Building sign approval

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

A building sign that costs in excess of $20K was approved behind closed doors. There was never any discussion at a meeting.

Are there general statues in FL that would require a formal vote on something as significant as a building sign?

PatrickH (California)
Posts: 204

Posted:

Joseph,

Yes, the Board of Directors should have discussed and voted to approve the purchase and installation of the sign. If the association already has the money to pay for it, then a vote of the mebership wouldn't be required. If the association is going to need a special assessment to pay for the sign, then your governing documents would detail how a special assessment is voted for and approved.

It's hard to imagine that something as complex and expensive as the new building sign was never discussed or voted for at a meeting. Questions such as the size, shape, design, material, manufacturer, installation, building codes and permits, maintenance, insurance, etc would all have to be worked out in advance.

You'd really hate to find out that a $ 20,000 building sign is six inches too tall and the city won't allow it to be installed, or even worse, force you to remove it at additional expense after it's been installed.

You should start doing some research to find out if all these questions were answered, and if not, the project should be stopped until they are.

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JosephC2 on 08/11/2007 7:11 AM
A building sign that costs in excess of $20K was approved behind closed doors. There was never any discussion at a meeting.

Are there general statues in FL that would require a formal vote on something as significant as a building sign?

Joseph:

Sounds like a differnt post you had about insurance and discretionary spending. Yes, the sign should have been discussed in an open meeting and voted on by the BOD. I don't know the steps to take in Florida to fix or call the BOD on this.

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BradP on 08/11/2007 9:09 AM

Posted By JosephC2 on 08/11/2007 7:11 AM
A building sign that costs in excess of $20K was approved behind closed doors. There was never any discussion at a meeting.

Are there general statues in FL that would require a formal vote on something as significant as a building sign?

Joseph:

Sounds like a differnt post you had about insurance and discretionary spending. Yes, the sign should have been discussed in an open meeting and voted on by the BOD. I don't know the steps to take in Florida to fix or call the BOD on this.

Yes, there are multiple levels of questions. I decided that asking Board members about the appropriateness of spending policy was like asking a wolf to help with a chicken coop design

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

JosephC2 - You posted previously that the BOD reduced the insurance premium and the savings were then used for various capital improvements including the 20K sign.

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/11/2007 12:54 PM
JosephC2 - You posted previously that the BOD reduced the insurance premium and the savings were then used for various capital improvements including the 20K sign.

Yes, and? What does that have to do with how the sign was approved? How it was approved and where the money came from are separate issues.

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JosephC2 on 08/11/2007 1:56 PM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/11/2007 12:54 PM
JosephC2 - You posted previously that the BOD reduced the insurance premium and the savings were then used for various capital improvements including the 20K sign.

Yes, and? What does that have to do with how the sign was approved? How it was approved and where the money came from are separate issues.

Because a vote of the membership would not be required unless the 20K exceeded a threshold of Board spending. If the sign was part of a budget approval and the budget was ratified in an open meeting than there's little you can do but object to the spending and the increase in the insurance deductible.

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Nowhere did I claim that a membership vote should be required. I am and always have been fully aware that the Board can use excess funds in any way they choose. My question in the other thread was whether extracting money from the insurance allocation could be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility. But Board members rarely understand what that means, so I dropped it.

I also believe you're wrong on this. The real answer is not that you can't do anything, but you can't do anything without getting lawyers involved. You have to prove that the decision to reduce insurance coverages to get other projects funded was calculated and contrary to the best interests of the Association.

The question here is that there was no discussion at any meeting about a sign or the expendature, not whether they have the right to spend the money. So if you have an opinion on that I'd love to hear it.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

I am confused now. If this decision wasn't made at a meeting or an open one... How do you know about it? Something doesn't quite make sense. How do you know for a fact that they are reducing the insurance rate to compensate for the sign? Somewhere you got informed. Are you a board member? Are you a member in good standing with a right to vote? Sounds like a majority vote got taken, and you were part of a minority or was part of a board decision.

These situations are the price many of us pay in a HOA. Sorry, but that's often how things go. Hiring a lawyer doesn't make sense to be heard. Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. Plus the HOA has to hire a lawyer if you hire a lawyer. Where do they get that money from? Your dues money. IF you don't pay your dues, then you may lose your right to vote, be liened, or foreclosed on.

