Court rules in member favor....More wasted member money. Yours and mine.
This Board can try and hide what is going on, but they can't control public records.
With a little effort, your blog host was able to uncover more information about another lost court case. The Board has spent many, many thousands of our dollars on legal issues that should never have happened. This is just another in a long line. In every instance, the members have won.
This should be a lesson for everyone.
One...Members can sue and win.
Two...The Board is incompetent and costing members many thousands of dollars.
The court action:
According to public Pacific County court records, Patrick Johansen and Roy Ottersen won another lawsuit against Surfside HOA in August of 2019.
Johansen and Ottersen had filed suit against Surfside HOA for attorney's fees, when the HOA filed false complaints against Johansen's shed roof and multiple false charges against Ottersen's property, and attempted to fine them.
After Johansen and Otterman hired an attorney , Surfside HOA dropped those complaints. Johansen and Otterman were left with attorney fees. They filed in small claims court and won approximately $1,400.00 Surfside paid Johansen and Ottersen, but then filed an appeal.
Presumably, knowing that they could not win, Surfside dropped the appeal before going to court, but again leaving Johansen and Ottersen with a little under $5000.00 in additional attorney's fees.
Johansen and Ottersen filed in small claims court and won the full amount plus court costs.
Surfside has spent many thousands of dollars trying to not pay Johansen and Ottersen $1,400.00 The Surfside attorney (Sam Jacobs) confirms that Surfside was paying his attorney's fees. Surfside has kept secret the real amounts they spent in legal fees on this mess. It has been estimated that with some insurance, attorney fees, etc....there could be as much as $75,000.00 spent.
Note:
I am not an attorney and offer no legal advice. What I have posted is based on court records and other information provided to me. As with all third party information, you must use your on judgement in the final analysis. I hope this is the end of this legal saga, but who knows. With this Board, they could decide to appeal the appeal judgement and spend even more of our member money. They have a record of bad judgement.
43 comments:
We can thank Chris Hanson, Kirby Smith and Gary Williams for this. Insurance rate also went up twenty thousand a year.
Do you know Mr. Johansen’s and Mr. Ottersen’s attorneys name. JUST IN CASE
We truly do want members who think it is their dreams to violate the covenants and to stick all the rest of the members with the costs of dealing with their irresponsible and obstinate actions. It need to be made clear that you are agreeing to the covenants when you purchase property in this HOA. As with raising children, rewarding irresponsible and obstinate behavior results in an increase in bad actions.
We don't think these incidents were handled in the best manner because we have had people serving on the board who have failed to take fair and timely covenant enforcement seriously. It is shameful that pride and ignorance has cost the members too much money.
Almost a shameful as your supercilious attitude and slavish attention to out dated covenants.
This was about ego, and a series of bad decisions that would have got all parties fired in the real world.
Instead, we give them new terms and the opportunity to mismanage our money once again. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Welcome to Surfside!
Dear 11:49
I voted for only one candidate and certainly did not vote for those candidates who have done stupid things in the past. Don't blame me for the outcome of the votes.
Williams made this a personal issue from the start and continues down this path of destruction. He deliberately did not follow attorney advice. They need to remove this guy and failing that, do not re-elect him next year. He needs to go the way of Flood, into oblivion. He is a disgrace to himself and Surfside. The general manager has proved to be nothing more than a Williams stogie.
Agree about Williams. Never voted for him over all the years due to poor performance in meetings.
It's what he does behind closed doors that scares me. He is still running things with the president and general manager following his orders. Clancy is another who is acting on his own.
As I remember, one of the posts way back did bring up the issue about the general manager not lasting very long on previous jobs. Guess Surfside was also taken for a ride and he'll freely take a salary from the members put have his strings pulled by Williams and his old biddy groupies.
9:39. The problem is they weren’t violating anything, yet they were treated that way. The absurd 18 inch overhang covenant cost us over $5000. It should have come out of the pockets of Williams, Kirby, and Hanson. Next time, think before you write.
What is with this new general manager? I thought he was going to get us back on track with professionalism? He is nothing more than a higher priced Laura Frazier. Maybe he will be the fall guy that the board can blame. Want to take bets on how long he will last?
I'd like to think that our new GM will last a long time. I imagine he can think for himself and make the hard decisions. I hope that he is busy getting his ducks in order before he does the right things for our HOA.
Right now, I've seen or heard nothing. We'll see?
Actually 1:44, Patrick did. He violated a stated rule that once you got your plans approved you are not to change them. Any changes afterwards need to be approved, no matter how small. He changed his plans, didn't get them approved and got called out on it. Then instead of appealing like most members do he went running to a lawyer.
