Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

deal breakers myfirstcondo com 300x222 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

There are many reasons to avoid buying a condo.  As a condo owner for three years after owning homes for 35 years, I advise you to stay as far away from condo ownership as possible.

There are a number of articles online about the Pros and Cons of Condo Ownership, but they seem to be written by real estate people who want to promote the sales of condos.

Money Crashers has a good article titled Pros & Cons of Buying a Condo – Is It Worth It?

Realtor.com has Should I Buy a Condo? The Pros and Cons.  Guess what they think!  LOL.

PocketSense has Reasons Not to Buy a Condo.  There is some good information in this article, but I believe all of these articles sugarcoat it and don’t seem to have true knowledge of condo ownership.

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo — Just DON’T

Help SOS evolutionaryagility blogspot com 300x199 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

If you can afford to buy a home, buy a home.  And buy one that doesn’t have a homeowner’s association.  If you can’t afford to buy a home, I recommend that you rent a home, condo, or apartment.  (Condos are usually nicer than apartments.)  As a renter, your landlord has all of the problems discussed below…NOT YOU!

It’s Amateur Hour

people woman dreamstimefree 459596 640w 215x300 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

Your neighbors run the condo.  Do you really want a widowed senior citizen from Pasadena who was always a stay-at-home-mom deciding how you must spend your money?

Your condo association will be “managed” by people elected by you and your fellow owners.

From my experience, these people don’t know what they are doing and/or they have ulterior motives.  As Board members, these folks are all-powerful.  They have control of all the money and how anything and everything is done.

You Don’t Really Own Anything with a Condo – Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

condo empty room 300x225 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoCondo unit owners do not hold the title to the land on which the structure sits, so you only own what’s inside the walls, which is air.

With a house, you own the land and the building.

Please understand: You don’t own squat with a condo.  I own 1,600-square-feet of air.

At Coach Houses at Leesburg, the owners are not allowed to rent their units, so no AirBnB income potential.  That’s a bad deal.

You have No Control  Over What it Will Cost YOU to Live in YOUR Condo in the Future

business money 1 dollar dreamstimefree 956781 200w - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoWhen I bought my condo, the monthly assessment (dues) was $300 per month.  Thirteen months later, the three-member Board of Directors voted to increase my monthly assessment to $980 per month.  SERIOUSLY!

I’m 72-years-old, disabled, divorced, live alone, and my sole source of income is social security retirement.  $980 per month is half of my monthly social security payment.  I was at break-even at $300 per month, but I am now having to use very limited savings to live in the condo that I allegedly own.

My Condo Association forecloses on people who are just a month or two late.  If they foreclose on you, they own your condo, and you are homeless.  I can’t risk that.  I pray I can find someone who thinks they want to live in a condo to buy mine so I can move as far away from here as possible before I lose my condo.

Your State Agency that “Manages” the Condominium Businesses is Probably Incompetent and Possibly Corrupt

DBPR Logo 300x141 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoIn Florida, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is responsible for the condominium business.  I thought I would be saved by the government of the State of Florida.  You are led to believe that these paid government employees are there to help condo owners.  Nope.  I believe the DBPR is totally corrupt.  They are buddies with the condo association attorneys and condo association management companies who are your enemies as a lowly condo owner.

If your Board violates every rule in the book and you complain to the agency and they screw you, you could lose tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.  The only way to be protected is to NOT buy a condo.

Click on the Tag for “Department of Business and Professional Regulation” below, and it will link you to every page in my story that discusses DBPR.

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo – You are Legally Screwed in a Condo

screwed 290x300 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoAny time any of us have to go to a courthouse, we are screwed.  Justice in America is rare for folks who aren’t rich or connected.  If you have to hire a lawyer, you have to pay to be screwed.

If you get into litigation with the condo association, they get to use your money to pay their lawyers to screw you.  In my case, the never-lawfully-elected Board has spent over $130,000 fighting me as I simply try to get them to operate legally.  Why in God’s name would these people spend that kind of money?  They must be hiding some bad stuff.  Our condos are only valued at about $60,000.  And by the way, guess who gets to pay part of that $130,000?  You guessed it: ME.  Screwed again.

There is no way to win legally because the corrupt deck is stacked against you.  I’m doing it because I hate, loathe, and despise liars.

You can Lose Your Condo Home if the Condo Association seeks to Screwzee Vouzee Youzee.

Sick man chroniclesoffibro blogspot 261x300 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoAs I said before, you have no control, and your condo association can pretty much do whatever they want to you.

If the condo association raises your dues to an amount that you can’t afford, they can foreclose and take your condo, and you get nothing.

If your condo association does a special assessment for $250,000 to fix faulty foundations, and you are one of 32 owners, you owe $7,812.50.  If you can’t pay it, they can foreclose and take your condo.

