Legal Threats from Board Member

We don't back down to empty threats. I always respond will be waiting on the paperwork... Plus suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. Maybe want to drop that information on them.

What is the issue with the MC? This sounds not like a HOA board issue but a personal issue with the board member. If that is the case, then the HOA has no reason to be involved. The MC is a hired contractor to the HOA. So their beef with the MC. The HOA responsibility may be to evaluate if they need to keep this MC.

So don't waste too much money on an empty threat situation if it's not directed to the HOA directly. The MC should have their own attorney. Let them deal with it.

We have asked to meet an attorney to advise us as the board member does feel they have a legal claim against PM and HOA BOD. Our atty stated they should not be present.... as well, it's a conflict.

Bizarro stuff. and looking forward for this ship to sail.

Why is the meeting with the attorney "illegal?"

Even if it is only a threat, your HOA is supposed to inform its insurer.

In this case, when discussion of this issue is scheduled, the person threatening suit has to step out.

If either your Board or PM is violating the Bylaws, covenants, state law, or other law, and this is why the director is threatening suit, then the Board and PM can certainly dig in and insist it is not a violation. But the superior response is to comply with the governing documents and other law.

What is your sense of what a conflict of interest is, Nicole? There might be a misunderstanding here.

Nicole
“Threats” should not be dealt with until action takes place.

Did this board member bring this issue to the board’s attention before? What was the result? ( committee formed? Action taken?)

Your post is vague. It would help if you posted a timeline and subject matter of this board member’s concern.

But right now, shame on your lawyer for telling you to hold meetings that exclude a member - just because of “ threats”

If the HOA does not inform its insurer of the threat of litigation, then the insurer does not have to insure the HOA if and when there is a lawsuit.

Importantly, if there is a lawsuit, there will be several months of exchanges between the two sides' attorneys in an attempt to try to settle the matter. The courts expect this, in order to try to keep disputes out of the busy and expensive court systems. Bona fide legal experts, and not a bunch of amateurs will handle the matter.

One of the problems here is the lack of understanding that a HOA is a corporation that is typically insured. This is deep pockets. It also forces the HOA to do things in a legally methodical but contractually required and expensive way.

The director who is making the threats is excluded from board discussion of this lest one of the other board members says something that is incriminating or that could be used against the HOA. 'Anything one says can and will be used against one,' is the rule to follow even with a threat of civil litigation. Hence having meetings with the director who is making threats present holds the HOA out to more litigation. Communications on the subject should be only between the HOA's attorney and the director making threats (or said director's attorney).

Attorneys are paid to spin everything in a way that favors their client's wishes. Under the attorney's code of professional conduct, it's not "lying" to exaggerate anything and everything in favor of their client. Instead, it's an obligation to exaggerate thusly. In theory, the adversarial system will separate the wheat from the chaff and come to the truth. (Of course that's bullshit. It's the ones who can afford an attorney that get what they want and tell lies with impunity. Middle class Jane or Joe Smith is screwed out of justice, just because Jane or Joe lacks deep pockets.)

I still want to know what flavor of threats are being made. The OP might be a part of a board majority that has gone rogue, violating laws, and wanting to use its power to pay the HOA attorney to defend whatever stupid position it takes. Or this one director may be the rogue director.