Your best bet is to keep up to date with your dues and keep your right to vote. Attend the meetings and voice your opinion or ask questions. Put it in writing if you want and request the issue be discussed openly at the next meeting.

Right now, I can see your going to be having one of the nicest $20K signs on the block identifying your building and making it look enticing to potential buyers.

Former HOA President

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MelissaP1 on 08/12/2007 11:57 AM
I am confused now. If this decision wasn't made at a meeting or an open one... How do you know about it? Something doesn't quite make sense. How do you know for a fact that they are reducing the insurance rate to compensate for the sign? Somewhere you got informed. Are you a board member? Are you a member in good standing with a right to vote? Sounds like a majority vote got taken, and you were part of a minority or was part of a board decision.

These situations are the price many of us pay in a HOA. Sorry, but that's often how things go. Hiring a lawyer doesn't make sense to be heard. Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. Plus the HOA has to hire a lawyer if you hire a lawyer. Where do they get that money from? Your dues money. IF you don't pay your dues, then you may lose your right to vote, be liened, or foreclosed on.

Your best bet is to keep up to date with your dues and keep your right to vote. Attend the meetings and voice your opinion or ask questions. Put it in writing if you want and request the issue be discussed openly at the next meeting.

Right now, I can see your going to be having one of the nicest $20K signs on the block identifying your building and making it look enticing to potential buyers.

Will all due respect, Melissa, your advice is always so utterly useless and ridiculous that I'll just be ignoring your posts from now on.

Jadedone4 (Virginia)
Posts: 495

Posted:

Joseph, with regards to your posting to Melissa... if you going to ignore them, then do so - posting as such was only insulting, etc - and is in violation of the posting guidelines/rules established by HOAtalk.

On your sign issue - if the board did agree to this expenditure, behind closed doors, absent community awareness.. AND you reside in a state which has OPEN MEETING laws/statutes - the board was wrong. If you do not have such a law/statute, or even a requirement in your governing documents, then the board acted within their scope of authority.

While it may not be the best practice for a board to make such decisions, if the above conditions are met - then that is why communities ELECT board-members.. to make decisions on behalf of the community.

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By Jadedone4 on 08/12/2007 1:35 PM
Joseph, with regards to your posting to Melissa... if you going to ignore them, then do so - posting as such was only insulting, etc - and is in violation of the posting guidelines/rules established by HOAtalk.

On your sign issue - if the board did agree to this expenditure, behind closed doors, absent community awareness.. AND you reside in a state which has OPEN MEETING laws/statutes - the board was wrong. If you do not have such a law/statute, or even a requirement in your governing documents, then the board acted within their scope of authority.

While it may not be the best practice for a board to make such decisions, if the above conditions are met - then that is why communities ELECT board-members.. to make decisions on behalf of the community.

Thanks, I know what they did was wrong. The question is what can be done about it.

Jadedone4 (Virginia)
Posts: 495

Posted:

Joseph, again what you can do about it... is/should be articulated in either your community's governing documents, or (if applicable) your state statutes/laws - with regards to "open meeting" requirements. If there is an agency which monitors community associations, or an ombudsman those would be the places to find a remedy to errant actions by your board.

Attending the next board meeting and voicing your opinion, asking questions during the open forum segment, emailing your board-members (time and date stamped) for information on the purchase are methods that you can use as an owner. Again, depending on your state's "open meeting" requirements or your governing documents - they would address the board's requirements to house meetings, and what roles members/owners would have in such a meeting.

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

hi Jaded,

Do you really think that boards who ignore open meeting statutes have "open forum" segments at meetings? C'mon now!

The ombudsman is an option I'm aware of, but its a long process to get them involved. What about the management company or Association attorney. Aren't they responsible for keeping the board in compliance with the law?

Jadedone4 (Virginia)
Posts: 495

Posted:

Responsible...? NO, that is the board's job. As both the M/C and the Atty work as the community as their clients, but thru the board. Any and all advice given to the board, by the M/C or Atty can be equally ignored by the board - there is no "power" of the M/C or Atty to compel the board to do anything - that "power" resides with the community. And while it may seem to be a long drawn out process to remove/recall a board - it is part of the safety net of what a community association as defined is supposed to be.

