Category: Sentry Management

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

Judge Dan R. MosleyJudge 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

Do not buy 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

Don't buy 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

Don't buy 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

Inside the walls of 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

You have no control over the costs in 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

Florida Department of Business and Professional RegulationIn 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

You are legally screwed in 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.

You can be screwed by your condo associationAs 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

Do not buy 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 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

Tavares Florida Police issue an All Points Bulletin for a Condo OwnerBelieve 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 and McCulloh law firmClayton 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 and McCulloh malpracticeI 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

William M. WindsorI’m William M. Windsor.  I’m not an attorney… just smarter than most attorneys.  I know a lot about condo laws and related problems in Florida.  If you need help, email me at billwindsor1@outlook.com, or call 352-577-9988 and leave a message for a return call.

So, I’m becoming a Florida Condominium Consultant.

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

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

Copyright William M. Windsor, 2021

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

COUNT EIGHT

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

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

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

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit – CONSPIRACY

COUNT SEVEN

CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy

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 – DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

Sentry Management

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 PompThis is Brad Pomp, CEO of SENTRY MANAGEMENT.

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

COUNT FOUR

BREACH OF CONTRACT

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

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

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section

The Sad Story of Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominiums

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Windsor v. Coach Houses at Leesburg Condominium Lawsuit

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA

William M. Windsor,

Plaintiff,

                                                                                    Case No. 35-2020-CA-001438

vs.

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

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

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

Introduction

Jurisdiction and Venue

Parties

Legal Background

Statement of Facts:

Facts — 2018

Facts — January 2019

Facts — February 2019

Facts — March 2019

Facts — April 2019

Facts — May 2019

Facts — June 2019

Facts — July 2019

Facts — August 2019

Facts — September 2019

Facts — October 2019

Facts — November 2019

Facts — December 2019

Facts — January 2020

Facts — February 2020

Facts — March 2020

Facts — May 2020

Facts — June 2020

Facts — July 2020

Facts — August 2020

Facts — September 2020

Facts — October 2020

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE — BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

COUNT TWO — FRAUD

COUNT THREE — DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE

COUNT FOUR — BREACH OF CONTRACT

COUNT FIVE — DERIVATIVE ACTION FOR MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF CONTRACT

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

COUNT SEVEN — CONSPIRACY

COUNT EIGHT — PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

COUNT NINE — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Prayer for Relief

 

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

  1. On June 5, 2019, the ASSOCIATION filed Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020). [EXHIBIT 796.]
  2. On June 5, 2019, investigator Ron James from the DBPR called to discuss WINDSOR’s second Complaint regarding failure to produce documents (DBPR Complaint No. 2019028466).  He sent WINDSOR a letter dated June 5, 2019. [EXHIBIT 994.]
  3. On June 5, 2019, WINDSOR entered into a contract to sell his Coach Houses Unit B3 for $80,000. [EXHIBIT 1015.]
  4. On June 6, 2019, a purported Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 973.] [EXHIBIT 1367 is the Minutes.]  ISABEL CAMPBELL, SERGIO NAUMOFF, and ED BROOM were present.  Purported Officer and Board Member ISABEL CAMPBELL told the attendees that the Board was very confident that the ASSOCIATION would prevail in WINDSOR’s First Petition for Arbitration.  She gave no explanation.  She discussed her review of the finances of the ASSOCIATION and presented a Proposed Adjusted Budget for 2019. [EXHIBIT 974.]  The Proposed Adjusted Budget showed a reduction in Building Maintenance by $26,729.27 and no change in Grounds Maintenance, Utilities, or Budgeted Transfer to Reserves.  It showed an increase of approximately $50,000 in Income and Administrative & Management Expense.  Those costs showed a $75,000 increase in legal fees.  Those are all costs related to the ASSOCIATION’S defense of all the violations WINDSOR had identified.  The video of the June 6, 2019 meeting is EXHIBIT 995-1, EXHIBIT 995-2, EXHIBIT 995-3, EXHIBIT 995-4, EXHIBIT 995-5, EXHIBIT 995-6, and EXHIBIT 995-7.
  5. On June 6, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the purported Board, CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, and SENTRY MANAGEMENT regarding the Board Meeting. [EXHIBIT 822.]  He said:

“I hereby request to be named a Board Member.  If we have openings, you are required by statute to notify the owners, and you didn’t.  You want an odd number, though that is not in our Bylaws or the Florida statutes.  But, now I’m Board Member #5.  37 years of Minutes show this is what is done when there are openings pre-Omar.

