Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

SELY3781 300x188 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

COUNT THREE

DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

AGAINST CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH

  1. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.
  3. Section 617.002 provides that the provisions of Chapter 607, the Florida General Corporation Act, apply to all nonprofit corporations.
  4. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH has been employed as the law firm representing the ASSOCIATION since April Fools’ Day 2015 (April 1, 2015).  EXHIBIT 1538 is the contract titled “2015 ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS.” [See SOF 44.]  The ASSOCIATION retained CLAYTON & MCCULLOH to provide legal services in a competent fashion.
  5. At all times, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS held themselves out as competent in the area of law dealing with the legal work for which the ASSOCIATION retained the services of the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.  When NEAL MCCULLOH spoke to the owners of the ASSOCIATION on March 5, 2020, he extolled the alleged expertise of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, BRIAN, RUSSELL, and himself.  He made it sound like CLAYTON & MCCULLOH was the best condominium association law firm in America.
  6. The ASSOCIATION and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS acted under an attorney/client relationship in which CLAYTON & MCCULLOH undertook to represent the ASSOCIATION.
  7. The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS were required to exercise the same duty of care as a reasonably competent attorney and to use reasonable care in determining and implementing a strategy to be followed to achieve the ASSOCIATION’s legal goals.  As a fiduciary to the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS were obligated to protect the ASSOCIATION.
  8. In the course of handling legal matters for the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS negligently failed to act with the degree of competence generally possessed by attorneys in Florida who handle legal matters similar to the ASSOCIATION’s.  The ASSOCIATION paid CLAYTON & MCCULLOH a substantial amount of money for the sole purpose of representing the ASSOCIATION in its legal matters.
  9. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH has neglected reasonable duties.  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS were negligent and/or committed malpractice and breached fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION, including in the following regard:
    • By failing to explain the law to the ASSOCIATION;
    • By failing to explain the terms of the ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, DECLARATION, and BYLAWS and the impact to the ASSOCIATION;
    • By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION held lawful annual meetings and elections [See SOF 46, 47, 110, 151, and others];
    • By concocting schemes to keep OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN as the Officers and Directors as part of an effort to conceal CLAYTON & MCCULLOH’s malpractice [See SOF 42, 100, 107, 173, and others];
    • By preparing and filing a fraudulent BYLAW Amendment on January 15, 2019 in Lake County, Florida [See SOF 97-99, 107, 108, 127, 138, 149];
    • By falsely and maliciously claiming the BYLAW regarding the annual meeting was amended on August 1, 2017 [See SOF 149, 151];
    • By providing false legal information to ASSOCIATION owners, including WINDSOR;
    • By running up legal fees by requiring that BRIAN Hess handle all of WINDSOR’s inquiries in writing [See SOF 124];
    • By running up legal fees by refusing to meet with WINDSOR to resolve matters [See SOF 662];
    • 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];
    • 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];
    • By running up legal fees by having NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH tell WINDSOR to sue rather than agree to meet to try to resolve issues [See SOF 662];
    • By running up legal fees by having RUSSELL Klemm of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH stall in a variety of ways rather than address the legal issues efficiently [See SOF 499];
    • 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];
    • By running up legal fees by failing to accept WINDSOR’s offer to withdraw his actions against the ASSOCIATION if CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and SENTRY refunded to the ASSOCIATION all money paid by to them from 2016 to 2019 [See SOF 283];
    • 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];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to charge exorbitant amounts for filing a Notice of Lien [See SOF 395];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate the Fair Credit Collection Act [See SOF 404];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.002 (6) regarding Designated Voter Certificates [See SOF 61];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.002 (8) regarding proxies [See SOF 120, 156, 171];
    • 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;
    • 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];
    • 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];
    • 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];
    • 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;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to notify owners of the unfilled board positions;
    • 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];
    • 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 104-106];
    • 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];
    • By claiming WINDSOR did not have the right to seek judicial proceedings pursuant to Section 718.1255 of the Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-45.043;
    • 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 718.111(c)(3) with improper claims of attorney-client privilege [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (1) (q) regarding fiduciary duty [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (1) (d) regarding fiduciary duty [See SOF 151];
    • 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 allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (12) (7) by failing to maintain current rosters [See SOF 49];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (12) (15) by failing to maintain written records;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 by failing to give at least 14 days’ notice of the annual meeting [See SOF 55];
    • By causing and allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 (1) (a) by not being governed as required by law [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 (1) (c) (1) by failing to post notice of meetings in a conspicuous place;
    • 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 allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 (2) (b) by failing to require a quorum [See SOF 121 and others];
    • 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)(c)(1) 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 Section 718.112(2)(d) by failing to hold annual meetings [See SOF 110 and others];
    • 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 Section 718.112(2)(d)(4) by failing to provide notice regarding annual elections in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020 [See SOF 151, 110];
    •  
    •  
    • petitions for arbitration over recalls [See SOF 171];
    • 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 E. KLEMM sent a letter to the ASSOCIATION c/o CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY in which he stated amendments require approval of all holders of first mortgage liens [See SOF 112];
    • Russell E Klemm - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICERUSSELL E. KLEMM has committed many violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct while fighting WINDSOR; he has committed perjury, fraud on the court, and many other violations while C&M has obtained over $130,000 in legal fee payments from the ASSOCIATION [See SOF 499];
    • 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];
    • OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not lawfully elected, so they had no authority to schedule meetings [See SOF 118, 137];
    • By denying owners a special meeting to consider a substitute budget [See SOF 145];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to hire police to attend ASSOCIATION meetings by falsely claiming police were needed because of WINDSOR threats to do physical harm or kill people. WINDSOR did no such thing [See SOF 119, 204];
    •  
    • Brian Hess 225x300 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICEBy authorizing the ASSOCIATION to disregard the votes and proxies submitted in advance by owners on December 12, 2018.  WINDSOR objected.  BRIAN Hess of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH ignored him and facilitated this wrongdoing. [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 failing to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure [See SOF 499];
    • By managing a purported December 12, 2018 meeting that was void [See SOF 121]
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, 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 ignoring a February 23, 2019 certified letter from WINDSOR advising CLAYTON & MCCULLOH of a variety of wrongful acts.  There was no response. [See SOF 177.]
    • By concealing Designated Voter Certificates at the purported March 22, 2019 meetings that would have shown several to be invalid; [See SOF 202.]
    • By falsifying information sent to the DBPR [See SOF 310, 323, 324];
    • By holding themselves out as the attorneys for the ASSOCIATION but not representing the best interests of the ASSOCIATION;
    • By taking large sums of money from the ASSOCIATION;
    • By failing to provide the ASSOCIATION with the minimum standard of care.
  • In addition to the negligence and/or malpractice committed by CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS as shown herein, upon information and belief, the C&M DEFENDANTS fraudulently induced the ASSOCIATION to pay large sums of money by making representations regarding the legal issues that were not true.
  • The ASSOCIATION performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on their part in accordance with the 2015 Attorney Representation Agreement for Community Associations, with the exception of those conditions which the ASSOCIATION was prevented and/or relieved from performing by the acts and omissions of the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.  Implicit in the contract for legal 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct (and other applicable laws) in the provision of their services and to not require payment of services violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or other applicable laws.  The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS breached the 2015 Attorney Representation Agreement for Community Associations by failing to provide competent services.  As a direct and proximate result of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS incompetence and contractual breaches, the ASSOCIATION has suffered damages and should suffer significant damages in this case.
  • A client’s retention of a law firm gives rise to a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The scope of an attorney’s fiduciary obligations are determined as a matter of law. 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS committed the wrongful acts and omissions shown herein.
  • As the ASSOCIATION’s attorneys, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS also owed a duty to comply with Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and not to unreasonably or excessively bill the ASSOCIATION.  The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS’ fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION also included the obligation that the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS would perform the legal services in an efficient and cost effective manner, would not pad or engage in deceptive and abusive billing practices, would charge litigation costs and expenses to the ASSOCIATION at their own cost and without increase, and that the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS would exercise their fiduciary duty in respect to their fees, billings and costs charged.  The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS breached their fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION by unreasonably and excessively billing the ASSOCIATION for the ultimately incompetent legal 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS intentionally put their own financial interests ahead of the interests of their client.  As a direct and proximate result of the C&M DEFENDANTS’ actions, as alleged herein, the ASSOCIATION incurred substantial unnecessary fees and costs, in an amount subject to proof.
  • The legal work was mishandled from the start of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH’s representation and the mishandling by the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS began almost immediately after C&M was retained.
  • The C&M 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH 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 C&M DEFENDANTS at any time herein mentioned.
  • The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to the ASSOCIATION by doing all of the acts and omissions as herein alleged.
  • WINDSOR demands judgment of and from CLAYTON & MCCULLOH 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 C&M 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH 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 CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

Neal McCulloh - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICENEAL MCCULLOH is one of the two senior partners with CLAYTON & MCCULLOH.

He likes his bangs apparently.

 

 

 

 

Ken Clayton - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICEKENNETH M. CLAYTON is the other senior partner at CLAYTON & MCCULLOH.

You have to wonder if he once had bangs, too.

CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH appears to be a tiny law firm with the two “senior partners” and one or two other attorneys.

 

Christine Praria 300x300 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

Christine Praria is legal assistant to Russell E. Klemm.

She seems to think she’s running the show.

 

 

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

William M. Windsor,

Plaintiff,

                                                                                    Case No. 35-2020-CA-001438

vs.

Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc., Omar Nuseibeh, Vicki Hedrick, Karen Bollinger, Shehneela Arshi, Isabel Campbell, Sergio Naumoff, Ed Broom, Jr., Marta Carbajo, Sue Yokley, Wendy Krauss, Howard Solow, Sentry Management, Inc., Charlie Ann Aldridge, Art Swanton, Brad Pomp, Clayton & McCulloh, P.A., Brian Hess, Neal McCulloh, Russell Klemm, Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Mahlon C. Rhaney, Leah Simms, and Does 1-20,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF hereby files this Second Amended Complaint (“SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT”) and shows the Court the following:

PLEASE BE ADVISED: Everything you are about to read regarding the BIG LAWSUIT is the actual lawsuit Complaint. It was sworn under penalty of perjury before a notary to be true and correct based upon William M. Windsor’s knowledge. It is on file in Lake County Circuit Court for anyone to read.

