Saturday, February 4, 2017

My 2014 request to examine the records and documents of the HOA and their response(s)...

The following will show, at the end, that the HOA has failed to properly maintain records, receipts and other documentation of the business dealings of the HOA since day one of its existence...

Moreover, this will also show how both the HOA Board of Directors AND Management company are not doing their jobs correctly. Especially the management company, having done this for years, should know better in bringing on a new HOA without advising them they were missing resolutions to cover such things as this if they wanted to charge people to examine records of the HOA.

June 22, 2014 email to Angela Shinn at Superior Community Management

RE: Article VI Records and Audits

Under the BYLAWS OF OAK KNOLL HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (the real ones, not the ones on the website that have the following referenced section, among others, purposely omitted), Article VI (5); Records and Audits, as a homeowner (i.e. mortgage) I want to inspect the books and records of the Association for the past 15 years.

Please either provide these records, or schedule the appropriate future date in order for me to arrange a personal inspection of these records at your office.

Under Section (2): Records of Receipts and Expenditures, I expect to review the following: “…detailed, accurate records, in chronological order, of the receipts and expenditures affecting the common areas, itemizing the maintenance and repair expenses of the common areas and any other expenses incurred.”

Note, the “common areas” for which any expenditure have been incurred and paid by the HOA must be compliant with CC&R 7.1 – which clearly defines what the ONLY common improvements of the HOA are:

“Oak Knoll has or will have certain improvements …These improvements include: Sign monuments to be installed on Lot 29, Oak Knoll; traffic circle at intersection of Foothills Drive and Center Street; planter strips along Foothills Drive; and street trees on each Lot…All of the common areas and improvements are collectively called “Common Improvements.””

If you intend to schedule an appointment vs. providing copies of the requested documentation to be reviewed, please make such an appointment for any Monday, Tuesday or Friday.

Please provide several tentative dates so that I may make arrangements to accommodate my schedule to confirm one of the provided appointments.

Thank you


July 1, 2014 letter from Angela Shinn of Superior Community Management

RE: Oak Knoll Association records review

Dear Homeowner,

Per your request to schedule a date for your personal inspection of the records of the Oak Knoll Association, we have the following dates available:

July 25, 2015; 9:00 a – 2:00 p

This request for review is in compliance with ORS 65.774 and with the By-laws, (sic) Article 6 section 5 which states “At any time any Member or mortgagee may, at his own expense, cause an audit or inspection to be made of the books and records of the Association.

Per the above and ORS 65.771 available records will be provided for review at time and material costs. Charges for time are $110 per hour for prep and oversight of the review. Any allowable copies will be charged .18 per page. Review will be conducted at 17300 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd, Ste. 110, Tualatin OR (sic) 97224.

Please indicate the date and time you will be meeting at our office for the requested review.

Thank you,

Angela D. Shinn, CMCA, AMS
Superior Community Management

July 2, 2014 email to Angela Shinn

RE: Letter dated July 1, 2014

Angela,

Thank you for your letter providing the days and times being made available for my visit to “review,” however, you are (or some attorney from Vial Fotheringham is advising you) incorrectly citing ORS 65.774 and 65.771 as a justification for charging me $110 per hour for “prep and oversight of the review.”

First off, the Homeowners Association and the Association board of directors are only subject to the following subsections of ORS Chapter 65:

Per ORS 94.640: “In the performance of their duties, officers and members of the board of directors are governed by this section and the applicable provisions of ORS 65.357, 65.361, 65.367, 65.369 and 65.377…” (i.e. standards, conflict of interest, liability, etc.)

Per ORS 94.626(2): “A separate association is not created when an association is reinstated after administrative dissolution under ORS 65.654 or again incorporated following dissolution. The association automatically continues without any further action by incorporators, directors or officers that may otherwise be required under ORS chapter 65.” (i.e. dissolution)

Per ORS 94.670(1): “A homeowners association shall retain within the state the documents, information and records delivered to the association under ORS 94.616 and all other records of the association for not less than the period specified for the record in ORS 65.771 or any other applicable law…” (i.e. records retention)

Second, ORS 65.774 and 65.771 do not apply to a Homeowners Association as homeowners are not a “member” of the non-profit corporation. As defined under ORS 65.001 Definitions. As used in this chapter:

(26)(a) “Member” means a person that is entitled, under a domestic or foreign corporation’s articles or bylaws, without regard to what the person is called in the articles or bylaws, to vote on more than one occasion to elect a director or directors.

Under the Bylaws of Oak Knoll Homeowners’ Association, Article 1 Plan of Ownership, Membership is defined, in part, as follows:

(6) Membership: “Every person or entity who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee interest in any Lot shall be a proprietary member of the Association…Associate membership shall carry all the rights and privileges and shall be subject to all obligations and responsibilities of proprietary membership, except the right to vote.

