An Attorney's Perspective That Differs From the Reg Posters

Attorney or not, the author seems to have an axe to grind. The appearance of the word "fascist" in the 2nd paragraph blows his credibility out of the water. He doesn't even know the definition of "fascism", apparently. Some lawyer. I think he forgot to make a point in that article. Anti-HOA rants are a dime a dozen on the internet. If someone is going to write one of those they should at least make it interesting or compelling. As with most of the other ones, this article comes off as nothing more than sour grapes.

"An Attorney's Perspective That Differs From the Reg Posters"

Would Austin lawyer J Patrick Sutton's viewpoint be different if most of his billings came from Boards & managers instead of defiers, dissenters, victims, refuseniks, whatevers ? Will he hold similar views in 20 years time if he starts primarily getting corporate clients ?

He is right on the money about massive imbalances of power and what it can do to impede deal-making with dissenters. Skillset issues, teflon-coatings, a war chest, toxic retaliation powers or whatever, Boards may dislike looking indecisive.

How surprising should it be - if true - that insurance-funded litigation specialists are more amenable to deal-making, than regular "general counsel" who might have a lengthier track record dealing with a particular dissenter/defier/jerk ? Not sure what personal good is a massacre to assembly-line litigation counsel (instead of 'just stopping the shooting' ).

Even though this is simply a page and written to support the attorney's clientele, it not so different of a perspective:

"Most people in the subdivision or condo don't have time to fool around with local-local government (HOA's), so they don't get involved or know what's going on"

aka Membership Apathy

"until busybodies and fascists have taken over the board."

in other words get involved by at least showing up and voting. Better if you volunteer to serve on your Board or Committee. Otherwise those who are willing to serve will be the ones making the decisions that affect you. Something the regular posters on this site urge all the time.

Please note that the attorney used the word "fascists" as a way to incite emotion. For some individuals, when emotions are high, thinking clearly doesn't always happen.

"Bad HOA boards have every incentive to keep litigation going, and their lawyers have every incentive to egg them on . . . By then, it's too late to do anything but fight the HOA in court"

Here, the attorney cited a problem - bad HOA/COA Boards. The attorney only offers one solution to that problem. Surprise, it's a solution that puts money in the attorney's pocket.

Regular posters on this site have offered other solutions: Gather support and either recall the Board or simply don't reelect them during the next election. Of course, it also requires individuals willing to serve, otherwise you may end up electing another bad board.

The attorney also fails to mention that (perhaps because it may cut into their business) that the members are the checks and balances to the Board. An apathetic membership that doesn't attend meetings, read minutes, volunteer or simply show up once a year to listen and cast a vote, means that the checks and balances are no longer in place. This may be fine for a few years. However, once checks and balances are removed from any operation, those performing the work may begin to take shortcuts. If too many shortcuts are taken, minor issues can become major problems.

Contrary to the title of this topic, the Attorney's perceptive doesn't differ from the regular posters here. The Attorney's perspective is only one way of looking at issues. The attorney's perspective encourages legal action which places money in their pocket and, as he discusses in the paper, can be very expensive. The Attorney fails to mention other options.

I have found that the regular posters on this site acknowledge that legal action is certainly one method that is available to a member of the Association. However, the regular posters also provide other options that are less expensive, usually quicker then legal action, and can correct the issue of a "bad board" that the attorney says is in place.

The regular posters also point out as many intended and unintended consequences that they may see with any method someone uses and shares on this site. This isn't done to intimidate or shout down that method (though I agree it may seem like that from the posters perspective who is typically more emotionally involved in the issue then those offering advice). It's done so the individual can make an informed decision on what method will be the best avenue for them and be aware of as many potential consequences that may occur because of that decision, so they can be ready if those consequences appear.

Again, the attorney's perspective isn't a different one. It's just one perspective of many.

I fundamentally disagree with Tim's assessment of what this website offers. Many posters leave comments like JonD's above. I will acknowledge that I've read good reasoned arguments, but it's nothing more than the same rhetoric. When the dissenter returns insults to Jon in the same fashion as his comments above, the regular protesters run to the moderator and point the finger at the new poster. Who is going to be believed? Tim w/10,000+ comments or the dissenter with 150? It's much like rape ... the young attractive woman wears the short skirt. No one should believe her when the Senator says it was consensual. (And the reverse happens to men. Difficult cases.)

To Geno, it might be sour grapes. That does not make the attorney's opinion wrong. He might have lost several cases in the same way. He might have lived in an HOA and lost his own argument. I'm encouraged with the HOA Coalition of TX. It's a group making change.

To the rest, I say he didn't need to elaborate. Short is better. He used fascist bc it sums up the attitude of some if not most boards. You can pick it apart as much as you care to. It doesn't change how boards get mired in their own muck. Boards that are entrenched in the community who dole out favors don't want Joanne on the board. She has too many questions and needs verifiable proof. My own board is filled w/people who are too dumb to think for themselves. All wear nose-rings and believe anything they are told. It's easier to be led than to lead. Things are changing. My Prez resigned his position to concentrate on the lawsuit but he stayed on the board to exercise as much control as possible.

I have to agree with Larry. This comes from personal experience with my HOA, working for a law firm that owns a management company and now up against a law firm that purports to be the legal experts of Davis-Stirling.

Let's take Melissa argument that suing an HOA is "suing yourself". I believe that there are HOA's that need to be sued or better yet brought back to earth. The attorney pointed out that if an homeowner loses they are on the hook for most if not all the HOA attorney fees, while the HOA attorney goes in knowing if they lose the expense is shared among all the owners, maybe $100 each. Turn that around, if the homeowner sues and wins what is the loss to the homeowner? Minimum at best, since the insurance with most like pay the big portion. Rates go up for 5 years and amortized among the owners, again minimum.