For the record, today’s meeting was invalid.  The March election was invalid.  I didn’t raise a Point of Order as owners don’t have such a right at a Board Meeting. 

A very intelligent request was made today by an owner to have special expenses treated through Special Assessments.  CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE told all at the meeting that the attorneys said our BYLAWS prohibit this.  There is NOTHING in our BYLAWS that prohibits special assessments.  I asked for the Bylaw to be identified, and CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE told me to hire an attorney.   I came home and read the BYLAWS for about the hundredth time.  I am preparing to file another Petition that will list this as another violation.  Florida law specifically permits Special Assessments (Section 718.112(2)(c)1, Florida Statutes): http://www.condo-owner.com/article/special-assessments-do-it-right-or-pay-the-price/

By the way, Florida Statutes take precedence over bylaws.

I have an eyewitness to the Libel dog soiling the carpets in Building B.  Ask Jason and Karen Chandler.  Mrs. DOROTHY LIEBL (Libel) claimed her dog never did any such thing.  WRONG!

Unfortunately, your new Board has chosen to fight me legally.  At today’s meeting, I offered to withdraw my actions against the Association.  I am willing to do this if CLAYTON & MCCULLOH and SENTRY MANAGEMENT refund to the Association all money paid by the Association to them from 2016 to 2019.

The people responsible for our outrageous legal fees are OMAR NUSEIBEH, VICKI HEDRICK, KAREN BOLLINGER, CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, BRIAN HESS, NEAL MCCULLOH.”

  • On June 7, 2019, WINDSOR sent a certified letter to attorney BRIAN HESS of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH for the ASSOCIATION. WINDSOR enclosed a Letter from Karen Chandler about B3 Carpet; Email from him about Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Liebls, and Lawyers; Letter from him agreeing to be a Director; Email from WINDSOR about Board Meeting; Email from WINDSOR about Vandalism in Building B; Email from WINDSOR with Notice of Intent to file Third Petition for Arbitration; Notice of Intent for his 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; Richard accepted the envelope.
  • 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. [EXHIBIT 821.]  She gave the letter to WINDSOR, and he emailed it to the purported Board, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.
  • On June 7, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the purported Board, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, and CLAYTON & MCCULLOH charging Breach of Fiduciary Duty. [EXHIBIT 823.]  The email says:

“Karen Chandler in Unit B4 will speak to the Board and sign an affidavit stating that the Libels dog caused the carpet mess in Building B.  She has seen the dog do it.  She has seen Dorothy Libel with the dog when the dog did it.  Dorothy Libel has told Karen and Jason that the dog has “bladder issues.”

Karen cared for the dog when the Liebels were out of town, and the dog peed on the carpet at the top of the stairs.  Karen obviously observed this.

Just like the Old Board, the New Board is not requiring Dorothy Libel to clean the carpets, and this is imposing an expense on the owners that is wrongful.  23 spots have been documented with photos.

Have Libels pay, or I will sue.  Consider this Notice of Intent to file a Petition and sue.

ALSO, the Minutes of the ASSOCIATION establish that carpets have been replaced at various times.  Building B is the newest.  There is no reason to not stagger this work over the years.  It should be a budgeted Reserves item.  Building B simply needs the 23 spots of pee and poo cleaned.  Doing all buildings at one time hurts all owners.

Your approval of payments to CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH constitutes breach of fiduciary duty, in my opinion.

Your approval of fighting my first Petition also constitutes breach of fiduciary duty, in my opinion.  And if a letter from Monalene Werner magically appears after months of requests, I believe this constitutes fraud.  You better believe I will pursue that in court.