Introduction

Jurisdiction and Venue

Parties

Legal Background

Statement of Facts:

Facts — 2018

Facts — January 2019

Facts — February 2019

Facts — March 2019

Facts — April 2019

Facts — May 2019

Facts — June 2019

Facts — July 2019

Facts — August 2019

Facts — September 2019

Facts — October 2019

Facts — November 2019

Facts — December 2019

Facts — January 2020

Facts — February 2020

Facts — March 2020

Facts — May 2020

Facts — June 2020

Facts — July 2020

Facts — August 2020

Facts — September 2020

Facts — October 2020

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE — BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

COUNT TWO — FRAUD

COUNT THREE — DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

COUNT FOUR — BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT FIVE — DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT SIX — BREACH OF CONTRACT – FAILURE TO KEEP COMMON AREAS CLEAN

COUNT SEVEN — CONSPIRACY

COUNT EIGHT — PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

COUNT NINE — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Prayer for Relief

 

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

  1. On October 8, 2019, WINDSOR sent BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH notice of a Fair Credit Collection Act dispute. [EXHIBIT 1459.]  EXHIBIT 1457 is the Certified Mail Receipt.  EXHIBIT 1458 is the signed Certified Mail Receipt.
  2. On October 8, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and the purported Board of the ASSOCIATION with notice of a Fair Credit Collection Act dispute. [EXHIBIT 1456.]
  3. On September 6, 2020, WINDSOR emailed all of the owners of the ASSOCIATION; BRAD, Debra Zimmerman, Katie Ciccotelli, CHARLIE ANN, and ART with SENTRY; NEAL, RUSSELL, and BRIAN with CLAYTON & MCCULLOH; and DBPR. [EXHIBIT 1798.]  WINDSOR enclosed a copy of his letter to the Secretary of State.  He wrote: “I demand that Russell Klemm cease pretending to represent the ASSOCIATION in legal matters in Lake County or with the DBPR.  He has no authority, and he just lies all the time.”  WINDSOR enclosed his letter seeking to have the corporate charter revoked.  He also said: “Please do not pay any money to Sentry or CLAYTON & MCCULLOH until this is resolved.  I will consider so to be a breach of fiduciary duty.”
  4. On October 16, 2019, WINDSOR finalized his Petition for Arbitration regarding many issues, signed, and had it notarized.  [EXHIBIT 1453.]  This was sent by certified mail to the DBPR.  EXHIBIT 1460 is the Cashier’s Check for the filing fee.  EXHIBIT 1472 is the cover letter.  It also asks why there has been no response to his September 9, 2019 filing.
  5. On October 16, 2019, WINDSOR finalized his SIXTH VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT, signed, and had it notarized.  [EXHIBIT 1455.]  This was sent by certified mail to the DBPR.  EXHIBIT 1483 is the signed certified mail receipt.  EXHIBIT 1487 is the cover letter.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

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

  1. On September 3, 2019, Ray Treadwell, General Counsel of the DBPR, emailed me to say he would not speak with me about incompetence and/or corruption on his staff. [EXHIBIT 1293.]
  2. On September 3, 2019, WINDSOR emailed Ray Treadwell, General Counsel of the DBPR emailed, to say he lied to him in his email. [EXHIBIT 1294.]
  3. On September 4, 2019, MAHLON issued an ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY in DBPR Case No. 2019-04-0349. [EXHIBIT 1329.]
  4. On September 4, 2019, MAHLON issued an ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING, MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY in DBPR Case No. 2019-03-8814. [EXHIBIT 1329.]
  5. On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR served MAHLON and RUSSELL E. KLEMM of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH with his Notice of Order in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020, 2019-02-6834, 2019-03-8814, and 2019-04-0349. [EXHIBIT 1327.]
  6. On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6834. [EXHIBIT 1324.]
  7. On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-03-8814. [EXHIBIT 1325.]
  8. On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-04-0349. [EXHIBIT 1323.]
  9. On September 6, 2019, WINDSOR mailed his Notice of Order to the DBPR and Russell of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020. [EXHIBIT 1326.]
  10. On September 8, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the members of the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1434.]
  11. On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR filed a SECOND AMENDED REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO in Case No. 2019-CA-001528 in Lake County Court. [EXHIBIT 1333.]
  12. On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR filed a SECOND MOTION FOR CONFERENCE in Case No. 2019-CA-001528 in Lake County Court. [EXHIBIT 1334.]
  13. On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR sent a PETITION FOR ARBITRATION REGARDING FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS to the DBPR for filing. [EXHIBIT 1332.]  EXHIBIT I thereto is the FIFTH VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR IN SUPPORT OF MANDATORY NON-BINDING PETITION FOR ARBITRATION.
  14. On September 9, 2019, WINDSOR sent a REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY [EXHIBIT 1335] for filing with the PETITION FOR ARBITRATION REGARDING FAILURE TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS. [EXHIBIT 1332.]
  15. On September 13, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a letter demanding an Inspection of Records that were not provided. [EXHIBIT 1352.]
  16. On September 15, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the ASSOCIATION his Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding Inadequate Notice of Meetings. [EXHIBIT 1362.]
  17. On September 16, 2019, WINDSOR mailed the ASSOCIATION by certified mail his Notice of Intent to file a Petition for Arbitration regarding Inadequate Notice of Meetings. [EXHIBIT 1363.]  EXHIBIT 1369 is the certified mail receipt.  EXHIBIT 1441 is the signed certified mail receipt.
  18. On September 17, 2019, WINDSOR emailed notice to the ASSOCIATION, Sentry, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH that he was still working on his massive legal action against Coach Houses. [EXHIBIT 1439.]
  19. On September 21, 2019, WINDSOR received a Notice of Intent to File Lien.  It showed WINDSOR to owe $678.68, and they charged WINDSOR $107.20 for Intent to File Lien Notice.  It was dated September 13, 2019 but was not received until eight days later.
  20. On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the members of the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1435.]  This was about SENTRY charging fees for filing Notice of a Lien when not permitted in the corporate documents.
  21. On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1436.]  This was about SENTRY charging fees for filing Notice of a Lien when not permitted in the corporate documents.
  22. On September 21, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email regarding the Notice of Intent to File Lien.  WINDSOR asked to be shown where in the corporate documents a $107.20 fee was specified. [EXHIBIT 1395.]  There was no response.
  23. On September 21, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Arbitration by certified mail to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1393.]  EXHIBIT 1442 is the signed certified mail receipt.
  24. On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR mailed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Arbitration by certified mail to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1393.]  This regards all of the disputes WINDSOR has documented.  EXHIBIT 1443 is the signed certified mail receipt.
  25. On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Arbitration regarding fraud with the December 12, 2018 meetings to the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and C&M. [EXHIBIT 1437.]
  26. On September 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the members of the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1435.]  This was about SENTRY charging fees for filing Notice of a Lien when not permitted in the corporate documents.
  27. On September 29, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a message to the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1424.]

