PRESS RELEASE
Please Distribute To All Media OutletsHuntington Village Board and CAI Attorney Marc Markel Cave to Homeowners Demands
164th District Court Houston
Judge Martha Hill Jamison Presiding
Sept. 24, 2002
Click on Image For Detailed View
Palma Sales Judge Martha Hill Jamison Johnny M. Johnson
Homeowners Court Battle Ends In Victory for Homeowner Rights in Huntington Village
Houston, Texas
Sept 24, 2002
"We Didn't Get everything we wanted", admitted HV Homeowner Palma Sales after an 11th hour settlement with Chubb Attorney Marc Markel on behalf of Huntington Village Community Association in Southwest Houston. "...But they finally agreed by their settlement offer that they (The HVCA Board) were wrong in their improper attempt to collect a 50% increase in annual assessments without a required vote of the community. They agreed with us on all of the principle issues. It appears that they did not want a jury to decide we were right all along and have that jury decision on record. We are confident that is exactly what would have happened in that courtroom tomorrow and that is the reason for this eleventh hour marathon settlement offer."
After years of arguing ratification, CAI Attorneys Marc Markel, Clayton Hearn and HV Board President Lee Meister acknowledged by their settlement offer that Johnson and Sales were NOT liable for the improperly charged $144 annual assessment, but only for the HVCA Annual assessment as actually recorded in the Harris County Real Property Records; $96 per year.
They also agreed that Access to and inspection of (including copying) the Association's Books and Records were an unfettered right of Johnson & Sales as outlined within and guaranteed by the association's governing documents; specifically as outlined within the Deed Restrictions.
The Provisions and Terms of the settlement include:
$25,100.00 Settlement From the Huntington Village Community Association to Johnson & Sales.
$96 Cap on the Annual Assessment unless the Deed Restrictions are properly amended.
Immediate Release Of All Liens by HVCA on the Homes of Johnny Johnson & Palma Sales.
Written Confirmation and Affirmation that Johnson and Sales are now and have always been members in good standing.
Complete and Unobstructed Access to the Huntington Village Association's Books and Records.
The lawsuit; JOHNSON & SALES VS HUNTINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION has been ongoing since 1999 and was scheduled for a Houston Jury Trial to begin the next morning.
"This issue was never about $48", explained Homeowner Johnny Johnson. "This has been a Principle Based Issue from Day One. The HV Board tried to roll over the community the wrong way and today it caught up with them. I only hope it makes them think before they do it again."
"This same decision by the board five years ago," Johnson continued, "would have saved everyone concerned a lot of time and a heck of a lot money that did not have to be wasted."
"All they [The HV Board] had to do was something that this board has had a real problem with... communicating with our neighbors and talking it out before calling the lawyer. They were wrong and their arrogance has cost this community money that we do not have to waste."
THE ISSUE
In 1984 the Huntington Village Community Association (Southwest Houston) voted during an annual meeting in favor of a one year "Special Assessment" temporarily raising the $96 maximum annual ceiling on the assessment to $144. A "Special Assessment" for a capital expenditure is allowed only if a majority of 10 percent of the community agree with a vote in person or by proxy. This "Special Assessment" can only be valid for a maximum of one year. To increase the annual assessment beyond one year, the deed restrictions would require amending. Huntington Village deed restriction may be amended, but purposely this process requires "an instrument SIGNED by not less than 75%" of lot owners which must be recorded. (Recording requires that signatures be notarized).
The following year, 1985, the HV Board, pretending the assessment ceiling had been lifted, continued invoicing amounts beyond the maximum limit allowed. This action produced complaint after complaint from individual homeowners who began asking questions. If a homeowner asked how this happened, he would normally be told that a vote took place in 1984 and everything is fine. If you asked for proof of that election you would then hear "well.... we did not get all the votes then, but we are working on them..." To go beyond these questions, a homeowner found he would be marked and targeted for special treatment.
For those who may think this issue is about money, nothing could be further from the truth. This issue is not about money. Forty-Eight Dollars is not the issue in question. What is at stake is our community and our faith in the character of those we appoint to protect it. If an elected board cannot operate within the provisions of our governing documents and must cover it up using our own lawyer and our money against us when $48 is in question, then how long will it take to make that figure $480? ..... or $4800? What is Your Stopping Point? When will YOU say ENOUGH is ENOUGH?
BACKGROUND
HV's recorded deed restrictions call for a maximum limit of $96/year and has never been amended. (Amending the Deed Restrictions today requires a 75% lot owner vote) In 1984, a special provision was made allowing for a "special assessment" increase of 50% or $144 for a single year. During the years following, the board, in violation of our governing documents decided to continue billing the $144 annual assessment under the "fraudulent guise" that our Deed Restrictions had been amended and "they needed the money". A vote had indeed been taken, but a "Special Assessment" must be for a capital expenditure and can only be valid for one year. A "Special Assessment" does not constitute an amendment to our Deed Restrictions.
Over the y
ears, several homeowners have attempted to require the board to honor the existing recorded deed restrictions and either ratify the increase by producing "an instrument SIGNED by not less than 75%" of lot owners" or return to the maximum amount allowed by our governing documents. In most cases those homeowners were viciously attacked financially and were forced to drop any legal proceedings. Their case was good and right was on their side, but they were now broke and could no longer continue to pay their private lawyer. (It requires over $50,000 to convince a law firm to accept this case against their peers even when they know you are right) In 1995 this issue again surfaced by an elected Board Member. That Board Member was forced from the board, but the correspondence continued
In 1997, several HV Homeowners submitted the annual Maintenance Assessment of $144 billed in two checks. (One for the Recorded $96 and One for the "questionable" Balance of $48) along with a letter requesting proof that the $144 is the legitimate amount to be tendered. Those checks were not only returned, but late fees and lawyer fees were then added. After resubmitting the checks, they were again returned dishonored. In 1998, the same procedures were followed, but this time at the request of the HV homeowners, the Texas Attorney General joined in asking the HV Board of Directors the very same questions. The Board President did respond to the Attorney General in writing with the admission that ".....No Documents Exist to Legitimize the Increase....."
Return to Library
(Top)
Huntington Village Online
An Online Newsletter For HV Residents
P.O. Box 720735Houston, Texas 77272-0735
Sponsored Independently by Concerned HV Residents
NOT an Official Huntington Village Community Association SITE
Houston, Texas
