FOULING UP BIGTIME : where do the perpetrators go later ?

Bob,
I don't think I personally would have enough experience to contribute to your posted question. You seem like a very intelligent, knowledgeable person and remind me of my husband in some of your choice of words, (he has to write out a lot of written reports for his job). So I'm going to say to you what I say to him sometimes, can you put that idea/question/statement into "layman's terms" for me?

As most were hypocrites, they go to the Ninth Circle ... eventually.

Thanks for the comments .

1- ( Sorry, Never before heard of the Ninth Circle above. Testimonials from their fans : “The Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult were well trained by Hitler’s mind control experts from Nazi Germany” . . . “, “The Ninth Circle Satanic Cult a child sacrifice group composed of global elites, appears to be routinely raping, torturing and murdering children” it was announced yesterday . . . Named as chief defendants were Pope XXX , Jesuit Superior General YYY and Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury ZZZ. ..”.“Queen EEE had direct involvement in the kidnappings and deaths...” . . .)

2- To clarify “FOULING UP BIGTIME : where do the perpetrators go later ?”

Can anyone relate other examples of what happened to the ongoing governance careers of Directors . . . managers . . . whatever, AFTER member owners – HOA or condo or otherwise - got huge bills for whopper misjudgement , lawbreaking or some sort of oppressive misconduct ?

Did any personally next suffer any governance career setback at all ? forced resignations ? recalls ? quick unseatings ? defeat at the next election ? denunciations from the pulpit ? public stonings ? whatever ?

OR INSTEAD were they forgiven ? and/or the Fouling Up somehow ignored or tolerated apathetically ? the accusers blackballed ?

Not always easy. See below :

In 2013 four Directors of a highrise condo corporation were held in contempt of court and ordered collectively to PERSONALLY each suck up approximately $ 100,000.00 plus costs to reverse and redo certain common element changes for which they were held in contempt.
The contemnor Directors had been instructed by the Trial Judge explicitly NOT to proceed with such contrary works ( a contempt finding incidentally upheld on appeal in 2014 ). This decision gained significant attention throughout North America .

But in August 2014 on appeal the 4 contemnor Directors ‘ huge PERSONAL burdens were reduced from the $100,000 range each to a mere $14,500 personally plus costs .

The appeal court has also shifted the costs of restoring/reconstructing the illegal works instead onto the general owners !

A non-involved lawyer’s possibly controversial estimate of bottom line legal costs & disbursements shows that the “legals” have hit the parties as follows :

Onto the 4 Directors personally total $ 80 K in all

Onto the 6 objector plaintiffs ( note that only one hung on for the appeal) $140 K in all

Onto the condominium corporation (co-defendant) itself $ 280 K

If this is true the general condo owners will suck up at least $ 400 K for physical reconstruction and $280 K for legals.

I would not want to be the Directors but far less the 6 objectors who –except for “legals” prevailed about the illegality of the disputed physical works.

A CAFCOR topic provides links & some detail at http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=17324&catid=9

but do the Foul Uppers lay low like Adolf Eichmann ? How often are they forced by toxicity or thier spouses or whatever to stop or even move out ?

Do they even spread the chaos elsewhere ? In my own voluntary HOA a retired, pleasant ex-HOA President here & his "grandeuring" cronies managed to fiddle around incompetently for some years (on challenging issues) without actually hearing anyone with competence. Later he moved to another community about 8 miles away, took some degree of control in an important but failed issue, and coincided with its collapse. . .

Bob,

I think that it depends on the issue and the social impact. If it's a major issue, many will sell and move. If it's a minor issue and there isn't much social impact, life will continue.

All comments are much appreciated.

A problem asking "What happened to the Foul Uppers ?" is that they may readily blend back into obscurity in contrast to vulnerable "kvetchers". Their damage may be longterm, shared with acquiescent Directors and maybe highprofile only years later eg underfunded reserves. Maybe they are already retired.

Unless it's Nevada HOA hijackings & attorney suicides etc or massive embezzlement merrily overlooked, or a shocking, out of the blue "unit by unit" enforcement of a judgment against a corporation as above, who knows or usually cares, particularly in the media ?

In some cases personal Presidential malfeasance may hit the news later, but without bigtime financial loss to the community.

Our jurisdiction's Law Society rejected twice an application for registration by a youthful ex-President. His hardball "dirty tricks" as President actually triggered criminal harassment charges dropped only when he agreed to sell and move out. An intense public debate eventually would occur about whether his character precluded admission to the jurisdiction's Bar. One commenter published : “As the old saying goes, A LAWYER HAS THE ABILITY TO TURN A BAD SITUATION TOTALLY UNCONTROLLABLE... NOT a good lawyer. I know this guy from our condo building. He went on a rampage... He made us waste thousands of dollars from the condo common fees.”

But on the third try the ex-President now 32 was admitted to the Bar despite the dirty tricks 4 years earlier as Board President ( ToStar May 16/13 “Deemed to lack the “good character” to be a lawyer, a man with a troubled history as a condo board president gets the green light to practise"
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/05/15/osgoode_graduate_finally_deemed_of_good_character_to_practise_law.html

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)

I suggest that you tone down the rhetoric Bob, no need to endlessly bring up WWII, Adolph Eichman, Pearl Harbor and Lt. Kermit Tyler in your posts unless they in fact are members of your HOA.