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

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

  1. On April 2, 2019, WINDSOR went to the Lake County Courthouse for the hearing on a Petition for Injunction against Stalking filed by Dorothy Liebl in Unit B2. [EXHIBIT 416.]  She didn’t show up, and the case was dismissed.  WINDSOR was planning to have her commit count after count of perjury, so he was somewhat disappointed to lose his day in court.
  2. On April 4 and 6, 2019, five of the purported newly-elected Directors requested a Special Meeting of the Directors. [EXHIBIT 1400.]
  3. The Special Member Meeting that CLAYTON & MCCULLOH said would be held on April 4, 2019 was never noticed or held. [EXHIBIT 56 is WINDSOR’s Notice of Intent to file an Arbitration Petition regarding this.] 
  4. A purported Special Board Meeting was then scheduled for April 11, 2019. [EXHIBIT 968.]  Shehneela Arshi acknowledged receipt of the letters requesting the special meeting and scheduled the meeting for April 11, 2019. [EXHIBIT 1401.]  The Notice was posted on the bulletin boards in the buildings of Coach Houses at Leesburg. [EXHIBIT 968.]  Shehneela claimed that one of the letter writers, Donna Hey, lost her seat on the Board because she was past due. [EXHIBIT 1401.]  WINDSOR had provided evidence to show this was false and that the lien and foreclosure filed against Donna Hey was improper.  WINDSOR asked Shehneela for proof, and she failed to provide any. [EXHIBIT 1402.]
  5. On April 8, 2019 and April 9, 2019, WINDSOR advised the ASSOCIATION by email and mail that he would file his Petition for Arbitration regarding the Recall / Election by April 29, 2019 if his requests were not met. [EXHIBIT 321.] [EXHIBIT 353.]  The ASSOCIATION did not respond.
  6. On April 9, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Notice of Intent to Challenge the March 22, 2019 election to the ASSOCIATION, SHEHNEELA, ISABEL, Sergio, and the Election Monitor. [EXHIBIT 444.]
  7. On April 10, 2019, Notice of a Board Meeting for April 11, 2019 was posted on the bulletin boards at Coach Houses of Leesburg. [EXHIBIT 1399.]  The Notice of the Board Meeting was on the Building B bulletin board when WINDSOR walked in at approximately 4:45 pm on April 10, 2019. [EXHIBIT 968.]
  8. On April 10, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the owners (including SHEHNEELA, SERGIO, AND ISABEL) saying that if the April 11, 2019 meeting was not held, he would file all of his complaints against the Association, Sentry, and C&M. [EXHIBIT 990.] [EXHIBIT 1403.]
  9. emailed WINDSOR at 5:08 pm to say that Donna Hey and Carol Still were delinquent and cannot serve.  This is absolutely false. [EXHIBIT 1404.]  The Condominium Act, Section 718.112(2)(n), states that a director or officer who is more than 90 days delinquent in the payment of any monetary obligation due to the association shall be deemed to have abandoned the office, creating a vacancy in the office to be filled according to law.  There is no evidence of this for either Donna Hey or Carol, Still.
  10. Shehneela also claimed Larry Lunsford and Johnny Lynn withdrew their requests for the meeting because WINDSOR had harassed them into sending the letters. [EXHIBIT 1405.]  WINDSOR never did any such thing.  Larry Lunsford has confirmed in writing that WINDSOR never bullied him. [EXHIBIT 1406.]  Johnny Lynn responded in the same manner. [EXHIBIT 1407.]
  11. There is no Bylaw, state law, or Rule that provides that letters can be withdrawn.  WINDSOR requested legal authority for this and proof of the withdrawals, and Shehneela ignored him.
  12. At 6:25 pm on April 10, 2019, the Notice of a BOARD Meeting for April 11, 2019 was posted on the bulletin boards at Coach Houses of Leesburg with the word CANCELED written across it. [EXHIBIT 283.]
  13. Purported President Shehneela sent WINDSOR a cease and desist email saying he was never to contact her again. [EXHIBIT 1408.]
  14. On April 10, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Notice of Intent to Challenge the April 4, 2019 meeting to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 437.]
  15. On April 10, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Notice of Intent to Challenge the April 11, 2019 meeting to the ASSOCIATION, ED, ISABEL, SERGIO, other owners; BRIAN and NEAL of C&M; ART and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 445.]
  16. On April 10, 2019, WINDSOR emailed a Notice of Intent to Challenge the February 19, 2019 Recall / Election to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 446.]
  17. On April 10, 2019 at 7:29 pm, WINDSOR emailed a Condominium Complaint to the ASSOCIATION, BRIAN and NEAL of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH; ART and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY. [EXHIBIT ­­­­­1541.]
  18. On April 10, 2019 at 7:29 pm, WINDSOR mailed a Condominium Complaint to the DBPR. [EXHIBIT ­­­­­1542.]
  19. On April 10, 2019 at 8:09 pm, WINDSOR emailed a Condominium Complaint to the ASSOCIATION, BRIAN and NEAL of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH; ART and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY. [EXHIBIT ­­­­­1539.]
  20. On April 10, 2019 at 8:09 pm, WINDSOR mailed a Condominium Complaint to the DBPR. [EXHIBIT ­­­­­1540.]
  21. The April 11, 2019 meeting was not held.  EXHIBIT 57 is WINDSOR’s Notice of Intent to file an Arbitration Petition regarding this.
  22. On April 11, 2019, WINDSOR mailed a Condominium Complaint to the DBPR. [EXHIBIT ­­­­­1543.]
  23. On April 12, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email and letter to BRIAN and NEAL of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and BRAD, ART, and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY documenting that BRIAN was violating the ASSOCIATION’s Rules regarding Inspection of Records.  WINDSOR demanded production of ALL documents previously requested on April 23, 2019.  The documents were not produced. [EXHIBIT 278.]  (EXHIBIT 606 is the Certified Mail Receipt.)
  24. On April 14, 2019, WINDSOR mailed a Notice of Intent to Challenge the December 12, 2018 meetings to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 439.]  He also sent the Notice of Intent to Challenge the December 12, 2018 meetings by email to the ASSOCIATION, C&M, and SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 440.]
  25. On April 17, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to C&M, SENTRY, and the ASSOCIATION advising that his Petition for Arbitration on the Recall / Election had to be filed on April 19, 2019.  WINDSOR asked them to advise if they had decided to grant his requests. [EXHIBIT 351.]
  26. On April 18, 2019, WINDSOR executed a Mandatory Non-Binding Petition Form naming the ASSOCIATION as Respondent.  This “ORIGINAL PETITION” was regarding the events that led to and immediately after a purported meeting and election on February 19, 2019.  It was received by the DBPR on April 19, 2019. [EXHIBIT 1001.]
  27. On April 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and the ASSOCIATION advising that he would be filing a Petition for Arbitration for failure to allow Inspection of Records. [EXHIBIT 300.]  WINDSOR requested a copy of the alleged Request for Inspection dated March 22.  Nothing was ever produced to show that WINDSOR made such a request.
  28. On April 23, 2019, WINDSOR conducted an Inspection of Records at SENTRY.  It was scheduled by CLAYTON & MCCULLOH claiming it was for his March 22, 2019 Request.  WINDSOR never made a March 22, 2019 Request for Inspection.  WINDSOR asked for proof that he requested such an Inspection, and his emails were ignored. [EXHIBIT 67.]  [EXHIBIT 1220.]  There was no one from the ASSOCIATION or SENTRY available during the Inspection of Records.
  29. Three file folders and four pdf files were produced on April 23, 2019. [EXHIBIT 61.]  EXHIBIT 61 – D and E show the total production on April 23, 2019; the laptop contained four pdf files.  EXHIBIT 61 — F, G, and H show the records produced regarding the August 1, 2017 “meeting.”  EXHIBIT 61 — I, J, and K show the records produced regarding the December 12, 2018 “meeting.”  EXHIBIT 61 – L, M, and N show the records produced regarding the March 22, 2019 “meeting.”  WINDSOR had previously copied the documents for December 12, 2018 and March 22, 2019, so he simply copied what he identified as new documents.  The third file folder (EXHIBIT 61 – F, G, and H) was the file for the August 1, 2017 meeting that WINDSOR had requested many times in January, February, and March.  WINDSOR believes CLAYTON & MCCULLOH may have pretended WINDSOR made a Request for Inspection to sneak in these documents after he filed his first Petition for Arbitration regarding the Recall / Election.  WINDSOR copied the entire folder.  EXHIBIT 330 contains the four pdf files produced on the laptop.
  30. On April 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, the ASSOCIATION, and owners advising of the proof that he obtained that day proving the BYLAWS were not legally amended. [EXHIBIT 355.]  The email served a notice of intent to file a petition for arbitration regarding the purported BYLAW amendment.  WINDSOR demanded action.  There was no response.
  31. WINDSOR has found the attorneys with CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and CHARLIE ANN with SENTRY to be dishonest.  He suspects that some of the documents that have been provided in response to Inspection of Records Requests have been altered.  EXHIBIT 366 is a Limited Proxy produced on April 23, 2019 that shows it was invalid on December 13, 2017.  “Needs to be corrected” is written in CHARLIE ANN’s handwriting.  The Received Stamp reads Dec 18 2017, so this appears to have been changed after the December 13, 2017 meeting and vote.  WINDSOR believes this is falsification of ASSOCIATION records, which may be a criminal offense.
  32. On April 25, 2019, WINDSOR sent two emails to BRIAN and NEAL of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH; BRAD, ART, and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY; the ASSOCIATION; ISABEL, OMAR, KAREN, and VICKI; and some owners advising them of his intent to file a petition for arbitration or lawsuit regarding bylaw fraud. [EXHIBIT 400.]
  33. On April 26, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to BRIAN and NEAL of C&M; BRAD, ART, and CHARLIE ANN with SENTRY; purported Board members; ISABEL, ED, SERGIO, the ASSOCIATION, and owners advising them of his intent to file a lawsuit and seek a Receiver. [EXHIBIT 399.]
  34. On April 26, 2019, a Final Order of Dismissal (“FIRST FINAL ORDER”) was issued in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 due to alleged confusion over receipt of the original petition for arbitration that WINDSOR filed. [EXHIBIT 1002.]  The FIRST FINAL ORDER was sent by email. [EXHIBIT 1259.]  WINDSOR quickly learned that the DBPR is corrupt.
  35. On April 26, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Petition for Rehearing for filing regarding the FIRST FINAL ORDER issued in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020. [EXHIBIT 1200.]
  36. On April 29, 2019, WINDSOR received a certified letter from BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 315.]  He said WINDSOR’s April 24, 2019 Request for Inspection of Records would be provided on September 13, 2019.  This is a violation of Florida statutes and the ASSOCIATION’S rules.
  37. On April 30, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and the ASSOCIATION reminding them that he would be filing a Petition for Arbitration regarding the March 22, 2019 meeting. [EXHIBIT 312.]  WINDSOR asked them to contact him right away.  There was no response.
  38. On April 30, 2019, WINDSOR exchanged emails with Alicia Lawrence of DBPR regarding his Petition in Case No. 2019-02-1020.  WINDSOR needed to identify the form that Mahlon C. Rhaney, Jr. (“MAHLON”) was requiring him to use. [EXHIBIT 1259.]  WINDSOR later realized that this was corruption by MAHLON.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

