Would A Lawsuit Against TAMPOA Over Its Rules Succeed?
In a post, one of our commenters seems to wave off the idea of TAMPOA liability while conceding "minor lapses" in TAMPOA's enforcement policies.
We think such a suit might well succeed. All it takes is one screw-up by TAMPOA, and there already have been plenty of those, as we all know. The lawsuit we talked about in our prior post about the TAMPOA rules was not a "pattern and practice" case, but was a single instance of an alleged violation by that association member.
We think TAMPOA may be additionally vulnerable because of the sorry state of its website where its "rules" supposedly are published. The fact that residents are supposed to guess what rules posted on the website are still in force and which ones have allegedly been abandoned doesn't help TAMPOA's situation. You can bet that if there were such a lawsuit triggered by the rules or lack of them on the website, that site would rise to the top of TAMPOA's fix-it list.
All that aside, the point in our post about the TAMPOA rules is that such a lawsuit, win or lose, would be expensive to TAMPOA. And guess who pays for that. We do! And if the plaintiff in such a suit does win, the cost to TAMPOA will be even greater for TAMPOA will wind up paying the plaintiff's attorneys' fees also. Either way, TAMPOA loses in the money department.
We think such a suit might well succeed. All it takes is one screw-up by TAMPOA, and there already have been plenty of those, as we all know. The lawsuit we talked about in our prior post about the TAMPOA rules was not a "pattern and practice" case, but was a single instance of an alleged violation by that association member.
We think TAMPOA may be additionally vulnerable because of the sorry state of its website where its "rules" supposedly are published. The fact that residents are supposed to guess what rules posted on the website are still in force and which ones have allegedly been abandoned doesn't help TAMPOA's situation. You can bet that if there were such a lawsuit triggered by the rules or lack of them on the website, that site would rise to the top of TAMPOA's fix-it list.
All that aside, the point in our post about the TAMPOA rules is that such a lawsuit, win or lose, would be expensive to TAMPOA. And guess who pays for that. We do! And if the plaintiff in such a suit does win, the cost to TAMPOA will be even greater for TAMPOA will wind up paying the plaintiff's attorneys' fees also. Either way, TAMPOA loses in the money department.
Labels: Lawsuit, TAMPOA Website, Truman Annex
posted by Conchette at 8:55 AM
11 Comments:
There's no law saying a homeowner's association has to maintain a website. All homeowner's regulations are available on demand, and every home purchaser signs statements that they understand and will follow the homeowners regulations. As long as there's no pattern of abuse of the rules. any lawsuit over them would be considered frivolous and the person bringing the frivolous suit would be responsible for the legal expenses. If they don't pay them, their home would have a lien filed preventing sale.
Only a very unreasonable person would use their time and effort to start a lawsuit rather than correct whatever the problem was at their home. The Architectural Control committee is very fair. That is precisely why so many people do get letters. They are careful not to violate the concept of selective enorcement. Further, the enforcement procedures are not handled by the board so that there will not be any hint of favoritism.
Having rules available on demand doesn't cut it, nor does it square with the facts. Some rules are on the website, some are on the website but are no longer valid, and some are, apparently not on the website at all and no one knows what they are, except those enforcing them. The concept of fair notice, a principle of the Florida law governing homeowner associations, has been thrown out the window by TAMPOA.
It is the ad hoc garbage that has gotten other homeowner associations into trouble and will also be what gets TAMPOA into more trouble. Instead of further alienating its constituents, you'd think that TAMPOA would be trying to make nice. As the song says, we guess they are not ready yet.
Moreover, there is a pattern of abuse by TAMPOA of its rules. There has been a rather long history of enforcing the rules unequally, until someone pointed out that the big wigs and power elite were getting away with things that others were getting cited for. Then, did TAMPOA cite the wigs. No, they just left the alleged violator alone. The rule still had been unequally enforced, and that unequal enforcement would have continued had the person getting cited been meek and compliant.
As for the comment about the lawsuit being frivolous if there were no pattern of abuse, the commenter doesn't know what he / she is talking about and is just plain wrong. Just because a lawsuit is lost does not make it frivolous. In addition, whether a lawsuit is frivolous is determined by the court, under very specific rules, not TAMPOA or its counsel.
