What says Danny Trapp about Gus
On December 30, 2024 Danny Trapp signed an Affidavit that is attached to the Association's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction against Gus Philpott (me). The Hearing for the TRO is today at 2:00PM.
In that Affidavit Danny says, in part, that he is "familiar with the By-Laws of the Association and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Summit". (4)
But apparently not with Art. XIII, Section 10 Litigation.
Danny says, "Mr. Philpott is not a property owner" (7) and "Despite this, he routinely appears at Association meetings." (8)
Every month the Summit Scoop reports, "Board Meetings are open to all Summit residents."
Danny says, "In my time as President, Mr. Philpott has been at every Association meeting and routinely behaved in a disruptive manner." (10)
Is this libel?
Danny says, "Mr. Philpott ... makes false accusations about the legitimacy of the Board and its actions." (11)
The only problem for Danny is that my accusations are true.
Danny says, "On one occasion, Mr. Philpott said that he was going to "come after" me, when I did not give in to his demands." (12)
Seriously? That never happened.
Danny says, "At a board meeting in November of 2024, Mr. Philpott wanted me to tell him who was going to be elected to the new Board. When I did not divulge this information, he said 'I'll see you in court.'" (13)
This makes no sense at all. The election had already taken place. The three newly-elected board members (Holmes, Adams, Bates) were introduced before the meeting began and were seated at the board table.
Danny says, "Multiple people have expressed to me that they are afraid of Mr. Philpott." (17)
Are you afraid of me?
Danny Trapp is not the legitimate President of the HOA. Why not?
He was not elected by legitimate Directors. Why not?
There are no legitimate directors. They were voted for by ineligible "Voting Members", who themselves were not duly-elected, according to the By-Laws, by homeowners in their own neighborhoods.
The State of South Carolina should take over the HOA and place it in Receivership for the protection of 2,480 Members.
Is this a case of "The Emperor has no clothes on"? Why doesn't the lawyer straighten them out? Has Danny told the other board members that they cannot talk to the lawyer? Why would they accept that from him? Was there a Board vote on that?
A lawyer I know told me, the homeowners might have grounds to sue the HOA for wasting their money on this unauthorized and prohibited lawsuit. Who would have to pay? Danny? The Board, personally?
The HOA shouldn't have to pay to represent them, because they aren't really directors or officers. Probably the Directors &Officers' liability insurance (D&O) won't protect them, either. Several years ago I suggested they ask the D&O carrier to confirm coverage if they weren't legitimately elected, but I think they never did that.
Comments
Post a Comment