Joseph, there are often no "quick fixes" to an HOA's woes, just as there are no "quick fixes" to a local government's issues. It requires active participation from the "constituents" in both examples, often for change to be effected. On the other side of that coin (and NOT in favor or condoning "bad boards"), the processes to correct are based on a board fulfilling its duties in a reasonable/responsible manner - and protects those boards from a group of owners, angered by decisions from removing on a whim. This has in someways "morph'd" into entrenching by some boards to hold office - and does contradict the spirit of what an HOA is supposed to be.

I do not expect all residents from your community to post here, but you should seek to have residents get more involved in this issue - if you feel something improper was committed. Also, provide balanced information to the community about this situation, by providing access/links to sites such as this (and others) so that your neighbors are equally prepared/educated in how life in an HOA is supposed to be.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Good Advice Jadeone as always!

You want change in your HOA, then participate in your HOA. Don't expect someone else to be responsible for changes in your HOA, expect YOU to do the changes for your HOA. No one else is going to stand up for your beliefs!

Former HOA President

JosephC2 (Florida)
Posts: 23

Posted:

I'm trying to find out my legal options and I'm getting a bunch of lectures. Can anyone list the options without the Ra-Ra stuff?

A Condo Association is a legal entity that is governed by law. The fact that most HOAs are run like high schools doesn't change that. Behavior can be changed by making it clear that you mean business and that you're not going to let them get away with it.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. Sorry. You can take that advice or not. Asking for legal help from people who are NOT attorneys nor represent themselves as attorneys is not the way to go. If you really want the legal advice go to a Business attorney or one that handles Corporate laws. HOA's are non-profit corporations. You are a stockholder in that corporation and so are your neighbors.

I wish you the best of luck and hope you have enough money to handle the load your fixing to bare. Your just going to take away more money from your HOA and yourself in the long run. Hope your neighbors enjoy the ride your taking them on as well!

Former HOA President

Jadedone4 (Virginia)
Posts: 495

Posted:

Joseph, I believe that the posters responding to your inguiry have presented options in your situation. As stated before, if you feel that strongly that something was done "amiss" with the board's decision, get your neighbors involved and gather support (and evidence), to present to the board at the next meeting.

There are no "Perry Mason" trick questions/tactics that anyone here can share with you on this situation (just do not believe that they even exist). There is only the hardwork of involvement in the HOA that results in changes, either of the personnel (board), or the methods of management.

Instead of pointing at what the board did/did not do as a single element, address what you (and neighbors) should be doing to prevent such a mishap from occuring again.

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JosephC2 on 08/12/2007 5:14 PM
I'm trying to find out my legal options and I'm getting a bunch of lectures. Can anyone list the options without the Ra-Ra stuff?

A Condo Association is a legal entity that is governed by law. The fact that most HOAs are run like high schools doesn't change that. Behavior can be changed by making it clear that you mean business and that you're not going to let them get away with it.

Joseph:

I am not familiar with Florida law so I can't comment on specifics. The questions I have are 1) is the sign already ordered or built, is the association on the hook for the money? 2) Are you on the board or just a concerned citizen? 3) Are you 100% sure it wasn't talked about at a previous meeting?

Your options are to go to the state agencies that oversee HOA's such as the AG, Ombudsman, etc. Or you can hire your own lawyer and file suit. The association's attorney and the MC work with the board, so unless you are on the board they are going to be of no benefit to you.

The question you need to ask yourself, is it worth spending time and your money and association's money fighting this sign, or is it a better use of your time removing these people from the board via a recall or via the next election. You can still raise a stink about the sign, but at the same time use it as an effective campaign tool against them.

Just my two cents.

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JosephC2 on 08/12/2007 8:22 AM
My question in the other thread was whether extracting money from the insurance allocation could be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility. But Board members rarely understand what that means, so I dropped it.

The question here is that there was no discussion at any meeting about a sign or the expendature, not whether they have the right to spend the money. So if you have an opinion on that I'd love to hear it.

JosephC2 - I'm well aware of what it means to be a fiduciary and the importance. If your Board purposefully reduced the insurance premium to gain 20K, they can always reverse that decision next year. Can't they? If there is no loss/damage to property in the year the deductible to the owners was raised, you will have benefited with a new sign, correct? I'm not saying I agree with the practice but you'll be hard pressed to prove the Board acted irresponsibly.

Unless your BOD has a threshold of spending on capital improvements, and the 20K is in excess of that threshold I don't see how you can object to what they did?

