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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRIAN simply failed to respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windsor Response: This is absolutely false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 1, 2019, the ASSOCIATION filed a lien against Donna *** of Coach Houses Unit H2 with the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court. [EXHIBIT 424.] The Lien showed her to be one month past due. Donna *** had just voted to recall/replace OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN. Donna *** has provided records to me to show that she was not past due.
On February 3, 2019, WINDSOR sent an email to OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN, owners, CHARLIE ANN of SENTRY, and BRIAN of C&M asking that defamation of him be placed on the Board agenda. [EXHIBIT 392.] There was no response. It has never been addressed.
On February 3, 2019, Diana Raley (Unit G2) sent an email to owners saying: “What William Windsor is telling everyone is not true.” [EXHIBIT 429.] This is false. WINDSOR can only guess at the magnitude of the libel and slander that he does not have access to.
On February 4, 2019, a purported Special Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 28.] No minutes were published for the purported meeting. EXHIBIT 304 is a video from the meeting. The Recall / Election issue began at 8:45 into the video. The notice of a Recall / Election was deemed proper [EXHIBIT 304 at 8:45] as was the form of the Agreement / Ballot [EXHIBIT 304 at 10:15 to 10:51]. 16 Agreements/Ballots were deemed proper. [EXHIBIT 304 at 10:51 to 11:15.] OMAR claimed Monalene Werner (“MONALENE”) had withdrawn her vote, but there was no proof. [EXHIBIT 304 at 11:15.] He also claimed the vote of the Nielsen Trust (C2) was invalid. [EXHIBIT 304 at 11:45.] OMAR claimed it was signed “by unknown parties.” This is laughable as Nancy Camp and Jane O’Steen have been paying the assessments since 2013. OMAR claimed there were 32 voting interests. [EXHIBIT 304 at 12:21 to 12:41.] The Recall / Election was rejected. [EXHIBIT 304 at 13:35 to 14:37.] WINDSOR was not allowed to speak at 21:00 into the video. CHARLIE ANN and OMAR claimed there is a one comment and three-minute limit, but there is no such rule. This is a violation of Florida statutes Section 718.112(2)(c)&(d), which provides that unit owners have a right to attend member meetings and board meetings and the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated agenda items. At 20:50, WINDSOR told all in attendance that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN were not officers or directors. At 27:15, WINDSOR stated that there was no election of officers, as this was one item on the agenda that was not covered. [EXHIBIT 304 at 27:15]
The Board failed to file a petition for recall arbitration. This is a violation of Florida Statute 718.112(2)(j) 3 and Florida Administrative Code 61B-23.0028(3)(b).
On February 4, 2019, WINDSOR demanded that OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN step down, but they ignored him. Demands to SENTRY and C&M attorneys were ignored.
On February 14, 2019, a purported special Board Meeting was held. [EXHIBIT 33.] No minutes were published for the purported meeting. OMAR, VICKI, and KAREN approved spending approximately $27,000 with American GeoTechnical and Gartner Group on foundation repairs for Building A despite other bids that were much lower. WINDSOR objected. Jack Gries, the engineer hired to identify the problem and recommend contractors to do the repair, told WINDSOR that he would be happy with any of the bidders. EXHIBIT 251 contains bids for $17,767 and $13,575. These bids were concealed from the owners; WINDSOR obtained them through an Inspection of Records in March 2019.
WINDSOR worked with owners following the denial of the first election/recall to prepare a second election/recall. In February 2019, 18 of the 32 owners at Coach Houses at Leesburg followed all of the procedures for an election/recall or election of directors. 18 voted, and all 18 voted to elect ISABEL Campbell, Jason Chandler, and Joseph L. Lunsford. That’s 100%.
On February 5, 2019, WINDSOR received a certified letter from BRIAN of C&M responding to his questions of January 9, 2019. [EXHIBIT 263.]
The February 5, 2019 letter from BRIAN [EXHIBIT 263] violated Florida Statute 718.112 (2)(a)(2). WINDSOR has listed each Violation alleged by him, has shown what BRIAN stated in his letter, and provides his responses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for links to the entire lawsuit, by section