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 – 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 – FAILURE TO KEEP COMMON AREAS CLEAN

coach House Building B 2018 06 20 5 960w 225x300 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – BREACH OF CONTRACT - FAILURE TO KEEP COMMON AREAS CLEAN  coach House Building B 2018 06 20 4 960w 225x300 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – BREACH OF CONTRACT - FAILURE TO KEEP COMMON AREAS CLEAN

 

 

 

 

 

COUNT SIX

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FAILURE TO KEEP

COMMON AREAS CLEAN

  1. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. WINDSOR asserts this claim against the ASSOCIATION.
  3. It is the responsibility of the ASSOCIATION to make sure that all the common areas are well-maintained.  Failure of the ASSOCIATION to operate according to the ASSOCIATION DECLARATION, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS, and RULES is breach of contract.
  4. The ASSOCIATION DECLARATION, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS, and RULES constitute a contract between WINDSOR and the ASSOCIATION and between all Owners and the ASSOCIATION.
  5. WINDSOR purchased his condo in Building B and placed his trust and confidence in the ASSOCIATION, and the ASSOCIATION has a duty to protect him.  The ASSOCIATION failed to do so.
  6. On May 10, 2018, CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY sent a Request for Action to the Liebls (B2) regarding dog urine in the hallway of Building B. [EXHIBIT 434.]  This was previously noted as a problem on December 12, 2016.  The Liebls are very friendly with former purported board member and president OMAR NUSEIBEH, and as of June 3, 2019, the carpets had 23 dog urine spots.  Photos are EXHIBIT 435-1 to 435-25.  EXHIBIT 435-24 and EXHIBIT 435-25 show that these are very large urine spots.  Allowing this is a violation.  DECLARATION ¶22.8 February 3, 1997 amendment requires “Pets shall not be allowed to utilize the condominium premises as a waste disposal area.”  EXHIBIT 822 is a letter about the dog pee problem.
  7. On June 7, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to attorney BRIAN HESS of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH for the ASSOCIATION. He enclosed a Letter from Karen Chandler about B3 Carpet; Email from WINDSOR about Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Liebls, and Lawyers; Letter from WINDSOR agreeing to be a Director; Email from WINDSOR about Board Meeting; Email from WINDSOR about Vandalism in Building B; Email from me with Notice of Intent to file Third Petition for Arbitration; Notice of Intent for WINDSOR’s Third Petition, pre-arbitration letter and Exhibits AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, and FF; Email from WINDSOR with Notice of Intent to file Third Petition Part 1 of 3; Email from WINDSOR with Notice of Intent to file Third Petition Part 2 of 3; Email from WINDSOR with Notice of Intent to file Third Petition Part 3 of 3. [EXHIBIT 991.]  The certified mail receipt is EXHIBIT 992.  WINDSOR also hand-delivered a copy to SENTRY MANAGEMENT; Richard accepted the envelope.
  8. On June 7, 2019, Karen Chandler from Unit B4 wrote a letter with evidence that the Liebl’s dog in B2 was responsible for staining the carpets in Building B. WINDSOR emailed it to the purported Board, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH. [See SOF 284, 285.]
  9. On June 7, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the purported Board, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH charging Breach of Fiduciary Duty. [EXHIBIT 823.] 
  10. On June 17, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the ASSOCIATION demanding that the Building B carpets be cleaned. [See SOF 296.]
  11. On June 18, 2019, WINDSOR sent the ASSOCIATION an email stating that the potential buyers for his condo were repulsed by the carpets and the failure to have the Liebls clean the carpets undoubtedly contributed to his loss of a sale. [See SOF 297.]
  12. On June 29, 2019, WINDSOR paid Stanley Steemer $83.75 to clean the carpets in Building B. [EXHIBIT 1062.]
  13. On August 3, 2019 at 6:32 p.m., WINDSOR sent an email to the owners of the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH complaining about cleaning of the common area carpets. [See SOF 347.]

The ASSOCIATION and the COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS refused to clean the carpets in the common area of Building B and refused to pay WINDSOR for the cleaning.  WILLIAM M. WINDSOR had to spend his money to have 23 urine and dog poop stains cleaned.

