A long, long time ago when I was in High School a little known rock group called the Five Man Band came out with a catchy song decrying the ever growing number of signs that can be found almost everywhere. Visitors to California often remark about the vast number of signs that pepper the landscape.

Of course, here at the River Run Condominiums we have more than our fair share of signs.

And of course, the most prevalent sign is the sign that is the most ignored. The No Parking signs are  routinely ignored. Of course, these signs contain the now famous bluster of our Board that is known for quoting the numbers of various civil code and CC&Rs while failing to fully understand their claims. Not only do these signs fail to meet the minimum size requirements specified by Vehicle Code 22658, they specify a non-working phone number and fail to enumerate the names and phone numbers of the towing companies. You can review the actual vehicle code online.

I brought up this topic at a quarterly board meeting and I was prompted told to shut up.

Our Board has a legal fiduciary duty to enforce the parking restrictions contained within our CC&Rs and this objective has not been met by the erection of the many parking signs.

In addition, Granite Peak Management routinely violates the sanctity of our fire lane compromising the fire safety of our complex solely based on their need for convenience.

A few months ago I was busy fighting a few fires on a Monday and after I put them out I realized that I had yet to visit my favorite business to pay my monthly assessment. For nearly a decade our association only charged late fees if your payment was not received by the end of each month. But that changed when we hired Granite Peak Management.

My first clue was when I received my monthly statement which included a quickly scrawled note accusing me of wasting the association’s time because I paid at the end of the month rather than on the 15th. Apparently Granite Peak Management’s accounting system was not able to handle this situation, or so I was told.

Since this time Granite peak Management had become worse than a credit card company, one hour late, and bang a penalty. Our Congress has recently outlawed this type of behavior exhibited by the credit card companies, but of course, that law does not apply to Granite Peak Management.

So the day after I rushed over to their office to make my payment I received a condescending email from Granite Peak Management.  It has long been accepted policy that if the 15th occurred on a Sunday, the due date became the following Monday. I had personally confirmed this policy with Evan.

Dear Joel,

I wanted to let you know that I am in receipt of the dues payment you delivered to our office last night. As you know, payments are due by 5pm on the 15th of each month and late fees are assessed on the 16th. The 15th was Sunday so all payments that were received over the weekend were processed yesterday morning and late fees were applied to all accounts with outstanding balances, including yours. I am happy to waive the late fee this month but, please be advised that payments not received by the 15th for future months will be subject to the late fee. Our office is open 7 days a week through the winter and there is a mail slot on the back door where dues payments can be deposited.

…

Sincerely,

Cirra Cantisano
Staff Accountant
Granite Peak Management
530-583-7545 ext 105
cirrac@gpeak.com

Well Cirra, I regret to inform you that the State of California has seen fit to define the requirements that must be met in order for any CID to change their collection policies. Fortunately for the homeowner, this does not include the fact that now your office is open on Sunday.

In fact, Granite Peak Management has a long history of ignoring California Civil Code when pursuing collections accompanied by a complete disrespect for homeowners. This type of behavior is not welcome and may very well lead to Civil Action.

It seems Granite Peak Management is back to their dirty tricks stirring up more resentment. A while back my kitchen sink plugged up and GPM refused to help so I called a local plumber. Once GPM learned of this they went ballistic.

Of course we all remember what a hit The Sopranos was and I couldn’t help but remember that scene where one of the Caps had returned from prison and was out patrolling his previous territory and found someone mowing the grass that did not work for him. He beat the hell out of him.

Evan reacted in much the same way although he did limit his rage to a verbal rampage. I really did not understand this behavior until I read a copy of GPM’s contract. They get ‘juice’ from all contractor work they manage as authorized by our illustrious Board.

If your HOA has made the mistake of contracting GPM then you may expect to see a dramatic rise in the cost of doing business. GPM’s strong arm tactics are but one reason.

Subject: Well Being of the HOA

Dear Evan,

It has come to my attention that you have called one of my vendors offering diatribe, false accusations, and threats. All of this over the minor occurrence of a frozen pipe I had in my unit this past Monday.

After I called your office to report the problem one of your employees stopped by to take a look. After-wards your employee displayed an unprofessional attitude by criticizing my vendor with unsubstantiated accusations.  He further stated that I should not use the vendor because it would be detrimental to the well being of the association.

Also included in your employee’s diatribe was the claim that the vents under our units had been shut and that insulation had been installed. Apparently your employee has our association confused with some other association. The new vents that were installed during the siding upgrade do not have the capability to be opened or closed, nor has insulation been installed behind all the vents.