You say there was no discussion at any meeting. However, didn't your Board have to ratify a budget? Is the 20K sign expenditure in that budget? Was the amount the Board budgeted on insurance also part of that budget?

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/13/2007 7:32 AM

Posted By JosephC2 on 08/12/2007 8:22 AM
My question in the other thread was whether extracting money from the insurance allocation could be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility. But Board members rarely understand what that means, so I dropped it.

The question here is that there was no discussion at any meeting about a sign or the expendature, not whether they have the right to spend the money. So if you have an opinion on that I'd love to hear it.

JosephC2 - I'm well aware of what it means to be a fiduciary and the importance. If your Board purposefully reduced the insurance premium to gain 20K, they can always reverse that decision next year. Can't they? If there is no loss/damage to property in the year the deductible to the owners was raised, you will have benefited with a new sign, correct? I'm not saying I agree with the practice but you'll be hard pressed to prove the Board acted irresponsibly.

Unless your BOD has a threshold of spending on capital improvements, and the 20K is in excess of that threshold I don't see how you can object to what they did?

You say there was no discussion at any meeting. However, didn't your Board have to ratify a budget? Is the 20K sign expenditure in that budget? Was the amount the Board budgeted on insurance also part of that budget?

I'm not familiar with Josephs particulars, but in FL there is always a good chance for a loss. Are you (JoeW) implying that there might be some justifcation in exposing the association to , lets say 250K in additional deductables, to get a building sign? I can't fathom that anyone could think that way.

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

DavidT1 - Lets say you deal in specifics rather than hypotheticals? For one, there is always a good chance for a loss, anywhere including Florida. Second, exposing the association, as you put it, to 250K in additional deductbales sounds like a cumulative/total loss. Unlikely. If there were 100 units and the deductible that each owner had to pay in the event of a loss was $2,500.00, the Board may view it as an acceptable option. Like I wrote DavidT1 "I'm not saying I agree with the practice". So in answer to your question, no I am not implying there might be some justification to myself, however, there may be to someone else's Board.

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/16/2007 7:21 PM
DavidT1 - Lets say you deal in specifics rather than hypotheticals? For one, there is always a good chance for a loss, anywhere including Florida. Second, exposing the association, as you put it, to 250K in additional deductbales sounds like a cumulative/total loss. Unlikely. If there were 100 units and the deductible that each owner had to pay in the event of a loss was $2,500.00, the Board may view it as an acceptable option. Like I wrote DavidT1 "I'm not saying I agree with the practice". So in answer to your question, no I am not implying there might be some justification to myself, however, there may be to someone else's Board.

I think your premise that the chance of a 500K loss is moosebreath MT is the same as in FL, where a hurricane could do that in any given week, is a weak one. Is the insurance for your 200+ unit association 800K+?

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/16/2007 7:36 PM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/16/2007 7:21 PM
DavidT1 - Lets say you deal in specifics rather than hypotheticals? For one, there is always a good chance for a loss, anywhere including Florida. Second, exposing the association, as you put it, to 250K in additional deductbales sounds like a cumulative/total loss. Unlikely. If there were 100 units and the deductible that each owner had to pay in the event of a loss was $2,500.00, the Board may view it as an acceptable option. Like I wrote DavidT1 "I'm not saying I agree with the practice". So in answer to your question, no I am not implying there might be some justification to myself, however, there may be to someone else's Board.

I think your premise that the chance of a 500K loss is moosebreath MT is the same as in FL, where a hurricane could do that in any given week, is a weak one. Is the insurance for your 200+ unit association 800K+?

Ok, sorry, didn't read carefully. But thats still silly. You're trading 250K for a 20K sign. Its just stupid. You're willing to risk 2500. to get a sign that could cost 200/unit as an assessment?

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Two comments,

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Sorry, mis-clicked:

Two comments, I have the distinct impression that neither JosephC nor DavidT have any real interest in obtaining any constructive or usable information from members of this board.

When members respond, both are particularly confrontational about the responses, and share an interestingly similar style.

I also get the distinct impression that JosephC already KNOWS the answer, or an answer, that he's looking for (fishing for?) and is somehow "testing" the posters on this site as to whether they can come up with his "correct" answer. Or at least have them open themselves up for his off-the-cuff political comments about "board" members and our ilk (he never used that word, but, again, I think he's just restraining himself from actually putting it in writing), as he clearly has little respect for boards of directors of HOAs or COAs.