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

  1. On March 1, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, the attorneys with CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, and CHARLIE ANN, BRAD and ART at SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 238.]   WINDSOR advised them that the ASSOCIATION was not operating legally because of the name.  Paragraph 1 of the DECLARATION says “The name by which this condominium is to be identified is COACH HOUSES AT LEESBURG.”  This violates Florida statute 718.104 (4) (b) requires that “the name by which the condominium property is to be identified, which shall include the word ‘condominium’ or be followed by the words ‘a condominium.’”  WINDSOR also noted that the ASSOCIATION only has 16 voting members according to the DECLARATION 13.3.  WINDSOR again demanded that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN cease pretending to be the officers and directors.  There was no response.
  2. On March 1, 2019, ART of SENTRY, emailed in response to WINDSOR’s email to say the issues would be reviewed by the association’s attorney. [EXHIBIT 239.]  There was no response from the ASSOCIATION or the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.
  3. On March 2, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN; BRIAN with CLAYTON & MCCULLOH; and BRAD, ART, and CHARLIE ANN at SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 252.]   WINDSOR expressed that he did not consider the announced March 22, 2019 meeting to be a valid meeting of the ASSOCIATION.
  4. On March 5, 2019, a so-called “Town Hall Meeting” was held. [EXHIBIT 281.]  WINDSOR considered it to be an effort by CLAYTON & MCCULLOH to dissuade owners from voting to replace OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN. [EXHIBIT 282-1, EXHIBIT 282-2, EXHIBIT 282-3, EXHIBIT 282-4, EXHIBIT 282-5, EXHIBIT 282-6, EXHIBIT 282-7 is video from the meeting.]  No minutes were published for the purported meeting. 
  5. On March 5, 2019, NEAL McCulloh of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH distributed a letter to the owners of the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 267.]  In the second paragraph on page 1, NEAL claims the actions taken on December 12, 2018 were at his firm’s direction.  I believe this is proof of malpractice.  In the first full paragraph on page 2, NEAL claims the directors were properly elected because “only three (3) people timely and properly submitted an intent to be a candidate for the current term.”  This is false.  This has been documented above.  In the first full paragraph on page 2, NEAL falsely claims individuals were recommending self-management and elimination of professional services.  I believe this is false and malicious.  In that paragraph, NEAL also claims so many of the legal challenges (by me) are “completely wrong, in error, and in derogation of the Florida Statutes and/or the Association’s Governing Documents.”  This is false and malicious.
  6. After the meeting ended, WINDSOR spoke with NEAL and suggested a meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve the issues.  WINDSOR expressed that this would be far less expensive to the owners.  NEAL refused.  He told WINDSOR to handle it through legal filings.
  7. On March 5, 2019, Dorothy Liebl of B2 told people in attendance that WINDSOR had harassed her.  [EXHIBIT 282-1, EXHIBIT 282-2, EXHIBIT 282-3, EXHIBIT 282-4, EXHIBIT 282-5, EXHIBIT 282-6, EXHIBIT 282-7, EXHIBIT 282-8, EXHIBIT 282-9.]  This was slander.
  8. Unknown to WINDSOR until several weeks later when he called the police to see if anything had been filed against him, WINDSOR learned that on March 14, 2019. Dorothy Liebl in Unit B2 tried to get the police to arrest him for the crimes of harassment and threats. [EXHIBIT 417.]  This was an absolute outrage.  This is a false police report that is a violation of Florida law.  Dorothy Liebl is a major supporter of OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN.  The police never contacted WINDSOR.
  9. On March 14, 2019, WINDSOR emailed OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, CHARLIE ANN and ART of SENTRY, and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH saying they had failed to respond to him on the ability of Donna Dailey and Donna *** to vote.  WINDSOR asked them to confirm how much Donna Hey allegedly owed as he would pay it so she could vote. [EXHIBIT 292.]  They never responded to this Request for Inspection of Records.  WINDSOR had offered to loan the money to Donna ***.  She was scared that she would lose her home in foreclosure and become homeless.
  10. On March 15, 2019, the ASSOCIATION sent a Notice of Intent to Foreclose to Donna ***, Unit H2. [EXHIBIT 426.]  The Notice appears to have added approximately $1,700 in legal fees.  Donna *** has provided records to me to show that she was not past due.  This foreclosure notice was sent a week before the purported election of March 22, 2019 at which Donna *** was a candidate seeking to replace OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN.  PLEASE NOTE the letter that starts EXHIBIT 426 was not mailed, but it accurately summarizes the financial situation.
  11. On March 15, 2019, Nancy Camp of Unit C2 sent a letter to SENTRY enclosing a Quit Claim deed and an Affidavit of Trust.  She wrote: “I feel I was bullied by the board into transferring the subject property out of my parents trust into our individual interest.” [EXHIBIT 425.]
  12. On March 20, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN; CHARLIE AND, ART, and BRAD of SENTRY; and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH objecting to the apparent plan to appoint a chairman of the purported March 22, 2019 members’ meeting rather than elect the chairman. [EXHIBIT 257.]  WINDSOR’s email was ignored.
  13. On March 20, 2019, a Lake County Sheriff’s Deputy appeared at WINDSOR’s door and served him with an Order setting a hearing on a Petition for Injunction against Stalking that was sworn to by Dorothy Liebl in Unit B2. [EXHIBIT 416.]  This was an absolute outrage.  Her sworn affidavit is filled with perjury.  WINDSOR never stalked her, harassed her, threatened her, or did anything to her.  For much of the next 13 days, WINDSOR prepared for the April 2, 2019 trial.
  14. On March 21, 2019, WINDSOR sent a letter to OMAR, VICKI, KAREN, CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH objecting to the apparent plan to appoint a chairman of the purported March 22, 2019 members’ meeting rather than elect the chairman. [EXHIBIT 258.]  His letter was ignored.
  15. A purported March 22, 2019 meeting was purported to include the annual election for the ASSOCIATION, but that date is based on fraud by claiming an amendment changed the date in August 2017.
  16. On March 22, 2019, purported meetings and a purported election were held.  EXHIBIT 311 is video from the meetings (EXHIBIT 311-1, EXHIBIT 311-2, EXHIBIT 311-3, EXHIBIT 311-4, EXHIBIT 311-5, and EXHIBIT 311-6).  No minutes were published for the purported meeting.
  17. There were 30 Outer Envelopes and 13 were invalid.  The Outer Envelopes are supposed to show the name of the Owners on the first line and be signed by the valid Designated Voter.  13 had problems with one or both of these requirements.
  18. There were 13 Designated Voter Certificates produced, and 6 were invalid.  The Designated Voter Certificate for Meade/Chandler was not produced, but it was delivered to SENTRY before the meeting began on March 22, 2019. [EXHIBIT 158.]  It is valid.
  19. There were 19 Proxy forms presented, and 4 were invalid.
  20. There were 24 Limited Proxy forms presented, and 5 were invalid.
  21. With exclusion of any of the votes that WINDSOR says are invalid, Denise King and WINDSOR would have been elected.
  22. At the March 22, 2019 meetings, BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH refused to allow WINDSOR to see the Designated Voter Certificates, and the Election Monitor told him that those were not in his possession and were not part of his duties.  WINDSOR told them both that he had evidence that several of the voters did not have valid Designated Voter Certificates.  WINDSOR was told he would have to appeal.  WINDSOR had the evidence with him that A4 and B2 did not qualify.  He also had evidence with him that B1 and F3 likely didn’t qualify and evidence that E3 and G4 might fail to qualify.
  23. On March 22, 2019, Joseph L. Lunsford submitted a request to inspect all of the voting documents from March 22, 2019.  WINDSOR went with him on April 8, 2019, and they copied every document. [EXHIBIT 159.]
  24. OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN hired an armed policeman, Officer Pincus, to attend the March 22, 2019 meetings, and they paid BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, $1,100 to be there.  WINDSOR believes the police have been hired for show to support the defamatory claims that he threatened to kill purported Board members.  They know there is absolutely no truth to this, so there is no other logical explanation for such bizarre behavior.  At 12:20 into EXHIBIT 142-C, OMAR said the police were there because of threats to the Board.
  25. Jason Chandler and WINDSOR videoed most of the March 22, 2019 meetings until his battery died. [EXHIBIT 142-A, EXHIBIT 142-B, EXHIBIT 142-C, EXHIBIT 142-D, EXHIBIT 142-E, EXHIBIT 142-F.]
  26. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, SENTRY, and those purporting to be the Board violated the BYLAWS by allowing Omar Nuseibeh to appoint himself to be the chairman of the meetings.  BYLAW 2.9 b. provides that the chairman is to be elected by a vote.  The Notice of the Meeting posted on the Bulletin Boards at Coach Houses said there would be an election. [EXHIBIT 241.]  Then the Notice was changed to delete the word “Election” and change it to “Appointment.” [EXHIBIT 242.]  WINDSOR raised the issue at 4:40 into EXHIBIT 142-A, and he was told the purported Board had decided who would be chairman.  WINDSOR believes this was done to block his access to the Designated Voter Certificates.
  27. OMAR spoke negatively about WINDSOR much of the time on March 22, 2019, and he got into arguments with several others seeking to have him removed from the Board.
  28. OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN did not have legal authority to schedule or conduct the meetings.
  29. CHARLIE ANN claimed all ASSOCIATION documents had been produced.  She said there was nothing else to produce, but that proved to be absolutely false on June 23, 2019 when some August 1, 2017 records were produced.  There is still a great deal that has not been produced.  She said the August 2017 Baywood Condominiums minutes that were produced was an error. [EXHIBIT 142-D @ 2:00 into the video.]  She never corrected this “error.”
  30. The purported March 22, 2019 election was invalid as it was not held on the first Tuesday in August.  It was called by people with no legal authority.  Only three members had complied with BYLAW 2.1.  BYLAW 2.9 b was violated.  Fraudulent information was provided to the Election Monitor.
  31. On March 25, 2019, WINDSOR sent a letter to SHEHNEELA of the ASSOCIATION requesting an Inspection of Records that had never been produced. [EXHIBIT 243.]
  32. On March 25, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email and evidence to the purported New Board (including COACH HOUSE MEMBER DEFENDANTS SHEHNEELA, ISABEL, SERGIO) identifying wrongdoing on March 22, 2019. [EXHIBIT 352.]  There was no response.
  33. On March 26, 2019, WINDSOR received an email from SHEHNEELA, the purported New Board President, claiming that SENTRY had ALL of the ASSOCIATION’s records. [EXHIBIT 301.]
  34. On March 26, 2019 at 11:59 am, the ASSOCIATION manager, CHARLIE ANN, stated that all of the records of the ASSOCIATION were being produced for WINDSOR at an Inspection of Records on March 27, 2019.  CHARLIE ANN also claimed WINDSOR had been provided every document within the possession of SENTRY on multiple occasions.  In a separate email at 8:39 am, she stated that Sentry had all of the ASSOCIATION’S documents.  She lied.  WINDSOR was never provided all the documents, and they most definitely were not provided on March 27, 20-19. [EXHIBIT 49.]  CHARLIE ANN knew she was continuing to conceal these records from WINDSOR.
  35. On March 26, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the purported New Board (SHEHNEELA, ISABEL, SERGIO), CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of C&M in response to an email from the purported New Board President, Shehneela Arshi, confirming that all of the ASSOCIATION’S documents were in the possession of SENTRY. [EXHIBIT 296.]  This was very important because it meant that key documents did not exist – no letter from Monalene Werner and no documentation that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were ever lawfully elected.  WINDSOR also sent an Inspection of Records Request for emails. [EXHIBIT 298.]
  36. On March 27, 2019, WINDSOR inspected records at SENTRY for eight hours. [EXHIBIT 326 – 1 to 17 are photos of the Inspection.]  EXHIBIT 326-4 shows the August 2017 minutes of Baywood Condominiums that were produced as the August 2017 minutes for the ASSOCIATION.  EXHIBIT 329 contains the files produced for Inspection on the laptop.  [EXHIBIT 1220.]
  37. WINDSOR has been ignored on many requests for inspection of records.  WINDSOR filed two Complaints with the Division of Condominiums. [EXHIBIT 54.] [EXHIBIT 55.]  WINDSOR finally filed a Petition for Arbitration over all Inspection of Records issues. [EXHIBIT 1190.]
  38. On March 28, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to ART and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, BRIAN of C&M, and SHEHNEELA complaining of malpractice over the failure to schedule and conduct an April 4, 2019 meeting. [EXHIBIT 368.]  They did nothing.
  39. On March 28, 2019, WINDSOR sent two emails to the purported New Board (including SHEHNEELA, ISABEL, ED, SERGIO, OMAR) and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH objecting to the fraud in the purported March 22, 2019 election.  WINDSOR gave notice that he would file a petition if not resolved.  He provided some proof of the fraud. [EXHIBIT 255.]
  40. On March 28, 2019, WINDSOR sent a letter to the purported New Board (including SHEHNEELA, ISABEL, ED, SERGIO, OMAR), ART and CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH objecting to the failure to hold the April 4, 2019 meeting. [EXHIBIT 256.]
  41. On March 29, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the purported New President, SHEHNEELA, with issues about the fraudulent March 22, 2019 meetings. [EXHIBIT 398.]