The occurrence of vendors arriving onsite all spouting wisdom about what is or isn’t in the best interest of our association is becoming annoying. These vendors do not own property here, or pay the bills. I find their comments patronizing and out of line.

Further more I fail to see how your angry call to my vendor is helpful for the well being of our association. It is my observation that this is just one more example of placing more importance on pointing fingers of blame on someone else in order to escape the association’s financial obligations to maintain common area property.

You have previously declared the existence of ‘exclusive use plumbing’ in our association, although our CC&Rs do not support this claim. It is clear, that if the association will not pay for regular maintenance, then the association has no business questioning my choice of vendors. Furthermore, calling my choice of vendors to pursue some past perceived grievance is definitively not in the best interests of our association.

I am sure I am not alone in hoping that your company would perform your maintenance chores with just a smile on your faces. After over 10 years of full time residency, it is highly unlikely that your company has any words of wisdom above and beyond that attained from my real life experiences.

Sincerely,

Joel Rodriguez

River Run Condominiums #22

And of course, Evan replied:

Joel, thank you for your comments. Have a great day.

Evan Benjaminson

Granite Peak Management
1600 Squaw Valley Road, Suite 2
Post Office Box 3750
Olympic Valley, California 96146
phone 530-583-7545 x110
fax 530-583-7574
evanb@gpeak.com

Does anyone else out there smell conflict of interest? Is there really a reason to raise homeowner dues two years running? And add another assessment?

And why is it that with all the years of self proclaimed experience with property management afforded by Granite Peak, we receive yet another letter talking about new and unaccounted for expenses?

It was just a short five years ago that the homeowners bailed out our Board to the tune of 3/4 million dollars. Less than a year after that we received the bad news that a number of units were once again damaged by water.

My very first month of ownership here at River Run was marked by the very same problem. Of course, I requested the HOA reimburse my expenses. And of course, the Board declined. That was fifteen years ago.

Members of the Board have known for decades about the leaks. Despite Granite Peak’s years of experience, their management of the residing project failed to fix the leaks and once the leaks reoccurred, they went into overdrive trying to pin this problem on anyone but themselves.

So, the following year only 1/2 of the problem areas were repaired. We were told that our bailout money was running out and that Granite Peak may need to pass another assessment.

I am sure we will once again hear about our Board’s fiduciary responsibility. How many more times will we subjected to these lectures by those that have mostly failed their fiduciary responsibilities? Other than capital improvements, proposing assessments is direct proof of fiduciary failures.

So why is this? Some insight can be gleaned from Granite Peak’s contract. Request a copy, it is illuminating. Granite Peak is paid a commission on all additional work that they oversee. While, in general, I do not oppose getting paid for work managed, it is becoming a bit much when the firm that maintains our books, prepares our budget, constantly claims (Evan) and act like they (he) are (is) a member of the Board, and is also recommending an ever expanding list of unforeseen work.

Not only did Granite peak earn a fee for managing the siding project, they also received payment for managing the corrective action which they failed to prevent.

Of course I went running for my checkbook when I read the Board’s justification for the new proposed assessment.

“The Board of Directors strongly urges your affirmative vote on this Phase 1 Special Assessment to avoid the possibility of an additional dues increase.”

Who are they kidding? How is it that an assessment in not an increase in dues? And if this is the case, why is this proposal packaged with a notice that the Board IS raising dues?

“While the Board of Directors desired not to raise dues in these tough financial times…”

Yeah, right. These folks seem to believe our money is theirs, that they are entitled to soak us everytime they get an itch or whenever Evan of Granite Peak management decides he needs more income.

Enough is enough. These budget shortfalls are primarily caused by Granite Peak Management’s incompetence managing the re-siding project. We have every right to expect that when we fork over 3/4 million dollars that the work would have been completed so that the leaks were fixed. The primary beneficiary of ripping off the siding to fix the problem after the fact benefits only one party, Granite Peak Management.

Vote NO!

Apparently controversy is brewing again about certain Phase II owners that have landscaped common area property behind their units. In the past fifteen years the Association has never even bothered to pick up the trash that occasionally accumulates on the common area property located adjacent to the Truckee River.

While the Association is free to pick and choose their maintenance policies, which are currently contracted to Granite Peak Management, it is puzzling why anyone would be annoyed by the additional help that individuals ante up. It is even more puzzling that but a single homeowner would become a target since several homeowners have completed some landscaping behind their units.

Of course Mary Denove, a lawyer incapable of thinking out of her box, again suggested that the Association sue. Sue, Mary, Sue almost always offers up this option to various problems. It is very similar to the ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ solution to our energy problems that Sara Palin conjured up even though such a policy would solve nothing.