Not so lightly veiled either: "But Board members rarely understand what that means, so I dropped it. " What kind of comment is that to toss out to people with whom you expect to share constructive dialog?

He is already apparently very knowledgeable about much of what he is asking, however, claims to be at a loss at arriving at what should be, in his own assessment, a fairly simple direct answer.

If there are nuances that we are missing, how much easier and less frustrating for him would it be to set a meeting with a local attorney who specializes in such issues and take advantage of their expertise.

If you think it's important enough to get all worked up over and verbally spar with people in diverse associations from all areas of the country, then it should be worth spending a few bucks to get appropriate direction from someone who is more knowledgeable about your specific issues and local statutes.

I say these dialogs appear to be bogus because when we press for more specifics, we rarely get them. We get nothing but ambiguity on key elements that we need to know in order to form a reasonable response.

For example, when clarifying whether open meeting rules applied, rather than giving the posters specific information about that, you simply stated: "
Thanks, I know what they did was wrong. The question is what can be done about it."

Well, we DON'T "know" whether it was wrong, or whether you just THINK it is wrong, because we don't know what is required in your state. So how can we responsibly answer what can be done about it? Yet you expect us to.

What is your real goal here? People have already given you their opinions about what should be done about bad boards? What is it you are really trying to obtain? I sense a larger agenda.

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MicheleD on 08/16/2007 10:14 PM
Sorry, mis-clicked:

Two comments, I have the distinct impression that neither JosephC nor DavidT have any real interest in obtaining any constructive or usable information from members of this board.

When members respond, both are particularly confrontational about the responses, and share an interestingly similar style.

I also get the distinct impression that JosephC already KNOWS the answer, or an answer, that he's looking for (fishing for?) and is somehow "testing" the posters on this site as to whether they can come up with his "correct" answer. Or at least have them open themselves up for his off-the-cuff political comments about "board" members and our ilk (he never used that word, but, again, I think he's just restraining himself from actually putting it in writing), as he clearly has little respect for boards of directors of HOAs or COAs.

Not so lightly veiled either: "But Board members rarely understand what that means, so I dropped it. " What kind of comment is that to toss out to people with whom you expect to share constructive dialog?

He is already apparently very knowledgeable about much of what he is asking, however, claims to be at a loss at arriving at what should be, in his own assessment, a fairly simple direct answer.

If there are nuances that we are missing, how much easier and less frustrating for him would it be to set a meeting with a local attorney who specializes in such issues and take advantage of their expertise.

If you think it's important enough to get all worked up over and verbally spar with people in diverse associations from all areas of the country, then it should be worth spending a few bucks to get appropriate direction from someone who is more knowledgeable about your specific issues and local statutes.

I say these dialogs appear to be bogus because when we press for more specifics, we rarely get them. We get nothing but ambiguity on key elements that we need to know in order to form a reasonable response.

For example, when clarifying whether open meeting rules applied, rather than giving the posters specific information about that, you simply stated: "
Thanks, I know what they did was wrong. The question is what can be done about it."

Well, we DON'T "know" whether it was wrong, or whether you just THINK it is wrong, because we don't know what is required in your state. So how can we responsibly answer what can be done about it? Yet you expect us to.

What is your real goal here? People have already given you their opinions about what should be done about bad boards? What is it you are really trying to obtain? I sense a larger agenda.

Is this an example of a "positive and helpful" post?

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

More importantly, does anyone know if there has been any case law that has determined if a new building sign is considered a material addition?

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

DavidT - The following is in response to your posts as follows:

1) To MichelleD - "Is this an example of a "positive and helpful" post?"

I consider MichelleD's post both positive and helpful because it characterizes your tone better than I could have.

2) To me - "Ok, sorry, didn't read carefully. But thats still silly. You're trading 250K for a 20K sign. Its just stupid. You're willing to risk 2500. to get a sign that could cost 200/unit as an assessment?"

I'm not trading 250K for a 20K sign. How many times do I have to write that I'm not saying I agree with the practice?

3) To all posters - "More importantly, does anyone know if there has been any case law that has determined if a new building sign is considered a material addition?"