[Emphasis mine]

Therefore, neither ORS 65.774 or 65.771 are applicable to my request for “examination” of the association records. As such, you have no right to charge me for any examination of the association records.

Again, under ORS 94.670 Association duty to keep documents and records; deposit of assessments; payment of association expenses; review of financial statement by certified public accountable; examination of records by owner…

(9)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the association shall make the documents, information and records described in subsections (1) and (4) of this section and all other records of the association reasonably available for examination and, upon written request, available for duplication by an owner and any mortgagee of a lot that makes the request in good faith for a proper purpose.

Third, your citing Article VI Records and Audit is inaccurate, and I admit I incorrectly used it as well given the fact that (A) I am not a CPA, therefore I cannot “audit or inspect” the books and records of the association under the common law definition of an audit or inspection as clearly meant given the content in which that phrase was sued not once, but twice in that Article. It is clear upon second reading that “audit and inspect” juxtaposed to the reference “at the expense of” either the Association or the member requesting it means a financial audit by a CPA. Therefore you have no basis to charge me a fee for the “examination” of the association records.

In addition to ORS 94.670 there is Subsection (12) which states the following:

(12) The board of directors, by resolution, may adopt reasonable rules governing the frequency, time, location, notice and manner of examination and duplication of association records and the imposition of a reasonable fee for furnishing copies of any documents, information or records described in this section. The fee may include reasonable personnel costs for furnishing the documents, information or records.

To date the Board of Directors has not voted a resolution to accomplish the above, as such, again, neither the Board of Directors OR by its managing agent, Superior Community Management, has any right to assess monetary fees for my legal right under ORS 94.670(9)(a) for the examination of the Association documents requested to be examined.

Unless you can produce this unseen, unpublished and unfiled (with the County Clerk) resolution to the CC&Rs, neither you (Superior Community Management) or the Homeowners Association (Board of Directors) have any legal basis to assess any fees for my “examination” of the association records.

When I choose the date and time given and establish that appointment, the Association via Superior Community Management shall make the documents, information and records described in subsection (1) and (4) of this section and all other records of the association reasonably available for examination and, upon written request, available for duplication by an owner and any mortgagee of a lot that makes the request in good faith for proper purpose.

I will be in touch on which date and time is to be selected once I review my work schedule and make arrangements for said date and time.

Very Truly Yours

The following is a list of items of records that I wanted to examine that I presented to Angela Shinn prior to my chosen scheduled appointment; this list contains her amended response after each:

Requested records to be examined:
The following is a list of documents and records of the Oak Knoll Homeowners Association I want to examine that includes but is not limited to:

•          Any and all financial records of the association’s purchase of
obligations of the United States government
            o          To include ALL financial records on the establishment and,
if applicable, termination of (to include an accounting of where the funds were placed once the account was closed) Asset 1224, Money Market Account – Union Bank noted on the association’s July 24, 2003 balance sheet

Financials 1999-2005 not available
Financials 2005-present available

•          Any and all financial records of the association’s expenditures for
“professional development" in the year 2000

NA

•          Any and all financial records of the association’s credit and debit
to the “contingency fund” from 1999-2003

NA

•          Any and all financial and contractual records of the association’s
bids and expenditures for the budgeted line item “Gardener” from 1999-2000

NA

•          Any and all financial records of the associate’s expenditures for
“maintenance & repairs” from 1999-2000

NA

•          Any and all financial records of the association’s budgeted line
item “Continuency” [sic] from 2000-2001

NA

•          Any and all financial records of the association’s expenditures for
“leasehold improvements” noted on the August 19 through September 12, 2000 Profit & Loss statement

NA

•          Any financial and contractual records of the association’s bids and
expenditures for the budgeted line item “Landscape Maintenance” from
2000-2001

NA
•          Any financial records and documentation of the association’s
expenditures relating to the disbursement of $88.77 to Gerald Fisher, check# 1070, noted on the financial statement dated February 28, 2001

NA

•          Any financial records and documentation of the association’s receipt
of a “Refund Fence” in the amount of $311.50 on February 22, 2001

NA

•          Any financial records and documentation of the association’s
expenditures relating to the disbursements to Louis Larson as of the July 31, 2001 Financial Statement:
            o          #1097            $24.49
            o          #1099            $55.10
            o          #1102            $84.00
            o          #1103            $8.84
            o          #1107            $28.00
            o          And #1106 to Gerald Fisher in the amount of $15.00