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

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

  1. On January 1, 2019, OMAR, VICKI, KAREN, and SENTRY sent a letter claiming that one of the reasons for the increased assessments was because “there were two projects which need to be completed this year and one previous project that needs to be paid.” [EXHIBIT 244.]  There was no disclosure at the December 12, 2018 meetings that there were costs to be paid for previous projects – foundation work for Buildings B and C.  There were no projects “to be completed!”  WINDSOR believes the owners were deceived.  In WINDSOR’s Inspection of Records, he found a July 17, 2017 letter from purported President Omar Nuseibeh stating that a special assessment was needed to pay for the foundation work on Buildings B and C. [EXHIBIT 250.]
  2. On January 9, 2019, WINDSOR was informed that one Coach Houses owner, Dave Van Leeuwen, was told that WINDSOR had physically threatened Board members.  Dave Van Leeuwen had decided WINDSOR was a dangerous person and he should have nothing to do with him. [EXHIBIT 346.]  WINDSOR was then told by neighbors that OMAR was telling owners that WINDSOR had threatened to kill Board Members.  WINDSOR was told that VICKI Hedrick’s husband, David Wayne Hedrick, had told people that WINDSOR had threatened to kill VICKI.  WINDSOR was told that owner MARTA Carbajo was telling owners that WINDSOR was wanted for criminal charges of fraud.  Someone mailed a Wanted Poster with WINDSOR’s photo to the owners.  None of this was true.
  3. Owner Allan Holtz informed WINDSOR about Dave Van Leeuwen.  WINDSOR asked if Dave would be willing to meet with him, and Allen responded: “No, I’m quite sure Dave wouldn’t be willing.  He literally seems to be scared of you.  My impression is that he really believes that you made physical threats to the board and that you are a dangerous guy.  Someone’s done a pretty good job on him….” [EXHIBIT 349.]
  4. WINDSOR felt the only chance to get enough votes for the Recall / Election was if he removed himself as a candidate, so he asked owners to find another candidate to replace him.  Barbara Martin (A2), for example, said she would not vote for WINDSOR. [EXHIBIT 350.]
  5. Throughout 2019, WINDSOR conducted Inspections of Records at SENTRY.
  6. On January 13, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the purported Board, OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN; CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY; and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH about the defamation directed at him. [EXHIBIT 293.]  WINDSOR asked them to produce proof that he had threatened to do physical harm to Board members.  There was no response, and on March 5, 2019, NEAL of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH said he knew nothing about any claim of defamation.  WINDSOR also asked for evidence that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were legally holding office and proof of an election.  WINDSOR wrote: “I hereby request a copy of evidence that Omar, Karen, and Vicki are legally holding office.  I request proof of an election in August 2018 and proof that any such election was conducted legally.”  There was no response.
  7. On January 15, 2019, Lake County Clerk of Court records indicate that a purported amendment to the BYLAWS was filed by BRIAN of C&M. [EXHIBIT C.]  The header stamp did not fully print, but it shows: “INSTRUMENT #: 2019006039 OR BK 5224 PG 358 PAGES: 3 1/15/2019 12:57:03 PM.”  WINDSOR accidentally discovered this filing when he was looking for any litigation filed against the ASSOCIATION.  WINDSOR’s Inspection of Records reveals that there was no vote to amend the BYLAWS, and there was no Board Meeting on December 28, 2018 to authorize this resolution.  This amendment is a fraud.  Consents from all first mortgage holders are required for amendments to the BYLAWS by BYLAW Paragraph 8.3, and nothing has been produced in Inspection of Records.  EXHIBIT 77 is the owner information for H2 as of August 1, 2017 when this amendment purportedly took place.  Deborah M. Bullerjahn was deceased, but the H2 owner did not change until August 22, 2017.  The ownership change was to her mortgage company, PHH Mortgage Corporation.  The records of the ASSOCIATION do not reflect the required consent of PHH Mortgage Corporation.  Florida statutes provide that a filing such as this, if valid, does not take effect until the date of filing, so this does not correct failure to hold August annual meetings and elections.
  8. On January 16, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, KAREN, ISABEL, CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, and some owners stating that the meeting just held was not legal because OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not legally elected as directors. [EXHIBIT 253.]  WINDSOR followed up by letter to BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 272.]
  9. On January 19, 2019, approximately 18 of the owners at Coach Houses at Leesburg met at the home of Barbara and Larry Lunsford, Unit C1.  They discussed the problems and how to try to solve them.  They signed the Recall Agreements / Ballots.
  10. On January 19, 2019, 10 of the Coach Houses owners signed letters seeking a special Members’ Meeting pursuant to BYLAW 2.3. [EXHIBIT 24.]  BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH stated in writing that the meeting would be scheduled April 4, 2019, but the meeting was never scheduled as required by law.  This is a violation of BYLAW 2.3.
  11. On January 23, 2019, an anonymous mailing was sent to the owners of the ASSOCIATION with a Wanted Poster with WINDSOR’s photograph. [EXHIBIT 345.]  WINDSOR was not and is not WANTED.
  12. On January 24, 2019, Medea Minnich listed Unit C3 for sale for $84,900. She was unable to sell because of the outrageous monthly “dues.” [EXHIBIT 408.]  She lowered the price several times – down to $58,000.  WINDSOR was told that she was offering a $10,000 rebate, so net $48,000.
  13. Delores Jones (Unit D3) told WINDSOR that Lillian Skilbred (Unit D4) had come to see her to tell her WINDSOR was a criminal.  WINDSOR believes she did this in an attempt to get Delores Jones to change her vote seeking the recall.
  14. On January 25, 2019, BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH sent a certified letter to WINDSOR and several other owners regarding their request for a meeting to consider a substitute budget. [EXHIBIT 341.]  He claimed the increase in budget from $134,849 to $213,267 (158.15%) did not exceed 115% because “Special Assessment Project” that the Board does not expect to be incurred on a regular or annual basis and may also be considered “betterments to condominium property.”  There was no explanation at the December 12, 2018 meeting as he indicated.  The “betterments” claim is laughable because the buildings are supposed to have a stable foundation, and they all have floor covering in the common areas.  As to “regular” basis, floor coverings have to be replaced periodically and should be a category for Reserves; foundation repairs have been paid regularly for several years and should be a category for Reserves.  EXHIBIT 336 is the 2019 Budget that was “approved” at the December 12, 2018 meeting; this was distributed to all in attendance.  $64,844.16 is unaccounted for.  EXHIBIT 410 is the approved 2018 Budget.  WINDSOR believes the 2019 Budget clearly exceeded 115% of the 2018 Budget.  A meeting should have been held to consider a substitute budget. 
  15. On January 26, 2019, Suzanne and Wade Hardaway (Unit H3) came to WINDSOR’s condo at about 1 pm.  They discussed the issues, and Suzanne Hardaway signed an Agreement / Ballot to recall OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN.  Three hours later, the Hardways returned to get their signed agreement back.  Someone must have seriously defamed WINDSOR because Suzanne Hardaway subsequently indicated that WINDSOR was not a person to support.
  16. On January 26, 2019, David Wayne Hedrick sent a letter to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, and SENTRY in which he accused WINDSOR of “felonious actions.”  This is libel.  [EXHIBIT 1029.]  The Legal Dictionary defines “felonious” as “done with an intent to commit a serious crime or a felony; done with an evil heart or purpose; malicious; wicked; villainous.”  WINDSOR has never committed a crime other than some speeding over 19 years ago.  He has never done a felonious action.  He has done nothing with an evil heart, malicious, wicked, or villainous.  WINDSOR considers David Wayne Hedrick to be a threat.  EXHIBIT 1029 was produced at an Inspection of Records on June 21, 2019.  EXHIBIT 1030 is the “Board Packet” produced at an Inspection of Records on June 21, 2019.
  17. On January 31, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH asking what they needed to accept the signatures of Nancy Camp and Jane O’Steen for the Nielsen Trust. [EXHIBIT 259.]  There was no response.  They subsequently refused to accept their votes.
  18. On January 31, 2019, WINDSOR received a certified letter by email from BRIAN of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH responding to his questions of December 28, 2018. [EXHIBIT 262.]  BRIAN stated that the BYLAW regarding the annual meeting was amended on August 1, 2017.  This is fraud.  It was not amended, and he knows it.
  19. The January 31, 2019 letter from BRIAN [EXHIBIT 262] violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) and other statutes.  It is fraudulent and more.  He failed to address many of the issues and has either lied or committed serious malpractice or both.
  20. WINDSOR has listed each Violation alleged by him, has shown what BRIAN stated in his letter, and provide WINDSOR’s response:

Violation #1:  Paragraph 1.1 of the Bylaws specifies that the office of the Association be maintained at an address other than one used.  The Board has failed to amend this.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “As you have been advised in our letter to you dated January 18, 2019, you are not my client, and in fact, are acting in an adversarial capacity to my client Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc. As such, I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  The response failed to either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division.  There was no request for advice from the Division or response to a request for a legal opinion.

