Here's a few interesting discussion points
(from David Luellen 7/29/21)
1. According to
the 2020 audit, there was $283,324
in our "Major
Maintenance Fund" at the beginning
of the year. The
Board used $253,257 of that, or
90%, for
"Legal and Professional Fees." Again in
the 18 month
projection that was put out this
month, they stated
that of the "Maintenance Reserve
Fund" of
$422,431, they plan on using half, or
$211,216 for
current expenses, not long term
projects. Over the
period 2020 to 2023, therefore,
they are planning
on spending three-quarters of
$1m on legal fees.
The July 26, 2021 letter from the Board laments
that "When a community fails to set aside adequate
reserves systematically over decades, they pass
the obligations on to future owners. Fifty years in,
we are those future owners, and we must collect
the special assessment or the community's
infrastructure will fall into further disrepair." And
yet, they are raiding our current and past
maintenance funds for legal fees.
2. In the same 18 month projection, $430,000 is
expected to be incurred for legal fees. That's 32%
of the total expenses of $1.351m. Similarly, the
$312,050 of legal expenses incurred in 2020, was
38% of our total expenses of $828,370. (However,
on the projections for 2023-2028, the Board lists
"?" as the potential cost for legal fees --
meaning
we are not currently doing any plannlng for those
years. Previous to these recent litigious years, in
2019, for example, our legal fees were $44,386.
3. There are six lawsuits currently in process.
a. Two are
unrelated to our bigger issues.
Specifically, BHVA v Weaver is a case of a condo
owner not paying their assessments, now totalling
some $20k. The other is Randy Corso v. BHVA,
which is a trip and fall case, where, if we have any
liability, it should be covered by insurance.
b. BHVA v Town
of South Bristol, is where we
are appealing a ruling against us regarding Bristol
Sewerage.
c. Fields v BHVA
concerns use of the
fob system to deny access to non—residents,
including non-resident boat slip renters. The Fields
wanted a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) and
they were denied by the court on 7/21/20. The
Fields appealed and arguments are set for 8/3/21.
Again, this is for a TRO, not yet for the merits of
the case.
d. Fields v
BHVA seeks summary judgement by
the Fields to get rid of the fines levied by the board
because of the removal of the swim platform, and
seeks to overrule the Board EC on installing a tram.
This is scheduled for 8/18/21.
e. BHVA v Fields,
where our Board is the
plaintiff, because the Fields put up a concrete
barrier blocking access to the clock (which is gone
now), alleging that boats stored in the garage are
blocking emergency vehicles, that the kayak rentals
are without Board approval, that they are renting
boat slips to non—residents, and that the Board
desires an injunction against building a tram. BHVA
sought a TRO, which was denied on 7/1/21. The
BHVA, I assume will appeal the TRO, and proceed
to sue on the merits of these issues.
As you can see, none of these cases have to do
with who owns the beach,who owns the marina, or,
who owns the elevator. I think much of the
community think these suits are about
protecting our rights to the beach and the elevator,
but none of them actually deal with these matters.
Our access to the beach and our desire to repair
the elevator aren’t even being addressed in these
suits!
