Homeowners Associations > Courts > Case No. 4ws044372 - Mark Shapiro v Surfside HOA
December 10, 2004 Case No: 4ws044372 - Mark Shapiro v Surfside HOA
California
Small Claims Court
County of orange county
Branch: westminster court
Mark Shapiro - homeowner
Represented by: none
v.
Surfside Beach Homeowners Association
Huntington Beach
California 92646
Represented by: NONE
Summary
SURFSIDE HOA interpreted 5.2.2. of the CCRs meaning that they had the absolute power to allow homeowners to develop common area for themselves thus contravening the CCRs which clearly state that the CCRs needed 75 percent of the association to change said CCRs to reflect boards actions,
Causes of Action: SURFSIDE Homeowners Association board members were giving away common area to homeowners to develop for their own personal use despite the CCRs which clearly state that cannot be done without the approval of 75 percent of the homeowners to change the CCRs to reflect such action.
Judge: The Honorable NHO TRONG NGUYEN
Current information/Final Decision
Judge nho Trong Nguyen ruled as thus :
The boards interpretation and reliance on provision 5.2.2. was wrong. Said interpretation contravenes the ccrs which dictates that conduct that changes the ownership interest of the common area must be approved by 75% of the homeowners of the association. The property belongs to all homeowners, ot the board nor any individual homeowner. The Board acted illegally in issuing and approving permits for the building of structures by individual homeowners on common area/common property.
It should be noted that said board in a newsletter to all homeowners said the judge was wrong and that same board was going to continue to allow homeowners to develop common area for their own use and has done so in complete defiance of the judges ruling. Another court date is scheduled for march 4, 2005 in the westminster court in front of same judge.
Lawsuit Text
Text of lawsuit was in line with CCRs and its conditions stating that the board needs 75 percent of vote of homeowners to change the CCRs..
________________________________________________________________________________
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS BOARD, rejected decision of the court.
2006 COURT DECISION on common are issue pursued when SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS BOARD rejected lower courts decision.
are here:
Homeowners Associations > Courts > Case No. 05CC11650 - Shapiro v Surfside HOA and Board
May 09, 2006 Case No: 05CC11650 - Shapiro v Surfside HOA and Board
California
Superior Court
County of ORANGE
Branch: SANTA ANA
MARK IRVING SHAPIRO
PRO PER
Represented by: MYSELF
v.
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORINA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - RICHARD LOPEZ
TERIA HORNER
DIANE GILLESPIE
TOM CHANDLEE
JAVIER SANCHEZ AND BETH SHAFER
Represented by: KULIK, GOTTTESMAN, MOUTON AND SIEGEL, LLP
CAI Member
Summary
SURFSIDE HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS TO DEVELOP COMMON ARE FOR THEIR OWN USE WITHOUT HAVING THE NECESSARY 3/4 VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP,THUS VIOLATING CCRS AND STATE GUIDELINES WHICH SAID OTHERWISE.I REPRESENTED MYSELF AND WROTE THE MANDATE TO ENJOIN THEM , THUS SAVING MYSELF $21,000. OO IN LEGAL BILLS,
Causes of Action: TO ENJOIN SURFSIDE HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM VIOLATING CCRS AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS TO ENCROACH/DEVELOP COMMON AREA FOR THEIR OWN USE WITHOUT THE VOTE OF 3/4 OF THE HOMEOWNERS AS STATED IN CCRS AND STATE GUIDELINES AND CIVIL CODE
Homeowners Associations > Courts > Case No. 05CC11650 - Shapiro v Surfside HOA and Board
May 09, 2006 Case No: 05CC11650 - Shapiro v Surfside HOA and Board
California
Superior Court
County of ORANGE
Branch: SANTA ANA
MARK IRVING SHAPIRO
PRO PER
Represented by: MYSELF
v.
SURFSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORINA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - RICHARD LOPEZ
TERIA HORNER
DIANE GILLESPIE
TOM CHANDLEE
JAVIER SANCHEZ AND BETH SHAFER
Represented by: KULIK, GOTTTESMAN, MOUTON AND SIEGEL, LLP
CAI Member
Summary
SURFSIDE HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS TO DEVELOP COMMON ARE FOR THEIR OWN USE WITHOUT HAVING THE NECESSARY 3/4 VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP,THUS VIOLATING CCRS AND STATE GUIDELINES WHICH SAID OTHERWISE.I REPRESENTED MYSELF AND WROTE THE MANDATE TO ENJOIN THEM , THUS SAVING MYSELF $21,000. OO IN LEGAL BILLS,
Causes of Action: TO ENJOIN SURFSIDE HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM VIOLATING CCRS AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS TO ENCROACH/DEVELOP COMMON AREA FOR THEIR OWN USE WITHOUT THE VOTE OF 3/4 OF THE HOMEOWNERS AS STATED IN CCRS AND STATE GUIDELINES AND CIVIL CODE
shapiro notified the board of violation of the ccrs three years prior to lower court decision.
NO MONIES INVOLVED and could have.
shapiro was using his constitutional rights, not only for himself being a member of the ASSOCIATION but also befitting the ASSOCIATION.
A BOARD OF SEVEN HOMEOWNERS HAS TO BE MONITORED FOR 330 HOMEOWNERS.
No comments:
Post a Comment