Florida statute 718.112(2)(a)(2): “When a unit owner of a residential condominium files a written inquiry by certified mail with the board of administration, the board shall respond in writing to the unit owner within 30 days after receipt of the inquiry. The board’s response shall either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division. If the board requests advice from the division, the board shall, within 10 days after its receipt of the advice, provide in writing a substantive response to the inquirer. If a legal opinion is requested, the board shall, within 60 days after the receipt of the inquiry, provide in writing a substantive response to the inquiry. The failure to provide a substantive response to the inquiry as provided herein precludes the board from recovering attorney fees and costs in any subsequent litigation, administrative proceeding, or arbitration arising out of the inquiry.”

I am a member of the ASSOCIATION, so I am a client.  I was not acting in an adversarial capacity as I had been attempting to save the ASSOCIATION from wrongdoing.

Violation #2:  Paragraph 2.2 of the Bylaws provides that the annual members’ meeting is to be held on the first Tuesday in August.  This Bylaw and Paragraph 5.3 of the Articles of Incorporation provide that the purpose of the August meeting is to elect the directors.  There was no such meeting in August 2018 (and apparently for years prior to 2018).  This Bylaw has been violated.  I do not believe the existing Board members are holding office legally.  And I believe they have repeatedly violated the Bylaws that they are charged with honoring and enforcing.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note, that this By-Law was amended at an Association meeting held on August 1, 2017.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  The response failed to respond to the fact that there was no meeting in August for years prior to 2018 or that the existing Board members were not holding office legally or repeatedly violating Bylaws.

This is FRAUD and malpractice.  BRIAN knew BYLAW 2.2 wasn’t amended.  He also knew that he didn’t file the fraudulent amendment until January 15, 2019, and Florida law is that legal amendments do not take effect until filing.

Violation #3:  Paragraph 2.4 of the Bylaws requires that a copy of the notice of members’ meetings is to be posted at a conspicuous place on the condominium property.  There was no such posting.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that the Association complies with notice requirements under Florida law.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  The response failed to provide proof of this requirement: “A copy of the notice shall be posted at a conspicuous place on the condominium property.”  There is no proof of such a posting; no proof has been produced in Inspection of Records.  EXHIBIT 452-1 and EXHIBIT 452-2 are photos of a conspicuous posting in February 2019.  There was no such posting prior to January 2019 after I raised the violations as an issue.  Florida Statute 718.112(2)(c)1 requires that the Board specify a location where all notices must be posted.  “Upon notice to the unit owners, the board shall, by duly adopted rule, designate a specific location on the condominium property where all notices of board meetings must be posted.”  This statute has been repeatedly violated.

Violation #4:  Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the Bylaws specify the Accounts classification required.  The 2018 Budget and the three versions of the 2019 budget presented recently all fail to use the required classifications.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that the budgets of the Association are presented in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f).  Please also note that you have been provided access to the association records in your prior official records productions.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He sidestepped the real issue and failed to address BYLAWS 6.1 and 6.2, which are the subject of the violation.  Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f) provides “The proposed annual budget of estimated revenues and expenses must be detailed and must show the amounts budgeted by accounts and expense classifications, including, at a minimum, any applicable expenses listed in s. 718.504(21).”  The Florida Statute provides a general requirement that the BYLAWS have met.  The BYLAWS provide specifics as to how the budgets are to be presented, and BYLAWS 6.1 and 6.2 have been violated as the record production has established.

Violation #5:  Paragraph 6.1 a. of the Bylaws specifies that the balance of receipts in excess of expenses each year is to be applied to reduce the assessments for the following year.  This has not been done.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “This information is available to you through year-end financial reports, as have been previously provided to you during official records productions.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He did not respond to the question.  If this has been done, he was obligated to show how it was done.

Violation #6:  The Budgets presented at the December 12, 2018 Meeting violate the Bylaws.  Paragraph 6.2 a. of the Bylaws, Current Expense, shall not exceed 115% of the budget for this account for the prior year.  The 2018 budget for Current Expense was $97,734.28.  The second budget approved by the Board on December 12, 2018 was $113,643.68.  This illegally exceeds the 2018 budget by over 115%.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that the Association has acted in compliance with Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(f).”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the specific issues in the violation.  He ignored the BYLAWS.  He needed to admit this violation or attempt to explain it.

Violation #7:  Paragraph 6.2 b., Deferred Maintenance, provides that it shall not exceed 115% of the budget for this account for the prior year.  This category of expense is missing from the budgets, a violation of the Bylaws.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Budgets are presented in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f).”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the issue.  The Florida Statute provides a general requirement that the BYLAWS be met.  The BYLAWS provide specifics as to how the budgets are to be presented, and BYLAW 6.2 b. has been violated as the record production has established.

Violation #8:  Paragraph 6.2 c. provides that Replacements, shall not exceed 115% of the budget for this account for the prior year.  This category of expense is missing from the budgets, a violation of the Bylaws.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that budgets are presented by the Association in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f).”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the issue.  The Florida Statute provides a general requirement that the BYLAWS be met.  The BYLAWS provide specifics as to how the budgets are to be presented, and BYLAW 6.2 b. has been violated as the record production has established.

Violation #9:  The Budgeted Income in the Budget the Board claims was adopted on December 12, 2018 exceeds Total Operating Expenses by $64,844.16 and is not reflected anywhere in the budget.  This clearly exceeds 115%.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that the budgets have been presented by the Association in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f).”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the issue.  The Florida Statute provides a general requirement that the BYLAWS be met.  EXHIBIT 336 is the final budget adopted on December 12, 2018.

Violation #10:  Paragraph 6.2 g. requires that the proposed budget and proposed assessments be delivered or mailed to each member not less than thirty days prior to the meeting at which the proposed budget was to be considered for adoption.  The first proposed budget and proposed assessments were mailed less than 30 days prior to the meeting.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that notice was provided in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(e)(1).  Please also note that you have already been provided access to such mailing records at prior official records productions.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the question.  EXHIBIT 355, and EXHIBIT 364 prove that the first proposed budget and proposed assessments were mailed less than 30 days prior to the December 12, 2018 meeting.  Florida Statute 718.112(2)(e)(1) provides: “At least 14 days prior to such a meeting, the board shall hand deliver to each unit owner, mail to each unit owner at the address last furnished to the association by the unit owner, or electronically transmit to the location furnished by the unit owner for that purpose a notice of such meeting and a copy of the proposed annual budget.”  BYLAW 6.2 g requires that the proposed budget and proposed assessments be delivered or mailed to each member not less than thirty days prior to the meeting at which the proposed budget was to be considered for adoption.  The BYLAW takes precedence over the Statute because the BYLAW does not violate the Statute.

Violations #11 and #12:  Two new proposed versions of the budget were presented only to those in attendance on the day of the December 12, 2018 meeting.  Paragraph 6.2 g. requires that the proposed budget and proposed assessments be delivered or mailed to each member not less than thirty days prior to the meeting at which the proposed budget was to be considered for adoption.  This Bylaw has been violated two additional times in 2018.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Nothing within the Florida Statutes or the Association’s Governing Documents requires an Association to adopt a budget only as has been proposed and/or mailed to the membership.  The budget mailing which was sent to the membership in advance of the meeting was sent in good faith and based on information that was available at the time of preparation.  Please also note that the notice of proposed budget was sent in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(e)(1).”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He did not provide any legal authority to support such a position.  I find this to be outrageous.  Most of the owners did not receive “a copy of the proposed annual budget.”  I don’t believe “The budget mailing which was sent to the membership in advance of the meeting was sent in good faith and based on information that was available at the time of preparation.”  The budgets were changed the night before the meeting to eliminate the Special Assessments that the members were asked to vote on.  The notice was not sent in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(e)(1).

Violation #13:  Paragraph 6.3 provides that assessments shall be made “to meet the annual budget.”  The budget approved at the December 12, 2018 meeting does not include $64,844.16; it is just hidden as surplus, and there is no such right under the Bylaws.  This Bylaw has been violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that budgets of the Association are presented in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f) and that the annual assessment for the Association meets the budget as adopted by the Association.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the facts.  EXHIBIT 336 shows the missing $64,844.16.  The budgets were not presented in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f)

Violation #14:  There is nothing in the Bylaws that says “reserves” are to be allocated for a specific use.  This is contrary to what was claimed at the meeting.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “The Associations reserves are allocated in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(f)(3).”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the issue.  At the December 12, 2018 meeting, there was no explanation given for how much money was being allocated to Reserves or for what use.


Violation #15:  Nowhere in the Bylaws does it indicate that owners can be restricted to three minutes at meetings.  This Bylaw has been violated.  This is a violation of Florida statutes.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that conduct of the meetings is in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(c) including sub-items 1 and 2.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He failed to answer the inquiry, and he lied about the conduct of the meetings.  BRIAN attended the December 12, 2018 meetings.  Florida Statute 718.112(2)(c) provides: “The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated agenda items. The division shall adopt reasonable rules governing the tape recording and videotaping of the meeting. The association may adopt written reasonable rules governing the frequency, duration, and manner of unit owner statements.”  Sub-items 1 and 2 do not apply at all.  

