Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
I'll provide information in overview, and at times transcription, to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to the tape provided at The Wedgefield Times. The Legal Report begins at 18.28 minutes into the tape.
Garrison starts his report stating that there aren't any new things, but ongoing. The foreclosure proceedings are actually making progress. Several have been filed for judgement. Payment plans are being worked out. There are some that we won't be able to collect on. One has a first and second mortgage and is hopefully for sale. He reminds the board that the WPA is in third position and that leaves us "without a whole lot of juice".
It appears that the report is at an end, but McBride has a question. The following is transcription to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to the tape.
TRANSCRIPTION:
McBride: I've got a question. A couple of people have an attorney to question the $5,000 individual assessment. That's in court. Where is that?
Garrison: This is an out growth of the action that the WPA filed against the individuals who have not paid anything towards those $5,000 assessments. One of those has been settled by default judgement which I mentioned several months ago. We had one and I was in the process of executing that judgement to see if we can't squeeze the money out of it and get paid. The other two having that filed. I don't know if word is objection is right, but why have hired an attorney? They have moved those two cases from magistrate's court to circuit court. At this particular point there is going to be a hearing on this at some point by a special referee to adjudicate this. No date has been set for that hearing.
McBride asks a question - not quite able to hear it.
Garrison: I've been told that the hearing is probably in a time frame that is 6-8 weeks before it will happen, but with most things legal .. that would probably be hugely optimistic. I don't know for sure.
McBride: You said we could maybe squeeze that what are you talking about there?
Garrison: Once you have a judgement, than the next step is an execution of that judgement and what is going to happen. In that case there will be a hearing scheduled before Judge Crosley (unsure of proper spelling), who in an effort to collect that back...that amount that's due. Now precisely what you can execute in terms...that depends on what the judge elects to do. I can't answer that in terms of what is going to happen...in terms of what the procedure will be when it get to the judge...My experience with it is theoretically you can...a judge can force to sell assets in order to satisfy judgement. Whether that happens in real life or how often..is something to question. ....Whole point is pressure is ...the defendant, whoever it is, finds out that fighting it, is going to cost him money...at some point probably more than ..to paying the money would be. That's kind of what you're hoping for. You're going to come to a point where you're going to...in general that paying the bill is going to cost less than fighting the bill. Particularly in the case of default...had chance to challenge and didn''t. So there's not much to challenge there. Just about how the court decides to extract the money.
McBride: When you extract the money...also court costs?
Garrison: I don't know the answer to that John. Typically when you file something like that is for ..plus court. Whether that will happen in this case and whether you get any at all I can't answer.
McBride: When you file these judgements...about what would that cost us?
DeMarchi: You talking about foreclosures, or you talking about...for the canal lot situation?
McBride: Well, talk about both. We have costs in both right?
Garrison: In case of fore closers, when these monies are collected the legal fees are included. As for...others cost of filing in magistrates court is 80 bucks a case. Now I don't recall off the top of my head ...I'd have to back and look at Mr.Moody's bills, from 5 or 6 months ago, or longer to see what specifically he charged us for filing those but that was done, again, at least 6 months ago. Court costs itself is 80 bucks a unit.
McBride: But all of this stuff when we look at it together...budget over estimate.
Garrison: Absolutely, what dang near $5,000 of that was an ARC issue. That got us zero money. This stuff in terms of foreclosures and what has been collected already and what's on board to collect is at least revenue generating. In my mind from a legal stand point, the real waste of money has been having to fight things that deal with the ARC violation, where we got people who just don't care about following the rules. That is the stuff that gets hugely expensive and has no revenue redeeming value, other than evidently we get some one to do sort of the right thing. Was it worth it? Well it had to be done. We're at some where around 14 grand for the year in legal expenses. Very little of that was on anything other than collecting money or fighting ARC, with the exception of a couple questions that the board wanted the attorney to answer, which were relatively minimal. That's where the majority of money went.
DeMarchi: I have one final question Bob. On these settlements that are negotiated by the attorney, where they are putting so much down and they are going to pay it over a year. When he gets these funds and he will send that to us, but are they being instructed to send that money to William Douglas, and in the case of a prior situation where they didn't do that we need to instruct Mr. Moody's office to make sure those checks are forwarded to William.
Garrison: That has been done. I told him that. (Some minor discussion follows - not provided here.
McBride: I know in the case of my committee and John's committee, Larry's committee, other committees, we can spend no more - less than $200 without getting prior board approval. Is your committee also subject o that rule?
Garrison: I would suspect so. That's why everything we talk about came here first. We didn't go off and do this ARC battle without you being aware of what it was and some approximation of what it was going to cost. We...institute 22 foreclosures without the board being aware of the fact that A, there were 22 foreclosures, B - it was approved to proceed.
McBride: But we didn't know costs.
Garrison: Well I think we knew approximate cost.
President Walton: Alright please move on.
