope grandma will make her bills this month... Our hero! Will there be a ticker tape parade down the streets? If so, who will pay for the paper and cleanup?

Certain victories should never be won...

The "Defendants" you keep referring to and getting their money back from? YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS!!! How do you NOT get this by now???

The HOA insurance covers the board member's PERSONAL money. Which means the lawsuit filed would go against the entire HOA budget. Who contributes to this budget? YOU and your neighbors! The insurance policy may pay out, but then again that raises your HOA insurance premiums or cancels the insurance altogether.

It is NOT up to an individual member to find emblezzing. The HOA board would have to be involved in bringing and finding the allegations to be true. They are in charge of the budget. An individual can present the suggestion to the board to investigate. However, as you can already tell, apathy gets it's way. Plus not a lot of people are out for blood or punishment just because they can't see the financial records.

If you find you can't get a majority of people to agree to your view or give you a vote, then what do you think the board can do differently? They have to deal with the SAME apathy as you do. They just don't have the option of being apathetic to get the HOA business done.

Apathy is what ruins a HOA and makes it run as badly as some portray it. You cure apathy, you get your way...

Speaking only for myself, you need to remember that we can only base opinions on what you have posted, any research we have done and our personal experiences.

This thread, your first posting, started with the AG isn't doing their job and that you have legal action pending.
You never indicated that you tried other methods (at least not until I made my last posting).

My past experiences have shown that often when individual come to this site asking for legal cases, have legal action pending and complain that outside entities (in your case the AG) are not helping them, they often have not tried to resolve issues from within.

That is what made me think you hadn't tried other methods of resolving the issue.

Actually, this statement isn't exactly true. It is the goal, but it doesn't always happen that way.

When bringing legal action against a corporation (and I expect that your Association is incorporated as most are), the corporation may be represented in court by a regular employee, an officer or a Director. A regular employee can include the registered agent. Often, registered agents are attorneys.

From The Small Claims Court, A guide to it's practical use:

An individual who represents a party to a small claims court action may complete and sign an Authorization to Appear (Form SC-109)—a form provided by the clerk of the small claims court or printed from the Judicial Council’s Web site. The representative must state that he or she is actually authorized to represent the party, and must describe the basis for that authorization, such as a letter from the represented party. If the represented party is a corporation or other legal entity or an owner of real property, the representative also must state that the representative isn’t employed solely to represent the corporation or entity in small claims court. In the other situations listed above, the representative must state that the representative is acting without compensation, and hasn’t appeared as a representative in small claims actions more than four times during the calendar year.

I mention this so you won't be surprised if your Association is actually represented by an attorney in small claims court.

Carlos,

You shouldn't dismiss advice given simply because of who provided it or how it was presented.

All viewpoints (perspectives) can be helpful in figuring out the best methodology to use to resolve your issue.
Granted, the advice may have already been attempted or, when based on the full knowledge of the issue (remember that what you may consider common knowledge likely isn't known to posters on this site), may not be applicable. However, all the advice provided is done so in an effort to help.

You, being the individual who must live with any consequences (intended or unintended) if the advice is acted upon, will need to decide if you wish to use all, some or none of what is offered. At the very least, the different perspectives on the same issue may help you better explain the issue when you go to court (if it goes that far).

John,

Carlos has already stated that the 60K is outside the statute of limitations, as the loss was discovered previously, and there isn't a way to recover.

My understanding is the small claims suit is for denying access to Association records, which he has a right to review as a member and had a right to full access as a Director.

Hate the no edit.

I think we get a lot of one offs, the world is against me, paranoia types. etc out here. They hit and run. Does the name Mike ring a bell???????

Sheeeesh......can't step away for a few hours without missing responses. I'll try to catch up.

KERRY
If your demographics are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them) then you're right; my purpose will not be served on this site. Regardless, I think I'll hang around awhile in case more Californians sign up. Who knows, maybe you guys can learn something from me.

As for your comments about Sally and Melissa, I have no intention of paying too much attention to Melissa, but that is because she has indicated that her primary interest is in issuing dismissive/mean spirited remarks and not in finding solutions. That doesn't mean that I will totally ignore her, however. I make it a point to consider alternate viewpoints instead of arbitrarily rejecting them. See, that's something some of the responders can learn from me already.

Sally, on the other hand, is someone I will pay attention to. There are too few people in HOA's that seek genuine improvement. When you connect with someone that wants to do more than just complain it is wise to listen and consider their viewpoints far more seriously than someone that just wants to spew vitriol.

Their knowledge; or lack thereof; respecting California law is irrelevant. I am familiar with it (at least certain areas of it) and know how to read, comprehend, and look things up.

