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 – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

emotional distress 300x159 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

COUNT NINE

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  1. WILLIAM M. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. WINDSOR asserts this claim against all DEFENDANTS.
  3. DEFENDANTS have intentionally and recklessly inflicted mental suffering and emotional distress on WINDSOR.  Their conduct has been outrageous.  Their conduct has caused and continues to cause emotional distress to WINDSOR.  The emotional distress has been and is severe.
  4. SOF 119, 131, 133, 134, 137, 142, 144, 146, 147, 151, 153, 154, 161, 169, 187, 188, 193, 204, 207, 222, 234, 502, 503, 504, and paragraphs 654-667 are specifically noted on this Cause of Action.
  5. has been viciously defamed.  His fellow owners, mainly senior citizens, have falsely and maliciously been told he doesn’t know the law, is a criminal, and has threatened to kill fellow owners.  An alleged Wanted Poster with Windsor’s photograph was mailed anonymously to every owner.  At least two of the owners called to report Windsor to the Leesburg Police Department as a wanted man who needed to be arrested.  CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE and SENTRY MANAGEMENT tried to have Windsor arrested for speaking at a meeting; an All-Points-Bulletin was issued for him by the Tavares Police Department.  Police have been hired to attend meetings because Windsor had allegedly made threats to hurt or kill Board members.  At least one of the scariest owners sat next to Windsor at a meeting with a pistol in his pocket.  They’ve threatened to file liens and foreclose.  One woman filed a criminal stalking complaint against him.  Windsor has found shell casings next to his vehicle and a big snake in his garage.  His property has been vandalized. [See SOF 190, 302.]
  6. CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH Attorneys have abused WINDSOR repeatedly.  It has been one lie after another.  Surely this must be the biggest malpractice case in history in terms of the number of issues.
  7. The DBPR should be a place where condominium owners can go for relief from wrongdoing.  Instead the DBPR, MAHLON C. RHANEY, and LEAH SIMMS lied and violated the law repeatedly.  This caused significant mental anguish.  The DBPR DEFENDANTS were reckless and 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.
  8. Merriam-Webster defines “emotional distress” as “a highly unpleasant emotional reaction (as anguish, humiliation, or fury) which results from another’s conduct and for which damages may be sought.”
  9. Emotional distress should be a relative issue.  Windsor is a disabled senior citizen.  He is 72 years-old.  He has been humiliated by the DEFENDANTS.  He has developed insomnia.  He can only walk short distances with a cane.  He lives on the second floor and has fallen down the stairs many times.  He is like a prisoner in his second-floor condo where he has become despised by most of the neighbors.  Windsor has been living on an emotional roller coaster for the last two years.  He has studied the law, become confident with the law and the evidence, and has attempted to get the wrongdoing with the ASSOCIATION corrected.  Then there are no responses or outrageous legal responses.  This causes extreme mental anguish in WINDSOR.
  10. MARTA CARBAJO and VICKI HEDRICK’s gun-toting husband, David Wayne Hedrick, have accused WINDSOR of being a criminal.  In early 2019, WINDSOR learned that David Wayne Hedrick was telling people that WINDSOR had threatened to do bodily harm to his wife, VICKI HEDRICK.  On January 26, 2019, David Wayne Hedrick sent a letter to OMAR NUSEIBEH, VICKI HEDRICK, KAREN BOLLINGER, and SENTRY MANAGEMENT in which he accused WINDSOR of “felonious actions.”  This is libel.  [EXHIBIT 1029.]  The Legal Dictionary defines “felonious” as “done with an intent to commit a serious crime or a felony; done with an evil heart or purpose; malicious; wicked; villainous.”  WINDSOR has never committed a crime other than some speeding over 20 years ago.  He has never done a felonious action.  He has done nothing with an evil heart, malicious, wicked, or villainous.  WINDSOR considers David Wayne Hedrick to be a threat.  He seems unstable, and he has guns.
  11. Upon information and belief, MARTA CARBAJO is responsible for a wanted poster being sent to every member of the ASSOCIATION and is one of the people who contacted the Leesburg Police Department attempting to get WINDSOR arrested for being wanted.  WINDSOR is severely claustrophobic, and the thought of being locked up in a jail or prison causes extreme mental anguish.
  12. Having SENTRY MANAGEMENT call the Tavares Police Department in an attempt to get WINDSOR arrested for exercising his legal right to speak at a purported meeting was outrageous.  The Tavares Police issued an All-Points Bulletin for Windsor. [EXHIBIT 1812.]  WINDSOR has a video to prove what happened.  In an Inspection of Records, WINDSOR learned that NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH orchestrated this outrage. [EXHIBIT 1848.]  [EXHIBIT1847.] [See SOF 302.]
  13. On June 29, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to inform owners that he had been reported to the police by the ASSOCIATION or SENTRY MANAGEMENT on June 20, 2019. [EXHIBIT 1088.]  [EXHIBIT 1059 at 2:50, WINDSOR asked “what about the eight open spots on the Board?”  CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE said the meeting was adjourned.  She then ordered WINDSOR to leave the building.  The remainder of the video is CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE escorting WINDSOR out of the building.  Later that day, owner Larry Lunsford informed WINDSOR that two Tavares Police Officers arrived after he left.  As the video shows, there was absolutely no basis for reporting WINDSOR to the police.