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

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

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

COUNT FIVE

DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

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 – BACKGROUND

  1. The Association’s property consists of eight buildings with four units each.  16 units are 3-bedrooms 2-baths, and 16 units are 2-bedrooms 2-baths.  There are no common elements except the front porch and door, hallways, driveways, road, street lights, signs, and landscaping.  There is no clubhouse, no pool, no lake, no golf course, not even a picnic table or grill.  The condos have sold for an average price of $60,000.
  2. Many of the owners are senior citizens on social security.
  3. In 1984, the monthly assessments were $27.06 for a 3/2 and $24.11 for a 2/2.  In 2006, the monthly assessments were $168.81 for a 3/2 and $150.33 for a 2/2.  In 2012, the monthly assessments were $201.09 for a 3/2 and $179.08 for a 2/2.  In 2013, the monthly assessments were $239.43 and $213.23.  In 2014, the monthly assessments were $230.70 and $205.45.  In 2015, the monthly assessments were $229.07 and $204.00.  In 2016, the monthly assessments were $255.27 and 227.33.  In 2017, the monthly assessments were $265.82 and $236.73.  In 2018, the monthly assessments were dramatically increased to $371.50 and $330.84.
  4. At a so-called meeting on December 12, 2018, OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN voted unanimously to increase the monthly assessment for a 3-bedroom 2-bath unit from $371.50 to $962.38 and a 2-bedroom 2-bath unit from $330.84 to $850.73.  The PLAINTIFF began investigating and working to expose the rampant violations.
  5. , so there has not been a lawful election of directors or officers.  Actions taken by purported Officers and Directors have been ultra vires and void.
  6. OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN ignored demands to cease pretending to be officers and directors.  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS and SENTRY DEFENDANTS ignored all the violations and worked actively to support the wrongdoing of the ASSOCIATION.  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS and SENTRY DEFENDANTS have functioned as if their primary goal is to try to maintain control to avoid big malpractice claims against them.  They have facilitated repeated violations of the corporate documents and Florida statutes.
  7. ISABEL, SERGIO, ED, MARTA, WENDY, HOWIE, SHEHNEELA, and SUE ignored demands to cease pretending to be officers and directors.
  8. On April 1, 2015, a contract was executed with CLAYTON & MCCULLOH (“C&M”) to be the lawyers for the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 1538.]
  9. The purported July 1, 2015 Minutes discuss that a lawyer had been retained. [EXHIBIT 431.]  OMAR subsequently indicated this was the law firm of C&M.  Paragraph 2 under New Business says: “Omar Nuseibeh spoke to the board about the attorney reviewing over their documents to get them up to dated.”  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH committed malpractice in many ways, including by failing to have the ASSOCIATION operated by the corporate documents and state law and by failing to correct and update the corporate documents.
  10. The ASSOCIATION did not hold an annual meeting, annual meeting, or election in August 2015.  EXHIBIT 3 contains the minutes obtained in WINDSOR’s Inspection of Records.  This is a violation of BYLAW ¶2.2.
  11. The ASSOCIATION published a Notice of No Meeting for August 2016. [EXHIBIT 573.]  [EXHIBIT 4 contains the Notice obtained in WINDSOR’s Inspection of Records.]  [EXHIBIT 357 contains the other 2016 Notices and Minutes.]  The failure to hold the August annual meeting and election is a violation of BYLAW ¶2.2.
  12. On June 1, 2017, SENTRY generated an Owner List. [EXHIBIT 816.]  On June 2, 2017, a Proof of Notice Affidavit was executed for a purported August 1, 2017 meeting.  It included a call for candidates. [EXHIBIT 548.]  On June 7, 2017, OMAR Nuseibeh signed a Notice of Intent to be a Candidate Form. [EXHIBIT 595.]  On June 12, 2017, KAREN Bollinger signed a Notice of Intent to be a Candidate Form. [EXHIBIT 596.]  On June 17, 2017, WENDY Krauss signed a Notice of Intent to be a Candidate Form. [EXHIBIT 597.]  On June 19, 2017, VICKI Hedrick signed a Notice of Intent to be a Candidate Form. [EXHIBIT 598.]  On July 28, 2017, WENDY withdrew herself as a candidate for the Board of Directors. [EXHIBIT 551.]  The owners/members were not informed of this.
  13.   A June 27, 2017 Owners List was published by the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 560.] On July 31, 2017, the ASSOCIATION received notice of the death of Sheila D. Garrett. [EXHIBIT 1083.]
  14. On June 30, 2017, a Proof of Notice Affidavit was executed for a purported August 1, 2007 meeting. [EXHIBIT 549.]