If the next year, they say $500,000 is needed to repair plumbing, electrical, roofs, or whatever, you owe $15,625.  If you can’t pay it, they can foreclose and take your condo, and your “investment” in your home is gone.

How do you like the idea of being homeless?  That is one of the risks you take if you buy a condo.

After what I have experienced, I don’t believe anyone in their right mind should buy a condo (except mine, of course, because I need to get the Hell out of Dodge aka Leesburg Florida).

Your Neighbors may be Dumber than The Little Old Lady from Pasadena – Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

a1024 85 225x300 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoAt Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium in Leesburg, Florida, I have been amazed by how dumb many of the owners are.  I don’t mean to be rude, I’m just telling it like it is.  Dumb people are easily manipulated by those in power (the Board).

These folks do not seem to have any understanding of laws or legal documents, and they can’t afford attorneys.  Most just want to live in peace and hope they can ignore what’s going on around them.

The Condominium Management Company may be Less than Competent at Best and Corrupt at Worst

Sentry Management Logo 300x68 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo Sentry Management was the condo association management company for Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association.

Sentry Management is a horrible company, in my experienced opinion.  You don’t want anything to do with them.  Consider the laws and condo governing documents that SENTRY MANAGEMENT violated at Coach Houses at Leesburg.

A management company is supposed to know the law to ensure the amateur Board members don’t screw up.  In my case, SENTRY MANAGEMENT violated the laws and rules again and again and again.  From my evaluation, the only reason for them to act as they did was to try to cover up for their malpractice.

You Could Go to Jail

policeman gun gunbase com 300x200 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoBelieve it or not, Sentry Management and Clayton and McCulloh tried to have me arrested for attempting to speak at a condo meeting.

The Tavares Police Department actually issued an All Points Bulletin for me.

I attended a meeting held at the offices of Sentry Management.  About half of the owners of Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association were there.  I tried to speak.  Association members are allowed by Florida law to speak on as many of the Agenda items as they choose.  Charlie Ann Aldridge refused to allow me to speak.  She ordered me to leave.  I immediately gathered my stuff and got up to leave to have her escort me out, and she summoned the Tavares Police Department.  I later learned all of this had been set up in advance with the Tavares Police Department by Neal McCulloh of Clayton & McCulloh, the Association’s law firm.  I kid you not.

The Condo Association’s Attorneys may be Incompetent at Best and Corrupt at Worst

Clayton mcculloh - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoClayton and McCulloh of Maitland, Florida is the law firm for Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc.

I have sued CLAYTON & MCCULLOH for malpractice.  Read the linked portion of my lawsuit about the wrongdoing and malpractice of Clayton and McCulloh.  If you decide to retain them after reading this, I believe you will undoubtedly make an outstandingly incompetent Board member or a potentially-screwed condo owner.

Clayton mcculloh logo 300x300 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoI believe CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH has committed the largest case of legal malpractice in history, at least with condominiums.  I believe Clayton and McCulloh’s attorneys are either absolutely incompetent or corrupt or both.  I believe both.

Click on the Tag for “Clayton and McCulloh” below, and it will link you to every page in my story that discusses CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.

You should also read my article about all the malpractice committed by Clayton and McCulloh.

Here is a pdf file of my BIG lawsuit regarding Coach Houses at Leesburg.

I’m Going to Begin Helping Other Condo Owners with Problems

bill 1 selfie 640w Copy 229x300 - Reasons to Avoid Buying a CondoI’m William M. Windsor.  I’m not an attorney… just smarter than most attorneys.  I know a lot about condo laws and related problems in Florida.  If you need help, email me at billwindsor1@outlook.com, or call 352-577-9988 and leave a message for a return call.

So, I’m becoming a Florida Condominium Consultant.

As I’m not an attorney, I don’t have to charge hundreds of dollars an hour.  $25 bucks an hour.  I can at least tell you how badly I feel you are screwed.  I can definitely give you a game plan for fighting the wrongdoing.  You should get $25 worth of “pleasure” out of speaking to a fellow screwee.

I didn’t write this article to start a new business, but when I got to the bottom of the page, I realize I have a valuable service to provide.