  14. Falsely accusing WINDSOR of crimes creates severe emotional distress.  WINDSOR is an honest, law-abiding citizen.  He has never intentionally committed a crime.  He doesn’t even have a traffic or parking ticket in the last 20 years.
  15. CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE of SENTRY MANAGEMENT repeatedly violated WINDSOR’s rights to speak and inspect records, and she routinely ensured that the ASSOCIATION violate the Florida statutes and corporate governing documents.
  16. Having resident Dorothy Liebl attempt to have WINDSOR arrested for stalking and attempt to get a stalking protective order was extremely devastating.  Dorothy Liebl filed a complaint with the Lake County Court (Case No. 35-2009-DR-000650) in which she sought to have WINDSOR ordered to move away from Coach Houses.  Dorothy Liebl lied.  She failed to appear for the hearing, so the case was dismissed.  While that was a relief, WINDSOR would have preferred to get her under oath and prove perjury.  Dorothy Liebl’s outrageous actions will continue to damage WINDSOR.  When WINDSOR needed a caregiver after a bad fall down the stairs and was in horrific pain, he was denied a caregiver because the company found Dorothy Liebl’s stalking complaint online.
  17. On January 9, 2019, WINDSOR was informed that one Coach Houses owner, Dave Van Leeuwen, was told that WINDSOR had physically threatened Board members.  Dave Van Leeuwen had decided WINDSOR was a dangerous person and he should have nothing to do with him. [EXHIBIT 346.]  WINDSOR was then told by neighbors that OMAR NUSEIBEH was telling owners that WINDSOR had threatened to kill Board Members.  WINDSOR was told that VICKI Hedrick’s husband, David Wayne Hedrick, had told people that WINDSOR had threatened to kill VICKI HEDRICK.  WINDSOR was told that owner MARTA Carbajo was telling owners that WINDSOR was wanted for criminal charges of fraud.  Someone mailed a Wanted Poster with WINDSOR’S photo to the owners.  None of this was true.
  18. Owner Allan Holtz informed WINDSOR about Dave Van Leeuwen.  WINDSOR asked if Dave would be willing to meet with him, and he responded: “No, I’m quite sure Dave wouldn’t be willing.  He literally seems to be scared of you.  My impression is that he really believes that you made physical threats to the board and that you are a dangerous guy.  Someone’s done a pretty good job on him….” [EXHIBIT 349.]
  19. On January 11, 2019, WINDSOR emailed Dave Van Leeuwen about the defamation he had heard. [EXHIBIT 347.]  On January 13, 2019, Dave Van Leeuwen emailed WINDSOR to acknowledge the defamation he had heard and to apologize for sharing it. [EXHIBIT 348.]
  20. On March 5, 2019, a so-called “Town Hall Meeting” was held. [EXHIBIT 281.]  I considered it to be an effort by CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH to dissuade owners from voting to replace OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN. [EXHIBIT 282-1, EXHIBIT 282-2, EXHIBIT 282-3, EXHIBIT 282-4, EXHIBIT 282-5, EXHIBIT 282-6, EXHIBIT 282-7 is video from the meeting.]  No minutes were published for the purported meeting. [See SOF 184.]
  21. On March 5, 2019, NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH distributed a letter to the owners of the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 267.]  In the second paragraph on page 1, NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH claims the actions taken on December 12, 2018 were at his firm’s direction.  WINDSOR believes this is proof of malpractice.  In the first full paragraph on page 2, NEAL claims the directors were properly elected because “only three (3) people timely and properly submitted an intent to be a candidate for the current term.”  This is false.  WINDSOR has complete proof of this.  In the first full paragraph on page 2, NEAL MCCULLOH falsely claims individuals were recommending self-management and elimination of professional services.  WINDSOR believes this is false and malicious.  In that paragraph,
  22. NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH also claims so many of the legal challenges (by me) are “completely wrong, in error, and in derogation of the Florida Statutes and/or the Association’s Governing Documents.”  This is false and malicious.
  23. After the meeting ended, WINDSOR spoke with
  24. NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH and suggested a meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve the issues.  WINDSOR expressed that this would be far less expensive to the owners.  He refused.  He told WINDSOR to handle it through legal filings.
  25. When NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH spoke to the owners at a so-called Town Hall Meeting on March 5, 2019, he defamed WINDSOR repeatedly.  He falsely and maliciously made claims about the facts and the law.  He indicated repeatedly that he was delighted by the legal actions because it was paying to send his son to college.  This outraged WINDSOR and other owners.
  26. The acts of the DEFENDANTS have been outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.  The blatant violation of the law and the corporate governing documents has been outrageous.  The magnitude of the wrongdoing must be seen as extremely extreme in degree.  There is nothing decent about what the DEFENDANTS have done.  All citizens should be able to expect that they will be treated fairly and with honesty, especially senior citizens.  What the DEFENDANTS have done is intolerable in a civilized society.  When WINDSOR tells people what has been done, the response is “OUTRAGEOUS.”