TIM
Perhaps I can teach some of you the importance of understanding what you read before commenting. While your comment "we can only base opinions on what you have posted, any research we have done and our personal experiences" is certainly valid, my first post (that you referred to) clearly indicated that I was attempting to correct the problem of the CAG ignoring homeowner complaints. Also, that post made no mention of the litigation. There was no reason whatsoever to go into detail of what I was attempting since the post clearly indicated that I was seeking examples of alleged dereliction by the CAG. From that point on I expanded by replying to misconceptions and assumptions.

Your past experiences are irrelevant. If you want information from me, just ask; I'm very open. Don't expect anyone to anticipate your questions or assume that you know more than they do.

Your statement respecting possible attorney representation is correct, but irrelevant, especially since the attorney involvement (including apparent Bar Rule violation) was explained in a post prior to the one you responded to. Again, your comments are appreciated and are considered but would be better expressed if you understood the subject matter.

To expand and clarify, we have already been to court....the trial has already happened! We're just waiting for the Judge's ruling. At first the case was being heard by a "commissioner" (as almost all small claims cases are) but the commissioner kicked it up to a fully fledged Judge because no one has ever sued for an injunction in our county before. The Judge has taken the matter under submission due to the massive amount of documentation that was provided. The defendants attempted to have the case moved from small claims to regular civil in order to have attorney representation but I was able to establish jurisdiction to the Judge's satisfaction.

Your comments respecting the foolishness of dismissing advise "simply because of who provided it or how it was presented" is presumptuous, but correct and it is something that I make a point of not doing. I don't know whether or not I agree with someone unless I listen to what they have to say; besides, I can always disregard it as you state.

Your comments to John respecting the issues are correct, but incomplete. The 60K; as you state; is long gone; but the 8K in surveillance equipment has not yet passed the statute of limitations and is still actionable in criminal court. In addition, there is a possibility of kickbacks and other fiscal malfeasance. Besides, we really want to know if a certain director ripped us off for 60K.

There is another primary cause of action, however, that I elaborated on at length but, for some reason, neither you, John, and others failed to recognize.....fraudulent elections! I have asked the court to void the 2013 election of officers.

JOHN
It is so obvious that you have not bothered to read/comprehend/understand the matters that I am just plain not going to waste time on any detailed response. I will respond to any intelligent question once you have made some attempt to ask one.

As for your comment "That is a lot of accusations from the get go. This does not appear to be fact fining, inquiring, seeking info, etc. thus it makes me suspicious. Like saying I do not have an agenda but........ The gottcha ya is in the BUT....." be advised that my complaints to the CAG total 62 pages with an additional 221 pages of supporting documentation. As stated/offered in my post of 07/05/2014 2:56 PM:

"If anyone else would care to point out the fallacy of my actions please contact me at [email protected] and I will forward copies of the complaints to the CAG so that you can know what you are talking about. In the meantime, the purpose of my post was to learn of other such violations in order to build a case to force the CAG to take the action pursuant to California law which, as you might expect, would be of benefit to most association members; although admittedly not the corrupt ones."

Please contact me off line if you would like copies.

To Quote A famous character from the movies... "Stupid is as Stupid does"... You can't educate the deaf, blind, or dumb that only hear the sound of their own voices in their heads... I feel sorry for their neighbors and the selfishness they are showing by playing "hero". May the Peric victory be there...

I am done... Once you realize what your trying to help, you drag yourself down to that level. I've proven myself to too many people to care about someone trying to bring down my character. I've got no lawsuits ever filed, had open dialog with my members, and followed the HOA rules. Me and my HOA will NOT be lumped into some broad stroke of a brush of calling HOA's crooked. It's NOT true or accurate and insulting to many of posters here who did make change and continue to do so by hard work.

I am proud of the work I have accomplished the tough road I travelled. Did not back down, did not give up. Someone tells me to sue a HOA, I will always tell them the same... Put the hard work in if you want change. Don't expect it from a 3rd party source to do so. Work in your HOA and take the apathy away....

Carlos, it is not unusual for the Attorney General to refer matters back to the local level or refuse things s/he consider a civil matter. Unfortunately you need proof not allegations of malfeasance before the AG or District Attorney can act. Now I don't know if what you suspect is true or not but every HOA has at least one person who thinks that something shady is going on and the DA or AG's offices would be unable to function if they investigated every claim made against an HOA board. Since they won't willingly provide you with the documents you request I would suspect you will have to take them to court to force compliance, I believe in CA this can be done in Small Claims court for very little money and no need of an attorney.

Thank you Glen... That is the word I was trying to spell... Now lets see if anyone know what that is...

It certainly would have been good to have known this earlier.

However, since I appear to be correct but irrelevant, I'll quit posting to this thread.