Some insight into Mary’s personality can be gleaned from her response to a homeowner that was investigating ways to reduce their high propane bill. Mary declared that this was not a problem because she was paying 3 times as much.

Of course, Mary did not recommend suing her good buddy Bonnie Lofstedt who went even further with her landscaping efforts and fenced off the common area property around their home in violation of our governing documents. The Board went even further by publishing policy that stated that if folks wanted to access the Truckee River shoreline that they had to do so by traversing around the front of Bonnie’s unit. Essentially prohibiting access directly behind Bonnie’s unit. This also represents a failure of fiduciary responsibility as our governing documents clearly contain an easement for the public along the Truckee River shoreline.

While I suspect that the majority of homeowners do not object to the various landscaping projects, some of us do object to denying access along the river bank behind Bonnie’s unit. In fact, a path has been cleared through the dense brush along the river bank to promote access to the point across from Bells Landing which is used for recreation.

Over the years some members of the Board have insisted that we need Mary on the Board, based soley on the fact that she is a laywer, even though Mary’s expertise is afar from property management and CIDs. In fact, my experience is that Mary is behind the deliberate efforts of the Board to communicate and negotiate with a lack of good faith.

I have long opposed Mary’s position on the Board and those that have had the dubious pleasure of communicating with Mary are coming to understand my beliefs.

I continue to urge that homeowners not caste their votes for Mary & Bonnie, but realize that there are so few candidates for the Board, that anyone that tosses their name into the hat will be elected.

CONSUMER LAW FIRM FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST ASSOCIATION LIEN SERVICES

The consumer law firm of Mulligan Jenkins & Gabriel has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Sylvia Curry and countless other homeowners subjected to the business practices of debt collector Association Lien Services (ALS).

The lawsuit centers on what are described as the unfair and unlawful collection practices of ALS which, in pursuing collection activities for homeowner associations, has allegedly violated Civil Code 1367.1 by requiring homeowners to waive the protections of this statute before ALS will accept payment from homeowners for past-due assessments and fees.

Curry has always acknowledged that she owed the association money. She sought first to develop a payment plan through the board, then through the property manager, Massingham and Associates. When that didn’t work, she sought help from the Center for California Homeowner Association Law and then from her state Assembly Member Sandre Swanson. ALS fought every one of her efforts to pay down her account. The lawsuit escalates the fight.

An African-American grandmother, Curry has owned the same condominium in Oakland, California for 27 years. She has been trying since early 2008 to set up a payment plan to discharge her assessment debt. She has made numerous payments to ALS toward her account. ALS, however, has refused to cash any of her credit union checks or postal orders unless she lets ALS collect its profits first before paying down her homeowner dues. ALS has now returned all her checks and nearly doubled the collection costs.

Keeping the assessment balance high is the chief method for debt collectors like ALS to increase their profits by levying more interest, carrying charges, collection fees, and payment plan administration costs on the account balance.

The California statute requiring debt collectors to credit payments first toward assessments and only secondly to collection costs has been on the books since 1997. The law was authored by Congresswoman Jackie Speier when she was in the California State Assembly.

The consumer lawyers filed the lawsuit on behalf of Curry and “on behalf of all persons similarly situated.” The class is comprised of “all persons in California who submitted payments to ALS, but were required to waive their rights to have their payments applied according to state statutes and who were charged additional collection costs as a result.”

Association Lien Services is a subsidiary of the Los Angeles law firm of Swedelson & Gottlieb. They have several offices in both Northern and Southern California.

The firm has fought tooth and nail every legislative effort in Sacramento to expand consumer protection for homeowners during the assessment collection process. [Read their six page letter lobbying against Christine Kehoe's legislation AB 2289 posted under COURTCASES/DEBT COLLECTION.]

Curry’s lawsuit was filed in Alameda County on Nov 7. The first hearing is in January 2009.

CCHAL NewsBrief

November 20, 2008

For more information on Swedelson & Gottlieb’s actions against Association Lien Services please visit the American Homeowners Resource Center.  I have also found this little tidbit:

DID YOU GET A STRONG-ARM LETTER FROM YOUR HOA’S DEBT COLLECTOR?

Did it ask you to waive your rights under Civil Code 1367(a)? Did it tell you that, if you don’t waive your legal rights, you can’t pay down your assessment debt?

That’s what happened to homeowner Sylvia C.

In April, she got a letter from debt collector Association Lien Services (ALS) saying they wouldn’t accept any of her payments unless she waived her legal rights under Civil Code 1367(a).