  15. WINDSOR requested 2017 minutes and related documents on multiple occasions, and at the June 2019 production of records, the Baywood Condominiums’ minutes were produced yet again. [EXHIBIT 6 contains these bogus August 2017 minutes obtained in WINDSOR’s Inspection of Records.]  WINDSOR’s first request for Inspection of Minutes was made on January 9, 2019. [EXHIBIT 22.]  WINDSOR also requested on February 22, 2019. [EXHIBIT 45.]  [EXHIBIT 358 contains other 2017 Notices and Minutes.]  WINDSOR believes this is falsification of records, fraud, and a violation of Florida law on Inspection of Records.  There was no proof or approval of quorum.  Paragraph 13.3 of the DECLARATION was ignored.  There was no approval of proof of notice.  There was not a nominating committee as required by the BYLAWS.  There was no indication of the opportunity for nominations from the floor.  There was no proof of vote.
  16. purported meetings that were attempted on August 1, 2017.  EXHIBIT 68 is the Sign-In Sheet and Designated Voter List for the attempted August 1, 2017 meetings.  Signatures on the Sign-In Sheet indicate that Bollinger (A1), Hedrick (E3), Kirchoff (B3), Liebl (B4), Lunsford (C1), Nuseibeh (G4), and Skilbred (D4) attended the meeting.  Ebrahim (D2), Hardaway (H3), Hurley (E1), King (H1), and Lynn (H4) may have had valid proxies.  That’s 12 owners, which does not constitute a quorum based on 32 owners.  BYLAW 2.5 specifies that a quorum is a majority of the entire membership, which was either 16 or 32.  If 32, this means 17 were required, and there was not a quorum.  Those present from the 16 units with voting interests were KAREN Bollinger (A1), Kirchoff (B3), Liebl (B4), Lunsford (C1), and Skilbred (D4).  There was only one proxy from the 16 units with voting interests — Ebrahim (D2).  This totals 6, so there was not a quorum based on the 16 voting interests established by the DECLARATION.
  17. is inaccurate.  Designated Voter information is inaccurate and incomplete for August 1, 2017.  It incorrectly indicates that some owners had valid proxies.  The handwritten entries are also inaccurate.  WINDSOR has accumulated the relevant documents regarding each owner.  The ASSOCIATION has failed to meet its legal obligation to maintain a current roster of all unit owners and their voting certifications.  This is a violation of BYLAW 2.1 and BYLAW 2.6.
  18. , EXHIBIT 63, EXHIBIT 69, and EXHIBIT 603 contain the notices regarding the purported August 1, 2017 meeting reportedly sent to owners.  There is no proof that a notice of an August 1, 2017 meeting was posted in a conspicuous place.  This is required by BYLAW Paragraph 2.4. 
  19. is the Annual Meeting Checklist obtained from Inspection of Records at SENTRY that shows SENTRY claimed the quorum for the attempted August 1, 2017 Annual Meeting was 17 as well as for the Election.  The attempted August 1, 2017 meeting was invalid due to lack of a quorum.  There were not 17 valid Designated Voter Certificates, and the DECLARATION provides there are only 16 voting members.  WINDSOR believes SENTRY committed malpractice by not even knowing what the corporate documents provided.  DBPR case law provides that the failure to have a quorum at a meeting voids any action taken.
  20. is the Mailing Instruction Form for the attempted August 1, 2017 meeting. 
  21. is a notice to owners that they must comply with the Designated Voter requirement for August 1, 2017.  It is clear that SENTRY and the purported Board knew the law, but they simply ignored it.  Many units did not have a valid Designated Voter Certificate, but SENTRY and C&M ignored these legal requirements.
  22. is a purported August 1, 2017 Vote Tally showing 23 Yes votes and 1 No vote on an amendment to the Bylaws and 22 Yes votes on Reserves.  This is totally false.  The Sign-In Sheet [EXHIBIT 68] has 23 of the 32 owners with a check mark.  WINDSOR believes these indicate alleged votes.  WINDSOR believes a check mark is missing next to the Nielsen Trust as he found some vote paperwork that indicates a vote was mailed in.  The Vote Tally shows both alleged valid and invalid submissions; it does not reflect valid votes.  SENTRY intentionally allowed invalid votes.
  23. There were no approvals obtained from mortgage companies in violation of BYLAW 8.3.  That’s 10 violations.
  • Bollinger (A1) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 73.]  KAREN Bollinger attended the meeting and voted by ballot.  KAREN was a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 74 is the owner information for A1.  This would have been YES Vote #1 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017.