COMMENTS:
Why bother with the transcription of this report? There are several important reasons. One other reason popped up as I made a recent visit to examine records in the WPA office. First things first. There are questions to be asked and answered.
First, you have to give Garrison credit for seeming to be well versed in his discussion. HE HAS COMPLETE CONCRETE INFORMATION. Second, you have to give McBride his due for questioning. Why? Every board member should get the information they need to stay abreast of what is happening, and to secure information that will help them form opinions on future votes. There shouldn't be any "sacred" information amongst board members. We elected them as individuals to use their individual knowledge to vote in behalf of us. They need complete information.
Initially, Garrison's report was very brief. It is only through McBride's questions that the board and membership receive a clear picture regarding legal affairs and their related expenses. When McBride asks the question regarding related expenses and approval, it is a reasonable question. Garrison is correct in saying that the board's approval was sought before they took action. Garrison did the correct thing. In all the areas of approval and related expenses, legal almost stands alone. Why? Because you can hire a lawyer, taking advice toward possible out come and expense, but the legal system has it's own twists and turns. We all know that.
There is more gleamed from Garrison's extended report. Garrison speaks to residents not willing to do the right thing. I believe that is a problem caused by the board in general, and in at least one instance, promoted by Garrison himself. This is one time he may be living with the ramifications of some of his own actions. The board is responsible for the general disregard to ARC violations. Very little has been done to keep our neighborhood sustained within the boundaries of the ARC requirements. The requirements are concise. The oversight of them is not. The property owner who cost the association approximately $5,000 in legal expenses, had two problems. One was a curb that abutted the road. The second was a fence. In the end the curb was removed but the fence stayed. Why? We have more than a few fences that don't meet the requirements and the property owner was smart enough to present them. Frankly, I'm surprised he had to remove the curb. There are other curb like structures in Wedgefield. When are they going to be removed? In general, while we may not like ARC when we want to do, what we want to do, it is intended to keep a quality neighborhood. Recently, a resident wrote the board about a property that was not being maintained. Nothing happened for a long period of time. The reporting resident stayed with it. Finally, a board member told them that the property wasn't much worse than a lot of properties here! Really, we depend on ARC and our board to keep this a quality community. That's what we thought we were buying into. No wonder there is a disrespect, disregard, for the ARC rules.
As to resident disrespect for paying assessments, I suggest to you that Garrison is partially responsible, and now has to help clean up a mess, he may have helped to create. What do I mean? Well, think about it. It was Garrison and one of his legal committee members, Bob Nichols, who authored a letter to every resident telling them to hold their $175 added assessments, in an escrow account. He advised residents to circumvent the board's right to assess and their then collection policy. Just maybe some of these collections are on people who followed his advice. Once again, I ask President Walton how he could have APPOINTED Garrison as Legal Chair. I ask the entire board how they could have raised their hands and allowed Bob Nichols to sit on the Legal Committee. In the end, your board is responsible for some of the lax attitude of residents regarding assessments. We won't spend a lot of time on it, because The Wedgefield Examiner has covered the subject already, but when your board issues willy nilly assessments, this is what they get. I received an assessment billing due the end of January. At the January meeting, your board voted to stop William Douglas from sending late notices out on Feb. 5th, so they would have time for a second policy change reading to extend late notices and fees, on those who fail to pay by the end of January, until the first of March. How serious are they about collecting assessments?
How does a visit to the office connect to any of this? If you believe that each board member should have complete information, then the visit, and what I observed and heard, are pertinent. While I was reviewing files a board member came in and asked to see the complete legal file and the related invoice file. He appeared to review the files and then mentioned to the staff secretary that there seemed to be a hole (my words) in the invoice file - a gap. She told him that she puts every invoice that she receives into the file, but she doesn't receive all of them at the office. As I observed the interaction, it appeared that the two didn't know where the rest were sent. The board member had a right to review all of the information. Where are the invoices going? How does a committee chair sign off on the expense, and the documents not reside in the office?
Second, I was told by a board member who shall remain unnamed that he was told to stay out of Water Amenities business, by another board member, when he asked questions. The board member making the request had every right to secure the information.
Finally, as a resident, I requested the opportunity to review the Correspondence File. Usually, when I make this request, I ask to see at least the last six months. I forgot to stipulate this time. I was presented with a file that pretty much started on Jan. 1, 2013. You know, some days you just let it slide until next time. Another resident had visited the office with a similar request and questioned why just 2013? She was told a board member had the other correspondence file stored in the attic. Why? It may be the appropriate place to put it. Most residents haven't been answered for months. What do you do with items that you don't intend to use or act on? You put them in the attic. You are not a business. There is unfinished business in the 2012 file and it belongs in the office.
This all comes down to territorial board members, not all, but most, grabbing hold of power. Will you let them continue to abuse others on the board, abuse your right to know, or will you write the board, go see for yourself, or ask questions, during the resident comment section of the monthly board meetings?
