Where would a resident get the idea that they could settle a dispute over maintenance by holding their assessment in an escrow account? Why, from Mr. Garrison himself. QUICK HISTORY: During the heat immediately following the WPA Board's vote to assess, fund, and dredge. Mr. Garrison (then resident), along with two others, not only authored, and signed a letter to residents advising them to hold their assessments from the board, by placing them in accounts that they had arranged/ discussed, with Anderson Bros. Bank. Basically, they/he were advising residents to ignore, hold hostage the funds necessary to complete a project, and vote of a duly elected board.
This resident, and you, should be insulted, and concerned that we have a board member - let alone one that holds the chairs of Legal, and Compliance, who appears to demonstrate here that he is quite comfortable speaking out of both sides of his mouth, at the expense of sound judgment, and apparent trust that you won't remember, or don't care.
I thank the resident for bringing this situation to the board, who appear to sway and vote, without thinking, investigating our governing documents, and voting with their independent thought, in the best interests of the association. Why does he have all this power? It starts with our President, who has the authority to name committee chairs, and bleeds on through this entire board. You ought to be concerned, not just on this issue, but so many others.
Does the resident have a real issues? Probably! I've been writing about property maintenance - both built lots, and vacant, for several years. This association looks like our neighborhood is in decline. Can you hold your assessment payment if your board is failing to follow the governing documents? I'm not sure. I have thought at times, of taking it to Small Claims court. In some respects, our governing documents relating to appearance and maintenance, are a promise to the person buying property here - the reason we bought here, and pay assessments. Yet, I have documentation of just how far this board will let things slip, to the point of slip shod, trailer park appearance.
If the resident persists, could a battle go their way? They, and you, will have to judge for yourself. I would suggest that you follow the twisted real life, Wedgefield legal tale of the last standing canal lot owner, and the could appear corrupted results. Who was the Legal Chair who guided this mess? Garrison.
Before I add the article, I've added pictures of just what this board will allow in maintenance deviation, when it is a fellow board member, or board member's interest.
The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information to the best of my ability, from review of records, and my notes, taken during a scheduled visit at the WPA. While the law covering records review, provided the ability to have copies of requested documents, I did not request copies, as my board, your board, have denied them in the past. To confirm the detail provided below, I suggest that you write the board, and request a date and time to review The orders -2, signed by Referee Beverly, in 2013 and 2014, regarding the litigation, against the canal lot owner who refused to pay the dredging assessments.
I visited the office today at the scheduled time, and was provided most of the detail that I had requested. I’d like to thank Board Member Cline, for her efforts in gathering the documents, and arranging for a comfortable place to review, at what has to be a very busy time. In this article, I will focus on two documents in particular, two orders, signed by Chip & Hal Beverly. The orders focus on the litigation of members, at times one, at another two, who failed to pay their canal related dredging assessments. Both live on the canals, and to protect their rightful privacy, will be titled A & B members.
It should be noted that these cases have been hanging, almost since the beginning of the dredging, which took place in 2010. Details of which each owed, is insignificant to this particular article. It appears to me, to become and issue of principle, sound judgment, and open honest governance.
I am not a lawyer, so bear with me. It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments. The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed. Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment. Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.
“Therefore, I find that the plaintiff acted with proper authority when it maintained and assessed the canal assessments”
#13 of the order. “Regarding the assessment of fees, section 3331-302 (15) of the South Carolina Code (2006) states in Part, “(E) every corporation has…the same powers as an individual…to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out it’s affairs including without limitation, power…to impose dews, assessments, and admission and transfer fees upon it member… “The Covenants and By-laws of the Plaintiff run with the land and are binding upon all persons, firms, and corporations owning any interest in the lands within Wedgefield Plantation Association. The language of Article IV of the By-laws, particularly Sections 2 and 4 give the Plaintiff wide discretion in levying Individual Assessments and using the Individual Assessments. For the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desireable in the opinion of the board of directors for the general benefit of the subdivision.”
#11 “The Master Deed and By-laws, together provide among other things that 1) The owner of each lot shall be personally liable to the Assoc. for the payment of all regular and individual assessments levied by the Association and shall be personally liable for interest.”
From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees. It appears, one member paid. We’ll call him A. That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”
Go back to my letter to the board. I requested documents that would have showed me what was happening after order one, and before order two. They weren’t provided. I asked for all related invoices, defendant lawyer, or member correspondence, etc. They might have provided insight to the road traveled. We can’t rely on the minutes of meetings, in my humble opinion they have been sanitized. I attend most board meetings, and for the most part, little to nothing was said from the board table, between the two orders. The next order relative to this case, is signed almost a year and a half later, and reverses the decision regarding Individual Assessment - $5,000 to canal lot owners, only.
The second order is signed on October 30, 2014, by CHIP Beverly, Special Referee Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment. Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. VALIDITY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE I find that the Board of Directors’ decision to levy an annual assessment increase is an intra vires act and the purpose for the increase (canal dredging) is within the sound business judgment of the Board. It is reasonable for the Board to construe canal dredging as a preservation of property values, safety, and aesthetic appeal of the subdivision. It matters not that the canals are not Association common area property because the dredging could still be construed as a benefit to the association at large. WPA is entitled to judgment and foreclosure against the Defendants in the annual assessment Increase, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of collection, and interest.