Copyright William M. Windsor, 2021

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

Sentry Management Logo 300x68 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT FIVE

DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

  1. WILLIAM M. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. WINDSOR asserts this claim against the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS.
  3. The SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS have committed malpractice and breach of contract.
  4. The SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS have Community Association Management licenses from the State of Florida pursuant to Florida Administrative Code 61E14-1.001.
  5. SENTRY MANAGEMENT has been employed as the association management firm representing the ASSOCIATION from November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2020.  EXHIBIT 430 is the contract.
  6. The contract with SENTRY MANAGEMENT [EXHIBIT 430] required that “Agent shall act in accordance with Association’s recorded governing documents, applicable statutes and legal directives….”  SENTRY MANAGEMENT violated this agreement. [See SOF 500.]
  7. SENTRY MANAGEMENT has neglected reasonable duties.
  8. SENTRY MANAGEMENT’s negligence is the proximate cause of loss to the ASSOCIATION.
  9. SENTRY MANAGEMENT’s negligence is the proximate cause of loss to WINDSOR and other owners.
  10. Florida case law provides that CAMs have a fiduciary duty to the ASSOCIATION.
  11. A derivative suit is an action in which a stockholder or member of a not-for-profit corporation that is condominium association seeks to enforce a right of action existing in the corporation; the injury sustained by the stockholder or member bringing such suit is basically the same as the injury sustained by other stockholders and members in the corporation.
  12. Florida Statute 617.07401 provides legal authority for this Member’s Derivative Action.  Florida Statute Section 617.002 provides that the provisions of Chapter 607, the Florida General Corporation Act, apply to all nonprofit corporations.
  13. WINDSOR was a member of the corporation when the transactions complained of occurred.  This Complaint is verified, and it alleges with particularity the demands made to obtain action by the board of directors and that the demands were refused or ignored by the board of directors for at least 90 days after the date of the first demand.  WINDSOR was never notified in writing that the corporation rejected the demands.
  14. At all times, the SENTRY DEFENDANTS held themselves out as licensed by the State and competent in the area of association management for which the ASSOCIATION retained the services of the SENTRY. 
  15. SENTRY MANAGEMENT was required to exercise the same duty of care as a reasonably competent association management company and to use reasonable care in determining and implementing a strategy and procedures to be followed to achieve the ASSOCIATION’s legal goals.  As a fiduciary to the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY MANAGEMENT was obligated to protect the ASSOCIATION.
  16. In the course of handling management matters for the ASSOCIATION, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS negligently failed to act with the degree of competence generally possessed by association management companies in Florida who handle association management similar to the ASSOCIATION’s.  The ASSOCIATION paid SENTRY MANAGEMENT a substantial amount of money for the sole purpose of managing the ASSOCIATION in all matters.
  17. SENTRY MANAGEMENT has neglected reasonable duties.  SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS were negligent and/or committed malpractice and breached fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION, in at least the following regard:
    1. By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION complied with Florida statutes and the corporate governing documents as required in the second paragraph and paragraph E3 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to assist the ASSOCIATION in the enforcement of governing documents as required in paragraph E3 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to explain the terms of the ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, DECLARATION, and BYLAWS and the impact to the ASSOCIATION as necessary pursuant to the second paragraph and paragraph E3 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION held lawful annual meetings and elections as required in the second paragraph and paragraphs E3 and E5 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION held lawful annual meetings and elections as required in the second paragraph and paragraphs E3 and E5 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to type, reproduce, and distribute meeting minutes as required in paragraph E4 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing properly maintain the common elements of the ASSOCIATION property as required in paragraph G1 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION maintained an accurate roster of all unit owners at all times as required in paragraph D1 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to maintain the ASSOCIATION’s governing documents on SENTRY’s web portal as required in paragraph D3 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION maintained Minutes as required in paragraph D1 of the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to charge $45 for Intent to Lien Notices as required by the Addendum to the MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT;
    1. By failing to explain legal issues to the ASSOCIATION;
    1. By failing to explain the terms of the ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, DECLARATION, and BYLAWS and the impact to the ASSOCIATION;
    1. By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION held lawful annual meetings and elections [See SOF 46, 47, 110, 151, and others];
    1. By concocting schemes to keep OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN as the Officers and Directors as part of an effort to conceal SENTRY’s malpractice and breach of contract [See SOF 42, 100, 107, 173, and others];
    1. By assisting in preparing a fraudulent BYLAW Amendment on January 15, 2019 in Lake County, Florida [See SOF 97-99, 107, 108, 127, 138, 149];
    1. By falsely and maliciously claiming the BYLAW regarding the annual meeting was amended on August 1, 2017 [See SOF 149, 151];
    1. By providing false information to ASSOCIATION owners, including WINDSOR;
    1. By endorsing false information to ASSOCIATION owners in a March 5, 2019 letter from NEAL McCulloh of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH [See SOF 137, 184, 185, 545, 660, 661, 663];
    1. By running up legal fees by requiring that BRIAN Hess handle all of WINDSOR’s inquiries in writing [See SOF 124];