  • Broom (B1) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 75.]  There was no valid Designated Voter Certificate for B1.  No one from B1 attended the meeting.  EXHIBIT 76 is the owner information for B1 showing three owners.  C&M has on several occasions disqualified votes when there were multiple owners and there was not a valid Designated Voter Certificate.  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH has also disqualified votes when a deed showed the names of deceased people.  ED Broom, Jr. admitted on camera at a February 19, 2019 meeting that he did not have a Designated Voter Certificate in place with the required signatures to authorize him to vote.  [EXHIBIT 305-2, 7:15 into the video.]  On March 22, 2019, ED Broom’s vote was accepted when he submitted his Designated Voter Certificate with death certificates for his parents who are also shown as owners on the deed for Unit B1. [EXHIBIT 21.]  A comparison of EXHIBIT 39 and EXHIBIT 40 makes it clear that C&M and SENTRY were working with OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to support keeping them as the Board rather than ensuring that the voting processes were legal.  C&M refused to accept the vote of the Nielsen Trust in a Recall when they submitted death certificates and their trust agreement showing the ladies who signed the Recall to be the two heirs.  In addition to the above, EXHIBIT 68 shows B1 gave a proxy to Dorothy Liebl of B2, but the Amended Limited Proxy (EXHIBIT 75) gave it to the President.  Liebl’s casting of the Ballot is void.  If ED’s B1 vote was valid when his deceased parents are still on the deed, then the Nielsen Trust’s vote was valid in the Recall when the deceased were still on the deed.  The only difference between Broom (B1) and Nielsen Trust (C2) is that there was a trust with C2, and that trust named the heirs who signed.
  • Bullerjahn (H2) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  EXHIBIT 77 is the owner information for H2.  Deborah M. Bullerjahn was deceased [EXHIBIT 1081], but the 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 to amend the BYLAWS.  This alone makes the August 1, 2017 attempted amendment invalid.
  • Campbell (F2) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  ISABEL Campbell is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 78 is the owner information for F2. 
  • Dailey (D1) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 79.]  Dailey did not attend the meeting.  The Amended Limited Proxy gave the vote to Lillian Skilbred.  Lillian Skilbred signed a Substitution of Proxy and failed to enter the name of the substitute proxy, so it is invalid.  EXHIBIT 80 is the owner information for D1. 
  • Ebrahim (D2) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 81.]  No one from D2 attended the meeting.  The Amended Limited Proxy gave the vote to OMAR.  EXHIBIT 82 is the owner information for D2.  (Ownership became joint on August 28, 2018.)  This would have been YES Vote #2 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017.  There was no evidence of compliance with BYLAW 2.1 in 2017.
  • Garrett (G2) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 83.]  Garrett did not attend the meeting.  The Amended Limited Proxy purported to give the vote to OMAR, but it was not signed by Sheila Garrett, who is shown as the designated voter on EXHIBIT 68.  On June 19, 2017, mail was returned to the ASSOCIATION showing Sheila Garrett was deceased. [EXHIBIT 1053.]  There was no valid Designated Voter Certificate to Diana Raley for G2, nor could there be as she was not an owner.  EXHIBIT 84 is the owner information for G2.  Ownership did not change until August 16, 2017 by court order.  Prior to that order, the deed was in the name of Sheila Garrett, and she did not execute a proxy or limited proxy. 
  • Gray (E2) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 85.]  Gray did not attend the meeting.  Gray is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 86 is the owner information for E2.  The Designated Voter Certificate is invalid as VICKI Hedrick is not an owner of the unit, and if she submitted a Ballot, it would be void. [EXHIBIT 360.]  This would have been YES Vote #3 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. 
  • Hardaway (H3) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 87.]  Hardaway did not attend the meeting.  Hardaway is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 88 is the owner information for H3.  This would have been YES Vote #4 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. 
  • Harris (B4) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  He sold his unit on September 27, 2017.  EXHIBIT 89 is the deed for B4. 
  • Hedrick (E3) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 90.]  David Wayne Hedrick did attend the meeting.  EXHIBIT 91 is the owner information for E3.  Ownership changed to joint in January 2019, so the Designated Voter Certificate is no longer valid. [EXHIBIT 361.]  EXHIBIT 92 is the deed at January 11, 2019.  This would have been YES Vote #5 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. 
  • Hurley (E1) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 93.]  Hurley was a sole owner.  Hurley did not attend the meeting.  EXHIBIT 94 was the owner information for E1.  This would have been YES Vote #6 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. 
  • Jones Life Estate (G1) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 95.]  Jones Life Estate did not attend the meeting.  The Amended Limited Proxy was unsigned, but someone filled out and submitted an invalid Ballot.  This is a violation.  EXHIBIT 96 is the owner information for G1.  Ownership did not change from Jones to Calderon until June 27, 2018. 