NA

•          Any financial records and documentation of the association’s record
keeping of the “Contengency [sic] Fund” for the budgeted fiscal year
2001-2002

NA

•          Any financial records and documentation of the association’s budget
line 6791 Miscellaneous Expense – and – 6821 Community Social events documented on the August 1, 2003 Opening Statement of the budget

NA

•          Any and all financial records and documentation accounting for the
difference in the balance of the reserve account from July 24, 2003 with a balance of $2,637.10 to $2,500.00 noted on the projected 2003-2004 budget

NA

•          Any and all financial records and documentation of the association’s
record keeping of the Reserve account from 1999 to 2005
            o          To include any documentation and reports of the missing
funds from this account, and any Board of Director meeting minutes and/or notes on their decision to no longer fund this account going forward

Financials 12.2005 – Present provided

•          Any and all financial records and documentation of the association’s
expenditures for the budget line item Misc. – Social $240 for fiscal year
2003-2004

NA

•          Any and all financial records and documentation, to include Board of
Directors meeting minutes and other documentation in regards to re-funding Expense 6810 Allocation to Reserves in the amount of $13,650 noted on the
2011 annual budget
            o          This includes an itemization of all expenditures of common
improvements, reserve study to legally substantiate this reserve funding, and all receipts and accounting for all expenditures paid out from the balance of this account

Minutes 9.21.10 provided

•          Any and all financial records and documentation, to include Board of
Directors meeting minutes and other documentation in regards to the repair of concrete sidewalks along Foothills Drive in 2010

Minutes and Financials for 2010 provided

•          Any and all financial records and documentation, to include Board of
Directors meeting minutes of the corresponding year from 1999 to present, of any expenditures as it specifically related to the maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of common improvements identified in CC&R 7.1
            o          To include non-common improvements not stated in CC&R 7.1
that the Board of Directors took it upon themselves (and without the required 75% majority vote of the homeowners per CC&R 12.6.2 and ORS
94.630(1)(E)(ii) and (1)(F)(h)(k)(B)) to make the HOA financially responsible for said maintenance, repair, and/or replacement thereof; namely the street trees and sidewalks (to include curbing) along Foothills Drive

Minutes and Financials for 2005 – present provided

•          The specific and exact location of the 98 homes (i.e. addresses, not
homeowner names) letters were mailed to regarding the placement of street trees from August 2000 to December 2009

•          Any and all documentation submitted to the Design Review Committee
by the homeowner located at 3240 Burlington Drive requesting approval to remove all lawn from the front of the residence (in contradiction to the CC&Rs that require lawn to be a part of the landscaping of the front yard)

Purpose?


•          Any and all documentation of the Board of Directors to contract for
a reserve study and all expenditures relating to said study conducted in
2013

Minutes for October 2012 provided

•          Any and all documentation of the Board of Directors to landscape the
traffic circle located at Foothills Drive between 2003 to 2006, to include all expenditures to landscape and maintain since initial completion to present date

Minutes and Financials for 2005 – present provided

•          Any and all documentation and expenditures regarding the landscaping
maintenance, repair and/or replacement with relation to the residence located at 800 Foothills Drive from July 2003 to July 2005 (specifically the entire year of 2004)

NA

•          Any documentation accounting for the 75% majority approval of the
homeowners, as required under CC&R 12.6.2 (12.6.2.1 through 12.6.2.5) of the adoption of the Collections Procedure Resolution passed by the Board of Directors in June 2003 – and – the adoption of the “Rental Rules for Those Renting their Homes to Others” resolution

Mortgagee reference?

•          Produce an outline or actual document of the Robert’s Rules of Order
used at each and every Board of Directors meeting, to include the Annual Meeting of the Association since 1999 to present day in all its form (previous to updated versions)

See web site link http://www.robertsrules.com/


•          Any and all documentation in proposal form or otherwise in regards
to Tony Roos’ Education line item that he wishes to have placed on the next proposed budget of the association for fiscal year 2015

5.2014 minutes provided

•          Any financial documentation of expenditures (to include receipts to
substantiate) of reimbursements to any Board Member from 2000 to present day from the Association’s ledgers

2005-present Financials provided

•          Any and all financial records and related documentation accounting
for Lots within the Association currently in collections, specifically by address (not the homeowner’s name) and the amount(s) in arrears and the date and time the accounting or billing of said arrears was forwarded to Vial and Fotheringham for collection of the alleged past due amount(s)

Unable to provide per law.

I would also like to review any and all current service contracts (e.g.
landscaping, legal, insurance policies, etc.) that the Association currently holds as well.