    1. By running up legal fees by refusing to meet with WINDSOR to resolve matters [See SOF 662];
    1. By running up legal fees to the ASSOCIATION and its members by failing to notify the D&O insurance carrier of litigation [See SOF 288];
    1. By running up legal fees by ignoring notices sent by WINDSOR in an effort to avoid further litigation [See SOF 122-123, 125, 218, 236, 238, 240, 245, 246, 251, 253, 254, 258, 261, 262, 263, 265, 271, 274, 284-287, 289-291, 303, and others];
    1. By running up legal fees by allowing the ASSOCIATION to pretend the BYLAWS were amended when they knew approval of all holders of first mortgage liens were required [See SOF 112 and others];
    1. By running up legal fees by failing to accept WINDSOR’s offer to withdraw his actions against the ASSOCIATION if CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and SENTRY MANAGEMENT refunded to the ASSOCIATION all money paid by to them from 2016 to 2019 [See SOF 283];
    1. By running up legal fees by failing to accept WINDSOR’s offer to withdraw his actions against the ASSOCIATION if the ASSOCIATION admitted and corrected all the wrongdoing [See SOF 334];
    1. By charging exorbitant amounts for filing a Notice of Lien [See SOF 395];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate the Fair Credit Collection Act [See SOF 404];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.002 (6) regarding Designated Voter Certificates [See SOF 61];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.002 (8) regarding proxies [See SOF 120, 156, 171];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.002 (9) by denying members the right to speak at meetings with respect to all designated agenda items;
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (4) by failing to give proper notice of elections [See SOF 54, 55, 110, 114, 151, and others];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to give proper notice of elections [See SOF 54, 55, 110, 114, 151, and others];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to enforce the envelope procedure required at the purported March 22, 2019 election [See SOF 197];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.001 (1) (d) by failing to notify owners of the unfilled board positions;
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to notify owners of the unfilled board positions;
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to send an amended notice following the withdrawal of Wendy Krauss [See SOF 48, 104-106];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(d) by failing to correct the problem after Wendy Krauss removed herself as a Board candidate [See SOF 48, 104-106];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0028 (3) (b) by failing to file petitions for recall [See SOF 171];
    1. By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute 718.104(4)(b) regarding the illegal name [See SOF 181];
      • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (12) (6) by failing to maintain minutes of all meetings; [See SOF 166, 196, and many others.] [VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR DATED OCTOBER 27, 2020 (“AFFIDAVIT-2020-10-27”) ¶¶ 530, 600, 637, 729, 746, 753, 778, 779, 781, 788, 813, 950, 1006, 1063, 1068, 1375.]
      • By causing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(a)(2) regarding written inquiries and by providing false responses to written inquiries [See SOF 150, 151, 160, 161];
      • By causing and allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(c) by not allowing WINDSOR the right to speak at meetings with regard to all designated agenda items [See SOF 123, 151, 155, 302, 645];
      • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(d) by failing to post notice of the December 12, 2018 meeting and by claiming compliance with the statute [See SOF 151];
      •  By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute by improperly denying an election / recall 718.112(2)(j)2;
      • Florida Statute Section 718.303 (5) by improperly suspending voting rights;
  • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate ARTICLES of Incorporation of the ASSOCIATION Article IV, Section 4.2 by failing to obtain certified copies of deeds [See SOF 53, 63, 69, 210, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate ARTICLES of Incorporation of the ASSOCIATION Article VI, Officers by failing to elect Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 1.1 by showing a bogus address for the ASSOCIATION [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.1 by failing to maintain current rosters [See SOF 49, 53];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.1 by failing to obtain certified copies of deeds;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.2 regarding the annual meeting and election [See SOF 46, 47, 100, 110, 151, 486];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Law and BYLAW 2.2 by failing to hold annual meeting and annual election in 2020;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.2 regarding the term for Directors [See SOF 46, 47, 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.3 regarding special members’ meetings [See SOF 141, 145];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.4 regarding conspicuous posting of notice of meetings [See SOF 54, 63, 64, 111, 117, 121, 151, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.4 regarding notice of meetings [See SOF 54, 55, and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.5 regarding quorum [See SOF 52, 63, 331, and others;
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.6 regarding voting [See SOF 53, 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.6 regarding Designated Voters and quorum [See SOF 53, 151];
    • By causing and allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.9 (b) regarding election of a Chairman [See SOF 192, 194, 206];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.9 (j) regarding election of Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.1 regarding the number of Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.2 regarding failure to consider nominations from the floor [See SOF 102 and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.2 a regarding election of Directors [ SOF 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.2 b regarding use of a nominating committee [See SOF 63, 101];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.3 regarding term of service for Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.4 regarding organizational meetings [See SOF 63, 103, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.5 regarding organizational meetings [See SOF 103];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.6 regarding special meetings;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.12 regarding election of officers [See SOF 100];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 5.1 by failing to elect an Assistant Secretary [AFFIDAVIT-2020-10-27 ¶¶ 15, 304, 328, 329, 347, 373, 403, 465, 466, 468];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAWS 6.1 and 6.2 regarding accounts classification [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 8.2 regarding Bylaw amendment;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 8.3 regarding consent of mortgage holders [See SOF 63, 97, 112, 138, 331, 525];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate DECLARATION Paragraph 13.3 regarding the number of Voting Interests [See SOF 51, 52, 59, 181, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate DECLARATION Paragraph 18.1 regarding amendment;