  • Jones (D3) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 97.]  Jones did not attend the meeting.  The Amended Limited Proxy was unsigned, but someone wrongfully submitted a Ballot in her name.  This is a violation.  Jones is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 98 is the owner information for D3. 
  • King (H1) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 99.]  King did not attend the meeting.  King is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 100 is the owner information for H1.  This would have been YES Vote #7 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. 
  • Kirchoff (B3) would have been a valid No vote on the BYLAW amendment and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 101.]  Kirchoff was a sole owner.  Kirchoff did attend the meeting.  EXHIBIT 102 was the owner information for B3.  (Ownership changed on September 17, 2017.  This is the unit WINDSOR bought.)
  • Krauss (E4) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 103.]  No one representing E4 attended the meeting.  WENDY Krauss was not the sole owner, but she was the only signer on the Amended Limited Proxy.  Lake County shows the property is owned by a life estate.  There is no Designated Voter Certificate for this unit.  EXHIBIT 68 erroneously shows WENDY Krauss to be the designated voter.  She appointed VICKI Hedrick as her proxy, but VICKI was not an owner or a legally-elected officer or director and did not qualify as a proxy.   EXHIBIT 104 is the owner information for E4.
  • Liebl (B2) was at the meeting for sign-in, but there was no documentation to show that she voted or issued a proxy on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 105.]  EXHIBIT 106 is the owner information for B2. 
  • Lunsford (C1) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 107.]  Lunsford attended the meeting.  There was no valid Designated Voter Certificate for C1.  EXHIBIT 108 is the owner information for C1 showing joint ownership.  There is no designated voter shown on EXHIBIT 68. 
  • Lynn (H4) would have been a valid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and a valid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 109.]  Lynn did not attend the meeting.  Lynn is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 110 is the owner information for H4.  This would have been YES Vote #8 on the amendment if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. 
  • Martin (A2) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  Martin was a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 111 was the owner information for A2. 
  • Meade (B4) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017 and Karen Meade had attended and voted to do so. [EXHIBIT 112.]  No one from B4 attended the meeting.  EXHIBIT 113 is the owner information for B4 showing joint ownership today, but the deed shows Jason Chandler did not become an owner until June 29, 2018.  Meade is shown as the designated voter on EXHIBIT 68, but the Amended Limited Proxy was signed by Jason Chandler.  Dorothy Liebl cast a Ballot, but it was invalid. 
  • Minnich (C3) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  Minnich was a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 114 was the owner information for C3.  C3 was sold to SUE Yokley in July 2019.
  • Molina Life Estate (G3) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 115.]  No one from G3 attended the meeting.  There was no valid Designated Voter Certificate for G3; the signature of Jessica Moreira was rejected by CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and the ASSOCIATION on December 12, 2018. [EXHIBIT 362 is the invalid Designated Voter Certificate for the August 1, 2017 meeting.]  EXHIBIT 116 is the owner information for G3.  The Deed is still listed in the name of the Molina Life Estate with two beneficiaries named.  EXHIBIT 117 is the rejected Designated Voter Certificate from December 2018 that is signed only with Jessica Moreira’s signature.  It is the same lone signature provided for the August 1, 2017 vote. (See EXHIBIT 41 and EXHIBIT 305-2, 7:23 into the video.) 
  • Nielsen Trust (C2) appears to have voted on August 1, 2017, but the voting documents seem to have disappeared except for the envelope insert. [EXHIBIT 118.]  No one from the Nielsen Trust attended the meeting.  There is no check mark on EXHIBIT 68.  EXHIBIT 119 was the owner information for C2.  The last document in EXHIBIT 119 is the Designated Voter Certificate that was considered invalid by C&M in December 2018.  The Nielsen heirs thereafter had their deed changed. 
  • Nuseibeh (G4) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017 and if there had been a Designated Voter Certificate. [EXHIBIT 120.]  OMAR Nuseibeh attended the meeting and cast a ballot.  EXHIBIT 121 is the joint owner information for G4.  There was no Designated Voter Certificate. 
  • Powell (F3) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 122.]  No one from F3 attended the meeting.  EXHIBIT 68 shows joint ownership, but there is no Designated Voter Certificate.  The ballot address label also shows joint ownership.  The Deeds attached as EXHIBIT 123 show that the unit was jointly owned from 1998 until November 5, 2017.  The Amended Limited Proxy was to OMAR Nuseibeh, and he apparently submitted a Ballot for F3, but it is invalid as it was not signed by a designated voter. 