Provided: Superior Community Management contract, insurance policies,

I want to examine any and all records and documents, to include meeting minutes or notes by the Board of Directors approving waivers to any and all homeowners to allow for any exceptions to the CC&RS, to include waivers to allow homeowners to leave their trash and recycle bins visible from the public street to recreational and commercial vehicles with ladders being allowed to remain on any Lot within the Association.

Minutes for 2005-present provided

***

Documents have been provided on flash drive as indicated:

Contracts
            Superior Community Management; signed April 2005
            Sunrise Landscape; signed 2009
CFE – Collection Contract
Documents
            Articles of Incorporation
            CCRs Lots 1-41
            Collection Resolution
            Declaration of Covenants and Annexations
            Bylaws
            Violation Letter Resolution
            Fine Resolution
            Plats
           
Financials
            Year end 2005
            Year end 2006
            Year end 2007
            Jan.-Dec. 2008
            Jan.-Dec. 2009
            Jan.-Dec. 2010
            Jan.-Dec. 2011
            Jan.-Dec. 2012
            Jan.-Dec. 2013
            Jan.-June 2014

Minutes
            2005; Aug., Oct., Dec.
            2006; Feb., Mar., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov., Dec.
            2007; Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov.
            2008; Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov.
            2009; Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov.
            2010; Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov.
            2011; Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov.
            2012; Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov.
            2013; Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July, Aug., Sep., Nov., Nov.
            2014; Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May
            Annual; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, May 2011, June 2011, 2012

Reserve Studies
            2014

List of Board of Directors
Pre-2002 - present

Insurance
            D&O 8.2013-8.2014
Fidelity 8.2013-8.2014
            General Liability 8.2013-8.2014


The above indicated documents have been provided per request on a flash drive on July 25, 2014 by Superior Community Management.



           




Tuesday, October 18, 2016

FINAL DEMAND LETTER TO HOA - RE: Street Trees Maintenance Resolution (UPDATED)

October 24, 2016

CERTIFIED MAIL

Oak Knoll Homeowners Association
Board of Directors
c/o Management Trust- Northwest
P.O. Box 23099
Tigard, OR 97281-9899

RE:      Breach of contract and violation of the Oregon Planned Community Act

Dear Board of Directors,

You have been put on notice by the homeowners since early 2000 that your individual and/or collective interpretation of Section 7.1 of the CC&Rs regarding the “common improvements” of the Association - specifically as to exactly what street trees are and are not the common improvements of this Association - has long since been grossly inaccurate. Consider this letter as the Board of Director’s FINAL NOTICE on the matter described herein.

The Board of Directors, past [and] present members, have been patently aware of their grossly inaccurate interpretation of CC&R Section 7.1 since the Oak Knoll Homeowners Association was assumed from the Declarant. And over the years since then, the Board has wantonly chosen to purposely disregard the individual and collective homeowners’ voice in regards to its grossly inaccurate interpretation of Section 7.1 regarding “and street trees on each Lot,” that is until the fall of 2011.

In September 2011, a Town Hall meeting took place at Avamere to present and discuss a proposed amendment to the CC&Rs at a cost of $5,000.00 in order to memorialize the Board’s grossly inaccurate interpretation of Section 7.1 of the CC&Rs in order to continue their self-imposed status quo on maintaining only the street trees on Foothills Drive, and not “street trees on each Lot.”

The proposal failed, but not without the Homeowners Association’s attorney from Vial Fotheringham, Christopher Tingey, first admitting that the Board has made it a historical practice to purposely misinterpret Section 7.1 in regards to the street trees within the Association. Tingey made it crystal clear that the Board, past to present, simply disagreed with how the Declarant wrote this section, and wantonly chose to disregard it because they did not want the Association to be financially responsible for “street trees on each Lot.” Not once but twice Tingey made it known that Section 7.1 clearly states, ‘that street trees on each Lot is what the Homeowners Association is responsible for,’ and NOT the Board’s historical practice of just the street trees along Foothills Drive alone. As such, the Board of Directors, past to present, have made it their position to decide the matter themselves (that which is solely reserved to a vote of 75% of the homeowners), and in effect changed what CC&R Section 7.1 clearly states in order to make up their own version to be carried out regarding the street trees in direct contravention to what the CC&Rs clearly state.

Near the end of that meeting, Tingey advised the Board that they could do a resolution to outline the Board’s longstanding interpretation and historical practice, ‘but that resolution would not be enforceable if it contradicted the governing documents; and it would not hold up in court if and when challenged.’ Mr. Tingey’s correct interpretation of Section 7.1 and subsequent advice to the Board about any resolution outlining their interpretation would be unenforceable if challenged is factually and legally accurate.  