I bet you're fun at meetings.

This could happen only if the condo owners were total idiots, as many are. Under the Due Process clause, a person is entitled to notice and opportunity to respond before he may be deprived of his property. This sounds like individual owners were not served with process and thus deprived of a defense against the claim. In fact, the lawyer admits "none of [the unit owners] had been served with the claim nor had an opportunity to defend."

But once they were served with notice of judgments against them the unit owners had the opportunity to object and this description sounds like they failed to do so. In the second incident described, the unit owners may have had (and been deprived of) a defense that their president was personally liable due to acting outside the bounds of his fiduciary duties.

While a state may enact statutes that hold owners liable for the debts of their condo associations, no state has the power to deprive the owners of their right to due process, which the US Supreme Court holds to be notice and an opportunity to respond before a person is deprived of his property. This means that if a party wants to hold the owners liable for the debts of the association he must serve each owner in addition to the association itself.

I would certainly like to know where and when these two incidents happened.

Dates unknown, both of the above mere illustrations occurred within the last decade in my jurisdiction, whose condo law like an undetermined number of states, empowers a condo corporation to sue and be sued over common elements even though it technically is not the registered owner.

By statute, notices traded over such, are adequate if served merely to the condo corporation rather than unit by unit to hundreds of unit owners shown only on registered documents. I simply brought those forward to illustrate a type of fouling up with sharp dimensions and a likely bad aftermath .

The details of the first are in a commercial lawyer's Nov 2011 2011 article “DYSFUNCTIONAL BOARDS” By Ray Mikkola LLB http://www.pallettvalo.com/news_articles/media/dysfunctional_boards.html
appeared (Ray Mikkola LLB is the head of the Commercial Real Estate Practice at PaIlett Valo LLP )

The second was reported without identifiers in a major daily with subsequent outcomes unknown.

Adolph Eichman bought into your condo? And then it was bombed by a Japanese Task Force? All in the last decade?

Mark,

You may be taking Bob the wrong way. He is not deserving of your treatment. Some people are, save it for them.....lol.

Emma

I agree.

It is generally accepted that whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card" has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of better arguments. Thus, once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

Emma,

Although I agree that Bob appears knowledgeable and is certainly respectful. I also agree with Mark that Bob took things a bit to the extreme in this thread.

The extreme itself could be considered by some as trollish behavior as he accused Mark's post being.

However, I don't think that this was Bob's intent.

The question, to me, didn't need further examples. Even as Bob stated in one of his examples "if this is true . . ." the bottom line is nobody is really going to know what happened unless you are a member of one of the Associations that fouled up big time. We can guess, but the guessing would be just that, a guess.

Since many on this site took steps within their Association to keep the Association from fouling up, or from entering the big time of foul ups, I doubt there are personal experiences that relate to the question.

On a smaller scale, after I took the actions I felt were needed to keep my Association from fouling up, the only real fall out is that one individual who was Board member at the time is holding a grudge and always votes against me getting back on the Board. We are cordial to each other and have worked together on various projects for the betterment of the Association. However, I can always count on that one nay vote every election.

TimB, Even more interesting your silence when certain people are just being insulting and nasty.

I know. I've even decided to stick up and intervene for you on occasion.

Hmmmm.....interesting now your really making me think......lol

I hope my postings do make you, and others think. I know that the postings I've seen from you and everyone else make me think.

To expand on that thought, it's always easy to make judgements prior to trying to see issues from another persons perspective. Too often, once a judgement is made, the desire to see issues from different perspectives is lessened and may actually become nonexistent.

Relating this back to the topic at hand, I think that this is often the reason why many boards dig in and defend their decision no matter the consequences vs. trying to see the issue from all perspectives.

This is why I always point out that it's best to try and see issues from all perspectives. Seeing another perspective may not have you change an opinion, but it could help in understanding the issue better, help you know how best to explain your position and it allows you to be more informed about an issue. I've always believed that an informed decision is often the correct decision.

Tim, your postings make everyone think I'm sure!

and the rest of your post is very well said, thank you

Tim, it is our understanding that the Board condoned the NW but failed to provide any guidelines or control. Because of this case, most attorneys will now tell Boards (at least in these parts) that a HOA should not be affiliated with NW programs and such programs should be separate. In the Martin case, I think the Board screwed up by having no foresight that there could be a potential liability. We happen to have a NW program and I have seen some inappropriate behaviors from its members including chasing people in their cars to their homes, posting photos of "suspicious" people who were actually minding their own business, and going after minors because they could, even though the minors were doing nothing improper. I surely do not want to be entangled with these people under the guise of a NW that is condoned by a Board.

Until the Martin case, Neighborhood Watches were a feel good, let us do it thing as were many things before something bad happens.

My advice is the BOD not only not only ignore such but go on record as opposed to. A couple of hundred dollar letter from the HOA attorney disavowing the NW (while secretly encouraging such) could go a long way.

An ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure.

We have a special place in our hearts and on our grounds for our fiasco-perps. They are about 6 feet under on common ground. The exact location is not disclosed. Some days I am sad to think that there is no marker or headstone to remind us that they are still with us. But that of course would be impossible because our architectural review committee would not approve the additional obstacle to lawn care.