Thank you for establishing a rule yesterday that limits owners to three minutes per agenda item.  This helps enforce the fact that my rights and the rights of others were violated prior to this alleged Board enactment when CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE and OMAR NUSEIBEH claimed there was such a rule.  No such rule in the Rules or Minutes over the last 37 years.

  • On June 9, 2019, WINDSOR emailed attorney RUSSELL KLEMM (“RUSSELL”) of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH, attorney BRIAN HESS, attorney NEAL MCCULLOH of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH, and the ASSOCIATION asking them to withdraw the sham Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action. [EXHIBIT 818.]
  • On June 9, 2019 at 9:54 a.m., WINDSOR emailed ISABEL CAMPBELL, SERGIO NAUMOFF, and ED BROOM advising them of his intent to sue them for breach of fiduciary duty. [EXHIBIT 819.]  The email said:

I intend to sue ISABEL CAMPBELL, SERGIO NAUMOFF, and ED BROOM for breach of fiduciary duty and other causes of action.  Please notify your insurance carrier, and ask the insurance folks to call me.

I will allege that you folks have failed to take the necessary actions to operate legally; you have spent money improperly; you are using dishonest attorneys and a dishonest management company and have been provided with massive proof.  You have presented false information to the owners about BYLAWS and special assessments.  You have concealed wrongdoing with Reserve funds.  You have failed to get the fraudulent BYLAW filing removed from Lake County Records.  You have told owners that all work must be done at the same time so some owners don’t feel slighted.  That’s a load of you-know-what.  You have not enforced the letter sent several years ago to the Libels.  You have evidence that the Libels are guilty, but you want all owners to pay to clean it up.  You have not had the Libels “installation” removed, though they were ordered to do so years ago.  And more…

It took you 76 days to hold a meeting in which ISABEL CAMPBELL essentially recited information that I had prepared back in February.

Should a letter from Monalene Werner magically appear next week, I will also charge you with fraud.  If allowed by Florida law or federal law, I will charge you with criminal racketeering (RICO).

Please keep all emails and other communications safe as they will be evidence in the case.  Please do not delete anything.  I will seek a forensic audit of your electronic devices, if necessary.

The D&O Insurance carrier was not notified.  This email was also sent to BRAD POMP, ART SWANTON, and CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE with SENTRY MANAGEMENT and BRIAN HESS and NEAL MCCULLOH with CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.

  1. On June 10, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the ASSOCIATION, ISABEL, SERGIO, and ED, SENTRY, and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH advising them of his intent to petition for arbitration regarding failure to enforce the Rules. [EXHIBIT 875.]
  2. On June 11, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the owners, purported Board, SENTRY, and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.  WINDSOR said payables must be frozen so C&M will not be paid $80,000 in legal fees. [EXHIBIT 988.]
  3. On June 11, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Notice of Intent to File Petition for Arbitration regarding Violations of Corporate Documents, Rules, and Florida Statutes, purported Board, SENTRY, and CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH.  WINDSOR also mailed a copy to attorney BRIAN. [EXHIBIT 989.]
  4. On June 11, 2019, DBPR investigator Paula Bouie sent WINDSOR a letter about the Complaint he filed over failure to produce records for January 9, 2019, February 5, 2019, February 22, 2019, and February 27, 2019 in response to Inspection of Records Requests. [EXHIBIT 1014.]
  5. On June 13, 2019, a second Final Order of Dismissal (“SECOND FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL”) was filed in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020. [EXHIBIT 1008.]
  6. On June 14, 2019, SUE Yokley purchased Unit C3 from Medea Minnich.  She paid $48,000. [EXHIBIT 1426.]
  7. On June 17, 2019, the buyers of his Unit B3 condo canceled the purchase agreement.  They canceled because of the excessive monthly “dues” and the lack of amenities at Coach Houses. [EXHIBIT 1016.]  On June 17, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the owners advising them that his sale fell through. [EXHIBIT 1040.]
  8. On June 17, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to the ASSOCIATION demanding that the Building B carpets be cleaned. [EXHIBIT 1041.]
  9. 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 the loss of a sale. [EXHIBIT 1156.]
  10. On June 18, 2019, the MOTION FOR REHEARING in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR for filing. [EXHIBIT 1018.] 
  11. On June 18, 2019, the FOURTH AFFIDAVIT in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR for filing. [EXHIBIT H.] 
  12. On June 18, 2019, the THIRD AFFIDAVIT in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR by email. [EXHIBIT G.] 
  13. On June 18, 2019, PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR for filing. [EXHIBIT 1022.]