As Larry correctly pointed out HOA attorneys aren't really that good and know there is a cash cow in the association funds. Insurance attorneys on the other fight to say their client, the insurance company, fro monetary losses. HOA attorneys work on fear, harassment and intimidation, seldom on real evidence. Most hope it doesn't reach a court as most would be unprepared, and most probably have not stepped inside on.

Some people, particularly on this site will go after a person who may be passionate about their community and go after the ones who just sit on the sidelines. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For the most part, you lose you rights once you move into an HOA. That truly is a shame. People who do have experience are told to stay out of our business. Many times this comes not from a Board, but the management companies and attorneys who have the most to lose if someone looked into their behaviors and practices. I look at things and say to myself, is this how I would run my business. And make no mistake, its a business owned in part by all of us. I see something not right, I will stand up and speak.

As far as court, sometimes facts mean nothing. I have dealt with a number of case in Small Claims Court. The majority of times the case is decided not on merit, but generally on a commissioner's perception of HOA's, and I will tell you MANY hate HOA's and the power they possess.

So if you read the article, maybe more than once, I think all of us will find a lot of merit in what he says.

Well, winning a legal action against your Association might not make any changes on the Board.
Your Board will still have (in your words) "people who are too dumb to think for themselves."

However, if you can gather support from the membership and get people who can think for themselves on the Board, then (regardless of how your legal action pans out) the Association will become better then it is now.

Legal action with an Association may address the issue. However, it rarely address the cause of the issue.

Tim: I have reasons to stay on the site, all of which aren't your business.

Pam, I'm starting to see why you may have been banned previously.

Tim, if I am banned, I'm sure you'll play a part in it.

Read your insurance policy... We have a one million dollar policy... Does it pay a miilion? NO. It pays a winning party only about 80K. Whatever is more than that is passed on to the owners/members as a special assessment. Win a million? Then plan on coughing up the difference amongst yourselves.

A HOA is ONLY funded by its members. The HOA has to pay more for insurance? It is passed along in higher dues. The HOA loses their insurance due to the case? Expect to pay more for the new insurance. Again the cost passed to the members in higher dues or special assesments.

The court could decide each party pays their own court costs. Which again means your dues goes toward that HOA expense while paying your own. The HOA responsible? Then again paying their costs...

Want to stop paying dues or not the special assessment? Well then the HOA can Lien you for that. A special assessment is subject to lien. Want to sell your house and move? Well there goes your lawsuit entirely... Your no longer a member and hence have no cause to sue something not a member of...

I'm grateful Melissa is not in the Insurance business or represents clients as an attorney.

Tim. While you've stated that it's the HOs who choose to be submissive, I have my doubts. If you ban me, and you're likely to, then that's the strong arm telling me to submit to what you want, rather than allowing me to express myself. It's great when you always need agreement. All while you let the snide remarks of regular posters go on and on to intimidate and confuse a person who comes for help.

Btw for the record Tim can not ban anybody. He is NOT a forum moderator. Neither are any of the other regulars on here. If you get banned it is usually for your own actions and comments. We can not control who reports your behavior as well... The moderators do check up in here on their own accord. Who they are I have no idea. I just know it is NOT Tim.

G'nite

Expressing yourself and being ugly about it (as my wife would say) while expressing yourself are two different things.

Many of the regulars are guilty of snide remarks. However, they tend to do that in defense rather then launching the first salvo. Some, like Jon and JohnB (aka PitA), have a matter of fact way of expressing their perspective. Keep in mind that they don't always do that. However, when it's done, if individuals can get past the defensiveness that this presentation can create, one may see the message in the style being used. It's not being done to confuse, it's being done to try and get the message across (as some individuals,and we all know one or two, require the truth to be blunt vs. contained in subtle hints).

From what I've seen (at least what I complain to the moderators about) is the posting style - if it's constant, the language (insults for the sake of insults alone - no message in it), trying to pick fights - aka baiting, constant negativity, preaching (vs. debating), blatant spamming and the refusal to listen (my way or the highway).

Since you stated it in the past, I expect that you are aware, that when you get angry you come out swinging. Your made the first swing (so to speak) when posting as PAM:


Prior to that posting, nobody knew who you were, your background or anything else. Your posts to that point were helpful, thought provoking and set in a positive mode (which is the main rule on this site). Then came that posting that gives the impression you have an agenda and a chip on your shoulder, willing to pick a fight - hoping to be banned, just to prove your perspective that I, and perhaps others, are jerks (insert stronger word if desired) is correct.

If your not banned, you continue to place bait in your postings hoping someone will start something so you can lash out. Again, from my perspective, hoping to get banned to prove a point to yourself and perhaps others.

Obviously I did something that you perceived as a personal attack and you blame me directly for having you banned (heck you actually claim that I did the banning). To be honest, I haven't a clue what it was. The threads where that may have occurred no longer appear (I suspect as a result of the previous banning) so I'm unable to discover it on my own.

If your willing to be civil, I'd be happy to discuss what you believe I did or did not do. But lets do that in a different thread.

All I can say is that you had an opportunity to start fresh. To mover forward and either learn from those who post here or have an open forum to teach others. Instead, you chose to try and pick a fight. Why you chose to toss away that opportunity, only you know.

You have chosen to utilize legal action vs. becoming involved by serving on the Board and be part of the decision process. It's not the choice I or others would have chosen. However, it's what you thought would be the best course of action for you. I wish you luck in it in that effort.

Tim

Pam M6 Michigan :

while grazing I happened onto

http://courts.mi.gov/search/pages/results.aspx?k=property%20owners%20association

with over 750 Michigan court judgments citing "property owners association". Maybe worth your while . . . .