I found this comment to be interesting and worth consideration. I don't know what the court costs and legal fees would be to sue or file a small claims action. I think I would first consult an attorney before I would consider what the anonymous person advises. I do agree that this may be the only effective way for members to "fight back"
- I do not have any trees that are subject to the tree height restrictions and I am not a lawyer, but this is what I would do if I received a complaint letter that my trees were over height and I neded to bring them into compliance.
This is "forced" tree topping. Contact an arborist and get a written statement as to the damage that will be done by topping. Do the topping to avoid the threatened fines. When the tree dies, again contact the arborist and get a written statement as to why the tree died. Make sure to take before and after pictures. Then sue the association in small claims court or better yet in Superior court. In small claims court you will recover the cost of replacing the trees (large ones) and your court costs. Your court costs are cheap.
Superior Court is more expensive but the penalties against the association are much greater, plus you can collect damages that far exceed what you get in small claims court.
If the tree committee has advised you to cut your trees down or recommended a non certified, bonded and insured contractor to do the job, they can also be sued for that and should be included in your case in either court.
A single win in either court will open the door to many more claims against the association. Another option is to tell the association to go to hell, you won't be forced to kill your trees and lower your property values due to "forced" tree topping. Yes they will fine you and make all kinds of threats. Include that in your court case.
With the current J Place board, the only way the tree policy will be changed is by legal action. As we have seen, when members fight back with the legal system, they win.
If just one member will fight this unfair covenant and the discriminatory way it is enforced, it will end once and for all the tree policy. - July 17, 2019 at 11:49 AM
18 comments:
One more time, you agreed to follow the covenants when you agreed to buy your lot(s) in Surfside. The only way a complaint would be considered valid would be if your trees were not kept in good order as you agreed to do. Court case dismissed because you failed to fulfill your responsibilities from the get go.
That didn't work for the sheds and it won't work for the trees. Court rules in favor of the plaintiff.
The shed issue had an entirely different context. Dream on trouble maker.
138 - pull out of your dementia-ridden dream.
The first person that sues will bankrupt this association out of existence- hopefully.
Again, in your dreams 2:23 and 2:56. Why are you so thrilled with the concept of bankrupting or getting rid of the HOA? Trouble maker.
Some of you think these covenants were set in stone. A few years back the board changed the rv covenant. Covenants change with the times. Some think it's ok to call in a complaint and cost someone else a bundle of money while it costs them nothing. I do not care who came up with this covenant but it was unfair then and is unfair now it needs to be changed. All you J place people why not stand up and pay for what only benefits you. The very least you j place board members should immediately change the covenant to 24' as it is along G That hurts no one. And just maybe would be a step in a reasonable compromise.
This conversation is pointless. If you think you can win, by all means, sue Surfside. Otherwise, shut up about it.
Getting rid of this disease-ridden pestilence called an association is a worthy dream, 322, as you and your buddies have made it that way.
You haven't seen trouble yet.
438 - get it through your thick head - you are not in charge, nor do you tell people what to do.
How many times does this lie have to be repeated. Once again, the tree committee doesn't tell anyone to cut their trees. The office as a representative of the HOA does.
And if you look back at the judgement concerning the sheds, the problem was that the board at the time didn't stick to their guns and instead tried to be nice by excusing the fines.
Only lie being repeated is yours. They do tell people to cut down their trees and even recommend local tree butchers to do the work because they are cheaper. They tell their friends and neighbors to write complaints and assist them in making the complaint. Beware of these old J Place bags. Their agenda is to maintain their views with discriminatory covenants.
You really like that old j place bag term don't you? Are you married? How about showing us a picture of that fine young women who finds a misogynistic P.O.S like yourself attractive.
To repeat your comment. YOU haven't seen trouble yet little man, but it is on the horizon.
So you think that "pile of sh.." POS is not worse than old bags? YOU are a joke and I would not call you any kind of a man, small or otherwise. Are you now making a threat? KMA
Calling you a troll would be a compliment since it usual denotes a creature of size, so I'll call you what you are, a gnome.
Keep righting those checks that your body can't cash weeman riley.
Mr Clancy, the covenants, though agreed to when purchasing a lot, are always available for modification.
626 - your obsession with Riley is troubling. Suggest you seek mental help.
He's not the only one that's telling you what a broken record your story is.
6:03.... That is false. In the Durdell case, the Small Court instructed the HOA to pay for damages to his shed, and gave a short timeline in which to do it. Tom Rogers was vice-president filling in as president in one of the many absences by Flood. Tom personally promised Mr. Durdell that he would come over and help rebuild the porch that he was forced to remove, and did so.
Strangely, the BOT continued to harass Johansen and another very aged owner over similar issues, lost to Johansen in Small Claims, and were instructed to pay for damages. The HOA was unwilling to do so, and refused to meet with a mediator as recommended by the Court, with the opportunity to resolve the matter at a legal expense of $100 for the mediator's service. Instead they took him to Superior Court, withdrawing the suit several months later before going to Court, at great expense, and nothing to show for it.
The contention was that the HOA had no rationale for not following the County guidelines which allow some "appurtenances". The BOT then decided they would enact even more stringent restrictions on sheds, the Eaves covenant - aimed at RV owners specifically, the only covenant change made in years - and the premise based on their insistence to establish a useless restriction to intimidate owners with.
Enforcement guidelines should always be based on an obvious need of the community, and not be designed to target a specific group of owners, or benefit a small group of owners, while putting upon others.
Which is where the problem lies.
Post a Comment