The meetings of the ASSOCIATION have not been conducted in accordance with Florida Statute 718.112(2)(c).  Owners, including me, have been denied the right to speak with reference to all designated agenda items.  There was NO written rule as to the frequency, duration, or manner of unit owner statements. [EXHIBIT E.]

Violation #16:  Nowhere in the Bylaws does it indicate that owners do not have the right to specify the amount of underfunding that they choose to vote on.  Bylaw 2.6 places no restrictions on voting.  This would require a 75% vote to change.  This Bylaw has been violated.  Florida statute 718 (2.a.) provides that members of an association have the right, by a majority vote at a duly called meeting to provide no reserves or less reserves than required by Florida statute 718.112 (2) (f.) (2.a.).

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please be advised that Florida statute 718.112 (2)(f)(2)(a) governs this.  I am not able to provide you further legal advice with regard to this question.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the issue.  I didn’t seek “legal advice.”  I submitted a written inquiry, and he was obligated to “…either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division.”  He did none of these.


Violation #17:  Nowhere in the Bylaws does it give the Board the power to disregard the proxies and conduct a vote as it was done on December 12, 2018.  This is a violation of the Bylaws.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “As I advised earlier in this letter I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  He ignored the issue.  I didn’t seek “legal advice.”  I submitted a written inquiry, and he was obligated to “…either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division.”  He did none of these.

I believe 14 owners who were not present voted by proxy.  Their proxies were ignored and discarded.


Violation #18:  Nowhere in the Bylaws does it give the Board the power to increase the monthly “dues” for repairs and replacements, but this is what the Board did on December 12, 2018.  This is a violation of the Bylaws.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please review section 12.2 of the Association’s Declaration.”

Windsor Response:  I reviewed DECLARATION 12.2.  It does not give the BOARD such a power.  It gives the ASSOCIATION the power, and the ASSOCIATION is all of the members/owners.  The people acting as the Board discarded the proxies where the members/owners were allowed to vote on Special Assessments for replacements that should have been in the budgeted reserves since the beginning of time.

Violation #19:  If I understood him correctly, CLAYTON & MCCULLOH attorney BRIAN said there is no freedom of speech in a condo association.  This is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “There is no protected freedom of speech in a condominium Association to be found in the federal constitution.  You have certain statutory speech rights within a condominium about which you may seek guidance from your attorney.  As stated earlier in this letter I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  I was wrong.  But I was right that it was a violation of Florida Statutes to prohibit owners from speaking at the meetings.

Violation #20:  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH attorney BRIAN has written me a letter stating that I am not allowed to contact any member of the Board or SENTRY about anything.  I am only allowed to contact him by U.S. Postal Service.  This is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as a violation of my rights as a member of the Association.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that you have mischaracterized the Association’s directive.  Nothing in the Florida Statutes or the Association’s Governing Documents prohibits this type of directive.  In fact it is common for corporations, such as the Association, to use attorneys to respond to inquiries and to make sure that all inquiries by certain owners are properly responded to.”

Windsor Response:  I don’t believe I mischaracterized his letter.  It says “any correspondence that you wish to engage in with the Association must be directed to me by regular mail…no email…no phone calls….”  The limitation on methods of contact disadvantages me.  I have been unable to obtain normal member services.  This attorney involvement has needlessly cost the ASSOCIATION a significant amount of money in legal fees.

Violation #21:  Florida statute 718.11 (1) (d): “As required by s. 617.0830, an officer, director, or agent shall discharge his or her duties in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, and in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in the interests of the association. An officer, director, or agent shall be liable for monetary damages as provided in s. 617.0834 if such officer, director, or agent breached or failed to perform his or her duties and the breach of, or failure to perform, his or her duties constitutes a violation of criminal law as provided in s. 617.0834.”  I believe the Board, Charlie Aldridge, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH have violated this statute.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “As stated earlier in this letter I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  The response failed to either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division.  There was no request for advice from the Division or response to a request for a legal opinion.

BRIAN simply failed to respond.

Violation #22:  Florida statute 718.111 (c) (3) (a) provides:  “Any record protected by the lawyer-client privilege as described in s. 90.502 and any record protected by the work-product privilege, including a record prepared by an association attorney or prepared at the attorney’s express direction, which reflects a mental impression, conclusion, litigation strategy, or legal theory of the attorney or the association, and which was prepared exclusively for civil or criminal litigation or for adversarial administrative proceedings, or which was prepared in anticipation of such litigation or proceedings until the conclusion of the litigation or proceedings.”  I requested communications between the Board, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH regarding the December 12, 2018 meeting and me.  I was denied the documents claiming attorney-client privilege, but the law firm’s client is the Association, and I am a member and part owner.  As a client, I do not waive the privilege, and nothing was prepared in anticipation of civil litigation.  This statute was violated.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please be advised that you are not my client and in fact are acting in an adversarial capacity to my client Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc.  As such, I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  The response failed to either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division.  There was no request for advice from the Division or response to a request for a legal opinion.

Florida statute 718.112(2)(a)(2): “When a unit owner of a residential condominium files a written inquiry by certified mail with the board of administration, the board shall respond in writing to the unit owner within 30 days after receipt of the inquiry. The board’s response shall either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division. If the board requests advice from the division, the board shall, within 10 days after its receipt of the advice, provide in writing a substantive response to the inquirer. If a legal opinion is requested, the board shall, within 60 days after the receipt of the inquiry, provide in writing a substantive response to the inquiry. The failure to provide a substantive response to the inquiry as provided herein precludes the board from recovering attorney fees and costs in any subsequent litigation, administrative proceeding, or arbitration arising out of the inquiry.”

I am a member of the ASSOCIATION, so I am a client.  I was not acting in an adversarial capacity as I have been attempting to save the ASSOCIATION from wrongdoing.

Violation #23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28:  Florida statute 718.111 (g) (1) (a) requires that the association’s website must contain A current copy of the following documents must be posted in digital format on the association’s website:

e. A list of all executory contracts or documents to which the association is a party or under which the association or the unit owners have an obligation or responsibility and, after bidding for the related materials, equipment, or services has closed, a list of bids received by the association within the past year. Summaries of bids for materials, equipment, or services which exceed $500 must be maintained on the website for 1 year. In lieu of summaries, complete copies of the bids may be posted.

f. The annual budget required by s. 718.112(2)(f) and any proposed budget to be considered at the annual meeting.

g. The financial report required by subsection (13) and any monthly income or expense statement to be considered at a meeting.

h. The certification of each director required by s. 718.112(2)(d)4.b.

k. The notice of any unit owner meeting and the agenda for the meeting, as required by s. 718.112(2)(d)3., no later than 14 days before the meeting. The notice must be posted in plain view on the front page of the website, or on a separate subpage of the website labeled “Notices” which is conspicuously visible and linked from the front page. The association must also post on its website any document to be considered and voted on by the owners during the meeting or any document listed on the agenda at least 7 days before the meeting at which the document or the information within the document will be considered.

l. Notice of any board meeting, the agenda, and any other document required for the meeting as required by s. 718.112(2)(c), which must be posted no later than the date required for notice pursuant to s. 718.112(2)(c).

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that there is no such Florida Statute 718.111(g)(1)(a).  It is believed that you are referring to Florida Statute 718.111(12)(g)(1)(a).  This state’s website requirement only applies to associations of 150 units or more.  As such, this statute does not apply to this Association.”

Windsor Response:  This was my mistake.  I missed the intro on this statute while reading it online.

Violation #29:  Florida statute 718.111 (g) (1) (a) (13) requires: “FINANCIAL REPORTING.—Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, or annually on a date provided in the bylaws, the association shall prepare and complete, or contract for the preparation and completion of, a financial report for the preceding fiscal year. Within 21 days after the final financial report is completed by the association or received from the third party, but not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year or other date as provided in the bylaws, the association shall mail to each unit owner at the address last furnished to the association by the unit owner, or hand deliver to each unit owner, a copy of the most recent financial report or a notice that a copy of the most recent financial report will be mailed or hand delivered to the unit owner, without charge, within 5 business days after receipt of a written request from the unit owner.”  I never received anything for 2017.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that you have been previously provided access to these materials at prior official records production.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN ignored the issue.  I never received the required mailing or financial report in the first quarter of 2018.

Violation #30:  Florida statute 718.111 (g) (1) (a) (13) (e) provides: “A unit owner may provide written notice to the division of the association’s failure to mail or hand deliver him or her a copy of the most recent financial report within 5 business days after he or she submitted a written request to the association for a copy of such report. If the division determines that the association failed to mail or hand deliver a copy of the most recent financial report to the unit owner, the division shall provide written notice to the association that the association must mail or hand deliver a copy of the most recent financial report to the unit owner and the division within 5 business days after it receives such notice from the division. An association that fails to comply with the division’s request may not waive the financial reporting requirement provided in paragraph (d) for the fiscal year in which the unit owner’s request was made and the following fiscal year. A financial report received by the division pursuant to this paragraph shall be maintained, and the division shall provide a copy of such report to an association member upon his or her request.”  I made such a request on December 12, 2018, and nothing has been provided. This is a violation of this statute.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “I cannot answer as to a requirement of the division, nor can I respond as to what the division has or has not done.  The Association has received no communication on this issue from the division as of this date.”

Windsor Response:  I subsequently obtained this, but it was ignored by BRIAN.

Violation #31:  Florida statute 718.112 (1) (a) is being violated as the Association is not being governed as required by law.  “The operation of the association shall be governed by the articles of incorporation if the association is incorporated, and the bylaws of the association, which shall be included as exhibits to the recorded declaration.”

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “The Association is being operated in accordance with Florida law.”

Windsor Response:  This is absolutely false.

