I won! or rather I was granted a TI

update on this thread.

https://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/forumid/1/postid/383418/view/topic/Default.aspx

I went to court today , pro se.

The judge granted my TI!

I am immediately reinstated as a board member until the trial.

I also was able to get the judge to reinstate in person board meetings.

I'll give more details tomorrow. I'm exhausted.

Brava, LaskaS.

hello,

Ok, noone from the other side showed up other than the association attorney.

This is what's interesting, the association attorney(who i have worked closely with for the past several years with great success for the association) ended up showing up.
Even though the board handed the case over to our insurance carrier , the insureance carrier didn't respond yet. Thus, the association attorney told the board showed up to represent the association.

The attorney( that i thought i had a good working relationship with) was arrogant. I had everythig practiced and every point he brought up, I had already anticipated and h ad the correct response.

The attorney thought he was going to be able to have the ti hearing rescheduled. I objected.

At the end, the Judge didn't grant the TI as I had written it. He wrote out his own,(this is the first time his court clerk had ever seen this).
I am immediately reinstated to the board with all participation and rights to information and notices that every board member has up until the underlying case is decided

Instead of putting the trial on the docket at some future time (which i was told would be 8 months or a year away) he fast tracked it and the trial is actually set for March 5.
I also asked that he enjoin the board from relying on anything they decided in the nov 26th board meeting (one week after the void special meeting of owners) because i was excluded from participation. The two things i wanted enjoined were relying on the vote for a new board president, the new president then making a motion for all future board meetings to be held via zoom only.

The judge asked me why i objected to zoom meetings. I said, I don't object to zoom being an option. I object to the board eliminating the in person option. Which is contrary to our bylaws which call for a time and "place". I said the board is not using them for convenience, but as a way to entrench themselves and limit participation.
The attorney argued that all of his associations he represents meeting by zoom now. He also mentioned that recent legislature actually permitted board meetings to be held by zoom.
I countered , they did officially permite zoom meetings, but specifically they said governing documents that stipulate a place will still have to remain an option.
The judge ordered all board meetings to be held in person.

The attorney was pissed.
When we left the courtroom he didn't even wait for me to ride the elevator down. When i was heading home. I decided to stop by his offices( I have stopped by his office on numerous occasions over the past 3 months to discuss the current situation and ask what I could do outside of sueing.

Long story short, He yelled at me like I haven't yelled at me and told me to get out of his office and how dare I come to his office.

It was bizarre. But I guess he didn't like losing. He was very confident that he was going to get the hearing rescheduled.

As for the board, When I got home I sent a short email letting them know the outcome of the TI hearing. Noone said a thing.

I later got a rude email from the attorney... It's so comical i'm going to paste the contents here for comic relief.(redacted of course)

Laska:

Your email below to the Board members of the Association sent mere minutes after court today, was forwarded to me, at my request. Those Board members are also copied on this email by me.

You are here notified and instructed to cease and not initiate or send any emails or other communication with any Board member regarding, dealing with, or relating to the above referenced lawsuit you have brought against the Association. I have instructed all Board members not to reply or otherwise respond to any emails from you regarding the Litigation; that includes your email below

You are currently in litigation with your lawsuit against the Association. Because of the Litigation, it is axiomatic that you, the claimant, do not have any communication regarding the Litigation with these Board members, the Defendant. To the extent this demand and instruction angers you, please direct that anger to me rather than your fellow Board members since it is me making such demand.

b++++ +++++++y

I responded with..

Mr B++++ +++++y
Why would i be angry. The judge granted everything I asked for.
I have every right to notify the board of a court order.
Please make it clear to the board that I am immediately reinstated until the disputes are decided in court.
For the record...
It was not "mere minutes" after court today. It was an hour after court...

The judge said immediate reinstatement.. not wait for a while

Don't get too ticked off with the attorney.

He was representing his client, The Association, as directed by the existing board.
You are simply on the other side now.

The Board can, and should, leave you out of all discussions dealing with the case.
Simply make sure that those discussions are considered executive sessions and entered into from, and adjourn back to, an open board meeting (that you should be invited to).

I don't think it's By law that I am not to be involved with any discussions regarding the litigation.

I was thinking over what had occurred in court that could have made the attornies attitude change 180.

Before the judge arrived, the attorney informed me that no hearing would occur today, he guaranteed it.
I expressed my disagreement with his opinion and told him I absolutely wanted the ti hearing to proceed.

During the discussion at the bench with the judge,the attorney told the judge that he had only found out he was representing the association the previous night.

I responded and told the judge that he may have only gotten confirmation last night, but He was notified about the expedited ti hearing the day after the judge signed it.Which was Jan 7th. Because I sent the notice to him via email and he responded.

The judge asked him for clarification and it turned out he had to admit that he did get notice on january 7th. The judge raised an eyebrow and said something to the effect , that should have been plenty of time to prepare.

I think when the judge catches an attorney in a lie, it's a pretty big deal.

LaskaS, on the other hand, I do appreciate this update. It will help others. Thank you.

Acually, I did a lot of research. I think it's it's a difference of semantics.

Key Distinction:
Laws (Statutes): Passed by the Texas Legislature
Rules: governing lawyer behavior and the State Bar's function.

My point is, I was not talking to the board about the litigation, I simply sent an email to all of the board members regarding the outcome of the ti hearing.

I agree the attorney needs to recuse himself. However, he did not explain the potential conflict to the judge, which would have been a valid reason to delay.
instead he provided half truths in response to the judges question about notice. I can't speculate as to why he chose not to inform the judge of the potential conflict of interest issue.

I think the attorney's insinuation that they don't know anything about the issues because he was just notified the night before that he was going to represent the association at the ti hearing is disingenuous. The truth is, he knows everything about the issues. If he doesn't recuse himself, I will file a request based on the fact that he is very likely a material witness.

Nope, it's not semantics. The enforcing agency of the Rules of Professional Conduct is a branch of government known as the Commission for Lawyer Discipline. The rules are enforced as law.
Of course you were talking to the board about the litigation. You were also telling the board what to do. This is not your place.

He could not explain the problem without prejudicing his client's case. That's why he kept quiet.

Attorney client privilege precludes his being called as a witness. That privilege continues even when he is not the HOA's attorney.