    • By claiming the ASSOCIATION had Rules limiting the right to speak [See SOF 151 and EXHIBIT E];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to unlawfully increase assessments to the members [See SOF 39];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to vote to unlawfully increase assessments to the members to as much as $962.38 per month at the purported December 12, 2018 meeting [See SOF 39];
    • By facilitating repeated violations of the corporate governing documents and Florida statutes [See SOF 40 – 510];
    • By counseling purported officers and directors to ignore demands for them to cease pretending to be officers and directors [See SOF 42, 137, 164];
    • By failing to update the corporate governing documents [See SOF 45];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to pretend the BYLAW was amended on August 25, 2018 after Russell sent a letter to the ASSOCIATION c/o CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY MANAGEMENT in which he stated amendments require approval of all holders of first mortgage liens [See SOF 112];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Law and the governing documents by failing to hold annual meeting and annual election in 2017 when there was not a quorum [See SOF 51, 52, 59, 63, 104, 107, 137, 331, 525];
    • By allowing COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS to schedule meetings when they were not lawfully elected and had no authority [See SOF 118, 137];
    • the ASSOCIATION to hire police to attend ASSOCIATION meetings by falsely claiming they were needed because of WINDSOR’s threats to do physical harm or kill people [See SOF 119, 204];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to disregard the votes and proxies submitted in advance by owners on December 12, 2018 [See SOF 120];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to conduct the purported December 12, 2018 meeting when it was void for a variety of reasons [See SOF 121];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to conduct a purported January 16, 2019 meeting that was not legal because OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not legally elected as directors [See SOF 139];
    •  By causing the value of the condos of ASSOCIATION members to decline due to the legal problems [See SOF 143];
    • By ignoring requests from an ASSOCIATION member in an effort to determine what was needed to accept the signatures of Nancy Camp and Jane O’Steen for the Nielsen Trust [See SOF 148];
    • By claiming the BYLAWS provide that reserves are to be allocated to a specific use [See SOF 151];
    •  By claiming the BYLAWS restrict ASSOCIATION owners to speak three minutes total at meetings [See SOF 151];
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to violate the BYLAWS by disregarding valid proxies [See SOF 151];
    • By claiming DECLARATION 12.2 gives the Board the power to increase dues for repairs and maintenance [See SOF 151];
    • By causing and/or allowing the ASSOCIATION, OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to violate Florida Statue Section 617.0830 and 617.0834 by committing the crime of fraud and perhaps other crimes [See SOF 151];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to disregard the defamation directed at WINDSOR [See SOF 137, 153, 154];
    • By managing a purported December 12, 2018 meeting that was void [See SOF 121]
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and CHARLIE ANN to announce false voting results at the December 12, 2018 meeting [See SOF 151, 167, 209, 216];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to repeatedly produce a bogus set of minutes for a purported meeting for August 2017 [See SOF 51]; 
    • By causing COACH HOUSES MEMBER Defendants and the ASSOCIATION to ignore notices of violations and wrongdoing and demands to rectify. [See SOF 42, 122, 123, 125, 126, 137, 151, 157, 167, 168, 179, 180, 182, 189, 226, 227, 229, 235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244-246, 248, 251, 253, 254, 258, 261, 263, 265, 270-272, 274, 275, 283-285, 288-291, 295-297, 303, 308, 309, 315, 319, 320, 327, 329-331, 334, 358-360, 363, 371, 376, 386, 391, 392, 394, 396-406, 410, 461, 486, 489, 491, 492, 498, and others.]
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to fail to file Petitions for Recall Arbitration [See SOF 156, 171];
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to deny the election / recall on February 4, 2019 and February 19, 2019 [See SOF 155, 156, 170];
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to fail to produce Records requested for Inspection [See SOF 175 -176] [EXHIBITS 1853, 1857];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to hold a purported March 22, 2019 meeting and election due to fraud as well as other violations [See SOF 195, 210];
    • By falsifying information sent to the DBPR [See SOF 310, 323, 324];
    • By failing to provide the ASSOCIATION with the minimum standard of care.
    • By holding themselves out as the management company for the ASSOCIATION but not representing the best interests of the ASSOCIATION;
    • By taking money from the ASSOCIATION without providing adequate service;
    • By failing to provide the ASSOCIATION with the minimum standard of care.
  • SENTRY MANAGEMENT has committed malpractice and breach of contract.
  • SENTRY MANAGEMENT has always maintained the ASSOCIATION’s records.  SENTRY has always been the only office where WINDSOR was sent to conduct his many Inspections of Records.  SENTRY MANAGEMENT had the obligation to create specific records and maintain them.  WINDSOR was not allowed to deal with purported Board members about the Inspection of Records.
  • On March 26, 2019, CHARLIE ANN lied about Inspections of Records.  She knew she was continuing to conceal these records from WINDSOR. [See SOF 214.]
  • ART SWANTON of SENTRY MANAGEMENT failed to advise what was needed for the Nielsen Trust vote to count in an election / recall.  [See SOF 163.]
  • WINDSOR believes SENTRY committed malpractice by not even knowing what the corporate documents provided regarding quorum. [See SOF 59.]
  • SENTRY MANAGEMENT intentionally allowed invalid votes on August 1, 2017. [See SOF 72.]