B. Validity of the five thousand dollar Individual Assessment The association is bound to follow the covenants and its own bylaws. Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass’n V. Pellzer, 292 S.C. 343, 348, 356 S.E. 2d 411, 414 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987) (reversing judgment against a homeowner for non payment of assessments on the basis that the association had no authority to levy flat fee annual maintenance charges where the governing documents required charges to be based on property values).
In addition to Annual assessments, the By-laws for WPA provide that individual assessments may be levied by the Board. These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by the Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. The Restrictions themselves do not mention individual assessments.
The strict parameters for which an individual assessment may be levied indicate that the board was without express authority to levy individual assessments for the purpose of canal dredging. Individual Assessments are limited to costs for keeping up lots. Clearly the canals are not within the bounds of individual lots. As it relates to the Individual Assessment of Five Thousand Dollars, I find for the Defendants.”
After I took my notes, and went home, I sat and reviewed my notes. I am still left wondering about too many things. First, notice Chip & Hal Beverly. I assumed two people, maybe in a partnership. I asked myself why our board after the first order, would go back and pay again. They had won! Both assessments stood. I went to the computer and looked for Hal & Chip Beverly. It isn’t two people. Hal’s nick name is Chip. What would cause a board to go back to the same person, who gave an opinion, justified it, and they won, who is now writing a new opinion on Individual Assessment, and they lose a large part? My only thought is that someone, or more, who moves the board HERD around, convinced them, that they had to do it.
There is a larger HERD, led by some on this board, - members, enough of them, that we have such apathy, that we don’t question, we don’t go review documents, we take half truths, reports from the board table that have little or no information – long absences with no updates, and let it be.
One of the two members sued, paid the $5,000. One was robbed because he believed he had to, or lose his home. It could appear, that the second, had contacts on the board, and was involved with their Agenda. If this one didn’t have to pay, why did the other, and what about the 78 other canal lot owners who paid. I forget myself. When word got out that one didn’t have to pay, and some of us asked for our money back , it was stated that the time had run out for us. No one, would answer as to what law, etc. This board answers to no one, just dances to the music of their own hidden agenda. I believe that we deserve answers to just exactly how the second ruling was allowed to happen. Garrison & DeMarchi, during a board meeting October 2014, with little or no information provided, kept calling Beverly a judge, like a judge, the power of a judge, when actually he was a referee, who each side would have had to pay him his fees. No judge calls for a board to vote, on an outcome! We were paying this judge?????, for a second time to violate his first ruling. This should have gone to court if the member & his lawyer wouldn’t pay, after the first settlement.
Before I finish, I should note that Beverly died. I’ve nothing against him. I resent this board’s denials of fact by hiding information that should be available under the law, failing to offer full – if any information at meetings, and individual board members who sit by raise their hands and vote yes, either without demanding information, or turning a blind eye to the great deviance of the actions of this board,, that robs us of good, sound, fair governance.
Write the board, and ask to see these documents, ask where all the documents are? Ask individual board members how they could have voted for this second go around, with a REFEREE that wrote the first one, and was about to turn the first order up side down..
We'll start with some questions that can't be answered, unless your board opens up, and handles the situation with honesty, integrity.
*Is forgery on a official document a crime?
*If forgery is a crime, and it is committed against your association, should your board make the members aware, and follow it up with a proper OPEN investigation, and refer it to the proper authorities?
*Why would a board go quiet, under the board table, on litigation, where it appears forgery took place, when the issue contained in the litigation, has rocked, and shredded our community twice?
*Why haven't you been following this board's actions, researching for yourself, and calling members of this board on their actions?
Here we go! During the annual meeting, where we are advised that this is the one time during the year that we can participate, DURING the meeting, people asked various questions from the floor, respectfully raising their hands, waiting for acknowledgement from the board table, giving their name and address, and presenting their question, or information, and getting feed back from the board. I did all of the above. One of my comments/questions related to the Beverly documents, requesting answers as to why the membership was not kept informed.
I explained that I had reviewed the two documents. It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments. The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed. From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees. It appears, one member paid. We’ll call him A. That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”
During the annual meeting, I asked why we had to go, almost a year and a half later, and get a second ruling, from the SAME referee (both sides of the litigation have to pay the referee), when we had won? At one point in my questioning, our Legal Chair, said something about not wanting to talk about it. I said, we had a right to know. It was explained that Hal L. Beverly, had NEVER SIGNED the document. I reviewed the document. His name is typed in, and the signature is in ink, and this document came from the WPA legal file. Who gave the board the document? Who DID sign the document? Who told the board it wasn't Beverly's signature? When was the board informed? Why did this board vote in October of 2014 to go back and pay Beverly, again, for a new order, reversing half of the old order? Why didn't your board notify the membership, and the solicitor, and the authorities, that they had a forged signature, on a document that was intended to serve as a legal decision, on an issue that has torn this community apart with each dredging? Why didn't the board give resident "A", his money back, when they knew they had pressured the member, with a false ruling?
Where are you? Why are you allowing this corrupt, blind eye, governance of our community?