  • Rutig (F1) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  Rutig is a sole owner.  EXHIBIT 124 is the owner information for F1. 
  • Skilbred (D4) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. VICKI Hedrick was the proxy, but she was not an owner, officer, or director, so she could not be a proxy. [EXHIBIT 125.]  Lillian Skilbred did attend the meeting.  There was no valid Designated Voter Certificate for D4, a trust. [EXHIBIT 1446.]  EXHIBIT 126 is the owner information for D4. 
  • Still (A3) did not attend the meeting or cast a vote on August 1, 2017.  EXHIBIT 127 is the owner information for A3. 
  • Van Leeuwen (C4) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 128.]  Van Leeuwen did not attend the meeting.  David Van Leeuwen submitted an Amended Limited Proxy, and OMAR Nuseibeh cast the Ballot.  But Edna Van Leeuwen was the sole owner on August 1, 2017.  EXHIBIT 129 is the owner information for C4.  This Lake County record indicates that a Quit Claim Deed was filed on February 26, 2018, but WINDSOR have been unable to find it in deed searches in Lake County.  Edna was the sole owner on August 1, 2018.  EXHIBIT 68 falsely shows David Van Leeuwen to be the designated voter. 
  • Werner (F4) was an invalid Yes vote to amend the BYLAWS and an invalid Yes vote to authorize use of Reserves funds if the meetings had been valid on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 130.]  The Werners did not attend the meeting.  There was an invalid Designated Voter Certificate for F4 as OMAR Nuseibeh was not an owner of this unit and could not be the designated voter for the unit. [EXHIBIT 363.]  EXHIBIT 1385 is the owner information for F4. 
  • If it weren’t for the violations that made the votes invalid at the attempted meetings on August 1, 2017, this would have given 8 of 32 votes to amend the BYLAWS and 9 of 32 to authorize Reserves funds to be used for uses that were not designated.  That is 25% on the BYLAWS and 28.125% on the Reserves.  A 75% vote was required to amend and a 51% vote was required to authorize use of the Reserves.  Based upon the 16 units with voting interests, there were 2 of 16 votes to amend the BYLAWS and 3 of 16 to authorize Reserves funds to be used for uses that were not designated.  That is 12.5% on the BYLAWS and 18.75% on the Reserves.  Both votes failed, but the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH falsely claimed the BYLAWS were amended and the change to Reserves was authorized.  The COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS have been provided with all of this evidence, and they have refused to acknowledge that the BYLAWS were not amended on August 1, 2017.
  • 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. 
  • The January 15, 2019 filing constitutes fraud.  WINDSOR believes C&M and/or SENTRY committed fraud in an effort to get OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN elected at a 2019 meeting that appeared to be authorized by the BYLAWS.  WINDSOR believes they hoped this could keep all of the wrongdoing hidden and provide some protection from malpractice claims against them.
  • Telling the ASSOCIATION owners, Lake County, and the general public that the BYLAWS were amended was false.  OMAR, VICKI, KAREN, SENTRY, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH had to know it was false.  They actively worked to conceal the fact by repeatedly failing to produce the records from the meeting in response to WINDSOR’s Requests for Inspection of Records while claiming the BYLAWS were amended.  It is clear to WINDSOR that the intent was to deceive the owners into believing the BYLAWS were amended.  Owners relied on those representations.  Owners were injured as a result.  The ASSOCIATION has reportedly been charged over $130,000 in legal fees that would not have been incurred if the truth had been told and the Board had been replaced.  Now the owners have homes that are worth far less because of the outrageous increase in assessments.  The COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS who have purported to be Directors have acted as if the BYLAWS were actually amended.  They have done this despite having the evidence presented to them that proves the BYLAWS were not amended.  This has been intentional.
  • Minutes that were finally produced for August 1, 2017 show that there was no approval of a BYLAW amendment. [EXHIBIT 1287.]  Despite this, BRIAN and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH filed the failed amendment in Lake County in January 2019 as if it was a valid amendment. [EXHIBIT C.]  The “resolution” was dated December 28, 2018 when there was no Board Meeting.  Upon information and belief, this was done in an attempt to cover up malpractice by CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and SENTRY.
  • EXHIBIT 739.]  The BYLAWS did not contain any BYLAW amendment.  If the BYLAWS had been amended on August 1, 2017, WINDSOR should have received that amendment.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – FACTS – AUGUST 2020