Carlos, as I said earlier, I wish you luck.

NPS
What I said was "You assumed that the particular matter that prompted my actions were minimal; in fact they include election fraud, embezzlement and possibly other criminal behavior."

I also pointed out that there are currently 221 pages of supporting documentation (AKA "evidence" in the hands of the CAG to support 62 pages of specific complaint. Actually, that page count was in error; I forgot to include an answer to the only response the association made to the CAG (the association has chosen to NOT answer two of the three complaints filed with the CAG so far). The answer to that response was 25 pages long with an additional 33 pages of evidence. The total page count (complaints; answer; exhibits) totals 341 pages.....and more is coming.

Granted, I did not mention that each allegation in the complaints was identified by a specific California Corporations Code citing, but they were. I mention that because someone is bound to come back and insinuate that all I submitted was rambling wild charges (here's your chance Melissa).

It seems apparent that you are responding without reading the full specifics. This is reinforced by your last paragraph. Granted, this case is taking longer than a typical small claims case because (1) it has never been done before in our county - I had to first provide code citings to prove that small claims court had jurisdiction and (2) the amount of evidence that you claim I do not have contains not only the 341 pages of the CAG complaints but also more recent documents as well as the association governing documents that support my allegations. Regardless, it is highly unlikely that this case (which, as indicated, has already been tried and we are just waiting for the ruling) will take "a couple of years".

As to your suggestion that I "explore other avenues while [I am] waiting", please advise what is necessary to get through to members of this group that all other avenues have been tried and failed.

Finally, respecting your statement "You are obviously frustrated and angry - and the deck is stacked against you", please be advised that I do not respond well to being patronized.

GlenL
In addition to my response to NPS, please advise as to what you think I have been doing. I have never seen a group so inclined to jump in and offer advise/suggestions/criticism, etc. without bothering to find out what they are talking about.

Tim
You stated "I suggested other methods of handling the issue (like filing a complaint against the license) which Carlos dismissed. This dismissal gave me the indication that 1) he didn't have proof of being denied records (which will make it rather difficult to prove the same issue in court) and 2) that he had his mind already made up on how he was going to handle his issue 3) Carlos was looking for support for that decision rather then options on how to resolve the issue" and "As I pointed out, the dismissal of my simple suggestion gave the impression that Carlos had already made up his mind on how he was going to resolve his issue."

Please supply specific quotes to back up your statements. I don't have a problem with allegations being made about me, but I expect them to be backed up.

As to your claims that "most on here do not support going through the courts. It typically takes more time, energy and money then other options that are available. This is not an anti-HOA site. It's a site made up of individuals who have served or are serving in the running of their Associations. As such, we try to resolve things at the lowest possible level" please see my answer to NPS which states, in part: "please advise what is necessary to get through to members of this group that all other avenues have been tried and failed."

You state that I "insinuated that he had no proof to file a claim against the MC license"; again, please provide a quote to back up your statement.

As to your remarks respecting attorneys and calculations, your understanding about attorney representation is incorrect. The management company specifically asked the Judge at the initial hearing about that very subject and the Judge specifically replied that they could consult with an attorney to prepare their defense but they could not be represented by an attorney at trial. My total court costs (which I will seek reimbursement) are $25.00 for the filing and $30.00 for certified mail service by the court; a total $55.00. That means that the total cost to the membership will be $0.92 per unit. There are attorney fees caused by the association and management company that are substantially higher, but those costs would not have been incurred had they acted in good faith in the first place. Once this entire matter is finalized it is my intent to pursue having the association reimbursed by the individuals involved.

As to the value of the attorney consultations to prepare their defense, the only defense offered at trial was that they had checked the court website and discovered that I had filed 11 cases in small claims court (they didn't mention that it was over a 12 year period). All that money for an attorney in small claims court and the best they could come up with was an attempt at discreditation. That appears to be good enough for those of you that think HOA officers are above the law but the Judge didn't buy it.

You stated "It certainly would have been good to have known [that the case had been tried] earlier." Please explain what difference it would have made.

You stated "However, since I appear to be correct but irrelevant, I'll quit posting to this thread." You have a habit of twisting words. I never said you were correct; I pointed out certain minor assertions of yours that were correct but are irrelevant in the instant case. As to not posting further, I have received this preemptive response before from people that make statements that they cannot back up. It is their way of avoiding accountability for their statements. Before you leave the thread, back up some of your statements as requested.

You closed with "Carlos, as I said earlier, I wish you luck."

