The Wedgefield Examiner attended the February 21, 2018 WPA board meeting. There will be a lot to report, but I wanted to to start with the announcement from the board table, that the resident who filed suit representing himself in court last summer, has hired an attorney and filed suit against the WPA. While I wouldn't normally be pleased about a WPA board being sued, it is necessary on so many fronts in Wedgefield, that I thank the resident who was strong enough in their convictions, to bravely move forward, and perhaps display publicly, all that your board hides, and it's unfair treatment of residents who speak out, as your board abandons more, and more, of our governing documents, and makes their own rules, outside the board table.
Good luck to the resident, may you find justice for yourself, and all of Wedgefield!
I'm reposting some of the articles related to how all this came down in 2017.
POSTING # 1:
Again, a few clarifications. The following court filings are public record. The name of the resident filing the lawsuit has been removed. After, some discussion - not an attorney - not a legal opinion, but an effort at explanation, after some thought and research - note no one is practicing law.
I just read the blog and your reference to resident's Complaint made me want to take another look to see if there had been any new developments. As you pointed out in the blog, there was a Motion to Dismiss filed by the attorneys representing Keith Johnson. However, now there is also a Memorandum in Support of that Motion, which explains the nature of the request for dismissal. The request for dismissal is not based upon the facts of resident’s complaint, but based upon the fact that Keith’s attorneys are saying the wrong party has been named, i.e., Keith personally as opposed to his position as the Chairman of the ARC committee. So I would imagine the counsel filing this is Keith’s personal attorney and if the motion to dismiss is granted by the court, then resident will have to amend his complaint to name the correct party (the Board). So no dismissal has been granted as of now and if it is granted based upon what has been filed, resident can resubmit his same complaint in a different form. I hope this makes sense.
POSTING # 1:
Friday, July 21, 2017
READERS, THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS REPRINTED AN ARTICLE FROM JUNE 2017. I HAD VISITED THE OFFICE TO REVIEW FILES, INCLUDING THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE. THESE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN PRIOR TO A LAWSUIT BEING FILED. READ THROUGH AND DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF WHETHER THE BOARD SHOULD BE TREATING RESIDENTS LIKE THIS.
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
A REPRINT OF THE JUNE ARTICLE:
THE BOARD FAILS TO REPORT THEIR ACTIONS TO US. IS IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT US TO SEE THEIR UNEVEN JUSTICE?
Readers, you'll have to stay with me, because this is complicated. It took me awhile to verify what I had heard. I, and other resident writers to the blog have complained about the board's apparent refusal to follow the governing documents in several areas, particularly the covenants and restrictions that should keep Wedgefield properties groomed, and truly looking like the promise we felt we had when we bought our properties. In fact, during the June board meeting McMillin said, "I don't go out and patrol and look for issues." I've made claims that our legal chair/vice president, often gives a board statement on an issue like the canals, or golf course, and yet there has NOT been discussion at the board table. I've also stated that they don't answer all the correspondence that comes in from residents, and often don't report what they are doing about a complaint during the meetings. If you attend meetings and they report that they have had a number of complaints, and you go to verify them in the correspondence file, you find that there wasn't one written complaint. That sets the stage for what I am about to tell you.
Several weeks ago, someone told me that a resident on the canals was very upset because they were being contacted by ARC chair/Johnson and vice president/legal/compliance chair/multiple board committee member/ Garrison, about certain aspects of their water front property. The resident they appeared to be attacking was very concerned about that long standing feature of their property. I made no report on the blog because I couldn't substantiate it. Today, on a record review at the office, I happened upon this secret mess.
I'm going to provide two communications to the board, name - addresses removed to protect the resident. Any comments that I have to make will be noted as such and printed in RED.
LETTER # 1 DATED APRIL 27, ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT:
"Wedge field used to be a wonderful place to live. What happened? Keith Johnson, acting as a representative of the HOA notified me by email that he had received "many" complaints about my wife's and my dock house. He stated that these among (missed a word) people complained about the encroachment of our dock house in the canal. I replied that, in fact, our dock house had less encroachment than any dock in this canal. I said he should come over to see, and that I wanted to put this issue to bed. He replied back and doubled down, saying that our dock house was obstructing the views of others. After I rejected his theory of vertical encroachment, he refused to back off his complaints of our property, by ending with a third email stating that we were possibly in violation of the 50 per cent rule, and with that he said that was his last word and he was too busy for further discussion.
I request that the HOA conduct a mediation between me and Keith at the earliest convenience. This would be the most appropriate method of resolving this situation and should take no more than half an hour. Let me know if you can arrange this for the best interest of the whole community. If not, then place me on the agenda to speak at the May board meeting where I will ask for his resignation or termination for this and other causes."