Get an attorney since that is clearly the path you wish to take, though I disagree with that method. A new sign is a capital improvement. A 20K sign is material, however the bylaws may permit the board to make the improvement so long as the owners were duly notified. There has not been a special assessment to pay for the sign, my read is that there has been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Can't find any case law to determine if a new building sign is considered a material addition. However, go to the following of the official internet iite of the Florida State Legislature for Florida law governing HOA's.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0720/ch0720.htm

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 5:38 AM
DavidT - The following is in response to your posts as follows:

1) To MichelleD - "Is this an example of a "positive and helpful" post?"

I consider MichelleD's post both positive and helpful because it characterizes your tone better than I could have.

2) To me - "Ok, sorry, didn't read carefully. But thats still silly. You're trading 250K for a 20K sign. Its just stupid. You're willing to risk 2500. to get a sign that could cost 200/unit as an assessment?"

I'm not trading 250K for a 20K sign. How many times do I have to write that I'm not saying I agree with the practice?

3) To all posters - "More importantly, does anyone know if there has been any case law that has determined if a new building sign is considered a material addition?"

Get an attorney since that is clearly the path you wish to take, though I disagree with that method. A new sign is a capital improvement. A 20K sign is material, however the bylaws may permit the board to make the improvement so long as the owners were duly notified. There has not been a special assessment to pay for the sign, my read is that there has been borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Can't find any case law to determine if a new building sign is considered a material addition. However, go to the following of the official internet iite of the Florida State Legislature for Florida law governing HOA's.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0720/ch0720.htm

another rude and unhelpful post. Its clear that the rules only apply to some.

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

DavidT1 - You have been respectfully called out and can either take issue as you have or recognize your tone and change it. KathleenR asked you a question in her post regarding Increase of HOA Dues. If your interested in being helpful why not respond to her on what 14 day notice means in Florida. Oops, already have.

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 6:03 AM
DavidT1 - You have been respectfully called out and can either take issue as you have or recognize your tone and change it. KathleenR asked you a question in her post regarding Increase of HOA Dues. If your interested in being helpful why not respond to her on what 14 day notice means in Florida. Oops, already have.

You have a bit of a tone yourself, Joe. MichelleD is the one who should be repremanded in this tread. Her post was ridiculous and uncalled for. Try to have some perspective. Is she your wife or something?

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/17/2007 5:39 AM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 5:38 AM
Can't find any case law to determine if a new building sign is considered a material addition. However, go to the following of the official internet iite of the Florida State Legislature for Florida law governing HOA's.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0720/ch0720.htm

Note that is HOA law, not Condo law, which is covered in Section 718.

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/17/2007 6:28 AM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 6:03 AM
DavidT1 - You have been respectfully called out and can either take issue as you have or recognize your tone and change it. KathleenR asked you a question in her post regarding Increase of HOA Dues. If your interested in being helpful why not respond to her on what 14 day notice means in Florida. Oops, already have.

You have a bit of a tone yourself, Joe. MichelleD is the one who should be repremanded in this tread. Her post was ridiculous and uncalled for. Try to have some perspective. Is she your wife or something?

DavidT1 - No David MichelleD is not my wife, believe it or not, to posters don't need to be married in order to see the need to call you out on your veracity for the negativity and combativeness.

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 7:08 AM

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/17/2007 6:28 AM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 6:03 AM
DavidT1 - You have been respectfully called out and can either take issue as you have or recognize your tone and change it. KathleenR asked you a question in her post regarding Increase of HOA Dues. If your interested in being helpful why not respond to her on what 14 day notice means in Florida. Oops, already have.

You have a bit of a tone yourself, Joe. MichelleD is the one who should be repremanded in this tread. Her post was ridiculous and uncalled for. Try to have some perspective. Is she your wife or something?

DavidT1 - No David MichelleD is not my wife, believe it or not, to posters don't need to be married in order to see the need to call you out on your veracity for the negativity and combativeness.

Joe:

I know you called out Roger for saying this before, but DavidT1 is a mirror image of DavidR5, BarneyC and PaulJ. All had the same tone and all were from Florida. Here is just here to get rise out of us.

Jadedone4 (Virginia)
Posts: 495

Posted:

Brad, not this nonesense again.....??? If this is the same poster, one has to question..."if you have the amount of time to post here, argue every word/point - why isn't he participating in his Community's management/governance? Seems like wasted energy and time, unless you are willing to take advice from here, expand upon it, and use it effectively to combat the issues that every community faces at one time or another.