Violation #32:  Florida statute 718.112 (2) (c.) provides “The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated agenda items.”  I was denied this right at the December 12, 2018 meeting.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “You have been given the right to speak in accordance with Rules and Regulations adopted by the Association.”

Windsor Response:  This is absolutely false.  The Rules (EXHIBIT E) had no rules limiting the right to speak.

Violation #33:  Florida statute 718.112 (2) (c.) (1.) provides: “Adequate notice of all board meetings, which must specifically identify all agenda items, must be posted conspicuously on the condominium property at least 48 continuous hours before the meeting except in an emergency.”  This statute has been violated.  No such notice was posted prior to the December 12, 2018 meeting.  It is possible that no such notice has ever been posted prior to a meeting of the people acting as the current Board.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Notice has been provided in accordance with Florida Statutes.”

Windsor Response:  This is absolutely false.  I have read the minutes of virtually all of the meetings dating back to 1982, and there is no record of posting in a conspicuous place until 2019 after I complained.  There was no posting prior to the 2018 meeting, and there are other owners who can attest to this.  Florida Statute 718.112(2)(c)1 requires that the Board specify a location where all notices must be posted.  “Upon notice to the unit owners, the board shall, by duly adopted rule, designate a specific location on the condominium property where all notices of board meetings must be posted.”

Violation #34:  Florida statute 718.112 (2) (d.) (3.) provides that notice of all meetings “must be posted in a conspicuous place on the condominium property at least 14 continuous days before the annual meeting.”  This statute has been violated.  There has been no such posting.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Notice is provided properly in accordance with Florida Statutes.”

Windsor Response:  This is absolutely false.  I have read the minutes of virtually all of the meetings dating back to 1982, and there is no record of posting in a conspicuous place until 2019 after I complained.  There was no posting prior to the 2018 meeting, and there are other owners who can attest to this.  Florida Statute 718.112(2)(c)1 requires that the Board specify a location where all notices must be posted.  “Upon notice to the unit owners, the board shall, by duly adopted rule, designate a specific location on the condominium property where all notices of board meetings must be posted.”

Violation #35:  Florida statute 718.112 (2) (d.) (4.) (a.) provides: “At least 60 days before a scheduled election, the association shall mail, deliver, or electronically transmit, by separate association mailing or included in another association mailing, delivery, or transmission, including regularly published newsletters, to each unit owner entitled to a vote, a first notice of the date of the election.  There was no such notice sent prior to the Bylaw-required August election.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Please note that notice of elections has been provided in accordance with Florida Statutes.”

Windsor Response:  This is false.  I have produced evidence to show this was violated in 2016, 2017, 2018, and other years.  In 2016 and 2018, there wasn’t even an annual meeting and election attempted.  Annual meetings were not held in August as required by the BYLAWS.

Violation #36:  Florida statute 718.112 (2) (f) (1.) The proposed annual budget of estimated revenues and expenses must be detailed and must show the amounts budgeted by accounts and expense classifications, including, at a minimum, any applicable expenses listed in s. 718.504(21).  The proposed budgets failed to use the proper classifications and failed to detail expenses as required.  This is a violation of this statute.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “Florida Statute 718.504(21) relates to requirements for a developer of a condominium.  Please note that these requirements have become long ago obsolete as to the Association.

Windsor Response:  I was mistaken on this.  I failed to see it applied to developers.

Violation #37:  Charlie Aldridge of SENTRY announced false results of the vote at the December 12, 2018 meeting.  I know she did not accurately announce the vote because I had proxies for votes that I submitted at the meeting.  This is a violation of the law.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  I didn’t ask for legal advice.  BRIAN has repeatedly ignored every violation and has aided and abetted SENTRY and those acting as the Board in their wrongdoing.

PLEASE NOTE:  Article VII of the Articles of Incorporation indemnifies the Board and officers from liability as the result of litigation.  This means that if I or others sue the Board due to their violations, it will be all of the Owners paying the legal bills and any financial payments as the result of the litigation.  This likely means a special assessment for legal expense.  I submit that this legal expense can be avoided by removing the Board and electing new people.

BRIAN Letter dated January 31, 2019: “I cannot provide you legal advice.”

Windsor Response:  I didn’t ask for legal advice.  BRIAN has repeatedly ignored every violation and has aided and abetted those acting as the Board in their wrongdoing.

  • On February 1, 2019, the ASSOCIATION filed a lien against Donna *** of Coach Houses Unit H2 with the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court. [EXHIBIT 424.]  The Lien showed her to be one month past due.  Donna *** had just voted to recall/replace OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN.  Donna *** has provided records to me to show that she was not past due.
  • On February 3, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, owners, CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of C&M asking that defamation of him be placed on the Board agenda. [EXHIBIT 392.]  There was no response.  It has never been addressed.
  • On February 3, 2019, Diana Raley (Unit G2) sent an email to owners saying: “What William Windsor is telling everyone is not true.” [EXHIBIT 429.]  This is false.  WINDSOR can only guess at the magnitude of the libel and slander that he does not have access to.
  • On February 4, 2019, a purported Special Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 28.]  No minutes were published for the purported meeting.  EXHIBIT 304 is a video from the meeting.  The Recall / Election issue began at 8:45 into the video.  The notice of a Recall / Election was deemed proper [EXHIBIT 304 at 8:45] as was the form of the Agreement / Ballot [EXHIBIT 304 at 10:15 to 10:51].  16 Agreements/Ballots were deemed proper. [EXHIBIT 304 at 10:51 to 11:15.]  OMAR claimed Monalene Werner (“MONALENE”) had withdrawn her vote, but there was no proof. [EXHIBIT 304 at 11:15.]  He also claimed the vote of the Nielsen Trust (C2) was invalid. [EXHIBIT 304 at 11:45.]  OMAR claimed it was signed “by unknown parties.”  This is laughable as Nancy Camp and Jane O’Steen have been paying the assessments since 2013.  OMAR claimed there were 32 voting interests. [EXHIBIT 304 at 12:21 to 12:41.]  The Recall / Election was rejected. [EXHIBIT 304 at 13:35 to 14:37.]  WINDSOR was not allowed to speak at 21:00 into the video.  CHARLIE ANN and OMAR claimed there is a one comment and three-minute limit, but there is no such rule.  This is a violation of Florida statutes Section 718.112(2)(c)&(d), which provides that unit owners have a right to attend member meetings and board meetings and the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated agenda items.  At 20:50, WINDSOR told all in attendance that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not officers or directors.  At 27:15, WINDSOR stated that there was no election of officers, as this was one item on the agenda that was not covered. [EXHIBIT 304 at 27:15]
  • 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).
  • On February 4, 2019, WINDSOR demanded that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN step down, but they ignored him.  Demands to SENTRY and C&M attorneys were ignored.
  • 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.
  • WINDSOR worked with owners following the denial of the first election/recall to prepare a second election/recall.  In February 2019, 18 of the 32 owners at Coach Houses at Leesburg followed all of the procedures for an election/recall or election of directors.  18 voted, and all 18 voted to elect ISABEL Campbell, Jason Chandler, and Joseph L. Lunsford.  That’s 100%.
  • On February 5, 2019, WINDSOR received a certified letter from BRIAN of C&M responding to his questions of January 9, 2019. [EXHIBIT 263.]
  • The February 5, 2019 letter from BRIAN [EXHIBIT 263] violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2).  WINDSOR has listed each Violation alleged by him, has shown what BRIAN stated in his letter, and provides his responses:

Violation #39:  Required documents have not been made public on the website.

  • A list of executory contracts or other documents must be maintained on the website. §718.111(12)(g)2.e., Fla. Stat.
  • Summaries of bids for materials, equipment or services that exceed $500 must be maintained on the website. Complete copies of bids may be posted in lieu of summaries. §718.111(12)(g)2.e., Fla. Stat.

BRIAN Letter dated February 5, 2019: “In accordance with Florida Statute 718.111(12)(g)(1), only a condominium association managing 150 units or more is required to have any such website.  As such, the statute you have provided does not apply to the Association.”

Windsor Response:  This was my mistake.  I missed the intro on this statute while reading it online.

Violation #40:  I have been informed that members of the Board have been communicating things to Coach Houses’ owners that I consider to be defamatory.  Owners report that they have been told that I have made physical threats to the Board and that I am a dangerous guy.  It seems owners have been told such things to damage my reputation as a candidate for the Board.  I believe this is clearly a violation of civil statutes, and I will contact the police to see if it is a violation of Chapter 836 of the Florida statutes.  This is in addition to the things Omar said at the December 12 meeting.

BRIAN Letter dated February 5, 2019: “As you have been advised in our letters to you dated January 18, 2019 and January 31, 2019, you are not my client, and in fact, are acting in an adversarial capacity to my client, Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Association, Inc.  As such, I cannot provide you legal advice.  Moreover, I cannot provide you a response on behalf of individuals that I do not represent, as I represent the above-named association.”

Windsor Response:  BRIAN violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2) that he cited in his letter.  The response failed to either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division.  There was no request for advice from the Division or response to a request for a legal opinion.

Florida statute 718.112(2)(a)(2): “When a unit owner of a residential condominium files a written inquiry by certified mail with the board of administration, the board shall respond in writing to the unit owner within 30 days after receipt of the inquiry. The board’s response shall either give a substantive response to the inquirer, notify the inquirer that a legal opinion has been requested, or notify the inquirer that advice has been requested from the division. If the board requests advice from the division, the board shall, within 10 days after its receipt of the advice, provide in writing a substantive response to the inquirer. If a legal opinion is requested, the board shall, within 60 days after the receipt of the inquiry, provide in writing a substantive response to the inquiry. The failure to provide a substantive response to the inquiry as provided herein precludes the board from recovering attorney fees and costs in any subsequent litigation, administrative proceeding, or arbitration arising out of the inquiry.”

I am a member of the ASSOCIATION, so I am a client.  I was not acting in an adversarial capacity as I have been attempting to save the ASSOCIATION from wrongdoing.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section