What Is Art. XIII, §10 in the CC&Rs All About?

What is this "Art. XIII, §10 Litigation" in the CC&Rs, about which I keep writing?

This Section in the CC&Rs protects the Members (homeowners) from exactly the lawsuit (and its expenses and liability) that was filed against Gus Philpott (me).

"Section 10. Litigation. No judicial or administrative proceeding shall be commenced or prosecuted by the Association unless approved by a vote of seventy-five (75%) percent of the Voting Members. In the case of such a vote, and notwithstanding anything contained in this Declaration or the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws of the Association to the contrary, a Voting Member shall not vote in favor of bringing or prosecuting any such proceeding unless authorized to do so by a ‘vote of seventy-five (75%) percent of all Members of the Neighborhood represented by the Voting Member. This Section shall not apply, however, to (a) actions brought by the Association to enforce the provisions of this Declaration (including, without limitation, the foreclosure of liens), (b) the imposition and collection of assessments as provided in Article X hereof, (c) proceedings involving challenges to ad valorem taxation, or (d) counterclaims brought by the Association in proceedings instituted against it. This Section shall not be amended unless such amendment is made by the Declarant or is approved by the percentage votes, and pursuant to the same procedures, necessary to institute proceedings as provided above." [emphasis added.]

Did Voting Members inform their respective homeowners that the HOA wished to sue Gus Philpott (me), and did 75% of those homeowners in a neighborhood approve?

Did 75% of the Voting Members (those neighborhoods who gave 75% approval) approve of the lawsuit against Gus Philpott?

Upon information and belief, NO VOTING MEMBER was asked to approve the lawsuit.

Four of the neighborhoods (19.6% of the homeowners) didn't even have a Voting Member. Twenty-three other neighborhoods did not have a legitimate, duly-elected Voting Member. Only Barony Place has a legitimate, duly-elected Voting Member.

The Board of Directors never voted to approve the lawsuit.

The Board of Directors never voted to authorize Danny Trapp, Board President, by Resolution to direct the HOA's law firm, Turner Padget, to file the lawsuit.

Did Danny Trapp start this lawsuit in the name of the HOA without its approval?

Because the lawsuit was unauthorized, prohibited, and unapproved, payments of invoices for legal fees are illegal disbursements of HOA funds.

Did LaToya Adams, the Treasurer from November 2024 - May 2025, commit a financial crime by allowing payments of those invoices? Did CAMS participate by issuing payments it should have known were illegal?

Is the new Treasurer since July 1, 2025, William Hill, committing a financial crime by allowing payments for a service that was never approved by the Board of Directors?

Is it way past time for responsible Board members, the Voting Members, and Members (homeowners) to stand up and object?

The Covenants Committee addressed the Board on this subject on August 5, 2025. The Minutes should reflect their remarks. I was not at that meeting, but it is my understanding that the Committee told the Board that the lawsuit is wrong.

Some of the Voting Members are raising the alarm. 

Meanwhile, legal expenses of the HOA continue to rise.

There is only one way to stop those expenses.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

June 3rd BOD Meeting now Closed to Members

The HOA office sent out an email at 3:29PM that read, in part, Due to Brookland Baptist Church being unavailable to accommodate the scheduled Board of Directors meeting on June 3rd, the meeting will now be held at the Summit Association office. Please note that space is limited at this location; therefore, only Voting Members and Committee Chairs will be invited to attend in person. One would think they would splash a message on the homepage of the HOA's website and change the location in the Calendar on the website; but No to both.  This last-minute change is highly adverse to the interests of the Members of the Association. The HOA must have some deal with Brookland Baptist Church Northeast for the rental of the meeting room. The dates must be arranged for the year. The HOA makes a "donation" to the Church for the use of the room. It's actually not a "donation", because the HOA receives something of value in exchange; i.e., the use of the meeting room.  Wh...
Read more

What? No trampolines?

OK, you trampoline fans. Are your rights and privileges being tramped on by your Board of Directors? The office sent out an email just before 2:00PM threatening you with a dreaded violation notice and the possibility of fines, if you dare to put a trampoline in your yard.  This is what the email from the office said,  " Please be advised that, pursuant to Section 13, Page 22, Article XII of the covenants, no structure of a temporary nature shall be placed upon any unit or any part of the properties. This includes, but is not limited to, tents, temporary gazebos, shacks, trailers, and any other structure of a temporary nature.  "Kindly note that trampolines are classified as temporary play equipment and, as such, are not permitted within the community. We ask that you ensure there is no trampoline present on your property to avoid receiving a violation notice and subsequent fines." What do the Covenants say? "Section 13. Tents. Trailers and Temporary Structures. Exce...
Read more

What Story Do the Financials Tell?

At the May 6, 2025 Board of Directors meeting, the March Financial Operating Results were available. Did you pick up a copy? Was there any discussion of them? Usually there is not. Do board members examine them before the meeting? Does anyone on the Board really understand them?  Look at the page for the Operating Expenses - Variances. Twelve Line Items are shown. No totals are shown. Big mistake. But are the totals intentionally omitted? For these 12 Items the total of "YTD Variances" is $61,784.93. As of the end of March, the HOA has over-spent the 2025 Budget by $61,784.93. Look at the reason given for the over-spending in Line Item GL-5111 Irrigation Contract. "This is over budget and will remain over budget due to the 2025 budget is $75,000 and the monthly contracted cost is $10,140." Is this worded to intentionally confuse any reader by stating the annual amount in the budget, but the monthly amount for the contracted cost? If the yearly contract for Irrigat...
Read more