In most cases, claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress pertain to one or a small number of acts.  In this case, the emotional distress has come from many people and organizations over a period of two years.  It’s like Chinese Water Torture to WILLIAM M. WINDSOR.

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

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 – 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

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

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

COUNT THREE

DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

AGAINST CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH

  1. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.
  3. Section 617.002 provides that the provisions of Chapter 607, the Florida General Corporation Act, apply to all nonprofit corporations.
  4. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH has been employed as the law firm representing the ASSOCIATION since April Fools’ Day 2015 (April 1, 2015).  EXHIBIT 1538 is the contract titled “2015 ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS.” [See SOF 44.]  The ASSOCIATION retained CLAYTON & MCCULLOH to provide legal services in a competent fashion.
  5. At all times, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS held themselves out as competent in the area of law dealing with the legal work for which the ASSOCIATION retained the services of the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.  When NEAL MCCULLOH spoke to the owners of the ASSOCIATION on March 5, 2020, he extolled the alleged expertise of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, BRIAN, RUSSELL, and himself.  He made it sound like CLAYTON & MCCULLOH was the best condominium association law firm in America.
  6. The ASSOCIATION and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS acted under an attorney/client relationship in which CLAYTON & MCCULLOH undertook to represent the ASSOCIATION.
  7. The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS were required to exercise the same duty of care as a reasonably competent attorney and to use reasonable care in determining and implementing a strategy to be followed to achieve the ASSOCIATION’s legal goals.  As a fiduciary to the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS were obligated to protect the ASSOCIATION.
  8. In the course of handling legal matters for the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS negligently failed to act with the degree of competence generally possessed by attorneys in Florida who handle legal matters similar to the ASSOCIATION’s.  The ASSOCIATION paid CLAYTON & MCCULLOH a substantial amount of money for the sole purpose of representing the ASSOCIATION in its legal matters.
  9. CLAYTON & MCCULLOH has neglected reasonable duties.  CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS were negligent and/or committed malpractice and breached fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION, including in the following regard:
    • By failing to explain the law to the ASSOCIATION;
    • By failing to explain the terms of the ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, DECLARATION, and BYLAWS and the impact to the ASSOCIATION;
    • By failing to ensure that the ASSOCIATION held lawful annual meetings and elections [See SOF 46, 47, 110, 151, and others];
    • By concocting schemes to keep OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN as the Officers and Directors as part of an effort to conceal CLAYTON & MCCULLOH’s malpractice [See SOF 42, 100, 107, 173, and others];
    • By preparing and filing a fraudulent BYLAW Amendment on January 15, 2019 in Lake County, Florida [See SOF 97-99, 107, 108, 127, 138, 149];
    • By falsely and maliciously claiming the BYLAW regarding the annual meeting was amended on August 1, 2017 [See SOF 149, 151];
    • By providing false legal information to ASSOCIATION owners, including WINDSOR;
    • By running up legal fees by requiring that BRIAN Hess handle all of WINDSOR’s inquiries in writing [See SOF 124];
    • By running up legal fees by refusing to meet with WINDSOR to resolve matters [See SOF 662];
    • By running up legal fees to the ASSOCIATION and its members by failing to notify the D&O insurance carrier of litigation [See SOF 288];
    • By running up legal fees by ignoring notices sent by WINDSOR in an effort to avoid further litigation [See SOF 122-123, 125, 218, 236, 238, 240, 245, 246, 251, 253, 254, 258, 261, 262, 263, 265, 271, 274, 284-287, 289-291, 303, and others];
    • By running up legal fees by having NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH tell WINDSOR to sue rather than agree to meet to try to resolve issues [See SOF 662];
    • By running up legal fees by having RUSSELL Klemm of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH stall in a variety of ways rather than address the legal issues efficiently [See SOF 499];