  • SENTRY MANAGEMENT has claimed the August 1, 2017 meeting and election was valid.  But the facts and the law establish there was no quorum; insufficient notice was given; notice of the meeting was not posted in a conspicuous place; there was no compliance with BYLAW 2.1; there was no nominating committee; there were no nominations from the floor; there was no election of board members or officers; there was no organizational meeting of a new board; OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN called the meeting, but they had no such authority as they were never elected at a lawful annual meeting and election; there were no approvals obtained from mortgage companies in violation of BYLAW 8.3. [See SOF 63.]  SOF 64-96 provide proof that the BYLAWS were not amended on August 1, 2017.
  • On February 22, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to Brad Pomp (“BRAD”), the CEO of SENTRY MANAGEMENT.  WINDSOR advised BRAD that the people acting as the Board were never elected, annual meetings were not being held on the date required by the BYLAWS, that the denial of the Recall / Election was bogus.  Other violations were noted.  Neither BRAD nor anyone from SENTRY ever responded.  [See SOF 174.]
  • The contract with SENTRY MANAGEMENT required that “Agent shall act in accordance with Association’s recorded governing documents, applicable statutes and legal directives….”
  • SENTRY MANAGEMENT has not acted in accordance with the ASSOCIATION’s recorded governing documents, applicable statutes and legal directives.
  • WINDSOR has been demanding that the ASSOCIATION correct these violations for two years.  He has essentially been ignored.  The ASSOCIATION has not responded and has paid over $130,000 in legal fees to fight arbitration petitions with the DBPR and resulting requests for trial de novo on the arbitration petitions.  Paragraphs 629-1380 in AFFIDAVIT-2020-10-27 provides a comprehensive chronology of the wrongdoing and WINDSOR’s efforts.
  • The malpractice has damaged the ASSOCIATION, WINDSOR, and other owners.
  • In addition to the negligence and/or malpractice and breach of contract committed by SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS as shown herein, the SENTRY DEFENDANTS fraudulently induced the ASSOCIATION to pay money by making representations regarding their expertise and legal issues that were not true.
  • The ASSOCIATION performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on their part in accordance with the SENTRY MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT, with the exception of those conditions which the ASSOCIATION was prevented and/or relieved from performing by the acts and omissions of the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS.  Implicit in the contract for association management services was the requirement to perform such services competently and to not require payment for incompetent services, to not bill excessively or dishonestly, and to not require payment of excessive or dishonest bills, and for the SENTRY DEFENDANTS to comply with the Rules of DBPR, Florida law, or other applicable laws.  The SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS were totally incompetent.  As a direct and proximate result of SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS incompetence and contractual breaches, the ASSOCIATION suffered damages and should suffer significant damages in this case.
  • An association’s retention of an association management firm gives rise to a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The scope of an association management firm’s fiduciary obligations is determined as a matter of law and general principles relating to other fiduciary relationships.  These fiduciary duties include duties of care and loyalty, an obligation to the ASSOCIATION.
  • In breach of their fiduciary duties and professional responsibilities to the ASSOCIATION, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS committed the wrongful acts and omissions expressed above.
  • As the ASSOCIATION’s management company, the SENTRY DEFENDANTS also owed a duty to perform the management services in an efficient and cost effective manner, would not pad or engage in deceptive and abusive billing practices, would charge costs and expenses to the ASSOCIATION at their own cost and without increase, and that the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS would exercise their fiduciary duty in respect to their fees, billings and costs charged.  The SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS breached their fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION by unreasonably and excessively billing the ASSOCIATION for the ultimately incompetent association management services performed which caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the ASSOCIATION and its members.  As a direct and proximate result of the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS’ various fiduciary breaches, the ASSOCIATION has suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  • In doing the things herein alleged, the SENTRY DEFENDANTS intentionally put their own financial interests ahead of the interests of their client.  As a direct and proximate result of the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS’ actions, as alleged herein, the ASSOCIATION incurred substantial unnecessary fees and costs, in an amount subject to proof.
  • Mishandling by the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS began almost immediately after SENTRY MANAGEMENT was retained.
  • The SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in their representation of the ASSOCIATION by negligently and carelessly doing all of the acts and omissions as herein alleged. 
  • The SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed the ASSOCIATION a fiduciary duty to act at all times in good faith and in the ASSOCIATION’s best interests, and had a duty, among other things, to perform the services for which they were retained with reasonable care and skill, to act in the ASSOCIATION’s highest and best interests at all times, and to not expose the ASSOCIATION to any unnecessary risk or peril. This fiduciary and confidential relationship was never repudiated by the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS at any time herein mentioned.
  • WINDSOR demands judgment of and from SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial; special damages as permitted by law; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and for such other relief as the Court deems necessary or proper.
  • Furthermore, in doing all of the above-described acts and omissions constituting Defendants’ breach of their fiduciary duties owed to the ASSOCIATION, the ASSOCIATION sustained damages, including but not limited to, legal fees incurred to SENTRY MANAGEMENT in the amount of over $130,000, the ASSOCIATION sustained further and additional economic and out of pocket losses and damages to be presented at trial, all according to proof.