Like hell you do. I joined this board asking for examples of submissions to the California Attorney General by California HOA members that were ignored in order to bring the issue of non-response by the highest ranking police officer in the state to a level in which the problem could be corrected. Obviously, this is not the correct forum for that since few of you bother to read or understand the issues that you are pontificating about; your primary concerns are justifying misconduct by HOA officers. Your assertions of HOA and personal integrity are questionable at best.

Collectively this board has demonstrated that there is a far greater need for investigation of HOA activities than first thought. In that regard you, Melissa, and others of your ilk may have inadvertently done a service to HOA members.

The following postings from SallyR3 appear to be missing from the board. There could be any number of reasons for that from a simple computer glitch to censorship. Anyone care to comment?

+++++

Message Topic: RE: Failure of Attorney General to Intervene
Posted By: SallyR3

Dang it Carlos, you ARE MY HERO! That ought to put them in their place. And I loved the shout out that Tim was insincere in wishing you luck. Obviously you know your way around SCC. And there is nothing wrong with that, you know how to defend yourself when the rest of us don't and that's why the bullies prevail.

YOU MUST, YOU MUST, YOU MUST keep,us posted. Like you I don't have much respect for the site. Keep in mind that many of the posters likely own a dozen or more condos in a complex, so should they ever get stuck with real court costs ie $1000 a HO, it might cost them $25k, so they have a lot to protect.

Carlos, with what you've experienced would you buy in another HOA? My family and I want out. Were looking but never again an HOA.

Message Topic: RE: Failure of Attorney General to Intervene
Posted By: SallyR3

Let me point out that John below did NOT simply ask me to apologize to Melissa for the insult I hurled at her, but he added a threat ... He would go to the mods if I failed to apologize. John did not need to add the threat, I was clearly wrong. However it is a natural human tendency to add "or I will".

Now, this is behind me, and I expect to act more civilly and hope that Melissa will do the same. John intervened and changed the course of the conversation. His action was GOOD.

when a HO throws out the "if you don't I'll sue" comment, it's better to diffuse the situation QUICKLY. hopefully both sides will reflect on how things got out of hand. Then a BOD needs to step up to the plate to solve the problem. IF/WHEN a BOD can't do that, they add fuel to the fire, and cost their HOA dollars, and that piddly little reserve funds is diminished quickly.

SO ... the lesson is BODs take the high road as John did, and intervene ASAP. Thank you John.

Message Topic: RE: Failure of Attorney General to Intervene
Posted By: SallyR3

We'll I will certainly apologize to Melissa, but I do believe Melissa set the tone by using her Stupid is ans Stupid does comment.

So Melissa please accept my apology.

Now see how that is done? You point out the flaw, and it's corrected. If the BODs acquiesced as quickly for Carlos, there would have been different results.

Message Topic: RE: Failure of Attorney General to Intervene
Posted By: SallyR3

Tim ... You wrote a lot, and Carlos actions come down to one decision made by the BODs. Regardless of whether or not Carlos made threatening comments up front IF the BODs had released the docs, EVERYTHING may have turned out differently. It was the BODs who refused to release docs that this HO was entitled to. The BODs need to be held accountable for any assessments or increase in fees. And if there is bad blood between Carlos and the community, and they may blame Carlos he will need to remind them to turn their attention to the people they elected. Eventually they will just all need to get over it. Carlos just might be teaching all HOAs to act responsibly to save money up front. That is solving a problem at the lowest possible rung! And it's effective.

Now Tim, when a person comes to this website, they do not know if they'll be heard. So they generally start with little information and those who have been on this website for decades and generations with over 4600 posts, should know better and should draw their story out rather than jump to the conclusion that Stupid is as stupid does. And clearly stupid does not know how to spell pyrrhic. If stupid can't make that tiny concept clear, how does she expect to make more challenging concepts clear? Oh yes, she'll repeat and yell louder "you're suing yourself." Stupid should stick to the four letter words that are more in keeping with her teeny tiny brain.

Now YOU are an extremely effective communicator who will stand his ground and still get the msg through to the HO. If the BODs in Carlos' community came on strong like Melissa, they get exactly what they deserve.

No attorney involvement is needed when a HOA provides a HO with docs they are legally entitled to. No one, and I repeat no one, wants to sue! They want answers the big guns hold.

Good for Carlos for challenging authority.

Carlos please let us know how and when the court rules.

Other than that there would seem to be little reason to exchange further.

From your posts you neither seek nor require input from any others with the possible exception of a cheerleader named Sally.

Cheerleaders normally do little of any value except patting you on the back when they themselves
can't find a way to accomplish anything.

Win, lose, draw or somewhere in between really has little affect on other properties.

Appears you really came to this site to preach and spread the word.

Ditto for Sally.

Oh, oh ... you guys better censure Richard, he seems to be supporting Carlos too! There are bad boards, period ... you people need to accept that.