    • By running up legal fees by allowing the ASSOCIATION to pretend the BYLAWS were amended when they knew approval of all holders of first mortgage liens were required [See SOF 112 and others];
    • By running up legal fees by failing to accept WINDSOR’s offer to withdraw his actions against the ASSOCIATION if CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and SENTRY refunded to the ASSOCIATION all money paid by to them from 2016 to 2019 [See SOF 283];
    • By running up legal fees by failing to accept WINDSOR’s offer to withdraw his actions against the ASSOCIATION if the ASSOCIATION admitted and corrected all the wrongdoing [See SOF 334];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to charge exorbitant amounts for filing a Notice of Lien [See SOF 395];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate the Fair Credit Collection Act [See SOF 404];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.002 (6) regarding Designated Voter Certificates [See SOF 61];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.002 (8) regarding proxies [See SOF 120, 156, 171];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.002 (9) by denying members the right to speak at meetings with respect to all designated agenda items;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (4) by failing to give proper notice of elections [See SOF 54, 55, 110, 114, 151, and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to give proper notice of elections [See SOF 54, 55, 110, 114, 151, and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to enforce the envelope procedure required at the purported March 22, 2019 election [See SOF 197];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.001 (1) (d) by failing to notify owners of the unfilled board positions;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to notify owners of the unfilled board positions;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0021 (8) by failing to send an amended notice following the withdrawal of Wendy Krauss [See SOF 48, 104-106];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(d) by failing to correct the problem after Wendy Krauss removed herself as a Board candidate [See SOF 104-106];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-23.0028 (3) (b) by failing to file petitions for recall [See SOF 171];
    • By claiming WINDSOR did not have the right to seek judicial proceedings pursuant to Section 718.1255 of the Florida Administrative Code Section 61B-45.043;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute 718.104(4)(b) regarding the illegal name [See SOF 181];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute 718.111(c)(3) with improper claims of attorney-client privilege [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (1) (q) regarding fiduciary duty [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (1) (d) regarding fiduciary duty [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (12) (6) by failing to maintain minutes of all meetings; [See SOF 166, 196, and many others.] [VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR DATED OCTOBER 27, 2020 (“AFFIDAVIT-2020-10-27”) ¶¶ 530, 600, 637, 729, 746, 753, 778, 779, 781, 788, 813, 950, 1006, 1063, 1068, 1375.]
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (12) (7) by failing to maintain current rosters [See SOF 49];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.111 (12) (15) by failing to maintain written records;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 by failing to give at least 14 days’ notice of the annual meeting [See SOF 55];
    • By causing and allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 (1) (a) by not being governed as required by law [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 (1) (c) (1) by failing to post notice of meetings in a conspicuous place;
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(a)(2) regarding written inquiries and by providing false responses to written inquiries [See SOF 150, 151, 160, 161];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112 (2) (b) by failing to require a quorum [See SOF 121 and others];
    • By causing and allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(c) by not allowing WINDSOR the right to speak at meetings with regard to all designated agenda items [See SOF 123, 151, 155, 302, 645];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(c)(1) by failing to post notice of the December 12, 2018 meeting and by claiming compliance with the statute [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(d) by failing to hold annual meetings [See SOF 110 and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(d) by failing to post notice of the December 12, 2018 meeting and by claiming compliance with the statute [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Statute Section 718.112(2)(d)(4) by failing to provide notice regarding annual elections in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020 [See SOF 151, 110];
    •  
    •  
    • petitions for arbitration over recalls [See SOF 171];
    • Florida Statute Section

