Judge Dan R Mosley accused of Corruption in Coach Houses at Leesburg Scandal

judge dan r mosley - Judge Dan R Mosley accused of Corruption in Coach Houses at Leesburg ScandalJudge Dan R Mosley (aka Danny Ray) has been accused of corruption in the Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Scandal as has the law firm of Clayton & McCulloh.

In May 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis appointed Judge Dan R. Mosley.  It took Judge Dan just a year to start inflicting his bias and prejudice.  He established early on that he is a heartless judge who would probably pull someone out of the hospital with COVID-19 because he wanted them to appear in a Zoom Hearing.

William M. Windsor asks anyone who has been abused by corrupt Judge Dan R. Mosley to contact him.  William M. Windsor is filing an Open Records request as he seeks to determine if Judge Dan has ever ruled in favor of a pro se party and whether his rulings show bias for big law firms with lots of money.

In a recent court hearing, Judge Dan R Mosley indicated he had not even read the Complaint in Case No. 2020-CA-001438 in Lake County Circuit Court before he ruled against the pro se Plaintiff and in favor of attorneys with huge law firms.

Complaints against Judge Danny Ray Mosley have been filed with the Fifth District Court of Appeals and will be filed with the State Attorney, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Chief Judge of the Lake County Circuit Court,  the Judicial Disqualification Board, the Florida State Bar Association, the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, and Governor Ron DeSantis.

En Banc Complaint

Complaint for Writ of Prohibition

The entire story will be told RIGHT HERE.

 

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons to Avoid Buying a Condo — Just DON’T

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

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

It’s Amateur Hour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Could Go to Jail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I’m becoming a Florida Condominium Consultant.

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

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

Copyright William M. Windsor, 2021

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

COUNT EIGHT

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

  1. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505 and statements of fact in Counts Two, Three, Five, and Nine.
  2. CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH Defendants, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and the DBPR DEFENDANTS.
  • The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH Defendants, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and the DBPR DEFENDANTS have been negligent.  They have failed to use reasonable care.  Reasonable care is the care that a reasonably careful attorney, licensed association manager, or government official would use under like circumstances.
  • Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful attorney, licensed association manager, or government official would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful attorney, licensed association manager, or government official would do under like circumstances.
  • The Statement of Facts and Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Nine herein identify many facts that prove negligence, failure to use reasonable care, and professional wrongdoing.  The DBPR DEFENDANTS showed bad faith, malicious purpose, and wanton and willful conduct.  There has never been an appellate decision in Florida granting immunity to the DBPR or its employees.
  • This professional negligence damaged WINDSOR.

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

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – CONSPIRACY

COUNT SEVEN

CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy 300x192 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy is one of the charges against the Defendants:

  1. WILLIAM M. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. WINDSOR asserts this claim against all DEFENDANTS.
  3. They have conspired to do unlawful acts or do lawful acts by unlawful means.  Many overt acts have been done in pursuance of the conspiracy.  WINDSOR has suffered damage as a result of the acts performed through the conspiracy.
  4. Upon information and belief, there has been an agreement between two or more parties to do unlawful acts or do lawful acts by unlawful means.
  5. One of the acts of the conspiracy is to ignore the laws of the State of Florida and the corporate governing documents to put people who were not lawfully elected in control of the ASSOCIATION.  The goal of the conspiracy was to enable the ASSOCIATION to operate unlawfully.  All of the DEFENDANTS have committed overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy.  OMAR NUSEIBEH, VICKI HEDRICK, and KAREN BOLLINGER agreed with the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS to falsely claim the BYLAWS were amended.  The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS handled the legal work to document a BYLAW amendment that was never passed, and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH filed it in Lake County Florida.  CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH then lied about the validity of the amendment, and SENTRY MANAGEMENT covered up that there was no amendment and no minutes to substantiate a BYLAW amendment.  Upon information and belief, the DBPR was brought into the conspiracy.  MAHLON C. RHANEY has had ex parte discussions with RUSSELL E. KLEMM of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.  The DBPR DEFENDANTS have issued opinions that are truly outrageous to assist the other DEFENDANTS in their wrongdoing.  The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS and SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS have been involved since Day One as were OMAR NUSEIBEH, VICKI HEDRICK, and KAREN BOLLINGER.
  6. WINDSOR anxiously awaits discovery that may show who established the agreement and concocted the scheme.  Upon information and belief, it was either OMAR NUSEIBEH, CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH, or SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and it was done in an effort to conceal wrongdoing, criminal acts, improper use of ASSOCIATION assets, and malpractice by CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH and SENTRY MANAGEMENT.
  7. The torts include Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Breach of Corporate Governing Documents, Fraud, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Malpractice, and more.  Upon information and belief, criminal acts have been committed.
  8. The COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS have conspired with the ASSOCIATION and each other.  The COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS, the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS, and the DBPR DEFENDANTS have conspired with each other.  All of the issues applicable to mandatory non-binding arbitration have already been addressed with the DBPR.
  9. Each of the COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS has falsely claimed the BYLAWS were amended and that various people who were never lawfully elected were the Officers and Directors.  The ASSOCIATION has participated in virtually all of the acts of the conspiracy.  The CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS and the SENTRY MANAGEMENT DEFENDANTS have facilitated all of the wrongful acts. ALL of the DEFENDANTS have ignored efforts to get state law and corporate governing documents honored.
  10. The DBPR DEFENDANTS have violated Article 1, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution as part of the conspiracy. [See SOF 369.]  There has never been an appellate decision in Florida granting immunity to the DBPR or its employees.
  11. The DBPR, MAHLON C. RHANEY, and LEAH SIMMS acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.  They violated the law, committed perjury, acted corruptly, and intentionally violated WINDSOR’s rights.  There is no immunity for criminal conduct and conspiracy by a government agency or attorneys who want to pretend to be “judges.”  They showed bad faith, malicious purpose, and wanton and willful conduct.  [See SOF 502, 503, 504.]
  12. A significant effort of the conspiracy has been to wrongfully declare BYLAW 2.2 was amended on August 1, 2017.  The records produced by the ASSOCIATION at Inspections of Records prove that the BYLAW was not amended.  The Minutes of the meeting do not even mention efforts to amend the BYLAW. [EXHIBIT 1287.] 
  13. WINDSOR has been damaged as a result of the acts done under the conspiracy.  WINDSOR had to withdraw as a candidate for the Board.  WINDSOR lost an $80,000 contract to sell his condo.  WINDSOR has spent many thousands of dollars fighting the wrongful acts.  The ASSOCIATION has spent over $130,000 with CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH battling WINDSOR’s efforts, and WINDSOR has been forced to pay 1/32 of that amount.  WINDSOR has been forced to pay monthly assessments that are dramatically higher than the last lawfully-approved assessment.  WINDSOR has been forced to endure emotional distress.

The DEFENDANTS developed a “peculiar power of coercion” possessed by the conspirators by virtue of their combination, which WINDSOR acting alone does not possess.  Here it was the concerted nature of the actions of these DEFENDANTS that caused the resulting losses to WINDSOR.

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

 

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT FOUR

BREACH OF CONTRACT

  1. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. WINDSOR asserts this claim against the ASSOCIATION.
  3. DECLARATION, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS, RULES, and FLORIDA STATUTES is breach of contract and breach of governing documents. [EXHIBITS A, B, D, and E.]
  4. The ASSOCIATION has been operating unlawfully.  Many violations have been repeated again and again.  The Statement of Facts is filled with evidence.
  5. Dues and assessments have been levied against WINDSOR and other Owners without legal authority.  WINDSOR, one of the 32 owners, believes he is owed at least $15,000 due to excessive charges.
  6. The ASSOCIATION, COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS, and SENTRY DEFENDANTS are responsible for the breaches.

The ASSOCIATION’s corporate charter should be revoked due to failure of the ASSOCIATION to comply with the DECLARATION, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS, RULES, and FLORIDA STATUTES.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

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.

 

 

The Sad Story of Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominiums

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit

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