MY REPORT ON THE SPECIAL MEETING

        My compliments to the HOA on hiring Dr. Lester L. Cooper, Jr. to act as parliamentarian and conduct the meeting.  Dr. Cooper handled the meeting quite well and is someone I will certainly recommend to clients should they find themselves in need of the services of a parliamentarian in one of their meetings.  While the format of the meeting was not conducive to a full and fair discussion of all of the issues that the members wanted to discuss and did not give me the opportunity to address a number of the questions asked by concerned residents, it was dignified and civil (for the most part) and was the proper and appropriate way to conduct the special meeting under the bylaws of the HOA and the attendant circumstances.  I also want to thank those who attended the meeting for their honesty, their insights and their pointed comments.

        Dr. Cooper, the HOA Board, the representative of Heritage Management and the HOA's legal team were received warmly and applauded by the attendees.  No one booed me (I heard it happened to the Creeches the last time this happened), and I appreciated the opportunity to have addressed the group in the limited fashion that I was allowed.  My take on the meeting in a nutshell:  (i) I am disliked (and, I believe, tragically misunderstood) by most of those who attended the meeting; (ii) those who attended the meeting felt it important to express their support of the HOA Board, and, no matter what I may think of how they handled things with me, I agree that it is a thankless job; and (iii) nobody was interested in coming out of pocket directly to pay for this mess.

        Whether you like me or hate me, support me or support the HOA Board (or support neither of us), one thing you will have to admit is that I saw this train wreck coming in November of 2005 and tried to warn everyone to do something about it at that time (please see the postings I made to these web pages starting back then).  As I have contended from the outset (and as a number of the speakers expressed last night), this meeting and the participation of the HOA members is exactly the kind of process that should have taken place before the HOA ever headed down the litigation road advised by its counsel that led to the unnecessary waste of more than $37,000.00 by the litigants (apparently $19,852.94 by the HOA to its corporate counsel, Stites & Harbison, for billing through June 19, 2006 - spreadsheet attached - and $16,299.50 incurred by me through May of 2006).

        Please understand that the foregoing figure does not even count the time and expenses of each of the parties through the end of July or any expenses incurred by the HOA's insurance company with Peter York's firm, which has to be at least another $5,000.00 to $10,000.00, or the waste of the time of the neighbors involved in this matter over the course of a year of rancor and litigation.  When everything is totaled, including last night's meeting, the figure will easily approach $45,000.00 (see my discussion about attorney's fees that I first posted on January 15, 2006).  Someone really should have to pay for this mess, and as my next-door neighbor, Ralph Ridgell, made abundantly clear in some heated yet appropriate comments last night, maybe it should be the firm that sent the HOA down this path in the first place.

        The HOA Board members who spoke last night seemed to be using the excuse that they were going up against an attorney with unlimited resources (for the record, my resources are not unlimited, but my resolve to do what it takes to defend my firmly held beliefs is), and did not know what else to do.  They may not have cared for my approach, but I clearly gave them a reasonable out in December of last year that they should have accepted and that would have minimized the expenses for all involved.  I found it typical of the way the HOA's corporate counsel has advised it over the years that when Mr. Ridgell raised the point that Mr. Pontrelli's firm may have some culpability here and wanted to know what advice the HOA Board had been given about the propriety and necessity of filing the suit against me, Mr. Pontrelli asserted the attorney-client privilege, even though (i) that privilege is not his to assert; and (ii) the members of the HOA (i.e. all of us there at that meeting and that live in this neighborhood) are his clients and are entitled to an explanation.  These issues are certainly worthy of further discussion and exploration by the HOA.

        Apparently on advice of counsel, the HOA Board had been under a "gag order" since the litigation began and felt it necessary to attempt to justify its actions against me by making a presentation to the group.  While I have given the HOA the opportunity to respond on these web pages and it has had numerous other options (through special meetings it could have called, correspondence it could have sent or communications it could have made), it chose to follow the advice of its corporate counsel and did not really do any thinking for itself.  I have remarked on more than one occasion and to more than one person that the HOA Board was acting on profoundly bad advice, and HOA membership as a whole has suffered the consequences of those actions.

        Although I felt that the one-sided approach and format was not really appropriate under the circumstances, I had enough of an opportunity to respond.  The decidedly anti-Oldham sentiment in the room made it wise for me to limit my comments regarding the facts of this matter, and I did not go into as much detail as the audience needed to hear to at least understand this matter from my perspective.  Almost anything I said was going to turn the meeting into a pissing match (as one lady correctly pointed out in her comments), and the reason I have created these web pages is to allow folks who are interested to review the information and arguments without any emotion involved and decide the merits for themselves.  I have gone into the facts and my rationale for my actions in much detail in the pleadings I filed in the Action and in my correspondence to the HOA and its counsel and the writings I have posted on these web pages, and I encourage those of you who revile me for what you think I have done to at least take the time to hear me out.

        While I reminded those in attendance that the facts and my position on this matter are well documented on these web pages, it was obvious to me that most of them did not take the opportunity to educate themselves prior to the meeting.  When I made a remark at one point in the proceedings to the effect that I found the ignorance of the folks in attendance regarding the facts of this matter appalling, it did not go over very well and prompted murmurs among the crowd, including what I believe to be some expletives uttered in my direction.  Those familiar with this matter and some of the issues involved who attended the meeting no doubt found the observation to be appropriate, as it was obvious from a number of the comments and criticisms that the speakers either chose not to review the information I have made available to them or did not care about the actual facts they should be able to discern from that information.

        It was neither the time, the place, nor the appropriate forum to address the merits of the issues involved in the Action.  Those who spoke at the meeting definitely had their opinions about the matter and some appeared to be angry enough at all of the litigants and their counsel that it would not have mattered what we said in response.  A common complaint was about the catfish mailbox and why it is still up if this matter was settled May 19, 2006, and I would point those complainants to the detailed explanation of what took so long to finalize the settlement that appears in these web pages.  I have explained more than once that this matter has never been about the catfish, and I am truly sorry that those of you who complained about the mailbox could not seem to grasp that concept.  Something I have always found interesting about people is their different perspectives on things based upon their own understanding and analysis of the information they deem relevant, and you never know what people are going to say or do.

        Of those that spoke at the meeting (and there were many), almost none had anything positive to say about my handling of this matter.  While this was not unexpected, it was somewhat disappointing, since it told me that many of these folks did not focus on the more important issue in this dispute which was the HOA's mishandling of its side of the equation.  I have admitted before (and did so again) that I could have handled things differently, but that is definitely a two-way street.  Nevertheless, I accept that heart-felt criticism for what it is worth and am sorry that my neighbors have the wrong impression of me.  It is my hope that some time and reflection may change their minds, but our family can live with the consequences if such is not the case.

        There appeared to be a genuine confusion on the part of those in attendance about the relevant facts and issues in the Action, and a common complaint was that I was bound by the same covenants as everyone else, that the rules are the rules, and that I should have complied with those rules.  I have never contended not to be bound by those rules, but when faced with having to defend myself against a HOA Board that I felt applied them unreasonably given our circumstances, I did the job that any good attorney would have and made use of the gray areas in those rules and problems with HOA's corporate authority that admittedly existed.  Please understand that the apparent liberties that we took with the "rules" in moving into our home were never intended to allow us to be treated any differently than any other family that faced the same issues we did or to gain any advantage at the expense of our neighbors, and we encourage you to inform yourselves before passing judgment on us.  At the meeting, the HOA Board detailed its spin on what I did and did not do and I found some of the allegations to be inaccurate and/or unsubstantiated by the actual facts that appear in the record.  Again, I have documented and detailed the material facts for those who wish to inform themselves and will leave it to them to educate themselves accordingly.

        I felt there were a number of valid points made by those in attendance at the meeting, including some of the shots taken at me.  While I would like to believe that a number of those comments would have been different had the commentators found themselves in my shoes, I have always recognized the possibility that people will not agree with my handling of this matter even taking into account all the facts and circumstances.  Every person is entitled to his opinion, and the only requirement should be that same is thoroughly considered and well-reasoned.  As explained in advance of the special meeting by me and at the special meeting by Dr. Cooper, the special meeting was not the forum for addressing a number of the issues that were raised by those in attendance, and I hope that the members of the HOA will be interested enough to attend future HOA meetings in order to raise and address their legitimate issues and concerns.

        While I will never agree with the way the HOA Board handled this matter and do not buy the excuses for the litigation that those who spoke offered last night (including Mr. Clark's response that he did not come to my home to meet with me because he feared for his safety), it took some gumption for the Board to stand in front of a potentially hostile crowd to ask each member of the HOA to voluntarily contribute $100.00 to pay for the litigation costs and to be willing to answer the tough questions that were sure to come.  I encourage those of you who voted in support of the special assessment at the meeting to put your money where your mouths are and to send that amount in as a voluntary contribution in support of your HOA Board and its handling of this matter -- a gesture that certainly would be worthy of applause.

        If nothing else, perhaps the meeting was cathartic for those who felt like they needed to say something, and Lynn and I certainly appreciate those of you who approached us after the meeting with words of support and encouragement.  While I indicated in my July 14, 2006 correspondence to all of the neighbors that I was willing to pursue something against the HOA Board members for recovery of the amounts depleted from the HOA's funds if pressed into action by the requisite number of HOA members, the tone of last night's meeting makes doing so inappropriate.  While the attendees were clearly incensed at the stupidity of both sides (although most of the contempt seemed to be for me), no one in this neighborhood has taken any initiative when it comes to going after the individuals involved who made the decisions that lead us to the point the HOA finds itself today.  If there are any folks interested in pursuing potential claims against these HOA Board members for their alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to the HOA, they have not made themselves known to me and their inaction and lack of support for the notion that these individuals are responsible to all of us leads me to conclude that there is nothing to pursue against them and, accordingly, no reason to do so.  Like the HOA Board, Lynn and I are ready to put this matter behind us, and at least at between neighbors here in our neighborhood, this matter is concluded.

        Having said that, I will now be turning my focus on potential claims by me and the HOA against the HOA's corporate counsel and its insurance company (which may have breached a duty it had to me as one of the members of its insured when there was an opportunity to settle this matter back in December within the limits of the insurance policy).  The investigation and resolution of these issues is something that interests me and that will help me to better represent my own clients in the future should a similar situation arise.  Moreover, it may yet give me and the HOA an opportunity to recover what we have needlessly lost, and my pledge to all of you is to continue to explore every other potential avenue of recovery, both for myself and the HOA.  Those who are interested should keep checking this site for future updates pertaining to that investigation.

High Gables Main

Copyright  ©  Larry C. Oldham, P.C.
Send Comments to Webmaster