718.303 (5) by improperly suspending voting rights;

  • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate ARTICLES of Incorporation of the ASSOCIATION Article IV, Section 4.2 by failing to obtain certified copies of deeds [See SOF 53, 63, 69, 210, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate ARTICLES of Incorporation of the ASSOCIATION Article VI, Officers by failing to elect Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 1.1 by showing a bogus address for the ASSOCIATION [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.1 by failing to maintain current rosters [See SOF 49, 53];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.1 by failing to obtain certified copies of deeds;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.2 regarding the annual meeting and election [See SOF 46, 47, 100, 110, 151, 486];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Law and BYLAW 2.2 by failing to hold annual meeting and annual election in 2020;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.2 regarding the term for Directors [See SOF 46, 47, 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.3 regarding special members’ meetings [See SOF 141, 145];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.4 regarding conspicuous posting of notice of meetings [See SOF 54, 63, 64, 111, 117, 121, 151, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.4 regarding notice of meetings [See SOF 54, 55, and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.5 regarding quorum [See SOF 52, 63, 331, and others;
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.6 regarding voting [See SOF 53, 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.6 regarding Designated Voters and quorum [See SOF 53, 151];
    • By causing and allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.9 (b) regarding election of a Chairman [See SOF 192, 194, 206];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 2.9 (j) regarding election of Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.1 regarding the number of Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.2 regarding failure to consider nominations from the floor [See SOF 102 and others];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.2 a regarding election of Directors [ SOF 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.2 b regarding use of a nominating committee [See SOF 63, 101];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.3 regarding term of service for Directors;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.4 regarding organizational meetings [See SOF 63, 103, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.5 regarding organizational meetings [See SOF 103];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.6 regarding special meetings;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 3.12 regarding election of officers [See SOF 100];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 5.1 by failing to elect an Assistant Secretary [AFFIDAVIT-2020-10-27 ¶¶ 15, 304, 328, 329, 347, 373, 403, 465, 466, 468];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAWS 6.1 and 6.2 regarding accounts classification [See SOF 151];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 8.2 regarding Bylaw amendment;
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate BYLAW 8.3 regarding consent of mortgage holders [See SOF 63, 97, 112, 138, 331, 525];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate DECLARATION Paragraph 13.3 regarding the number of Voting Interests [See SOF 51, 52, 59, 181, 331];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate DECLARATION Paragraph 18.1 regarding amendment;
    • By claiming the ASSOCIATION had Rules limiting the right to speak [See SOF 151 and EXHIBIT E];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to unlawfully increase assessments to the members [See SOF 39];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to vote to unlawfully increase assessments to the members to as much as $962.38 per month at the purported December 12, 2018 meeting [See SOF 39];
    • By facilitating repeated violations of the corporate governing documents and Florida statutes [See SOF 40 – 510];
    • By counseling purported officers and directors to ignore demands for them to cease pretending to be officers and directors [See SOF 42, 137, 164];
    • By failing to update the corporate governing documents [See SOF 45];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to pretend the BYLAW was amended on August 25, 2018 after RUSSELL E. KLEMM sent a letter to the ASSOCIATION c/o CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY in which he stated amendments require approval of all holders of first mortgage liens [See SOF 112];
    • Russell E Klemm - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICERUSSELL E. KLEMM has committed many violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct while fighting WINDSOR; he has committed perjury, fraud on the court, and many other violations while C&M has obtained over $130,000 in legal fee payments from the ASSOCIATION [See SOF 499];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to violate Florida Law and the governing documents by failing to hold annual meeting and annual election in 2017 when there was not a quorum [See SOF 51, 52, 59, 63, 104, 107, 137, 331, 525];
    • OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not lawfully elected, so they had no authority to schedule meetings [See SOF 118, 137];
    • By denying owners a special meeting to consider a substitute budget [See SOF 145];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to hire police to attend ASSOCIATION meetings by falsely claiming police were needed because of WINDSOR threats to do physical harm or kill people. WINDSOR did no such thing [See SOF 119, 204];
    •  
    • Brian Hess 225x300 - Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICEBy authorizing the ASSOCIATION to disregard the votes and proxies submitted in advance by owners on December 12, 2018.  WINDSOR objected.  BRIAN Hess of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH ignored him and facilitated this wrongdoing. [See SOF 120];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to conduct the purported December 12, 2018 meeting when it was void for a variety of reasons. [See SOF 121];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to conduct a purported January 16, 2019 meeting that was not legal because OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not legally elected as directors. [See SOF 139];
    •  By causing the value of the condos of ASSOCIATION members to decline due to the legal problems [See SOF 143];
    • By ignoring requests from an ASSOCIATION member in an effort to determine what was needed to accept the signatures of Nancy Camp and Jane O’Steen for the Nielsen Trust. [See SOF 148];
    • By claiming the BYLAWS provide that reserves are to be allocated to a specific use [See SOF 151];
    •  By claiming the BYLAWS restrict ASSOCIATION owners to speak three minutes total at meetings [See SOF 151];
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to violate the BYLAWS by disregarding valid proxies [See SOF 151];
    • By claiming DECLARATION 12.2 gives the Board the power to increase dues for repairs and maintenance [See SOF 151];
    • By causing and/or allowing the ASSOCIATION, OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN to violate Florida Statue Section 617.0830 and 617.0834 by committing the crime of fraud and perhaps other crimes [See SOF 151];
    • By authorizing the ASSOCIATION to disregard the defamation directed at WINDSOR. [See SOF 137, 153, 154];
    • By failing to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure [See SOF 499];
    • By managing a purported December 12, 2018 meeting that was void [See SOF 121]
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION, SENTRY, and CHARLIE ANN to announce false voting results at the December 12, 2018 meeting [See SOF 151, 167, 209, 216];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to repeatedly produce a bogus set of minutes for a purported meeting for August 2017 [See SOF 51]; 
    • By causing COACH HOUSES MEMBER Defendants and the ASSOCIATION to ignore notices of violations and wrongdoing and demands to rectify. [See SOF 42, 122, 123, 125, 126, 137, 151, 157, 167, 168, 179, 180, 182, 189, 226, 227, 229, 235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244-246, 248, 251, 253, 254, 258, 261, 263, 265, 270-272, 274, 275, 283-285, 288-291, 295-297, 303, 308, 309, 315, 319, 320, 327, 329-331, 334, 358-360, 363, 371, 376, 386, 391, 392, 394, 396-406, 410, 461, 486, 489, 491, 492, 498, and others.]
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to fail to file Petitions for Recall Arbitration [See SOF 156, 171];
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to deny the election / recall on February 4, 2019 and February 19, 2019 [See SOF 155, 156, 170];
    • By causing the ASSOCIATION to fail to produce Records requested for Inspection [See SOF 175 -176] [EXHIBITS 1853, 1857];
    • By allowing the ASSOCIATION to hold a purported March 22, 2019 meeting and election due to fraud as well as other violations [See SOF 195, 210];
    • By ignoring a February 23, 2019 certified letter from WINDSOR advising CLAYTON & MCCULLOH of a variety of wrongful acts.  There was no response. [See SOF 177.]
    • By concealing Designated Voter Certificates at the purported March 22, 2019 meetings that would have shown several to be invalid; [See SOF 202.]
    • By falsifying information sent to the DBPR [See SOF 310, 323, 324];
    • By holding themselves out as the attorneys for the ASSOCIATION but not representing the best interests of the ASSOCIATION;
    • By taking large sums of money from the ASSOCIATION;
    • By failing to provide the ASSOCIATION with the minimum standard of care.
  • In addition to the negligence and/or malpractice committed by CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS as shown herein, upon information and belief, the C&M DEFENDANTS fraudulently induced the ASSOCIATION to pay large sums of money by making representations regarding the legal issues that were not true.
