Dissolution Case Updates - October 27, 2022 | Glastonbury Community Forum

Dissolution Case Updates - October 27, 2022 Oct 27, 2022 13:11:16 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Poor Richard on Oct 27, 2022 13:11:16 GMT -7

Dissolution Case Update - October 27, 2022

The lawsuit to dissolve the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) is moving forward. Judge Gilbert appointed Nels Swandal to oversee the 2022 Election and file a report with the court. That report was filed on September 6th, 2022. It listed the winners of the 2022 Special Election and the vote total regarding separating the current GLA into a GLA South and a GLA North. A majority of those casting ballots approved of the separation.

On September 12th, 2022 Judge Gilbert requested that both parties to the Dissolution lawsuit submit briefs. Ryan Jackson represented the GLA and Nick Lofing represented the Dissolution team. Former Director Charlotte Mizzi aligned herself with Litigious Litigant Val O'Connell and also filed a brief. The Forum has studied all three briefs and will summarize each in separate articles. We will also include links so you can download the official court filings.

Dissolution Brief for the Separation of Glastonbury

Attorney Nick Lofing's Brief provides background and legal analysis of why the GLA should be divided into a GLA North and GLA South. The case is made that the Dissolution Team followed court rules as they moved forward. The court ordered Mediation and it was done. The Mediation meeting resulted in a majority of participants voting in favor of dividing the GLA. It was Director Mizzi who cast the crucial vote IN FAVOR of dividing Glastonbury. Shortly thereafter the GLA Board approved the separation of Glastonbury.

A Court Hearing in January of 2022 ordered a GLA Special Election to be supervised by a Pendente Lite; Nels Swandal. The Election was completed successfully and a report was filed. Lofing notes that all the court rules were followed and a majority of landowners voted for separation. Then he launches into a critical argument about GLA Governing Documents. Lofing says that since the Covenants need not be changed, the 51% threshold of YES votes from all eligible landowners required to achieve that, does not apply. Rather he believes that the lower threshold of a majority of those who cast ballots is all that is needed to divide the GLA. He backs up his argument with pertinent quotes from various GLA Governing Documents. You may download his October 11th, 2022 court filing here. It is a well-written document and the arguments are coherent and persuasive.

In a day or two, we will present another brief filed in response to Judge Gilbert's request. Eventually, all of the briefs will be ruled upon and a final decision released by Judge Gilbert.

Dissolution Case Updates - October 27, 2022 Oct 28, 2022 13:13:48 GMT -7

Quote

Post by Poor Richard on Oct 28, 2022 13:13:48 GMT -7

GLA Attorney Ryan Jackson Files His Brief

In response to Judge Gilbert's September 12, 2022 request for both parties in the lawsuit to Dissolve the GLA, file briefs, official GLA attorney Ryan Jackson submitted one on October 12, 2022. Nels Swandal also invited Jackson to weigh in on the "ambiguity {that} exists in the language of the Bylaws and Covenants of the GLA as to the issue of whether there was the requisite number of votes necessary to amend the Covenants". Both requests put Jackson in an awkward position. Sometime last summer Jackson used up the $7,500.00 retainer the GLA paid him. Since then he was rarely heard from on the board email system. No new funds were authorized either. Jackson faded from the GLA.

The GLA board was not officially notified when Judge Gilbert requested briefs from Jackson and Lofing. Unbeknownst to the GLA Board, former directors Charlotte Mizzi, Gerald Dubiel, and Newman Brozovsky chose not to engage the newly elected GLA Board and request the services of Jackson for their response. Rather they asked landowner Val O'Connell to write their brief and file it with the court. Val O'Connell was declared a Vexatious Litigant by the court in 2017 and is prohibited from filing briefs. Former directors cannot speak for the current GLA board.

Attorney Jackson explained his predicament to the court and requested a 30-day stay. He reasoned that 30 days would give the newly elected GLA Board ample time to decide if they still wished his services and then provide him with "guidance".

You may download Attorney Jackson's Brief here.

A Third Brief is Filed by Val O'Connell on "Behalf of the members"

On October 5th, 2022 Val O'Connell filed a fraudulent brief with the court. It included letters from former directors Charlotte Mizzi, Gerald Dubiel, and Newman Brozovsky. The brief purported to express the legal response to Judge Gilbert's request on behalf of the GLA Board and all members. However, the entire document was written and submitted without the current GLA Board's knowledge or approval. As noted above it was submitted by a person who is prohibited from such actions as well.

Attorney Lofing was quick to file a request on October 11th, 2022 asking that the "improper motion" be stricken from the record. Lofing wrote:

First, the October 5 Filings were signed and submitted by Charlotte Mizzi and Val O’Connell, allegedly on behalf of “Respondents” and “Members”. However, neither Ms. Mizzi nor Ms. O’Connell is an attorney or otherwise authorized agent of the GLA. Neither is a current board member or officer, nor a party to the lawsuit. See Status Report, Sept. 6, 2022 (listing current board members and demonstrating Ms. Mizzi and Ms. O’Connell do not serve on the GLA Board). Neither has intervened in nor been joined to the lawsuit. The October 5 Filings are improperly filed on behalf of “Members” and “Respondents” and must be stricken as improper and misrepresentation.

Furthermore, Ms. O’Connell has been declared a vexatious litigant for filings much like this one, and she is prohibited by order of the Court from making filings such as this one.

You may download the brief written by Val O'Connell on behalf of all members here.

The fraudulent brief improperly submitted by a person who was prohibited from such action, will in all likelihood be stricken from the record. Any arguments contained within, no matter how valid they may be, will most likely never be read by Judge Gilbert. However if the new GLA Board provides Attorney Jackson with direction and funding they could ask him to address the points they believe are best presented to keep the GLA from splitting into two boards.

As this case progresses through the court we will keep you updated. A final ruling could be many months away and undoubtedly cost tens of thousands of dollars more for both sides.