Sylvia didn’t know what 1367(a) WAS, but she knew instinctively that the debt collector’s letter “didn’t pass the smell test,” so she brought the letter to the Center for Homeowner Association Law.

Civil Code 1367(a) is a California law requiring that, when a homeowner makes payments on the assessment debt, the debt collector MUST apply payments FIRST toward paying down the assessments and only SECONDLY toward paying down the collection costs, that is, to collecting profits.

This consumer protection law has been on the books since 1997. It was authored by Congresswoman Jackie Speier, when she was in the California State Assembly.

A moment’s thought will make clear why this law is crucial to homeowner consumer protection: if the assessment balance is being paid down FIRST, then the collection costs — i.e. profits — decrease. Debt collectors typically charge interest, late fees, payment plan administration fees, and who know what else ‐ fees that are computed on the account balance. The longer a debt collector like ALS can keep the assessment balance high and string out the payments, the bigger their profits.

Debt collectors like ALS then sock homeowners like Sylvia with a big balloon payment as the final payment ‐ though they won’t tell the homeowner what that figure is while strong-arming them into signing away their legal rights under 1367(a).

Debt collectors like Association Lien Services hold the homeowner’s payments hostage until they sign away their rights. ALS dunning letters to homeowner don’t just ASK if the homeowner wants to waive his legal rights: the letters DEMAND it.

Sylvia wrote back to ALS saying she didn’t WANT to waive her rights under Civil Code 1367(a) and, furthermore, that ALS couldn’t FORCE her to waive her rights. With her letter she sent another payment and asked that it be credited to her assessment account.

What did ALS do? They sent back ALL her payments: cashier’s checks, money orders, moneygrams ‐ with yet another letter demanding that she waive her rights. Oh yes ‐ and they tacked on another $1000 or so in collection costs.

Not sure if you got a letter similar to Sylvia’s? Read the one ALS sent to her. It’s posted under COURT CASES/Fair Debt Collection Laws on the CCHAL website.

ALS isn’t the only one doing this, by the way: we have seen similar letters from at least five other debt collection companies, so blackmailing homeowners seems to be an industry practice. If you got a letter like the one Sylvia got, then CCHAL wants to hear from you (info@calhomelaw.org)

ALS is a subsidiary of the Los Angeles law firm of Swedelson & Gottlieb. As debt collectors, they are supposed to comply with both state and federal Fair Debt Collection laws ‐ but do they?

CCHAL NewsBrief

November 9, 2008

I am sure all of you have received the postcard announcing that our pool area will soon be reopened complete with the new security code to unlock the door. It was a bit odd that the security code, highlighted in bold text, was published on a post card.

Unfortunately little if any work has been completed over the last 2 weeks. In fact, yesterday Granite Peak Management once again dug up the area flooring once again revealing the jacuzzi plumbing.  That, despite the fact that Granite Peak Management had reported that the leaks had been repaired. The soil in and around the plumbing is visibly much wetter than soil in other areas of our property. Had Granite Peak Management actually used a real plumber for our jacuzzi there probably would not be any leaks.

Today, Granite peak Management is busy working on the plumbing. I wonder how much extra we are being charged for all of the fix it work?

And of course, no work has yet been completed on the fence surrounding the pool area and of course, there is no door in which to use your new security code.

Granite Peak Management is becoming rather well known for water leaks. Ask any homeowner about the water leaks that occurred last winter caused by improper management of our new siding project, managed by, you guessed it, Granite Peak Management!

Google’s Eric Schmidt comments on the increased importance of the Internet on politics and on how the Internet helps to prevent bad decision making by allowing all of us to easily access information that can be more easily be vetted by more and more of us.

Bad decisions can be prevented by eliminating the secrecy behind them. Sound familiar?

By now most of us have at least heard of Keith Obermann’s ‘Worst Person in the World’ segment on MSNBC’s Countdown where Keith nightly lampoons those in our country that seem to be clueless in their stupidity and harm that they cause to others.

Since even David Letterman thinks that Keith has a big head it would seem fitting that I too follow Keith’s lead and announce River Run’s “Worst HOA President in the World!”

My nomination goes to Bonnie Lofstedt who after receiving the votes for the job proceeded to use our HOA to sue the homeowner who so generously cast all their votes for her and in the space of a few short months spent more money on litigation than we spend on our entire annual budget, or in our entire history,  and forced the HOA to use Phase I reserve funds to pay off the lawyers. This act stressed our budget for the next two years. All because Bonnie could not get along with her next door Phase II neighbor and refused to follow our CC&Rs to settle the dispute through arbitration and mediation.

