ARE WE A PART OF A BIGGER PROBLEM?

This Letter from a Quail Valley East Community Association Owner to Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen was posted on the American Homeowners Resource Center website. Note some names that you might recognize (in bold and underlined by Blogger). Do you think the problem might be bigger than many of us realize?

From: LYNNE MOYER
3434 Quail Meadow
Missouri City, TX 77489

Date: October 10, 2007 9:15PM PDT

Subject: Q.V.E.C.A. CHARGES $3,000 LATE FEE FOR $96 YEARLY ASSESSMENT THAT HAS BEEN PAID FOR 31 YEARS

Missouri City, Texas Mayor - Allen Owen:

October 10, 2007

Your Honorable Mayor Allen Owen

I am a single professional woman and feel I am the victim of harassment, over-reaction, and inappropriate use of power by Quail Valley East Community Association over the original payment of $96 that I have been paying for 31 years. How many original people even still own property in Quail Valley East?

I wish to seek counsel, audience; or may I ask you to please help me; or, perhaps to guide me to an appropriate person who can assist me?

I have been a home owner at 3434 Quail Meadow, Missouri City, TX. 77459 since July, 1976.

I have been paying the Quail Valley East Community Association Annual Assessment for 31 years.

This past year through the present has been a major disruption in my life and I have for the first time in my life gone on medical leave as of June of this year. As a Pharmacist working 12 hour days looking down at an ergonomically too low counter I have managed to destroy 6 out of 7 disks in my neck accompanied with bone spurs and protrusions, a dislocated shoulder and several compromised disks in my back. I have been in the hospital 5 times since June. I have been staying with a friend ensuring I would have assistance if needed.

Last month I was looking at my taxes and found the Quail Valley E Comm. Assn. bill in a sealed envelope. I really thought I had already paid the fee. I sent the payment along with a letter describing the circumstances as well as faxing a letter notifying the Marshall Management Group, Inc. of the circumstances and that the check was sent certified mail.

I have now received notice from The Holoway Jones Law Firm, P.L.L.C.that my offer was not acceptable. I owe collection charges; which I will pay the difference of the $186 charged and the $125 I submitted.

They claim "The plaintiff claims $3,000 as attorney's fees and the recovery of court costs." They propose a settlement of $2,028.99 for the Plaintiff-Quail Valley East Community Association, Inc. who I have been paying for 31 years. This is outrageous and a complete misuse of power as well as a personal attack on myself.

Please help me.

Thank YOU

COULD IT GET ANY WORSE?

The regular monthly board of directors meeting of the Meadowcreek Association was called to order promptly at 7 PM on February 11th, 2010 with the former vice president Terry Strickland presiding. Seated at the table were Claude Whittaker, Mildred Mills, Terry Strickland, David Hamner and Eugene Placke. Yes, that’s right folks, the board member (David Hamner) that no one remembers electing to office was seated at the table to make a quorum.

Mr. Blankenship, a member of the community, stood immediately after the meeting was called to order, and following Robert’s Rules of Order stated:

“Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege affecting the assembly”. Mr. Blankenship was advised to sit down as the meeting was starting. Mr. Blankenship repeated his request and was again denied the opportunity to raise his question, after being told by attorney Lewis “Chip” Smith that he was not a member. For those of you not familiar with a question of privilege, it is defined thusly in the Rules of Order: “Questions relating to the rights and privileges of the assembly, or to any of its members, take precedence of all other motions except the three preceding relating to adjournment and recess, to which they yield”. The question that was to be asked by Mr. Blankenship was whether a quorum (5) of board members existed with the many questions regarding Mr. Hamners election/appointment/whatever in question.

So, the meeting continued with a major question unanswered – was the meeting legal? The seated board then proceeded to the election of officers for 2010, and the details are meaningless, as all four new members boycotted the meeting to prevent a quorum, and the old board decided that it did have a quorum and continued the meeting as if everything were in order.

The board then went into “executive session” and asked all neighborhood members to leave the room. This lasted for about an hour, and the regular meeting resumed at 8:20 PM. Only one thing changed – an invited guest was removed from the assembly by the Missouri City Police, acting under the direction of the board. The board, subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act, decided that this individual was not a member, not welcome, and had to leave. The meeting continued, with discussions, votes, and additional business, including the letting of a contract with Michael W. Rose CPA to conduct an audit of the associations financials. No business was opened for discussion with the members witnessing the travesty taking place.

In other words friends and neighbors – a strong armed board decided that they had a quorum (remember the famous Hamner issue), started the meeting, discussed and conducted business, threw a guest out, ignored parliamentary procedures, and continued business as usual. So where do we go from here? The only solution might be found in Vernon’s Civil Statutes, Non-profit Corporation Act as follows:

Art. 1396-7.05. APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER TO REHABILITATE CORPORATION.
A. A receiver may be appointed for the assets and business of a corporation by the district court for the county in which the registered office of the corporation is located, whenever circumstances exist deemed by the court to require the appointment of a receiver to conserve the assets and affairs of the corporation and to avoid damage to parties at interest, but only if all other requirements of law are complied with and if all other remedies available either at law or in equity, including the appointment of a receiver for specific assets of the corporation, are determined by the court to be inadequate, and only in the following instances:

(1) In an action by a member when it is established:

(a) That the corporation is insolvent or in imminent danger of insolvency; or

(b) That the directors are deadlocked in the management of the corporate affairs and the members are unable to break the deadlock, and that irreparable injury to the corporation is being suffered or is threatened by reason thereof; or

(c) That the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are illegal, oppressive or fraudulent; or

(d) That the corporate assets are being misapplied or wasted.

(2) In an action by a creditor when it is established:

(a) That the corporation is insolvent and the claim of the creditor has been reduced to judgment and an execution thereon returned unsatisfied; or

(b) That the corporation is insolvent and the corporation has admitted in writing that the claim of the creditor is due and owing.

(3) In any other actions where receivers have heretofore been appointed by the usages of the court of equity.

B. In the event that the condition of the corporation necessitating such an appointment of a receiver is remedied, the receivership shall be terminated forthwith and the management of the corporation shall be restored to the directors and officers, the receiver being directed to redeliver to the corporation all its remaining properties and assets.

That’s right readers – the time for a lawsuit is overdue, and receivership is just one of many remedies available. We are deadlocked, and we are oppressed, and assets are being misapplied and wasted. Sorry to be so long winded in this report, but the facts have to be made available. Good luck Meadowcreek neighbors.