Now fast forward to the Town Hall meeting that took place in October 2014, with three years of continued back and forth debate with the Board of Directors regarding their gross interpretation of Section 7.1 regarding the finances being spent on replacing and maintaining street trees and sidewalk repairs caused by said street trees along Foothills Drive – all of which are not “common improvements” of the Association - as being the core issue to be discussed. Several homeowners turned out for this meeting, the largest number that anyone has seen in years, and all but one homeowner (who lives on Foothills Drive and directly benefits from the Board’s illicit conduct regarding this issue) disapproved of the Board’s past inaccurate interpretation and self-imposed financial responsibility being placed upon all the homeowners when this interpretation clearly only benefited those living along Foothills Drive – and NOT the association as a whole (i.e. just because Foothills is assumed the main entrance to the Association, which it is not as an equal if not great number of homeowners and guests access via Quail Drive, is neither a factual or legal basis to assess fees against all homeowners for a non-common improvement that does NOT benefit all Lots within the Association).

Several homeowners strongly voiced their discontent and disagreement with the Board’s past and present gross interpretation rationalizing their illicit practice and all but demanded that it be rescinded. In the end, after 14 years of debating the obvious, the Board finally conceded and reversed its long-standing inaccurate interpretation and historical practice when it passed the 2015 budget at the November 2014 meeting.

President Tony Roos then emphatically declared in writing within the November 2014 Oak Knoll Homeowners Association Newsletter stating the following:

Note from the President

“Dear Homeowners and Tenants,

At our November Board meeting we finalized our draft budget for 2015. The association will see an increase in annual dues by $5 over last year.

The common elements that our association is responsible for is the following:

·      Foothills parking strip Landscaping grass only
·      Roundabout Landscaping (including the Oak Knoll monument)
·      Foothills Irrigation system

With inputs from the October 7th Town Hall budget meeting, phone and email responses, the Board has agreed that from this 2015 Budget forward the Foothills street trees are the responsibility of the homeowners on Foothills and will no longer be funded by the Association Budget.”

Despite this revelation, certain Board members clearly conspired after the fact to reverse its final decision, “memorialized” within the November 2014 Newsletter, and went forward with exactly what their attorney, Christopher Tingey, told them in 2011 would not hold up in court. The Board enlisted an entirely different attorney from the same law firm as Mr. Tingey to draft a clearly illicit resolution that was passed January 19-20, 2016, which inherently and explicitly contradicts the governing documents, as well as the Oregon Planned Community Act. As such, this resolution is not enforceable and will not hold up in court.

The Street Tree Maintenance Resolution of January 2016 is an implicit breach of contract and fiduciary duties of the Board of Directors. The intent of this resolution is to reverse the Board’s November 2014 decision to finally correct a 15 year wrong perpetrated upon the homeowners at their expense by the Board of Directors in order to put back into the Homeowners Association budget the financial costs of maintaining, repairing, and/or replacing the street trees only along Foothills Drive. It is an incontestable fact that this resolution is in direct conflict with the CC&Rs, Bylaws and Oregon Planned Community Act.

Section 7.1 of our CC&Rs states the following:

“Oak Knoll has or will have certain improvements which are for the benefit of all Lots. These improvements include: Sign monuments to be installed on Lot 29, Oak Knoll; traffic circle at intersection of Foothills Drive and Center Street; planter strips along Foothills Drive; [and] street trees on each Lot…All of the common areas and improvements are collectively called “Common Improvements.”

The “;” separates the statement “planter strips along Foothills Drive” from “[and] street trees on each Lot” (emphasis mine), which directly implies the Declarant’s intent to separate the street trees from the planter strips throughout the association, [and] not to include them in the planter strips. As it is clearly written, it was/is the obvious intention of the Declarant that the Homeowner Association shall be financially responsible for street trees on each and every individual Lot within the community, and not a selective set of street trees on a selective street that only benefited those homeowners living on that street, which is exactly what the Street Tree Maintenance Resolution was written to accomplish (i.e. every other homeowner would be denied that very same benefit of having their street trees financially maintained by the Association, which is the opposite of what the Declarant intended).

The factual and legal fact of the matter is that the Board of Directors, as mandated by the governing documents and the Oregon Planned Community Act, cannot change, modify or amend the governing documents (i.e. CC&Rs) without the following requirements being duly met:

  • ·      “…not less than seventy-five (75%) percent of the then Owners of Lots in Oak Knoll…” (CC&R Section 9.2);
  • ·      Consent Required. Except upon the approval of Mortgagees holding Mortgages of Lots which have at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the vote of Lots which are subject to Mortgages, no amendments may be made to this Declaration which add to or amend any material provision of the Declaration…” (CC&R Section 12.6.2); and
  • ·      The declaration may be amended only with the approval of owners representing at least 75% of the total votes in the planned community or any larger percentage specified in the declaration” (Oregon Revised Statute 94.590(1)(a)).


Despite the forgoing, the language used throughout the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution establishes the clear intent of the Board of Directors to circumvent the required 75% vote of the homeowners to change, modify or amend the CC&Rs as they are clearly written to fit their own gross misinterpretation and continue the status quo of that inaccurate interpretation in maintaining their illicit historical practice in regards to the street trees only along Foothills Drive.

The following being a clear example from the cited resolution in order to change, modify and/or amend Section 7.1 of the CC&Rs:

“J. Section 7.1 of the Declaration identifies street trees and planter strips along Foothills Drive as improvements benefiting all Lots. It further identifies the street trees, the planter strips along Foothills Drive, and (sic) well as other improvements that benefit all Lots as “Common Improvements.”

Section 7.1 of the Declaration makes absolutely NO such identification and/or demarcation of the street trees [and] planter strips along Foothills Drive as being “common improvements” benefiting all lots.

To reiterate, Section 7.1 clearly states that “Oak Knoll has or will have certain improvements which are for the benefit of all Lots. These improvements include: Sign monuments to be installed on Lot 29, Oak Knoll; traffic circle at intersection of Foothills Drive and Center Street; planter strips along Foothills Drive; [and] street trees on each Lot…All of the common areas and improvements are collectively called “Common Improvements.”

Section 7.1 of the Declaration clearly identifies ONLY the planter strips along Foothills Drive as a common improvement and nothing else other than the traffic circle being related to Foothills Drive. The Declarant made it perfectly clear that “[and] street trees on each Lot,” are a common improvement of the Association, and NOT just the street trees along Foothills Drive.

As such, Section J of the Street Tree Maintenance Resolution clearly serves to change, modify and amend Section 7.1 as it clearly reads to that which the Board of Directors wants it to read. Which is an albeit written but factually inaccurate reading of CC&R Section 7.1 with the obvious intent of the Board to rationalize its illicit historic practice of disregarding the homeowners by denying them their (legal) right to vote on whether or not the Board can cherry pick which street trees it wants to financially maintain at the expense of the Association contrary to what the governing documents clearly and explicitly state.

The following are further examples of the Board of Directors’ intent to modify, change and/or amend CC&R Section 7.1, 7.3 and 8.1:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1.     Definitions. As used in the Declaration, “street trees” is defined to mean the trees within the community located in the planter strip along Foothills Drive and within the roundabout.

2.     Association Maintenance Responsibility. The Association shall continue to maintain the street trees in accordance with its historic practice and Section 7.3 of the Declaration. Said maintenance will include, but is not limited to, trimming and replacing street trees when they die.
3.     Homeowner Maintenance Responsibility. Owners shall perform maintenance on their lots as follows:
a.     In accordance with Section 8.1 of the Declaration, Owners shall maintain all other trees located on their lots which do not meet the definition of a street tree under Section 1 of this Resolution.
b.     In accordance with Section 8.1 of the Declaration, Owners shall maintain the sidewalks on their lots in good repair, in a condition that does not pose a tripping hazard, and in accordance with all applicable municipal ordinances regulating sidewalk maintenance.”

Regarding the above #1 Definition, there is no such demarcation within the Declaration that defines “street trees” as it is defined within the Street Tree Maintenance Resolution. Therefore, any such attempt to define a term within the governing documents that is not defined therein is a fundamental modification, change and/or amendment to the governing documents.

Regarding the above #2 Association Maintenance Responsibility, since 7.1 clearly does not define “street trees” outlined in #1 Definition, and the Board of Director’s own resolution admits that the Declaration does not define “street trees” (Section N), Section 7.3 is not applicable. Moreover, this section of the resolution also serves to do exactly what Mr. Tingey advised the Board back in September 2011 would not hold up in court.

Regarding the above #3 Homeowner Maintenance Responsibility, in addition to sidewalks, homeowners are also responsible for the [street] trees on their lot as well. There are several sections within the CC&Rs (including municipal ordinances) that clearly assign the legal responsibility of the homeowner to take care of their own sidewalks, to include any damage caused by the street trees, as well as the other trees on their lot.

This resolution in part and on the whole clearly sets out to modify, change and/or amend the CC&Rs as they are clearly written to fit the Board of Director’s illicit narrative that which rationalizes their grossly inaccurate interpretation of CC&R Section 7.1 and its illicit historic practice regarding the financial responsibility of the street trees only along Foothills Drive.

The Board of Directors further breached the contract with the homeowners via the Street Tree Maintenance Resolution by violating the following:

Bylaws – Article V: Budget, Expenses and Assessments

“Expenses and assessments shall be charged, assessed and collected in accordance with the Declaration.” (emphasis mine)

Since the street trees along Foothills Drive are not a common improvement of the Association, the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution is null and void given the fact that it violates of the governing documents and statutory law in circumventing the required 75% vote of the homeowners to pass in order to change, modify of amend the CC&Rs; as such, any assessments against the homeowners to enforce this resolution is equally null and void.

Bylaws – Article III, Section (3)(g)

“Adoption in accordance with these Bylaws of reasonable administrative rules and regulations for use of the common areas.”

Since the street trees only along Foothills Drive are not a common area of the Association, this resolution patently contradicting the governing documents and statutory law, the resolution is neither reasonable nor binding upon the homeowners.

This resolution is also an implicit breach of fiduciary duties of the Board of Directors. In an article published by the law firm Vial Fotheringham dated June 4, 2009, states the following in regards to the Board of Directors fiduciary duties:

“A board member of an HOA has multiple fiduciary duties that need to be met. The first of these duties is the Duty of Care. Fulfilling the Duty of Care means to act with the care of a reasonable prudent person. It also means that a board member needs to act in the best interest of the HOA, and to do so in good faith. A board member who meets this duty will regularly attend board meetings. In considering options that are presented to the board they will exercise independent judgment. In exercising independent judgment they will ensure that they are informed, and relying on expert advice in making decisions concerning the HOA.”

First, there are several illicit acts that I could recite that illustrate the Board of Directors’ collective failure to act with the care of a reasonable prudent person; however that is for another letter at a later date.

Second, reiterating the first, I could cite several illicit acts (other than that which is described herein regarding this resolution) that demonstrate the Board of Directors’ collective intent to purposely act against the best interest of the HOA; however that is for another letter at a later date.

Lastly, given the very nature and purpose of the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution, it begs the question on exact what “expert advice” the Board of Directors are relying upon when another attorney from the same law firm warned the Board of the inherent danger of creating and passing such a resolution that which would clearly serve to circumvent required 75% vote of the homeowners to effect such a modification, change and/or amendment Section 7.1 of the CC&Rs.

The next section of the Vial Fotheringham articles continues…

“The next duty is the Duty of Undivided Loyalty. This duty highlights the fact that board members need to avoid conflicts of interest. If the board is presented with a matter that presents a conflict of interest to an individual board member, that board member should be recused from voting on the issue.”

Since Tony Roos was and continued to be the President of the Oak Knoll Homeowners Association at the time of the signing of the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution - given the fact that he presided over the Board during the October and November 2014 meetings (in which it was decided to rescind the long standing gross misinterpretation of CC&R Section7.1 and declaring that the street trees along Foothills Drive would no longer be a part of the Association’s 2015 budget going forward) – his participation was/is an explicit conflict of interest.

The article by Vial Fotheringham then gives an example that breaches the fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty:

“A classic example of a conflict of interest is when a board member is presented with an opportunity to enter a self-serving transaction. A self-serving or self-dealing transaction consists of a fiduciary taking advantage of his or her position in a transaction and acting for his or her own interests rather than for the interests of the homeowners. When a fiduciary engages in self-dealing, she breaches the Duty of Undivided Loyalty by acting in her own interests instead of the interests of the represented party.”

Tony Roos, being the President who presided over the October and November 2014 meetings wherein the decision was motioned and passed with the 2015 budget to no longer continue their “historic practice” of funding repairs, maintenance, or replacement of street trees as a result of the their historic gross inaccurate interpretation of CC&R Section 7.1, only to cast a vote to approve AND sign off on the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution [is] a breach of his fiduciary duties in serving his own self-interests and that of fellow board member James Gregory Meenahan.

James Gregory Meenahan is on record personally attacking me at the October 2014 meeting alleging that I have cost the association thousands of dollars in attorney fees (despite the fact that the then management company’s representative rebutted him stating that was not true), and that no one should take anything that “the wannabe lawyer” has to say. This speaks to inherent bias on his part, and having previously resigned from the Board of Directors (during a time in which he served taking personal bias against me due to the Board’s collective failure to follow the governing documents and statutory law regarding the planting of street trees; implementing a reserve account; and implementing a reserve study), only to volunteer his time once again rather conveniently after this October 2014 meeting in order to continue breaching his fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty. A fact that he albeit admitted to homeowners after the July 2016 meeting, telling them he has no interest to be on the Board and would rather be home with his family…if this is true, which most admissions are, then why did he volunteer his time once again after having previously resigned years before?

