UPDATES
 
Don't forget to check the
 commentaries and opinions and what the neighbors say
pages for periodic updates
 
For the ease of review, the information on
on this page appears in reverse chronological order
 
High Gables Main

FINAL UPDATE - SETTLEMENT REACHED

July 12, 2006

        I received the documents I needed from Peter York, including the May 19, 2006 settlement letter agreement signed by all parties, and the Action is over.  I sent Mr. York a letter confirming the settlement, my check for the fine due from me, a copy of my letter to Peachtree Post ordering the mailbox and post, and will be filing the Mutual Dismissal of Claims with Prejudice with the Clerk of Court in the morning.  I am sure that Judge Bishop, for one, will be happy to see this matter has been settled by the parties.  I have included an Announcement of the Settlement as required by the settlement letter agreement.

July 6, 2006

        I am waiting on the promised information from Peter York but am sure that it will be what he has represented it to be.  I included a link suggesting it is time for the HOA Board members to resign and bring some closure to this matter and I hope they will heed that advice.  If they do, I will have no reason to continue against them, and if they do not, I will see if there are any neighbors out there who are interested in pursuing claims against them for their malfeasance.

June 30, 2006

       It looks like the Action may be coming to a close in the near future.  I had a lengthy conversation with Peter York on June 28, 2006 and received this letter from Peter York on June 29, 2006.  I sent Mr. York my response this morning.  Assuming the information I expect to receive from him checks out, the terms and conditions of the May 19 settlement letter agreement will apply.  I spoke with Mr. York a couple of times on June 30 and received a follow-up letter from him at the end of the day confirming some of our discussions.  I will await the proper documentation from him, and I have no reason to believe that this stage of this dispute is done.

June 26, 2006

        I intend to have the information to which I am entitled, one way or the other.  It also appears that the HOA is attempting to renege on the agreed terms of our deal embodied in my May 19 settlement letter agreement, and I let my position regarding same be known to Peter York.

June 23, 2006

        I received a letter from Peter York that I do not quite understand.  In the words of the immortal Scooby-Doo, all I can say is "Ruh Roh".  I will post my response on Monday.

June 22, 2006

        I talked with Peter York last week regarding the information I requested and still have received nothing from him.  I sent him a letter letting him know that I am growing weary of the HOA's latest shenanigans and that it is time to either fish or cut bait.

June 14, 2006

        I received correspondence from Heritage Management "certifying" the results of the HOA voting by written consent and the numbers do not quite add up (77 returned, 1 invalid, 2 elected not to vote, and 70 who voted, leaving 4 unaccounted for).  I sent a letter to Peter York asking for the results of the voting to be certified by the purported HOA Secretary, Linda Ebert, and I am waiting for same before I agree that this matter has concluded.  I traded calls with Peter York today and will post the results of my investigation when I receive the certified information from the HOA.

May 28, 2006

        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.

May 5, 2006

        Unfortunately, this matter continues.  I made a settlement proposal that was countered by the HOA.  After some soul-searching and due consideration of all of the good advice I have received from colleagues, family and friends, I have decided that I have no choice but to continue advancing my arguments, and I let the HOA know this by way of a letter to Peter York that I sent today.

        I added some additional links that you might interest you, including more information about nuts (see my April 24, 2006 update), an observation about mine and HOA's failure to communicate, a further explanation of my no quorum argument that the HOA does not seem to get (believe me, folks, it is a winner), and my dismay over another lost settlement opportunity.

April 30, 2006

        Earlier this week I received the following e-mail from an old lawyer buddy of mine whose opinion I respect (and since she echoed the advice that other colleagues and disinterested parties have given me throughout the course of this dispute, I figured it was time to give them their due and let them know that their urgings have not fallen on deaf ears):

"I read your web pages.  This is probably the best advice you have received from anyone up to this point: You need to hire an attorney to handle this and move on!  You have obviously spent way too much of your own time and energy on something that is unproductive and not in your best interests in the long run.  You have to live in this neighborhood for a long time so you might as well find a way to settle it.  If you had an attorney, I’m sure that the HOA would be more inclined to settlement discussions. At this point since you have poked fun at them, you have to give them a way out that will save face."

I certainly agree that the foregoing represents sound advice.  As I have indicated in these very web pages, it is the same advice I would have given any client of mine who found himself faced with the same set of circumstances.  Nevertheless, it is easier to give the foregoing advice than to take it, and I really have had no choice but to forge ahead since the HOA's offer in December that we could settle by me writing it a check for the nearly $7,000.00 in attorney's fees it had allegedly incurred through the end of the year.

        I will always believe that our actions surrounding our move-in to our home and the paving of our driveway have been reasonable under the circumstances and that the HOA's handling of the matter has been both unneighborly and unprofessional.  Moreover, issues regarding the validity of the HOA Board and its operation of the HOA have come to light during the course of the litigation that must be addressed.  While I am willing to take my lumps if a jury determines that I am wrong, I recognize that I will still spend several thousand dollars' worth of my time getting there and I also recognize that there is no certainty that I will win or that I will be able to recover my attorney's fees and expenses if I do.

        In light of the foregoing, I have made a final settlement offer to the HOA that is open for acceptance until this Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 5:00 p.m.  The offer represents a change in my prior position that I would never pay the HOA a dime and it gives us all the opportunity to put this litigation behind us once and for all on terms and conditions that should allow both sides to accomplish their objectives.  It is clear that both sides could have conducted themselves differently throughout this process and that this matter has gotten way out of hand.

        Please understand that as I pondered the April 14, 2006 letter that Peter York circulated to the HOA members and the inadequate and evasive responses that the HOA provided to my discovery requests, I became even more incensed than I have been and seriously considered withdrawing my settlement offer.  I certainly did not appreciate the misleading information in Mr. York's letter and if one were to take it at face value, it would appear that I have been less than forthcoming in my discussions about this matter.  Accordingly, I took the opportunity to refute the contents of Mr. York's letter with a response of my own and I believe that if you will take the time to review our respective letters and the evidence presented, you will be able to tell the difference between fact and "spin".  Maybe those neighbors of mine who decided not to give me their proxies because of Mr. York's letter will reconsider their positions, and if any of them do, I will be happy to e-mail their proxy form to them if they have already thrown it away.  All those interested neighbors have to do is click on this link to request me to send their proxy form.

        If this thing ends on Tuesday on mutually agreeable terms and conditions, me and my family can live with that.  If not, we look forward to having our day in court.

April 27, 2006

        Earlier this week, I found out that Peter York sent a letter in response to my letter to the neighbors that I sent along with my proxy request.  The letter was sent to me at 4230 High Gables East where we last lived in December of 2004 (another example of the HOA's stellar record-keeping) and was not sent to me in my capacity as counsel for myself, so I did not receive a copy of it from Mr. York until today (I made him aware yesterday that I had learned from one of the neighbors that he sent a letter to them after mine and that I never received it).  I was actually a bit disappointed at the contents of Mr. York's letter, finding it misleading in a number of material respects.  I will be sending Mr. York a letter sometime next week setting the record straight from my perspective.

        I am not sure what purpose providing the HOA members with misinformation or "spin" serves in resolving this matter, and I have always tried to err on the side of full disclosure in my responses to discovery, my conversations with Messrs. York, Pontrelli and Joiner, and in the facts and opinions I have included on these web pages.  I have said before (and say again here) that I am willing to take my lumps if it turns out I am wrong, but I am always going to be honest and straightforward about the facts and my interpretation of those facts.  While I do not believe the misinformation contained in Mr. York's letter to be intentional, I do find it as yet another unfortunate example of the incredible complexity of human communications and how people (including professionals like myself and Mr. York who communicate for a living) can see the same facts in completely different ways.

        I have posted the following responses of the HOA to my discovery requests for your edification:  (i) response to my first request for admissions; (ii) response to my first interrogatories; and (iii) response to my first request for production of documents.  I encourage you to compare mine and the HOA's responses to the discovery requests we have exchanged in order to make a determination for yourself of how this matter shakes out.  I am not satisfied that a number of responses that I received from the HOA meet its obligations under the discovery provisions of the Georgia Civil Practice Act and will be using the tools provided thereunder in order to obtain more complete responses to which I believe I am entitled.

        I have also included relevant documents produced to me by the HOA, including e-mail communications between my neighbor, Patrick Bryant, and Bobby Lawson and Morris Zoblotsky.  The complaints of Mr. Bryant--and others, I presume, although the HOA's April 14, 2006 response to my Interrogatory No. 36 indicates that Mr. Bryant is the only neighbor who complained, either verbally or in writing--undoubtedly became a burr under the HOA's saddle that, in retrospect, my failure to respond to its written demands did not do anything to help.

        In any event, I found Mr. Lawson's response to Mr. Bryant's inquiry to be appropriate and professional, and things might have turned out differently had Messrs. Marchat and Clark and the HOA as a whole handled their dealings with me in a similar manner.  For the record, I found all of my dealings with Mr. Lawson (who was the one responsible for approving our house plans) to be professional and courteous, and I regret that he may now feel differently about me than he did as a result of this series of unfortunate events.  Incidentally, Mr. Bryant did not take Mr. Lawson's advice about talking to me to address his concerns neighbor to neighbor, and same causes me to ask, once more, where has all the civility gone?

        I gave Peter York a courtesy call yesterday to touch base with him on some issues in the litigation and to let him know where I saw things heading next.  He and I spoke at length, and I feel certain that had the HOA adopted a similar approach in conducting its affairs with me as Mr. York has taken on behalf of the HOA in handling this matter, we would have been able to resolve things long ago.  Recognizing that I have invested more than $12,000.00 in this matter to date, being faced with investing another $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 of my time in the next couple of weeks to get things where they need to be, and feeling that Judge Bishop finds this whole matter silly and will not be inclined to award either party any of their fees  against the other (as is his prerogative), I opted for a practical approach that included a settlement offer by me to the HOA Board that would be silly for it not to accept.  My offer will remain open until 5:00 p.m. on next Tuesday, May 2, 2006, and I will provide you with additional details about the situation in my next update.

April 24, 2006

        After I had posted the update set forth below, I received a call from my good friend, Allen McDuffie, who refused to accept his $50.00 for winning the proxy pool.  After a bit of argument wherein I realized that Allen is as stubborn as I am and the $50.00 would be used up in stamps sending the money back and forth between us, I reluctantly agreed to keep the money and have plans to apply it as a down payment towards the costs of the ice cream social we plan to throw for the neighborhood kids once this matter is resolved.

April 24, 2006

        I want to thank the 8 of you who returned proxies to me (I got a 9th the other day).  While appalling to me personally, I must say that the lack of response from my neighbors does not surprise me.  It looks like we will have to continue to fight this fight by ourselves.  I was amused by one anonymous and cowardly family who returned a shredded proxy that we pieced back together at the office and another who returned a Lockheed Georgia Employee's Federal Credit Union application marked "Nuts" (while I would like to believe the "Nuts" comment was a showing of support for us in tribute to the response of General Anthony C. McAuliffe to a demand for surrender by the Germans storming Bastogne, Belgium in the Battle of the Bulge during World War II, I am not sure that is what the author intended).

        Congratulations to Allen McDuffie, who won the $50.00 in the on-line proxy pool with a guess of 7 proxies and to Ana Juresic, who won the $20.00 in the office proxy pool with a guess of 26 proxies.

        After all this time and expense on my end, it appears that the purported HOA Board is finally willing to meet with me as long as its attorneys are present.  The latest overture is too little, too late, however, as things are too far gone.  What could possibly be the point of meeting with a purported Board or its counsel that ignored my repeated requests for over four months and has now caused me to waste more than $8,000.00 in dealing with this litigation since December (which is when this litigation should have been settled)?  I can only hope that the Superior Court provides me with a better form of justice than the Board and my neighbors, and I will continue to put my faith in the system.

April 16, 2006

        The additional donation to the proxy pool was increased from $15.00 to $20.00, so someone is going to win $50.00.

April 14, 2006

        I finally was able to post some comments from our site-work man and dear friend, John Ramming, who did a great job for us and deserves to be heard.

April 13, 2006

        I received the following generous offer from one of our faithful supporters, and the Proxy Pool is now up to $45.00 to a lucky winner.  I am also going to accept the $15.00 side bet, not because I think I will win, but because it is at least a chance I see to defray my expenses pertaining to the Proxy Pool.  The increase in the prize is based on the following e-mail I received yesterday evening: 

"Evidently, you did not receive my earlier email. Your pot is too low. I'll put in $15.00 and bet you $15.00 more that you can't get 12 apathetic members out of your neighborhood to do anything. Much less, to take responsibility for what goes on where they live. Let me know."  J. M., Cumming, Georgia.

        Those of you who have already submitted entries are entitled to change your votes one time based upon this latest development - just indicate that you are doing so when you submit your entry.  Good luck to everyone who casts a vote, and remember to get your vote in by 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2006.

        I also added page to let people know that it's not about the catfish, just in case they have missed the point of this exercise.  With the help of my assistant Susset, I also was able to download an aerial photograph of our portion of the neighborhood from local.live.com and will let you guess which house is ours.  I was also able to download a closer-up view of our lot.
 

April 7, 2006

        The bench trial that Judge Bishop had set for March 29, 2006 did not take place because I filed a demand for a jury trial.  I served my responses to the HOA's First Interrogatories and  First Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff's counsel.  I received a response to my First Requests for Admissions, and have agreed to give the HOA's counsel until next Tuesday to respond to my First Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents.  Counsel for the HOA and I also agreed to extend the discovery period until May 19, 2006 to allow us to do whatever additional discovery we might need to do, including the taking of depositions.  I sent a few letters to the HOA's counsel to clarify some issues of concern to me:  (i) representation of the parties, (ii) use of the amenities while this Action is pending; and (iii) production of corporate records and ultra vires actions.

        I also sent an explanatory letter and proxy request to each member of the HOA asking them to give me the right to vote their respective interests in the HOA, subject to whatever limitations they deem appropriate.  I am hopeful that a sufficient number of my neighbors will respond to allow me to do what needs to be done to end the misery, but based upon their apparent lack of interest and unwillingness to get involved to date, I am skeptical about my chances of success.  Since I am still in NCAA Basketball Tournament Pool mode and my staff has been giving me grief about wasting their time requesting proxies from the apathetic masses in the neighborhood (preparing the mass mailing itself was quite an undertaking), I thought it would be fun to run an on-line Proxy Pool for the visitors to these web pages.  We already have a pool at the office, with guesses of 26 (AJ), 30 (BSR), 50 (GSM) and 73 (LCO) for the number of proxies that will be returned giving me the right to act for HOA members.  While I fear that BSR and AJ (or even a lesser number) may be closer to correct, I had to believe in my cause and went with the number necessary to constitute a quorum and to allow me to conduct business on behalf of the HOA -- a man can always dream.

        I have contributed $30.00 to this on-line Proxy Pool, and all you need to do to enter is send me an e-mail with your guess at how many proxies I will receive from neighbors between now and 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2006.  The rules are as follows:  (i) no cost to enter; (ii) everyone is invited to participate; (iii) one guess per person per household; (iv) Oldham family members (other than me) and friends are eligible to win; (v) closest to the correct number of proxies received wins (whether the guess is over or under the actual number of proxies received), with the number that is less than the actual amount of proxies received being the winner if there is a tie; and (vi) other than as specified in (v), ties split the prize, with me agreeing to contribute enough additional funding to ensure that each winner receives at least $15.00.  Click here to submit your entry.

        In making your best guess, you should be aware of the following:  (i) there are 142 other households in the neighborhood and I sent each of them the letter and proxy request specified above; (ii) we consider ourselves good friends with 10 or so families in the neighborhood; (iii) other than on these web pages, I have discussed this matter with 10 or so folks in the neighborhood, some of whom fall into the category of good friends specified in (ii), above; and (iv) to date I have received five commentaries or responses from folks in the neighborhood (which I posted to the friends and neighbors page), and most of those came in December after my first mass mailing making the neighbors aware of the outstanding issues.  Good luck to all participants and the winner will be announced on April 24, 2006.

March 25, 2006

        I hoped that my discussion with Peter York might lead to a meeting with the HOA Board or at least further discussions with him and a possible amicable resolution of this matter, and I even agreed to refrain from further activity on these web pages or otherwise pending the possibility of working through the issues.  I am sorry to report that I have heard nothing further from Mr. York since that March 8, 2006 conversation with him and the corporate documents I received from him on March 11, 2006, and I certainly did not understand the ball to be in my court.  Moreover, the HOA has not dismissed any of its allegations as demanded in my February 17, 2006 abusive litigation letter, nor has it made any attempt to address the ultra vires issues raised in my February 22, 2006 letter to Mr. Pontrelli and all of the members of the HOA Board.

        With my discovery responses due on Monday (meaning additional time I will have to devote to this matter), I will be preparing same this weekend and will be taking the steps necessary to see this matter to a conclusion, including preparing some appropriate Motions for filing in the Action.  Please understand that I have made the best possible good faith effort to try to work through things with my neighbors, to no avail.  Our respective fates now lie in the hands of a judicial system that I believe in and that is the final arbiter of disputes that reasonable people cannot resolve, whatever the reason.  Best of luck to all involved, and may justice prevail.

March 10, 2006

        We received an Order for Bench Trial from Judge Bishop setting a trial date for March 29, 2006, despite the fact that discovery in the Action does not end until April 1, 2006 and our respective discovery responses to each other are not due until March 27 (Oldham) and March 30 (HOA).  In light of Judge Bishop's Order, I filed my Demand for Jury Trial today.  As best I can tell, neither myself nor the HOA object to a trial of this matter before the pool opens this summer, and we can both work towards having this matter set on a trial calendar in late April or early May, which will give us time to take any depositions either side deems necessary.  I have had some discussions with the HOA's attorney, Peter York.  I received some additional corporate documents today, and expect to receive the balance of what I have requested by Monday or Tuesday of next week.

March 8, 2006

        I sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Pontrelli regarding my demand for corporate records.

March 3, 2006

        Another week, another renewal of my demand for corporate records I should have been provided weeks ago.  I received a new message from an old friend, offered a word of thanks to those who have gotten involved in the process, and posted a one paragraph synopsis of this matter for those without the time or inclination to read all of the nonsense contained on these web pages.

February 25, 2006

        I served Defendant's First Interrogatories, First Request for Production of Documents, and First Request for Admissions on Messrs. Pontrelli and York.

February 24, 2006

        I sent a request to Mr. Pontrelli for the corporate documents that are missing from my request for inspection.  I am of the sincere belief that this HOA Board has no authority to act on behalf of the HOA, and I put Mr. Pontrelli and the HOA Board members on notice about this issue.  While the basis for my belief is detailed in my letter, the nut-shell version is that the HOA's bylaws require 73 members to attend an annual meeting in person or by proxy to transact business like electing the Board to represent the HOA, and I do not believe 73 people attended this past September's meeting either in person or by proxy.  Moreover, I have my doubts as to whether there ever has been the required quorum at any annual meeting of the HOA.  If there is no duly elected Board, there is no one duly authorized to act on behalf of the HOA, and any actions that any improperly constituted Board has attempted to take against me or any other member of the Association is void ab initio (Latin for "void from its inception").

        While it would be nice if the HOA Board could correct the ultra vires problem by dropping everything against me, I question the authority of the Board to do even that at this point.  Since the only way this ultra vires situation can be corrected is by electing a Board at a properly constituted annual meeting or by having a Court of competent jurisdiction intervene, I soon may find myself filing a Petition in the Superior Court of Forsyth County to address this issue.  Please understand that I have not yet been provided with the minutes of the annual meetings for inspection as I requested on January 17, 2006, so I cannot be certain that I am correct regarding this matter.  Nevertheless, it certainly seems that way to me at this point.  I have demanded the documents to which I am entitled as a member of the HOA and have also asked the HOA Board members and the HOA's counsel to let me know if I am missing something regarding the ultra vires issue.

        The HOA Board's counsel sent me some interrogatories and requests for production, and I will be sending my own discovery requests out to it today.  The discovery deadline is nearing, and the lawyers are doing what lawyers do.  My neighbors should also expect a mass-mailing from me early next week.  At the end of the day, I received a letter from Mr. Pontrelli regarding additional corporate records and sent him a reply pointing out what I contend is still missing and a follow-up letter addressing some other points.

February 18, 2006

        On February 14, I finally received some of the documents I requested on January 17, including the HOA's articles of incorporation, bylaws and financial information for the HOA's fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005.  I am still missing a number of the documents to which I am entitled and will send Mr. Pontrelli a letter this Tuesday asking him to get them to me by the end of next week.  Since the HOA's fiscal year ends on August 31, the details regarding attorney's fees and expenses incurred by the HOA to date are not included, although it is inexplicable to me why our HOA has been paying Heritage Management $5,200.00 per year to "manage" the HOA.  Until I obtain the attorney's fees information in response to my discovery requests, I will have to go with the estimate provided to me in December by Mr. Pontrelli and my extrapolation of those fees based on such estimate.

        To my chagrin, it appears that the bylaws of the HOA require the vote of 51% of the members to call the special meeting I was hoping for, rather than the usual 5% of members specified under the Georgia Nonprofit Business Corporation Code.  While I will soon be sending proxy requests to my neighbors and have previously asked them in my call to arms to get involved and stop the bleeding, I am not optimistic, especially based upon the apathy I perceive in the neighborhood about this matter, that I will be able to have such a meeting without the cooperation of the HOA Board.  To date, my challenge to the Board has gone unanswered, much like my repeated requests for a meeting.

        The cash register should begin to cling and clang furiously in the next few weeks, since Judge Bishop has only given us until April Fool's Day (how appropriate) to finish discovery without further order from the Court.  Yesterday I sent the HOA and each member of the Board an abusive litigation demand, and I look forward to taking the depositions of all of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 HOA Board members in the upcoming weeks in order to see what they have to say for themselves.  While that unpleasantry is something I had hoped to avoid, I was required to send the demand in order to preserve my rights and I need to take the depositions to establish the facts.  I have included an unannotated version of the abusive litigation statute for your information.

        As noted above, several weeks have passed since my latest verbal and written requests, and the Board has steadfastly refused to sit down with me to discuss this matter like reasonable adults.  At this point, I will be doing my talking in the Superior Court of Forsyth County.  Foolish pride and arrogance have their consequences.

February 10, 2006

        I spoke with Mr. Pontrelli today and should have my documents by the early part of next week.  I received some new ideas for the "Neighborhood Standard" mailbox that may be of interest to you.

February 9, 2006

        I spoke with Mr. Pontrelli on Tuesday (February 7) and he indicated he has been working through the documents I have requested and that I should have them by the end of this week.  I did not bother to complain that I already should have the documents in hand and we will see if I get them at the end of the week as promised.  I received a well written e-mail today that reiterates what I have been saying for quite some time, and I appreciate the support.

February 6, 2006

        Another day came and went with no communications from the HOA Board or its counsel about my offer to discuss this matter.  I also did not receive the documents to which I am entitled.  While I made a posting on February 4, 2006 indicating that I would give the HOA Board's counsel until February 10, 2006 to contact me to arrange at meeting, I have reconsidered that position and removed the posting.

        It has been more than three weeks since my initial contact with Mark Joiner, more than two weeks since I communicated to Mr. Pontrelli yet again my offer to meet with the Board members, and nearly a week since I raised that issue again with Messrs. Pontrelli and York in our conference call with Judge Bishop.  I am through asking and offering.  The HOA Board had a fair opportunity to work with me to attempt to resolve this matter in a reasonable fashion and unfortunately elected not to do so.

February 4, 2006

        The attorneys had a conference call on Tuesday, January 31, 2006, with the Honorable Fred A. Bishop, the Senior Superior Court Judge out of Gwinnett County to whom the Action has been assigned.  As I expected, Judge Bishop declined to hear the HOA's "emergency" Motion which attempts to make  me remove the catfish on an expedited basis.  Judge Bishop saw no emergency that warranted him having hearings to consider both temporary and permanent relief and determined that it makes more sense to deal with all of the issues at one hearing on the HOA's request for equitable relief once the parties have completed discovery.  He did find that the parties should be able to complete discovery in this matter in the next 60 days, shortening the usual discovery period to 4 months rather than 6 months.  I requested that Judge Bishop give us the full 6 month discovery period since I had not been doing everything I could from a discovery standpoint from the outset in an attempt to keep the costs down, but he did not find the issues compelling enough to allow the full 6 months.  Judge Bishop did indicate, however, that if either of the parties needed additional time at the end of the 60 days, he would consider such a request.

        Judge Bishop told the attorneys that he believed this was something the parties should be able to resolve by agreement although he could not require us to do so.  I asked Mr. Pontrelli if the HOA Board had ever decided whether it would meet to me as I have requested repeatedly (see my December 13 letter and my January 17 letter, and know that I had conversations on January 15 and January 19 with Board Member Mark Joiner and Mr. Pontrelli in which I requested a meeting) and Mr. Pontrelli said that he has not yet heard back from the Board members agreeing to do so.  When I asked why there was a problem with meeting with me, Mr. York indicated that the problem was that I have already said I am not paying anything to the HOA to resolve this matter, and I asked him what that had to do with meeting with me.  I told both attorneys and Judge Bishop that I am willing to meet with the HOA Board any time, any place and under any circumstances.

        Because of the expedited time frame, both parties are going to have to ramp-up their efforts.  I can hear the coins clanking into the drawer, and the members of the HOA Board and my friends and neighbors who are allowing this stupidity to continue at the expense of all of us should be ashamed.

        I indicated in my January 9 letter to Mr. Pontrelli that I was making my final settlement proposal, and my offer remains the same.  I have been waiting for two weeks for the HOA Board to agree to meet with me.  Not surprisingly, the HOA Board is late in producing the corporate records I have requested (they were supposed to be available to me last week and I have not received them as of today).  Like the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction", I am not going to be ignored.

        I challenge the Board to work with me to find a reasonable way to resolve this matter that will limit the waste of time and money.

January 31, 2006

        The Board's attorneys are looking for information from my concrete man, Michael Hill.  Mr. Pontrelli responded to my demand for corporate records by letter dated January 26, 2006.  I sent a response to Mr. Pontrelli dated January 31, 2006.  So far, no response to my request for a meeting with the HOA, which was reiterated the latest time in my January 17, 2006 letter.  Maybe the HOA Board is playing hard to get, or thinks I am desperate for a meeting.  I want everyone on the HOA Board to have to sit in a room with me, look me in the eye, and explain to me why we are all wasting our time and money on this when we have better things to do.  Alas, I continue to wait, like a wallflower at the Junior/Senior Prom.  When will a Frankenstein-Mob of High Gables residents out for justice start carrying torches through the streets of our community and demand an accounting from the Board for its actions?

January 22, 2006

        As is their custom in litigation involving members of the Forsyth County Bar Association, Superior Court Judges Jeffrey S. Bagley and David L. Dickinson filed an Order of Recusal on January 13, 2006.  I spoke with Mark Joiner last Sunday in an effort to get the HOA Board to at least meet with me, and I also spoke to their attorney, Jay Pontrelli, and made the same request.  I hope to hear this week from Mr. Pontrelli that the HOA Board will at least meet with me face-to-face to discuss this matter.  I sent requests last week to Mr. Pontrelli for records of the HOA and to reiterate my request for a meeting with the HOA Board.  I had some trouble with the website last week which should now be fixed thanks to the efforts of my brother, Steve.  I am sorry if any of you had trouble accessing it recently.

January 11, 2006

        I received the HOA's Motion for Injunction and Brief in Support today.  If this Motion is any indication of things to come after the correspondence I exchanged with the HOA over the mailbox and landscaping issues (see the HOA's November 25 responses to my November 14 inquiry about the neighborhood standard for mailboxes and my November 14 letter notifying the HOA of my intentions regarding my lot entrance landscaping -- which, by the way, is as complete as it needs to be until the spring), it looks like the cash registers at Stites & Harbison and Hawkins & Parnell will be ringing loud and often in the coming months.  My thanks to the HOA for providing me with a picture of the catfish mailbox as an Exhibit to its Motion for Injunction.  We are encouraging our friends and neighbors to rise up and help us end this dispute without a further waste of time and money on both sides.  You also might be interested in finding out what bothers me the most about this matter or learning about my appeal to conscientious objectors on the HOA Board.  Only the members of the HOA can help bring this matter to a swift and successful conclusion, and our family hopes that you will seize the opportunity to do so.

 
January 10, 2006
 
        My settlement offer was summarily rejected by the HOA as communicated to me by letter from the HOA's counsel dated January 10, 2006.  To see the relevant contents of my settlement proposal without having to read the entire letter, click on this link.
 
January 9, 2006
 
        I sent a final settlement proposal to the HOA Board by letter dated Jan 9, 2006.
 
January 7, 2006
 
        Unfortunately, 5:00 p.m. on January 6, 2006 came and went without any response to my counterproposal by counsel for the High Gables HOA.  As they say, it is time to fish or cut bait, and once this thing gets going good, I assure you it will not end other than by order of the Forsyth County Superior Court.  I am going to begin requesting information pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 14-3-1602 next week.  I posted one final appeal to reason on the main High Gables Driveway Litigation page.

High Gables Main

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