CONTROLING RESIDENT

Started by BonnieM3 • 6 replies • 1594 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

BonnieM3 (Florida)
Posts: 3

Posted:

WE HAVE A RESIDENT WHO INSISTS ON DOING IT THEIR WAY. THIS PERSON WAS THE EDITOR OF OUR COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER. THEY WERE NOT ASSIGNED TO IT, THEY JUST TOOK IT OVER BEFORE WE WERE ON THE BOARD. THIS PERSON DID NOT FOLLOW THE BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS.THE BOARD DECIDED TO MAKE A NEW NEWSLETTER AND STOPPED FUNDING THE OLD ONE. WE DECIDED IT WOULD BE BEST TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON PUBLISHING IT , IN CASE ONE GOT ILL OR WENT ON VACATION, ETC. WE ASKED THIS PERSON IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE A " PART OF THE TEAM" PROVIDING THEY COULD FOLLOW GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW PER BOD. THIS PERSON REFUSED TO FOLLOW GUIDELINESOR GIVE UP THE OLD NEWSLETTER PRINTING NOW THIS PERSON IS PRINTING THEIR OWN NEWSLETTER AT THEIR EXPENSE AND "BADMOUTHING" THE BOARD IN THE OLD NEWSLETTER. WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.

SusanW1 (Michigan)
Posts: 5,202

Posted:

No action can be taken. He/she is funding their own printed material and so long as things are not libelous, then that's their right. (remember the first amendment?)

This is what happens when the Board gets apathtic about things and lets one person run the show. It could have been handled better. The board could have written articles for the newsletter and slowly taken over the subject matters covered.

Now you've got an angry publisher.

SureshD
Posts: 268

Posted:

Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

The board should carefully monitor the rogue publication for possible incidents of defamation or libel or for communication of false or misleading information, including misleading homeowners into thinking the publication is the formal publication of the HOA.

The board should also make sure the residents understand that there is only one official Association produced/published/sponsored publication and that unless the newsletter contains such language indicating so, any other publications are unofficial and not sponsored or sanctioned by the HOA and may contain false or misleading information.

The only other thing the board can do is send a formal "cease and desist" letter if the former editor/publisher is using the official HOA NAME. The "cease and desist" letter should only request that the sponsor stop using the official name, not that they stop publishing/sending their newsletter. They have that right, they just don't have the right to use the HOA official nomenclature.

Finally, you may want to send that person a copy of a judgment made against a homeowner who produced a blog about their HOA where she criticized the board in a PERSONAL way and where she made false and misleading statements about them and the rest of the Board.

The judge found her liable and awarded the board a $40,000 judgment and the blog writer was ordered to stop posting any comments about that HOA or that board.

People think they are given some sort of carte blanch by the first amendment to be able to say or do whatever they feel if they have criticism of people or corporations. People are finding that is not the case if their hyperbole wanders into the libel and defamation arena. They do not. As this homeowner discovered the hard way.

As an example of what might lead a person into the libel/defamation range, here are some of the comments the homeowner posted about her board. As you will see, it won't take much to run afoul:

ex. v: HOA consists of "wannabe dictators"
ex. w: HOA "almost totally corrupt"
ex. y: "dictatorial ravages of their rogue boards of directors", AND allegations of criminal misconduct
ex.cc: "power and money seekers like this California developer"
ex. dd: "Colorado's poster child for corrupt homeowners associations"
ex. ee: "Ranch psychopaths"
ex. ff: psychopaths
ex. jj: obsessive-compulsive disorder
ex. mm,
p 9; "Ranch BoD is getting a little nervous about somebody catching them with their fingers in the cash register?"
p. 32: referring to supporters of the BoD as "sycophants" which is defined by Webster's as being a servile flatterer or a parasite.
p. 37: BoD involved in a "conspiracy to defraud, discrimination, the violation of fiduciary duties"
p. 46: assertions that the BoD attorney as well as a BoD member who happens to be an attorney should be reported to the Colorado Bar for unethical conduct, AND allegations of federal and state law violations which should be reported to appropriate authorities
p. 66: violation of state and federal laws
p. 71: "and the venal HOA beat goes on"
p. 84: "the President of our HOA--appears to be the most inept, incompetent "mouthpiece" that any cabal in existence has probably ever experienced.
p. 91: "all the improper/illegal BLM ROA skeletons-in-the-Ranch-closet"
p. 106: accusations of "rigging the votes"
ex. nn:
May 31, 2005 email asserting "apparent violations of state of Colorado and federal laws (civil and criminal)" by the BoD.
Numerous e-mails asserting civil and criminal violations by BoD, including RICO violations, violations of "constitutional rights", "serious legal violations", etc.
Aug. 10, 2006 email asserting at least one board member may be afflicted with a very serious and destructive-to-others mental/emotional disorder

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

By the way, the injunctive relief that the Board won against this homeowner included the court barring her from publication in any manner or forum, including but not limited to the news media, letters to the editors, community newsletters, and internet and blog postings . . . which refer directly to the HOA, the HOA board, the proeprty owners or past and present board members. The homeowner was also barred from communicating by any means, including but not limited to email, letter, telephone, or in person with any member of the Owners Association, its property owners, and its past and present board members which in any way alleges criminal conduct, civil wrongs, etc etc by any past or present board member.

Case Number 06CV23, Division 11, District Court, Teller County, Colorado.

RZ (Arizona)
Posts: 51

Posted:

Wow, $40,000?

For those would be publishers, remember those magic words..."In my opinion".

Also, the truth is the ultimate defense, if that counts for anything.

MicheleD-
You appear well versed in HOA case law- does the homeowner ever win in this type of situation? I think that as long as the published comments stay issue oriented, one would be OK.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Well, as with everything in life, it still depends.

It's not a matter of whether they are "issue oriented," though that can help.

The individual would have to be able to PROVE any "fact-based" opinion, even on "issues."

One should stay with the facts and not offer any editorial or speculation, especially on "motive" or "intent" of any board or individual, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

But the key would be to not offer any editorial embellishment, opinion or speculation that one could not prove.

So you are correct that it is best to stay away from talking about personalities, behaviors or such and stick simply to facts around issues. You could say (in writing) that it is your opinion that painting the front entrance pink with purple polka dots is a waste of association money, but you cannot say the board is crazy for wanting to do it.

And if the president's brother owns the painting company that won the bid, you would have to be even more careful in what you put in writing and disseminate (either electronically on a forum or in a newsletter to the residents).

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement