The following text appears on the May 28, 2006 posting to "The Latest Updates":

        Peter York called me on the May 10, 2006 deadline I had set in my May 5, 2006 letter to him regarding the individual members of the HOA Board agreeing to be added as parties to the Action and wanted to know if we could still resolve this matter.  I told him I was still willing to do so along the lines of my April 27, 2006 settlement proposal, and we reached an agreement on May 19, 2006 resolving the outstanding issues to the mutual satisfaction of me and the HOA Board.  Among lawyers, it is always said that a good settlement is one that none of the parties is particularly happy about, and while I cannot speak for the HOA, I certainly can say for myself that I am not happy with the $15,000.00+ in attorney time that I had to spend in defending myself in an unnecessary lawsuit.

        I must wonder again why my neighbors do not seem to care that those whom they entrusted to make decisions in the best interests of all of us wasted a similar amount of our money in pursuing a lawsuit against me.  What makes the actions of those "in charge" even more egregious is that they and their legal representatives did not bother to make sure that they had the ability to pursue those actions before undertaking them.  Deciding to sue someone is serious business that should be carefully considered, especially when those making the decisions are not spending their own money but are acting in a fiduciary capacity and representing others.

        As I have said so many times and in so many ways, there was never any need for this matter to escalate to this level, and I have been very open and honest in my criticism of the handling of this matter by the members of the HOA Board.  No matter what "spin" the HOA may try to give the final conclusion of the Action, I had the HOA dead to rights on the quorum issue and the primary reason I made my final settlement proposal was to increase the chances I would be able to recover at least some of my attorney's fees incurred in the furtherance of the litigation if the HOA Board continued with its foolhardy approach and ignored a reasonable offer it could not refuse.

        In the letter agreement settling this matter I reiterated my invitation to the HOA to make its own posting to these web pages regarding its position, and I truly hope it will take me up on same.  I am curious as to how the HOA Board members will explain themselves, and my settling of the Action and losing my ability to pursue further discovery from the HOA makes it difficult for me to get answers to my questions.  Whatever you hear from the HOA "powers that be", friends and neighbors, please understand that (i) the HOA did not "throw in the towel" because of the costs it was incurring in the Action, my understanding from Peter York being that the HOA's insurance company has been paying the freight for some time now; and (ii) my "no quorum" argument was right on point.  To illustrate this, I included with the May 5, 2006 posting some informative pages from Robert's Rules of Order, 10th Ed.© and  Robert's Rules of Order for Dummies© that include a good explanation of the quorum issue and which highlight the seriousness of the matter to all of us in the neighborhood.

        The end result of all of the foregoing was a recognition that there is an authority issue with the HOA Board that needs to be fixed and an agreed mechanism for trying to fix it.  While I have included the full text of the settlement letter for your information and encourage you to read it, you should also read my April 27 settlement proposal, the HOA's May 2 counterproposal, and my May 5 rejection of the counterproposal that led up to the settlement letter agreement.  Note that an essential requirement of the settlement is that in order to be able to enter into the settlement agreement with me at all, the HOA must obtain the "attendance" (and approval, by majority vote) of at least 73 members of the Company at a "meeting" that the HOA and I have agreed can take place by written consent.

        I have included an example of the cover letter and written consent that Heritage Property Management was supposed to mail to all members of the HOA.  In typical fashion, I have not received the one addressed to me -- I guess the HOA Board figured it did not need my "no" vote to approving and ratifying the continued service of the current Board, although I would have voted "yes" to making the quorum and special meeting requirements more reasonable -- but I understand from some of my neighbors that the documents are being circulated.  While I will be satisfied if the continued service of the HOA Board is ratified and approved by my neighbors and this matter accordingly ends on the terms and conditions specified in the settlement letter agreement, I must admit that I will be somewhat incensed at neighbors who did not see fit to allow me to call a meeting of all of the HOA members to deal with the obvious abuses by the current HOA Board (see the April 7, 2006 update, below, and other updates regarding my proxy request) but who were nevertheless willing to empower that Board to reach a settlement of litigation it never should have started in the first place.  While such a result will end my waste of time and resources on the current Action, it will confirm my suspicions that no one in High Gables actually cared about the real issues involved in the dispute.

        Per our settlement letter agreement, the HOA Board is to let me know if it obtains (or is unable to obtain) the appropriate number of signatures by June 9, and I will be interested to see if it is able to do so.  If it is, especially in light of the current state of apathy in the neighborhood and in light of the HOA Board's  lack of moral authority as a result of its unwarranted actions with regard to my situation, it really makes one wonder what the HOA Board members could have accomplished if they had conducted themselves as true fiduciaries would have under the same circumstances.

        I will let you know as soon as there is something else to say.