COMMENTS:
Residents, I'll keep my comments to fact at this point. Today, I reviewed the correspondence file from Sept. 2016 to current date for a number of reasons. There was not one complaint about a dock in the file. The file did not include any written correspondence to this resident - no Keith Johnson emails. I checked the published WPA official minutes from January 1 through May, under Legal, ARC, Community Liaison, and Compliance reports, and there was no mention that your board had reported their actions, or this resident's correspondence.
LETTER # 2, MAY 11, WRITTEN TO OUR PRESIDENT:
"Subject - ARC Meeting on May 9
Thank you for attending the ARC meeting Tuesday. I will give them credit for being very embarrassed (as shown by their facial expressions, and downward glances) for the obviously false statements that Keith made about my dock. I wish that you would provide the following for me.
1) A copy of the work permit in question
2) A statement from the HOA that my property is (and has always been) in full compliance of our HOA's conditions, covenants, and restrictions, signed by the chairperson of the ARC, who is elected to be accountable for all actions of the ARC. This letter needs to be mailed to every waterfront home owner on (removed street name) and (removed street name) to prevent any misunderstanding from spreading.
The second one is necessary in order to protect my investment in my home from any potentially deliberate attack by someone willing to make totally unsubstantiated statements about it. After looking at the ARC last night I understand why Wedgefield is in such poor condition. They think that falsifying intimidation, favoritism, bullying, and conflicts of interests, are only "politics". I do not think our leadership positions require a college degree and a hands on tradesman, skilled worker, or entrepreneur, may even serve better but honesty and integrity should be a given. Trying to discuss things such as "adverse possession", with someone that has difficulty communicating by email is one thing. At the meeting instead of speaking for ARC the other members would not allow Keith to speak for himself, by blurting out answers to every question I directed to him. They not only reject mediation as a method of resolving disputes, but they also reject using reasonable fence protocol, using the excuse " That is not in our covenants", as fallback position. They insist on sticking to the letter of the law when it favors them and rejecting the spirit of the law when it favors the home owners. I found it amazing that before I could finish my opening question to Keith, they stopped me, saying they wanted to talk about the fence, yet they did not think to respond to the very first question I had more than one month ago. Did he have a permit? They continue to provide as proof their word that a permit was issued, not the document itself."
COMMENTS:
Again, no answer to the writer in the file. No note of this apparent ARC meeting to the membership. No mention of his second letter, and board actions in the official minutes under the report categories mentioned above.
EARTH - WEDGEFIELD WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
RESIDENT WRITES THE BLOG REGARDING THE RESIDENT LAWSUIT AGAINST A SITTING BOARD MEMBER
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
HERE IS THE RESIDENT LETTER:
HERE IS THE RESIDENT LETTER:
Madelyn,
I read your blog and the lawsuit filed by one of our residents.
In regards to Mr. Garrison's statement that we will all have to pay for this lawsuit. That's just the board VP turning the tables on the resident and riling up the community against this person via their wallets. Dividing the community further to defend the actions of a board member is not acceptable. The resident has a right to their day in court and if Keith is not in the wrong, then Mr. Garrison's pre-emptive strike did nothing but raise suspicion. If we have to pay out, it's no one's fault but the board for abusing power and not abiding by the convenants. Are there no checks and balances with this board? I'm guessing NOT or a lawsuit wouldn't be on the table. Whether or not this resident wins, it's a wake up call to all of us because the allegations presented in this lawsuit are very troubling. And I'm pretty sure there are people in this community who can relate to the complaints filed in the lawsuit.
The announcement of this lawsuit during the board meeting should've and could've been more responsible and mature, as well as non-biased. That's how democracy works.
I believe it's imperative that the board publicize Keith Johnson's response to this lawsuit. We need to have access to this information because if the allegations are founded; then his actions while serving on the board could result in future lawsuits. Transparency and honesty couldn't be more important than at this time.
Good luck to all involved. I hope this is resolved quickly so everyone can move on with their lives.
POSTING # 3:
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
A RESIDENT SUES ONE BOARD MEMBER. SOME THINGS WE ALL SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT.
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
During last night’s board meeting, vice president/legal/compliance – member of many board committees/Garrison reported that a lawsuit had been filed against a single board member. Garrison would not provide details such as name of resident (understandable), name of board member (not understandable), or complaint of the lawsuit (not understandable). He went on to say that the WPA attorney of record and the insurance company would have to be notified. At one point he mentioned that it might be frivolous, and at another that we would all have to pay. He also says, almost in seeking sympathy for the board, “who would want to serve on the board” - what in situations like these?
Why don’t we have a right to know at least the bare minimum details when we “all will pay”? Why aren’t our residents offended to the point of action with the right to know what our board is doing, what caused an action by a resident, when we all have to pay, because we all do pay through our assessments? Obviously, we don’t know what this is about, because they won’t tell us! When did that become acceptable? When this board, each and every member individually, started voting without a review of our governing documents for themselves. When each of them appeared to find it OK for some on this board to abuse verbally in public, anyone who questioned, because it appeared that they had a special interest following from a certain group of residents – here or there, who had something they wanted done – according to the governing documents – or not, just so they got their immediate project done.
There is a term that farmers use, I’m not one, but I grew up next to my grandparent’s farm, and it is “they will eat their young”. Yes, here in wonderful Wedgefield you can have worked, got things accomplished out in the open – at the board table – according to the governing documents – and once the project is done, you will not only support blatant violations – things that harm Wedgefield for years forward – just for your next favored project, and sit back while some on this board abuse those who just want justice – the same rules for all in benefit of the community. These cohesive board members have been on attack for most 7-9 years. I don’t know what the lawsuit is about; I’m willing to pay whatever it is, in hopes that it will bring some “justice” to our community.
God only knows that there are plenty of possibilities – not frivolous Mr. Garrison. It could be ARC enforcement, procurement practices, finance – recent expenditure of $7,950 to cut trees on private canal lots – or board decision to expend up to possibly $135,000 in reserves on canal dredging with no public discussion or vote until months after the canal lot owners depended on it, and collected money – this list could go on forever. From what I’m hearing there a few others in the community that may start – picking away at violations to our governing documents – one little piece at a time.
On my way home from the meeting last night, my husband and I discussed who it might be that was suing the board. I guessed it might be one of the two people whose letters I saw in the correspondence file. One out right told the board that due to their lack of enforcing our governing documents on lot maintenance that he was going to have “to do it the expensive way”. There was no answer in the file for him from this board, and no mention to you from the board table. Maybe it is the resident who fought for ten months to have a shed removed, and was harassed by Garrison when he came to three meetings, and spoke out during resident comments? No more speculation. I value the commitment to the quality of life in Wedgefield with its assets! I value anyone who isn’t afraid to be heard when your board and your/our neighbors will sit back and let it all happened, no matter how it happened – eat their young – in this case neighbors - eat them up alive.
Garrison is the last person to play the violin for the board! Gee, isn’t it awful that some resident would do this to a board, or individual board member? His violin squeaks in protest of his words. History in Wedgefield speaks to his false claim. He was a major spokesperson in collection of funds to sue the 2009 board – not just the whole board, but also each person individually. He expressed his hurt to me at the time, when then that board for his actions - countersued resident Garrison.
Don’t want to be sued board? Govern out in the open – at the board table, each board member rely on the governing documents and voting accordingly, and sanction those at the board table – in the moment, who would abuse verbally any resident who questions.
As I finished my article, I received a copy of the lawsuit from a resident willing to go to PUBLIC RECORDS. I’ve removed the resident name from the documents, and have nothing to say about what they contain. No, this resident is not a close friend, or neighbor, or writer to the blog.
HERE IS THE FIVE PAGE COURT FILING:
POSTING #4:
SECOND FILING TO DISMISS FILED REGARDING RESIDENT LAWSUIT AGAINST ARC CHAIR. WHAT COULD IT INDICATE?
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
****************************************************************************
I just read the blog and your reference to resident's Complaint made me want to take another look to see if there had been any new developments. As you pointed out in the blog, there was a Motion to Dismiss filed by the attorneys representing Keith Johnson. However, now there is also a Memorandum in Support of that Motion, which explains the nature of the request for dismissal. The request for dismissal is not based upon the facts of resident’s complaint, but based upon the fact that Keith’s attorneys are saying the wrong party has been named, i.e., Keith personally as opposed to his position as the Chairman of the ARC committee. So I would imagine the counsel filing this is Keith’s personal attorney and if the motion to dismiss is granted by the court, then resident will have to amend his complaint to name the correct party (the Board). So no dismissal has been granted as of now and if it is granted based upon what has been filed, resident can resubmit his same complaint in a different form. I hope this makes sense.
POSTING #5:
A RESIDENT'S THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - LAWSUIT BROUGHT AGAINST BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON, ARC CHAIR
***************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************************************
HERE IS A RESIDENT'S VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT, ALONG WITH THE FILING TO THE COURT:
"Court bias against pro ses
This is why he had an attitude and refused to let resident who brought complaint speak"
This is why he had an attitude and refused to let resident who brought complaint speak"
The Court of Common Pleas August 15, 2017
Georgetown SC. 29442
(Resident name removed) vs. JOHNSON, 2017-CP-22-00563
I received defendant's motion to dismiss dated August 11, but I found no “Defendant's Memorandum” enclosed. Defendant's failure to submit a defense against the offenses is an admission of guilt. Therefore, I request the Court to enter a judgment against the defendant as stated in Court's notice to reply, dated 7/14/17.
No further explanation should be necessary, however I feel some remarks are appropriate.
Defendant's attorney Bisset, incorrectly asserts that defendant Johnson committed the acts “in his official capacity as an Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”) Chairperson.” In fact, defendant Johnson's series of emails to me concerning the “encroachment” of my dock house, were sent on his personal email and had absolutely nothing to do with the ARC, ARC business, or his duties as ARC Chairperson. These emails, I believe, were an attempt to harass and intimidate me because I objected to the erection of the fence. Further, Bissel's attempt to answer for defendant Johnson, failed to answer why I was denied my protection under the covenants. She asserts that issuing the permit was within his official duties, therefore I must name the ARC as defendant. This again is incorrect. Board members cannot act alone, only as members of a body. Keith should have notified the contractor to submit an application, as specified in the covenants, to the ARC for approval. There are no previsions in the covenants that allow ARC members to use their authority individually to approve projects before a written request is submitted to the committee. It becomes even more egregious when the ARC approving party has a vested financial interest in the property for which he is approving the project.
I, frankly, am appalled at this motion to dismiss and failure to submit defendant's rebuttal which is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Again, I ask the Court to enter a judgment for the relief I sought.
POSTING #6:
Friday, September 29, 2017
RESIDENT WRITES THE BLOG REGARDING FURTHER ANNOYANCE
This sign was placed on the fence where only I could see it. The fence was erected in violation
of the covenants:
“NO BUILDING, FENCE OR OTHER STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED PLACED OR ALTERED ON THIS
LOT OR THESE LOTS UNTIL THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, EXTERIOR COLOR
OR FINISH, PLOT PLAN (SHOWING THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF SUCH BUILDING,
FENCE, AND PARKING AREA), AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN
WRITING... ONE COPY OF ALL PLANS AND RELATED DATA SHALL BE FURNISHED THE GRANTOR
FOR ITS RECORDS.” (PAGE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, WEDGEFIELD CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND
RESTRICTIONS). In addition it violates covenant #7, in that it is an annoyance and a nuisance.
Our board does not care, and refused to discuss it when I went to an ARC meeting. Is this the kind
of environment we deserve to live in? We pay our HOA fees to be protected by the covenants, but
they want to enforce only the ones that suit them. OUTRAGEOUS.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
SOME RESULTS FROM THE HEARING IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TODAY, MAKE ME THINK THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A RAINBOW SOME WHERE IN GEORGETOWN TODAY
YES, SOMETIMES EVEN IN THE GREY CLOUDS OF LEGALITY, LAWYERS, AND COURTS, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A RAINBOW!
Today, I went to the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Hyman's court. I will relay what happened to the best of my ability, using the notes that I took. The case was the lawsuit brought by a resident against board member Johnson, ARC chair. I've provided you with the filings, name removed, of our resident in previous postings. As noted before, I had never spoken to this resident about this case, or anything else that is happening in Wedgefield. As I followed, and documented what had happened leading up to the filing of the lawsuit, I was proud of this resident. Today, even more than before.
Judge Hyman quickly handled some other cases, and then called the Johnson case. He said the resident was pro se (researched definition to provide in article -
"For one's own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself or herself in court."). He stated that the resident was a nice man and had tried to do something in a very complex section of the law. He recommended that the resident get an attorney. The court must dismiss action that doesn't properly set out significant things that must be plead, and pro se does not allow that - everyone must follow the same rule.
Judge Hyman said he could dismiss with prejudice, or dismiss with lead to restore. He then went on to talk a little bit of his experience with the law, and said he started doing this law business before these young guys were even born. He went on to tell the resident that somethings research on their own, but he strongly urged him to get the advice of counsel to bring his case to proper form. He then told a court clerk to use form 4, dismissal without prejudice with lead to restore (phrase typed as I heard it).
It appears that the resident can bring his case back, in proper form - the rainbow of justice. While I spoke to the resident after the hearing ended, whether he will hire an attorney and bring the case back is his business. The Wedgefield world will have to wait and see.
Judge Hyman quickly handled some other cases, and then called the Johnson case. He said the resident was pro se (researched definition to provide in article -
"For one's own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself or herself in court."). He stated that the resident was a nice man and had tried to do something in a very complex section of the law. He recommended that the resident get an attorney. The court must dismiss action that doesn't properly set out significant things that must be plead, and pro se does not allow that - everyone must follow the same rule.
Judge Hyman said he could dismiss with prejudice, or dismiss with lead to restore. He then went on to talk a little bit of his experience with the law, and said he started doing this law business before these young guys were even born. He went on to tell the resident that somethings research on their own, but he strongly urged him to get the advice of counsel to bring his case to proper form. He then told a court clerk to use form 4, dismissal without prejudice with lead to restore (phrase typed as I heard it).
It appears that the resident can bring his case back, in proper form - the rainbow of justice. While I spoke to the resident after the hearing ended, whether he will hire an attorney and bring the case back is his business. The Wedgefield world will have to wait and see.