People here like to point fingers at the board. If Patrick would have followed the rules this all could have been avoided. To those that keep saying it was only a shed, did you ever see it? When most do shed isn't the first words out. In fact his own for sale listing didn't even call it a shed.
5:28,apperantly several court decisions prove you wrong.....again.
528 - scoreboard to Patrick, no matter how many times you whine about it. Who will be the next member to cash in? Stay tuned.
Will it be antiquated covenants, asbestos and water quality, trees, or some foolishness we do not know about, because our board does not communicate? Like I said, stay tuned.
5:28 describes the circumstances correctly. It is the trouble making members who want to ignore the covenants and their responsibilities who see it any other way. Patrick was arrogant and he thought that he was exceptional. So happy he is gone from Surfside. We don't want members like this stirring up trouble and expenses for the rest of the members.
Trouble, trouble, trouble makers. You sound like a broken record. Patrick won. Get over it. BTW, we know you are 5:28 That makes you not right twice. Fool
913 - what's the difference? Your arrogance has been MUCH more annoying than Patrick.
Different opinions = troublemakers. How foolish.
In response to 9:13: “We don't want members like this stirring up trouble and expenses for the rest of the members. “ I couldn’t have stated this better myself! The Stump Committee, arrogant K, Hanson( good riddance) and our Supreme Spender of Members’ Dues aka Williams have tipped this HOA over the cliff. Please members: I encourage you to go to small claims court if they come knocking at your doorstep for overgrown trees nonsense. This must stop! BTW: there was never anything arrogant about Patrick. Great, upstanding guy that saw a wrong that needed to be righted. Same goes for Deb. This “gang of troublemakers” is poison to our beach community!! Signed: Very Fed Up
Couldn't disagree with you more 8:52.
Disagreement without a coherent rebuttal is a waste of our time n tiring.
No argument needed to know that what 8:52 has to say is mostly rubbish. The praise for a couple of hateful, self serving trouble makers says it all.
The dispute with Patrick began when he announced his candidacy for the BOT. He was espousing several changes to restrictions on RV lots, and the anti-RV contingent on the Board decided to bug him about tree heights, which he responded to, then his shed, which had a 3 foot porch on it.
Small Claims Court did not favor the HOA, and demanded the HOA pay legal costs, and pay them immediately. The HOA decided to take the matter to Superior Court at great expense, threatening Johansen with the financial might of the community - over a shed porch. This being apparent to the Courts, they were unlikely to find favor with the HOA in it's unwillingness to work out a trivial enforcement matter out of Court.
The Courts have a busy schedule and do not want their docket packed with ridiculous insignificant HOA disputes nor do they want to be enabling a community to routinely destroy their member's finances by taking them to Superior Court instead of mediating solutions and moving forward.
I believe that part of the matter here is that the shed restrictions (like many other covenants) in Surfside, mirror the County ordinances. Surfside has tried to make them more restrictive, which they are legally able to do, but the restrictions must relate to a demonstrated need and not just a frivolous addition. The Courts have not considered Surfside restrictions justifiable, beyond the County standard.
Johansen was elected to the BOT and his entire 3 year term was harassed by the HOA over his shed. He put his property up for sale amid all of this Superior Court stuff, and sold just prior to going to Court.
So the outcome of 3 years of harassment from the HOA was that tens of thousands of dollars were frittered away on legal counsel by the HOA, and they then demanded that the new owner remove the porch. They left the roof overhang, and sawed-off the porch floor, then tossed it into the bushes about 4 feet from the shed, where it may still be laying a year later.
Obviously, a great deal of member money was wasted and the result was several failed attempts in Court and a porch thrown into the bushes. It all could have been resolved by granting a variance, and a stern warning that there would be no further tolerance of non-compliance. Nothing was gained and much was lost by insisting on no compromise.
Steve lies again. The size of the alleged porch was considerably larger than 3 feet. There were pictures of it on the blog. Face it Steve, Patrick and Deb were trouble makers in Surfside. Deb has not shown her face in Surfside for some time although still owns property. Both of these trouble makers seem to have come to the realization that Surfside does not want members who are hell bent on stirring up trouble where no trouble is necessary.
I'm with you 10:36
Blagg's lot is for sale. It is working folks. The trouble makers are getting the message.
Pick your battles folks. Who gives a flying f . . k how big the overhang or porch was/is? Check out the outside attachments at what I believe is 345th and F off G street. Constructed years ago by a former owner of that home. I hear no one complaining about it.