 

  1. On June 20, 2019, a purported Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 1059.] [EXHIBIT 1368 is the Minutes.]  Barbara and Larry Lunsford attended the meeting as did SERGIO NAUMOFF and CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE OF SENTRY MANAGEMENT (shown above).  There was no discussion of quorum (0:00 to 0:42 in the video.)  CHARLIE ANN ALDRIDGE denied WINDSOR’s right to speak on the subject of “reorganization of the Board.” [EXHIBIT 1059 from 1:04 to 1:30.]  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.
  2. On June 21, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Notice of Intent to File Petition for Arbitration and/or a Lawsuit Regarding Violations of Corporate Documents, Rules, and Florida Statutes to BRIAN HESS of CLAYTON AND MCCULLOH. [EXHIBIT 1080.]  EXHIBIT 542 is the certified mail receipt.
  3. On June 21, 2019, the MOTION FOR REHEARING in Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR by mail. [EXHIBIT 1018.]  The Microsoft Word version of this filing is EXHIBIT 1019.  EXHIBIT 476 is the Certified Mail Receipt.
  4. On June 21, 2019, the FOURTH AFFIDAVIT in Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR by mail. [EXHIBIT H.]  The Microsoft Word version of this filing is EXHIBIT 1024.
  5. On June 21, 2019, the THIRD AFFIDAVIT in Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR by mail. [EXHIBIT G.]
  6. On June 21, 2019, PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS in Case No. 2019-02-1020 was executed, served, and sent to DBPR by mail. [EXHIBIT 1022.]  EXHIBIT 1037 is the certified mail receipt for the THIRD AFFIDAVIT, FOURTH AFFIDAVIT, PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, and MOTION FOR REHEARING in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-1020 that was served on KLEMM.  [EXHIBIT 522 is the certified mail receipt.]
  7. On June 23, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Notice of Intent to Apply for Receivership to the ASSOCIATION. [EXHIBIT 569.]
  8. On June 23, 2019, WINDSOR emailed the ASSOCIATION with a request to be able to post the Notice of Intent to Apply for Receivership where conspicuous notices are posted. [EXHIBIT 1039.]  There was no response.
  9. On June 25, 2019, Ronell James of DBPR sent WINDSOR a letter saying the ASSOCIATION provided documentation to show his issue in Case No. 2019028466 was before federal court in Atlanta, Georgia. [EXHIBIT 1139.]  This is absolutely false, and WINDSOR suspects forgery.
  10. On June 25, 2019, WINDSOR served his Motion for Default and Motion for Fees and Costs in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6384. [EXHIBIT 1186.]
  11. On June 27, 2019, WINDSOR received RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6834. [EXHIBIT 1042.]
  12. On June 28, 2019, WINDSOR sent a Motion for Leave to file Condominium Arbitration Complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia – Case No. 1-11-CV-01923-TWT. [EXHIBIT 1202.]
  13. On June 29, 2019, WINDSOR paid Stanley Steemer $83.75 to clean the carpets in Building B. [EXHIBIT 1062.]
  14. 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, I 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.
  15. On June 29, 2019, WINDSOR sent for filing his Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6834. [EXHIBIT 1089.]
  16. On June 29, 2019, WINDSOR sent the DBPR and RUSSELL KLEMM of CLAYTON and MCCULLOH an email with his Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss in DBPR Case No. 2019-02-6834. [EXHIBIT 1090.]

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section