  • The ASSOCIATION performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on their part in accordance with the 2015 Attorney Representation Agreement for Community Associations, with the exception of those conditions which the ASSOCIATION was prevented and/or relieved from performing by the acts and omissions of the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS.  Implicit in the contract for legal services was the requirement to perform such services competently and to not require payment for incompetent services, to not bill excessively or dishonestly, and to not require payment of excessive or dishonest bills, and for the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct (and other applicable laws) in the provision of their services and to not require payment of services violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or other applicable laws.  The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS breached the 2015 Attorney Representation Agreement for Community Associations by failing to provide competent services.  As a direct and proximate result of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS incompetence and contractual breaches, the ASSOCIATION has suffered damages and should suffer significant damages in this case.
  • A client’s retention of a law firm gives rise to a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The scope of an attorney’s fiduciary obligations are determined as a matter of law. These fiduciary duties include duties of care and loyalty, an obligation to the ASSOCIATION.
  • In breach of their fiduciary duties and professional responsibilities to the ASSOCIATION, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS committed the wrongful acts and omissions shown herein.
  • As the ASSOCIATION’s attorneys, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS also owed a duty to comply with Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and not to unreasonably or excessively bill the ASSOCIATION.  The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS’ fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION also included the obligation that the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS would perform the legal services in an efficient and cost effective manner, would not pad or engage in deceptive and abusive billing practices, would charge litigation costs and expenses to the ASSOCIATION at their own cost and without increase, and that the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS would exercise their fiduciary duty in respect to their fees, billings and costs charged.  The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS breached their fiduciary duties to the ASSOCIATION by unreasonably and excessively billing the ASSOCIATION for the ultimately incompetent legal services performed which caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the ASSOCIATION and its members.  As a direct and proximate result of the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS’ various fiduciary breaches, the ASSOCIATION has suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
  • In doing the things herein alleged, the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS intentionally put their own financial interests ahead of the interests of their client.  As a direct and proximate result of the C&M DEFENDANTS’ actions, as alleged herein, the ASSOCIATION incurred substantial unnecessary fees and costs, in an amount subject to proof.
  • The legal work was mishandled from the start of CLAYTON & MCCULLOH’s representation and the mishandling by the CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS began almost immediately after C&M was retained.
  • The C&M DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in their representation of the ASSOCIATION by negligently and carelessly doing all of the acts and omissions as herein alleged.  
  • The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS, and each of them, owed the ASSOCIATION a fiduciary duty to act at all times in good faith and in the ASSOCIATION’s best interests, and had a duty, among other things, to perform the services for which they were retained with reasonable care and skill, to act in the ASSOCIATION’s highest and best interests at all times, and to not expose the ASSOCIATION to any unnecessary risk or peril. This fiduciary and confidential relationship was never repudiated by the C&M DEFENDANTS at any time herein mentioned.
  • The CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to the ASSOCIATION by doing all of the acts and omissions as herein alleged.
  • WINDSOR demands judgment of and from CLAYTON & MCCULLOH DEFENDANTS for compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial; special damages as permitted by law; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and for such other relief as the Court deems necessary or proper.
  • Furthermore, in doing all of the above described acts and omissions constituting Defendants’ breach of their fiduciary duties owed to the ASSOCIATION, the ASSOCIATION sustained damages, including but not limited to, legal fees incurred to C&M in the amount of over $130,000, the ASSOCIATION sustained further and additional economic and out of pocket losses and damages to be presented at trial, all according to proof.