But Bonnie’s accomplishments did not end there, she also presided over having our insurance policy canceled (later re-instated with the work of another board member), was reported to have spent more time at the bar than time attending and participating in her mediation hearings to settle her litigation claims, sponsored a high school football party for her son where her husband directed all the participants to park in our fire circle, the very same fire circle where her husband had actually installed the no parking signs, lived and drove their cars around Tahoe City using Oregon tags in violation of California state law, tried to pass a $500,000 assessment on Phase I based on a single quote from one of our odd job local contractors, a handy man, and caused so much division on the board that one of the board members resigned and demanded that the board be reconstituted.

Of course Bonnie took plenty of shots at me because I opposed her policies. She and her husband were furious that I floated a proposal asking the board to consider that their litigation was a private matter between Phase II owners as allowed by our CC&Rs. Bonnie personally signed the paperwork to tow my boat off of the property without prior notification, and she accused me of copyright infringement for including our River Run logo on my correspondence to my fellow homeowners. She also took great pride in violating our nuisance clauses in our CC&Rs as demonstrated by her husband’s email that accused me of spying on them when I was on one of my routine walks around the common area to stretch my legs.

Why this woman is still serving on our board is beyond me.

Bonnie Loftstedt, our local Diva, and “The Worst HOA President in the World!”

At the HOA meeting last September, a well thought out proposal was presented to allow longer term renters here at River Run keep their pets. Pets were never an issue here at River Run prior to the first year of operation of what is known as Phase II, a collection of duplexes and homes that were built and sold in response to a perceived lack of demand for single family condos.

A rift quickly developed between two of the Phase II owners, the Lofstedts and a local owner that has since sold their interests. The rift soon blossomed into a full scale legal battle whose costs exceeded $100,000. Word on the street was that many of the Lofstedt positions were unreasonable, apparently Bonnie Lofstedt is a Diva.

Bonnie is the type of person that will scream and rage bloody murder if someone parks their car in the wrong place and then wonders why anyone would complain when she parked her cars where they don’t belong.

We miss Brodie!

Part of the fallout was an arbitrary board ruling clamping down on pets, dogs in particular. The “flat landers” on the board apparently have little if any appreciation for Lake Tahoe’s favorite pets, the family dog. Dogs are the preferred pet here and for good reason. Lake Tahoe is a mountainous forest area filled with all sorts of mother nature’s more dangerous animals – bears, coyotes, & raccoons.  River Run is backed by national forest. The family dog is a great way to keep these creatures somewhat at bay, meaning out of your hair. It was little surprise to me that the number of bear incidents here at River Run increased dramatically after tighter enforcement of our dog policy went into effect.

At issue is that one of our units was having trouble finding a long term lease because of the arbitrary dog ruling prohibiting renters from having pets. The “reasonable” proposal presented was to allow pets for leases of 6 months or longer.

The proposal was rejected by the board with claims that boarding of family pets by renters would require significant changes to our CC&Rs. I nearly laughed out loud! I can only assume that this verdict was rendered by Mary, a lawyer on the board whom I believe does not practice law in either the real estate or the home owner association fields.

If I’m mistaken, then perhaps this is just incompetence. You only have to read a short paragraph, Section 2.5 Pets, of our CC&Rs to determine exactly what the authority granted to the board is. You would be mistaken to declare that the CC&Rs prohibit renters from having pets or even that you would need to change the CC&Rs to begin to allow approval of renters with pets.

In fact, the CC&Rs declare that “each Member shall comply with such reasonable Association Rules governing the keeping of pets which may be adopted by the Association from time to time”.

There is the rub. “Reasonable”, and “from time to time”.

Tyler Berding, Esq. wrote an interesting article dated Friday, October 31, 2008 entitled “Why Community Associations are Not Governments” where he describes that while many consider associations akin to “mini” governments, and some boards certainly act in this fashion, there are important differences. The primary focus of an association is on the rights of the individual and that the community function in a kind of consensual harmony. The sole agreement is contractually based. It depends on both parties remaining satisfied for the Association to continue to exist.

To state that our board has been and is primarily concerned with the rights of individuals is like republicans proclaiming to be populists on election day. In particular, many of our board’s decisions, in my view, violate one of the fundamental tenants of contract law, the contract cannot be changed without mutual consent.

There is meaning in the feelings afterward, that the only people that objected to the request were people that don’t live anywhere near here. For me it is yet one more example of the lack, or shall I say, feigned concern over individual rights.

The prohibition of pets to renters at River Run is neither warranted or reasonable. It is simply an arbitrary decision that can be changed at anytime.

Anyone who claims otherwise is either a fool, a zealot, or both.