The acts and omissions constituting breach of the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS’ fiduciary duties were committed with oppression, fraud and/or malice.  As a result, ASSOCIATION, in addition to actual damages, may recover exemplary damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section.

Brad Pomp 300x300 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACTThis is Brad Pomp, CEO of SENTRY MANAGEMENT.

The Sad Story of Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominiums

I am VERY sorry to say that I own a condominium in Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominiums in Leesburg, Florida.

I have been battling since December 2018 to get the Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc. (“ASSOCIATION”) to abide by Florida Laws and the corporate governing documents that the ASSOCIATION and all owners are obligated to comply with.

Why would some condo owners spend as much as $200,000 fighting my efforts to get the ASSOCIATION to operate legally? Our 32 condos are now going for about $60,000, so what in the world are people hiding? It’s absolutely crazy.

I believe Sentry Management, Inc., the former condo association management company, and Clayton & McCulloh, the law firm “representing” the ASSOCIATION are primarily at fault. They are largely responsible for literally hundreds of violations. I believe this is the largest case of malpractice in the condo business in history.

I have sued a group I call “the evildoers.” I’m going to tell the whole story right here.

To read about the BIG Lawsuit, Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section.

 

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – FACTS – FEBRUARY 2019

This is a continuation of the lawsuit regarding Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium, as violation of Florida law on inspection of records begins. 