  1. On August 3, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Findings of Fact in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001871. [EXHIBIT 1741.]
  2. On August 3, 2020, WINDSOR filed an Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Request for Findings of Fact in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001871. [EXHIBIT 1742.]
  3. On August 12, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001871. [EXHIBIT 1743.]
  4. On August 14, 2020, WINDSOR served a Request for Production in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001871. [EXHIBIT 1744.]
  5. On August 25, 2020, WINDSOR filed an Amended Response to Motion to Dismiss in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001528. [EXHIBIT 1703.] [EXHIBIT 1704.] [EXHIBIT 1705.] [EXHIBIT 1706.]
  6. On August 25, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Verified Affidavit in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001528. [EXHIBIT 1722.]
  7. On August 25, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Memorandum of Law in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001528. [EXHIBIT 1702.]
  8. On August 27, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Conference in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001528. [EXHIBIT 1701.]
  9. On August 27, 2020, RUSSELL Klemm of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH filed a Second Amended Notice of Hearing for September 1, 2020 in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001528. [EXHIBIT 1716.]
  10. On August 29, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Motion for Default Judgment in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001871. [EXHIBIT 1871.]
  11. On August 30, 2020, WINDSOR filed a Notice of Filing Exhibits – Parts 1 to 7 in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001528. [EXHIBIT 1688.] [EXHIBIT 1689.] [EXHIBIT 1690.] [EXHIBIT 1691.] [EXHIBIT 1692.] [EXHIBIT 1693.] [EXHIBIT 1694.]
  12. On August 31, 2020, RUSSELL Klemm filed a Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 35-2019-CA-001871. [EXHIBIT 1777.]

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section