Advocacy Opinion (OpEd)

2017: The Board claimed it was carrying out a fiduciary duty to the Association by engaging in a legal dispute with fellow homeowners.

Why did the Board spend over $51,000 of our HOA money in a legal dispute against one resident?

• Did the patio present a health or safety hazard to any homeowners? NO.
• Did the patio adversely affect property values? NO.
• Were there multiple complaints? NO.
•  Did this legal dispute maintain and enhance resident quality of life and sense of community? NO.

The fiduciary duty the Board claimed to be carrying out should pertain to the protection of all homeowners. Enforcement should be applied equally and fairly throughout our community. 

• Why single out one resident? 
• The complaining neighbor, coincidentally, has a friend on the IDRC.
• This friend, by not following recusal guidelines, and still  participating in the IDRC hearing, was in violation of item “J.6. Internal Resolution Dispute Committee” in the Rules and Regulations community document.  Yet the Board ignored this rule violation.
• The enforcement of rules must be uniformly applied by the HOA Board. Selective enforcement of the governing documents; now that is an actual violation of fiduciary duty.

Fellow homeowners, decide for yourselves: 

Was the cost to our HOA worth it?

How did the Board’s decision to pursue biased and expensive legal action against a fellow resident benefit and protect the homeowners of Sewickley Ridge?

How did this legal dispute serve the best interest of the Association?   Was it really necessary? 

Or did arrogance, ego, jealousy, and resentment overpower common sense and good judgment?

It is come to my attention that some misstatements were made at a recent Board meeting regarding the lawsuit I filed in response to broken promises made by TOA and Board interference in the conflict that I have with this builder.

It was allegedly stated that I have continued to construct roadblocks to settlement. This is not true. One of these “road blocks” was a suggestion that a heater be provided by the Board in the event of an outdoor meeting. This was a sarcastic remark made by plaintiff’s attorney in frustration over the parties’ failure to come to agreement over a meeting place to discuss settlement options. I am quite surprised and amused that anyone would take that remark seriously.

Another issue was the request by plaintiff’s female attorney that her and her client’s personal safety are assured during meetings. This request was in response to inappropriate language used by defendants during a conference call. Plaintiff’s attorney perceived this language to be threatening and promptly terminated the call. Plaintiff’s attorney was reasonably concerned about the personal safety of herself and her client after this phone call, especially since defendant’s counsel suggested meeting at a remote and isolated facility.

A comment was also made that there was an offer to “follow the rules in the future.” This was a gross misinterpretation of plaintiff attorney’s attempts to discuss “grandfather clauses” which are provisions to allow an old rule to apply to an existing situation with the understanding that new rules apply in future cases. Grandfather clauses are often applicable in cases such as this and reasonable Boards use them in order to avoid expensive litigation and ill will.

The truth is that I have consistently tried to follow community guidelines. I do not care about the rock wall that has driven this Board into a three-year frenzy. That wall was constructed by a landscaper that I hired to build the patio that TOA promised me. Since construction began after I closed on the house, TOA could not charge me a commission.  So, they refused to give me the patio they promised me during their sales pitch. I agreed with their modifications, gave the rulebook to the landscaper, and put him in touch with the TOA property managers. To my knowledge, I was then “in compliance.” 

Then the fines began by a TOA controlled Board. (It is interesting to note that TOA hired my landscaper to work on their other properties and three of the model homes at the Cranberry site have an exact replica of this wall).

I have made numerous attempts to settle this case. I do not care about the notion of “winning.” My ego is not that fragile. I have repeatedly offered to dismantle the rock wall in exchange for an 8-foot extension of the existing patio that has an awning. I have submitted drawings on several occasions to verify that this patio would be in compliance with guidelines. There is a sewer easement involved but the township has given me permission to encroach upon it. But the Board wishes to proceed with expensive arbitration. Again.

Another aspect of the case involves my claim against a Board member for arbitrary application of the rules. I have sufficient evidence to support this claim.