  1. On February 6, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to ART SWANTON of SENTRY MANAGEMENT asking Sentry to advise what they needed for the Nielsen Trust vote to count.  WINDSOR also asked him to advise if Sentry considered the current directors and officers to be legally elected. [EXHIBIT 291.]  WINDSOR explained why those acting as directors and officers were not legally elected (based upon the information I had at that time).  There was no response.
  2. On February 7, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY asking the purported directors to step down. [EXHIBIT 375.]  There was no response.
  3. On February 12, 2019, the written Agreements / Ballots for the second Election/Recall effort were served on the registered agent for the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 30 is the cover letter and evidence regarding the Nielsen Trust voters.]  [EXHIBIT 31 contains the Agreements / Ballots.]  [EXHIBIT 32 is the receipt for service on the registered agent.]  Additional copies were served on the President, property manager, and registered agent.  EXHIBIT 984 is the certified mail receipt.  18 owners voted, and all 18 voted to elect ISABEL Campbell, Jason Chandler, and Joseph L. Lunsford.  That’s 100%.
  4. On February 14, 2019, a purported special Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 33.]  No minutes were published for the purported meeting.  OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN approved spending approximately $27,000 with American GeoTechnical and Gartner Group on foundation repairs for Building A despite other bids that were much lower.  WINDSOR objected.  Jack Gries, the engineer hired to identify the problem and recommend contractors to do the repair, told WINDSOR that he would be happy with any of the bidders.  EXHIBIT 251 contains bids for $17,767 and $13,575.  These bids were concealed from the owners; WINDSOR obtained them through an Inspection of Records in March 2019.
  5. On February 15, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY about failure to produce records in response to his Request for Inspection.  WINDSOR enclosed the bogus August 2017 minutes for Baywood Condominiums.  WINDSOR advised them that if the requested documents were not produced, he would have to file a complaint with the Division of Condominiums. [EXHIBIT 274.]  WINDSOR had not received minutes for an August 2017 meeting of the ASSOCIATION.  EXHIBIT 1031 is the copy of the email received by the ASSOCIATION that was produced at an Inspection of Records on June 21, 2019.
  6. On February 15, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY with a Request for Inspection of Records. [EXHIBIT 343.]  WINDSOR again requested minutes showing there was ever a valid election of directors.  WINDSOR again requested proof that there were votes to amend the BYLAWS to change the date of the annual meeting and election.  WINDSOR asked for proof that nominating committees had been used and nominations from the floor at annual meetings had been offered.  WINDSOR never received proof.
  7. EXHIBIT 1032 is a copy of the February 18, 2019 letter received by CHARLIE ANN that was produced at an Inspection of Records on June 21, 2019.  This was about defamation by CHARLIE ANN.  This letter gave her notice to preserve relevant information as litigation was anticipated.
  8. On February 19, 2019 at 2:00 pm, a purported Special Board Meeting was called to order.  It was adjourned at approximately 2:14 pm. [EXHIBIT 406.]  No minutes were published for the purported meeting.  EXHIBIT 305-1 and EXHIBIT 305-2 is the video from the meeting.  OMAR announced the notice of the “Recall” was deemed proper and was received on February 12, 2019. [EXHIBIT 305-2, 0:25 into the video.]  The form of the Agreements / Ballots was accepted. [EXHIBIT 305-2, 1:40 into the video.]  (Mrs. Omar Nuseibeh also has a video.)  16 votes were identified as valid. OMAR claimed there were 32 voting interests. [EXHIBIT 305-2, 4:05 to 4:15 in the video.]  A Recall of OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN as Directors of the ASSOCIATION was improperly denied on February 19, 2019. [EXHIBIT 305-2, 5:35 into the video.]  This is detailed in DBPR Amended Petition in Case No. 2019-02-1020, referenced and incorporated herein. [EXHIBIT 1850.]
  9. The minutes of the February 19, 2019 meeting have not been made available to me.  The Board failed to file a petition for recall arbitration.  This is a violation of Florida Statute 718.112(2)(j) 3 and Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.0028(3)(b).
  10. WINDSOR objected to the action taken while at the February 19, 2019 meeting, and he had objected to it in writing on several occasions thereafter.  [EXHIBIT 305-2, 7:15 into the video.] [EXHIBIT 36.]
  11. On February 19, 2019, WINDSOR sent a letter to BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH demanding that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN be removed. [EXHIBIT 273.]  There was no response.
  12. On February 22, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to Brad Pomp (“BRAD”), the CEO of SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 247.]   (EXHIBIT 616 is the Certified Mail Receipt.)  WINDSOR advised BRAD that the people acting as the Board were never elected, annual meetings were not being held on the date required by the BYLAWS, that the denial of the Recall / Election was bogus.  WINDSOR made an Inspection of Records Request of the alleged letter from MONALENE Werner withdrawing her vote.  Neither BRAD nor anyone from SENTRY ever responded.  EXHIBIT 1043 is the copy of the letter received by BRAD.  This was produced in WINDSOR’s Inspection of Records on June 21, 2019.
  13. On February 22, 2019, WINDSOR made a Request for Inspection of Records by certified mail. [EXHIBIT 45.]  Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were never produced.  This is a violation.  (EXHIBIT 613 is the Certified Mail Receipt.)
  14. On February 22, 2019, WINDSOR made a Second Request for Inspection of Records that were not produced when first requested. [EXHIBIT 46.]  Nothing was produced.  WINDSOR had to file a Complaint with the State. [EXHIBIT 54.]  This is a violation.  (EXHIBIT 613 is the Certified Mail Receipt.)
  15. On February 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to NEAL McCulloh and Mr. Clayton, the Senior Partners of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 280.]  WINDSOR advised them that the people acting as the Board were never elected; annual meetings were not being held on the date required by the BYLAWS; and the denial of the Recall / Election was bogus.  WINDSOR made an Inspection of Records Request of the alleged letter from MONALENE Werner withdrawing her vote.  WINDSOR explained that the denial of the Recall / Election was wrong.  Neither responded.  (EXHIBIT 612 is the Certified Mail Receipt.)
  16. On February 25, 2019, a purported Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 307.]  No minutes were published for the purported meeting.  EXHIBIT 308-1, EXHIBIT 308-2, EXHIBIT 308-3, EXHIBIT 308-4 is video from the meeting.  OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN voted to suspend the voting rights of Donna Dailey and Donna Hey, two of the owners who had voted to recall them.
  17. On February 27, 2019, WINDSOR emailed OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH asking if the votes of Donna Dailey and Donna Hey would be accepted in a recall / election.  They never responded. [EXHIBIT 290.]
  18. On February 27, 2019, WINDSOR made a Second Request for Inspection of Records for additional documents that were not produced when first requested. [EXHIBIT 48.]  (EXHIBIT 605 is the Certified Mail Receipt.)  Nothing was produced.  WINDSOR had to file a Complaint with the State. [EXHIBIT 55.]

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section