Last but not least, the article from Vial Fotheringham outlines the final fiduciary duty of Board of Directors of a Homeowners Association:

“Finally, board members are faced with the Duty to Act Within the Scope of Authority. Essentially, what this means is that board members have an obligation to know and understand their duties as outlined in the declaration, bylaws and …” Oregon Revised Statutory … “code.”

There are more than 16 years of meeting minutes, newsletters, resolutions, and written correspondence between the directors and homeowners that demonstrate the Board of Directors individual and collective ignorance as to their duties as outlined in the declaration, bylaws and statutory law. As a result of their inability to act autonomously with confidence and an understanding of their duties outlined in the declaration, bylaws and statutory law – even admitting to this fact in several meeting minutes and newsletters - the Board of Directors chose to hire three different management companies over the years as a result of their inherent ineptitude. 

I have more than 16 years of documented evidence, written and recorded, that exemplifies and demonstrates their lack of understanding their duties as outlined in the declaration, bylaws and statutory law.

The supporting evidence that I possess to substantiate my case is as follows:

  • ·      The Association’s governing documents (i.e. CC&Rs and Bylaws)
  • ·      The Oregon Planned Community Act (i.e. ORS 94.550 to 94.783)
  • ·      Oak Knoll Homeowners Association correspondence (e.g. Newsletters and written responses to inquiries on topic)
  • ·      Oak Knoll Homeowners Association meeting minutes
  • ·      Street Trees Maintenance Resolution of January 19-20, 2016
  • ·      Letters published by Vial Fotheringham (e.g. duties and responsibilities of Board of Directors); and
  • ·      Audio of relevant board and Town hall meetings (cited herein)
    • o   That which includes testimony from Vial Fotheringham’s own attorney and partner, Christopher Tingey, admitting that the Board has been inaccurate in its interpretation of CC&R Section 7.1, and that it wantonly and purposely chose to disregard it simply because the Board disagreed with the Declarant’s written position therein; and that any resolution clarifying the Board’s misinterpretation via historic practices would be unenforceable and declared as such if and when challenged in court.
    • (Audio can be located here: http://okhawatchdog.blogspot.com/2016/09/audio-september-2011-town-hall-meeting.html)


I have an incontestable case against the Homeowners Association for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent care and maintenance of the common areas where the street trees along Foothills Drive are concerned (i.e. by maintaining the historic practice of attending to only the street trees and sidewalks along Foothills Drive, benefiting only those homeowners directly while all other street trees “on each Lot” have been duly neglected by the Association).

The statutory requirement to seek mediation before any legal action has already been met, to which the Board refused to acquiesce under the advisement of counsel. Oddly enough that advice contradicts Vial Fotheringham’s own founder’s legal philosophical view on mediation when it comes to disputes among homeowners and their Board of Directors. Published at vf-law.com April 9, 2013, by Richard Vial is an article regarding “Mediation: The Essential Building Block of Peaceful Society (Key to Successful HOAs)(Oregon Law).” The following are a few excerpts from that article:

“Mediation is – at its core – the process by which people in conflict choose to work toward a resolution of that conflict by and between themselves, rather than simply submitting the question to a third party that rarely has a stake in the issue (judge, jury, arbitrator etc.) and will make a decision that becomes binding upon all parties. Everyone involved in the legal affairs of homeowner associations have found that disputes resolved through mediation are much more likely to avoid future disputes than those left to be decided by these third party (or parties).”

“Our goal as community leaders should be first to understand, not correct our fellow community members...When conflict arises, our only hope of avoiding the overwhelming expense of formal dispute resolution is to prepare to mediate by listening and understanding.”

“I have learned as a lawyer engaged in HOA matters for over 30 years that litigation is a costly endeavor that can potentially destroy communities in some cases. Being prepared to mediate is one of the best ways we can serve our communities.”

I have no doubt that the reasoning of the Board’s counsel not to attend mediation, given Richard Vial’s stated position above, will eventually be called into question and held accountable for.

This letter is the Board of Directors FINAL NOTICE regarding the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution. To comply, the Board must rescind the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution post haste and going forward adhere to that which President Tony Roos declared in the November 2014 Newsletter; that going forward the repair, maintenance or replacement of street trees along Foothills Drive would no longer be funded and financed through any part of the Oak Knoll Homeowners Associations’ budget process.


If I do not hear from the Board of Directors by November 15, 2016, the appropriate filing will be submitted to the Yamhill County Circuit Court seeking a Declaratory Judgment to force the Board of Directors to follow the governing documents and statutory law as they are written; and an Injunction against the Street Trees Maintenance Resolution in its entirety. As well as any and all reasonable attorney and/or other relevant legal fees as allowed by law.



Sincerely,


Homeowner