The person suggesting that the enforcement procedures are not handled by the TAMPOA Board also does not have all the facts. While initially the citations are done by the House Police and the Major Domo, everything is appealable to the Board, so there is the possibility for favoritism there. More importantly, what makes anyone think that there could not be favoritism at any other point in the process? We all know that is possible, although we would certainly hope not.
What is interesting is that this discussion is taking place largely because TAMPOA has destroyed its credibility with the Annex residents by its stupid and thoughtless handling of the Southard street affair and its reckless spending policies.
Sorry, after reading conchette's remarks in this blog my observation of a change in this blogger attitude was obviously in error.
Lots of baseless accusations in insults in your rant. The facts are, what you consider "selective enforcement" are actually cases where the owner went to the architectural control committee and requested a variance. The committee carefully considered it and voted whether to grant it or not. Such requests can be submitted by anyone (including you), so there's nothing "selective" about it. Note that a lot of such requests ARE turned down, they're not granted based on any perceived "power" of the requestor, but purely on the merits of the request.
Again, Anonymous, you missed or ignored the point. We were not talking about what the architectual committee does or does not do. We were talking about the actions of TAMPOA which you don't want to (or can't) focus on. It is those actions and rules which are the foder for potential lawsuits. Too bad, like the TAMPOA Board, you can't seem to grasp that. We would think you might be on the Board. Now there's a frightening thought. Seriously, though, are you on the Board?
It is time to reevaluate what you are doing with this blog Conchette.
I am not saying this in a harsh way, just in a sincere manner. There are many injustices in the world and there are many causes that can be taken up by good and talented people. I am, in a non-critical way, suggesting that your intelligence and time could be put to better use. This blog is providing a forum for people to complain and argue over and over. It seems to me that all of the complaints are relatively trivial. All of the posts are from people who have pretty good lives. Certainly no one who posts on this blog is homeless or hungry. It just seems like it has turned into a forum for people to say how rotten things are and how angry they are with each other. No one seems to be grateful for their good life or understanding of others or mellow or kind hearted. Everyone is very quick to take offense and to say something nasty or hateful about people they disagree with or people they don't like. I don't think that is a good use of a blog or a good use of anyone's time and energy. Please consider all of the good things that could be done in the world instead. To an outsider, it looks like a bunch of well off people complaining about fees and fines and things. It looks kind of spoiled and whiney. Maybe you would be willing to consider eliminating from our world, this venue for people who want to rant and vent about truly little things. The world would be better off if larger issues were addressed and if people were civil and kind and understanding even when they have different points of view and even if they don't like each other. If you don't want to end your blog, change it to something better, not just a place for hatred and anger.
For one who criticizes the Tampoa board constantly, it is with great interest that you did not have the fortitude to run for a board position and hold yourself out for evaluation by your fellow residents. Yet, you still criticize with very very little to add other than the board does not follow your "thinking". To my mind, that fits the description of a hypocrit You question others as to whether they can grasp your meanings. I think that you should ask yourself the same question. Unfortunately I don't think that you have the capability to see any other options except your own. That is very sad.
In response to the anonymous poster who wrote: If you don't want to end your blog, change it to something better, not just a place for hatred and anger.
This is what the American Consitution is all about. This is what our forefathers dreamed of - a truly democratic society where people are free to assemble, discuss, and protest. It is necessary in order to derive benefit from freedom - the system works it out. If you don't want the discourse, then I suggest going to Disney Land.
And Conchette - don't let them discourage you. Your voice is being heard and appreciated. Your blog is the only voice that is helping Truman Annex's image.
The rules are not equally enforced in Truman Annex. I have seen rotting wood on some properties, etc., but I am not a snitch to bring this to the "architectural committee" or "major domo."
Conchette, I agree with what you are saying, definitely. I believe the people responding to your blog must live in condos in Truman Annex and do not live in houses, which are subject to unwritten rules, in the Annex.
To the anonymous person who was trying to contact us,you did not leave an e-mail address. Please leave your e-mail address as a post and mark it not for publication. We will not publish e-mail addresses of our posters, or comments marked "not for publication" or words to that effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home