Blaggs bought property elsewhere more than a year ago. Democracy is dependent on dissent of the public, debate, and compromise solutions. Those who express critical views in Surfside, do it as a matter of conscience, are well educated and recognize that differing points of view are welcomed in the democratic process.
Fools who call those who dissent "troublemakers" have become so distant from a basic understanding of how democracy works, they no longer remember how and why the USA came into being. Too bad. They've become mimics and sheep.
Cox, we don't need any reminders from you about what comprises democracy. Democracy has one very simple principle: majority rules. While the total number of members who vote is small, their votes have been recorded and respected. You weren't elected to the board. Generally, your opinions presented as facts are not a matter of what most members want. You are thick headed and stubborn for sure. When will you get the message that is so clearly there. It does not help your cause to call those who disagree with you names like mimics and sheep. You and the blog host are tight. That does not make you right.
Sorry, anyone creating a group for a planned coup to circumvent the membership who care enough to vote IS a troublemaker no matter how you try to spin it.
Both of these members tried to improve this place, and were ruthlessly driven away.
Some of us do not believe in a revisionist history, you putz!
Alright, you convince me!
You convince me that dissolution is the only way to get out of this nightmare. Let's get on with it.
Alright, you convince me!
You convince me that dissolution is the only way to get out of this nightmare. Let's get on with it and put this organization of bed for good.
Yes 7:21 and 7:24 let’s do this. Sooner the better.
Well before the brouhaha with Patrick he kept me after an event for 2 hours expounding on how the J Placers should pay for his trees to be trimmed. He accused me and my husband of being self serving when EMC built the emergency shed! News flash: I don’t need to use the shed as we live on J Pl. I signed the same covenants he did and no I don’t need to pay for him to keep his trees trimmed. I also resent that he would have the audacity to use my email address! Yes, he was a troublemaker and yes, his shed was out of compliance and it was his plan all along per a Facebook page and post he made right after buying in Surfside! Signed Louise Purdin as I don’t believe anyone who is Anonymous!
I also live on J Place and the Purdin's and very few others who write the tree complaints, do not represent me or most of the other J Place folks. A few are giving all of us on J Place a bad reputation. We will always have a view, no matter how tall the trees grow. The real troublemakers are the Purdin's and others like them.
Who would listen to anyone, friend or foe, drone on for two hours about anything? Reminds me of church meetings I was forced to attend.
You can sign anything you want, Louise, but it doesn't make your story believable, or even coherent.
Funny how any one that voices an opposing opinion around here is a troublemaker. Louise, I think your self interest is showing.
BTW - that cache was totally self serving, and Patrick was dead on!
Everything Patrick did was self serving. Name one thing he was for that didn't directly benefit him? People choose to forget he was also for changing the septic requirements for those who live on the canal, wanting to let them be closer. Again, so he could do so for his property.
He also was one of only a select few Trustees who voted against people serving on committees. Can you guess who the others were? Not anyone on J.
Thanks for your comment Louise. I too have had one of those long conversations with him and had to listen to his hate, so I feel your pain.
Patrick is not a Surfside member, and your complaints are heresay. All of this b.s. is irrelevant. Tens of thousands of dollars were wasted on legal efforts to chastise him and chase him off the BOT. Turns out, if many on the Board of Trustees harass you mercilessly over trifles for 3 years steady, the maligned member MAY move away.
The sawed-off porch probably is still laying in the bushes on the lot, now belonging to someone else. I do not authorize the HOA to spend $100,000 in member funds, on legal efforts to avoid granting a variance for an existing shed appurtenance. That is vindictive and idiotic. Williams insisted on pursuing this, on to Superior Court. Then withdrew it before it went to Court.
This was not the only case resulting in vast sums of money wasted on legal efforts last year. Then came the Asbestos Debacle, and the failed permitting of the CTP. Nothing has been admitted to, the truth has not been openly talked about, and we know of no adjustments made to change future results. Bill Neal is still manager, and only Flood has gone.
Big ass Williams is next on the list to be gone.
10:05....I'm impressed by your honesty and want to thank you for your comment. As a J Place resident, I'm sure you have some sense of other J Place owner's opinions on the Tree Policy, and we can be encouraged by your statement that many J Pl. owners do not support the Policy, and are fair-minded.
I will say that your statement is one of the only ones that have been posted on the Blog in opposition to the Policy as a J Place owner. If a group of J Place owners signed a petition to end the mandatory tree-topping, it would speak volumes in the community, and would surely result in the policy's demise. It could at the very least, serve as a springboard for a serious effort to press the BOT to act on ridding the community of this ugly burden.
Post a Comment