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

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

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

He likes his bangs apparently.

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

Christine Praria is legal assistant to Russell E. Klemm.

She seems to think she’s running the show.

 

 

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – FRAUD

COUNT TWO

FRAUD

  1. WINDSOR adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 505.
  2. asserts this claim against the ASSOCIATION, COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, C&M DEFENDANTS, and SENTRY DEFENDANTS.
  3. claim the BYLAWS of the ASSOCIATION were amended on August 1, 2017.  This is a false representation of fact.  The ASSOCIATION, COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, C&M DEFENDANTS, and SENTRY DEFENDANTS knew this was false.  The ASSOCIATION, COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, C&M DEFENDANTS, and SENTRY DEFENDANTS perpetrated a fraud by claiming the BYLAWS were amended.
  4. The records of the ASSOCIATION and SENTRY prove that there was not a quorum for attempted meetings on August 1, 2017, and the vote to amend the BYLAWS failed as well as a vote required to authorize use of the Reserves.  In addition, consents were not obtained from first mortgage holders for a bylaw amendment as required by the BYLAWS. [See SOF 51, 52, 59, 63, 97, 104, 107, 138, 331.]
  5. On December 28, 2018, OMAR and KAREN signed a fraudulent affidavit stating that the BYLAWS were amended on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT C.]  This was a false representation of fact.  It was written by BRIAN and C&M, and it was filed in Lake County by BRIAN and C&M.  There was no purported Board Meeting on December 28, 2018, and there has never been ratification of this purported Certificate of Amendment. [See SOF 97, 107, 127, 138, 331.]
  6. CHARLIE ANN and SENTRY produced bogus minutes to WINDSOR in an effort to conceal that there was no amendment to BYLAW 2.2. [See SOF 51, 52, 167, 209, 216, 331.]
  7. The Minutes of the purported August 1, 2017 meeting show that there was no approval of a BYLAW amendment on August 1, 2017. [EXHIBIT 1287.]  BRIAN and C&M had a duty to review the minutes.  The ASSOCIATION’s records prove the BYLAW Amendment did not comply with the corporate governing documents. [See SOF 331.]
  8. On January 15, 2019, Lake County Clerk of Court records indicate that an alleged amendment to the BYLAWS was filed by BRIAN of C&M.  There was no Board Meeting on December 28, 2018 to authorize this affidavit. [EXHIBIT C.] [See SOF 97, 138, 331.]
  9. The documents that proved there was never an amendment have always been maintained at SENTRY.  SENTRY managed all meetings and had a duty to know the Lake County filing was a fraud.
  10. All of the C&M DEFENDANTS, SENTRY DEFENDANTS, and COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS have been informed many times that the BYLAWS were never amended.  They all knew the representation was false.  [See SOF  251, 253, 254, 288, 291, 303, 308, 327, 331, 363, 371, 376, and others.]
  11. The ASSOCIATION, COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, C&M DEFENDANTS, and SENTRY DEFENDANTS intended the PLAINTIFF and Owners to rely on the representation that the BYLAWS were amended, and they induced the PLAINTIFF and Owners to act on it.  Meetings were scheduled that WINDSOR and Owners were told were official when the dates violated the true BYLAWS.
  12. The January 15, 2019 filing constitutes fraud.  The ASSOCIATION, C&M DEFENDANTS, SENTRY DEFENDANTS, OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN committed fraud in an effort to get OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN elected at a 2019 meeting that appeared to be authorized by the BYLAWS.
  13. Telling WINDSOR, the ASSOCIATION owners, Lake County, and the general public that the BYLAWS were amended was false.  ASSOCIATION, C&M DEFENDANTS, SENTRY DEFENDANTS, OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN knew 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 while claiming the BYLAWS were amended.  The intent was to deceive WINDSOR and ASSOCIATION owners into believing the BYLAWS were amended.  Owners relied on those representations.  WINDSOR and 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.  WINDSOR and other Owners have been forced to pay dues and assessments that were not legally authorized.
  14. WINDSOR and Owners have been injured by the false representation.  DEFENDANTS have used the false representation and the fraudulent amendment filing to subvert the legal processes of the ASSOCIATION and its members.

The ASSOCIATION, COACH HOUSES MEMBER DEFENDANTS, C&M DEFENDANTS, and SENTRY DEFENDANTS have participated in the fraud by claiming the BYLAWS were amended.

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section