... do as I say do... but not as I do.. !!!

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 7:08 AM

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/17/2007 6:28 AM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 6:03 AM
DavidT1 - You have been respectfully called out and can either take issue as you have or recognize your tone and change it. KathleenR asked you a question in her post regarding Increase of HOA Dues. If your interested in being helpful why not respond to her on what 14 day notice means in Florida. Oops, already have.

You have a bit of a tone yourself, Joe. MichelleD is the one who should be repremanded in this tread. Her post was ridiculous and uncalled for. Try to have some perspective. Is she your wife or something?

DavidT1 - No David MichelleD is not my wife, believe it or not, to posters don't need to be married in order to see the need to call you out on your veracity for the negativity and combativeness.

I don't see "calling out" as being allowed in the rules for the board. Maybe Roger should point that out to you 2. Your posts are much more disruptive than mine.

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

BradP - I agree on the similarities and do notice that when they are pointed out to DavidT1 he doesn't refute them. I believe based upon his posts that he has a distaste for HOA's and those that govern them. Maybe he'll change tone and realize we are all just trying to learn and help others here. Some people are never happy and prefer dark corners.

DavidT1 (Florida)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 7:26 AM
BradP - I agree on the similarities and do notice that when they are pointed out to DavidT1 he doesn't refute them. I believe based upon his posts that he has a distaste for HOA's and those that govern them. Maybe he'll change tone and realize we are all just trying to learn and help others here. Some people are never happy and prefer dark corners.

doesn't refute what? Brad doesnt seem like somone who's posts warrant reading frankly, so I might have missed something?

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/17/2007 7:42 AM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 7:26 AM
BradP - I agree on the similarities and do notice that when they are pointed out to DavidT1 he doesn't refute them. I believe based upon his posts that he has a distaste for HOA's and those that govern them. Maybe he'll change tone and realize we are all just trying to learn and help others here. Some people are never happy and prefer dark corners.

doesn't refute what? Brad doesnt seem like somone who's posts warrant reading frankly, so I might have missed something?

Refute that you are not one in the same as DavidR5, BarneyC and PaulJ on HOATalk. I am niether asking nor interested in the answer because it doesn't really matter, the tone of the posts are one in the same. Case in point you put Brad down by writing he doesn't seem like someone who's posts warrant reading and that my posts are disruptive.

No one is forcing you to read or respond to anything.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

"Is this an example of a "positive and helpful" post?

On the contrary, David, or Joseph, or whatever your real name is, that post was meant to be positive and helpful to fellow posters who continue to fall into your trap of circular argument.

I believe I was very positive and helpful in pointing out your intent is not to obtain useful knowledge or insight for your own gain, or even to assist others who may have similar issues. I'm not sure what your real goal is, but it's certainly not to obtain usable advice.

I'm curious as to whether it's possible you are taking some sort of on-line paralegal course and are posting test questions to obtain answers without having to do the real legwork yourself.

If your scenarios and anecdotes are legitimate and not bogus and if you are so positive that illegalities have occurred, and you insist that they have, then why are you not seeking answers from attorneys or from your state attorney general or secretary of state? Why do you insist on verbal sparring with people who, when they try to offer advice or elicit more information that can help form reasonable responses, you toss out verbal hand grenades and make disparaging comments about boards as a whole instead? You don't LIKE board governance, apparently, and you particularly don't care for any of the advice people have offered, why do you keep coming back to pose more questions to which you don't really want any answers? Or at least answers that you don't want to have to pay an attorney for, yet expect the same level of response.

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DavidT1 on 08/17/2007 7:42 AM

Posted By JoeW1 on 08/17/2007 7:26 AM
BradP - I agree on the similarities and do notice that when they are pointed out to DavidT1 he doesn't refute them. I believe based upon his posts that he has a distaste for HOA's and those that govern them. Maybe he'll change tone and realize we are all just trying to learn and help others here. Some people are never happy and prefer dark corners.

doesn't refute what? Brad doesnt seem like somone who's posts warrant reading frankly, so I might have missed something?

David:

Just some friendly advice, if you are going to put people down I would suggest proper punctuation and spelling. Makes you more credible that way.