|
|
Post by leokeeler on Sept 1, 2021 14:01:22 GMT -7
Some people are asking me what is going on with the two lawsuits against the GLA Board that have been filed in the District Court; DV 21-52 and DV 21-101.
DV 21-52, by Charlotte and Newman, asks the Judge to require an election. The O'Connell's have filed to be joiners in this case with Charlotte and Newman.
A Summons to respond was written and signed by the Clerk of the Court on May 25th. The GLA Board (excluding Charlotte and Newman due to conflict of interest) responded even though there was no legal requirement to do so at that time.
There are no requirements to act on this lawsuit since there is no record in the files of the Clerk of the Court that the Summons has been delivered to the Board. Deliverance of the Summons would have been to Charlotte and it is unknown if she received it and has delayed returning the Notice of Delivery or Summons Return.
Today I checked the case status with the Clerk of the Court and was lucky enough to be able to ask the County attorney the standing and expected timeline for processing of Charlotte's case (DV 21-52). Since no Summons Return or any other record of it being served upon the Board exists, the Court is not taking any action and no timelines have started.
No action will be taken by the Court until a record of service to the Board is RECORDED with the Clerk of the Court.
The "no action" includes considering or acting on the O'Connell's request to be joiners with Charlotte.
Thus DV 21-52 is in limbo with no time limits or foreseeable actions to be taken.
The other case DV 21-101 seeks to dissolve the GLA Board or separate North and South Glastonbury so as to have their own independent Boards.
DV 21-101 is proceeding along a normal path, with an ORDER SETTING DEADLINES being issued by Judge Gilbert on August 13th.
The Order Setting Deadlines depicts Sept. 10th as the dated notice of whom is selected as Mediator must to be filed with the Court. This order also sets Oct. 15th as the date by which Mediation or Settlement is to be completed before either party may file a request for a scheduling conference or other necessary motions.
Leo
|
|
|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Sept 3, 2021 8:36:47 GMT -7
"It is impossible for arsonists to faithfully perform the duties of a fireman" Former GLA Director and Legal Committee member Leo Keeler uncovered important information with his visit to the County Courthouse. He discovered that the Brozovsky/Mizzi lawsuit was never served properly and is stalled in the court system. GLA Director Tim Brockett notified the GLA board of Keeler's Forum article and asked President Andrea Sedlak and Vice President John McAlister to schedule a Legal Committee meeting ASAP to discuss the stalled lawsuit with Attorney Knobel. A $10,000.00 retainer fee was paid to Knobel to defend the GLA against the Brozovsky/Mizzi lawsuit. Brockett reasoned that landowners were being harmed by the stalled lawsuit. They were being denied a completion to the 2020 Annual Election and had to pay continuing legal bills associated with defending the GLA against the Brozovsky/Mizzi lawsuit. He asked that the Brozovsky/Mizzi lawsuit be dismissed so the election can proceed.
His request for a Legal Committee meeting was not answered. This morning Brockett spoke again to the GLA again. He said:
The founding members of the dissolution lawsuit are: past GLA President Dennis Riley and his wife Wendy Riley, GLA Director Andrea Sedlak, former GLA director Mark Seaver, GLA Director Jerry Ladewig and Martha and GLA Director and Treasurer John McAlister.
Brockett added that he does not see signers of the petition as arsonists. He added "Signing the petition may have been an emotional reaction to a dysfunctional GLA board. Views and attitudes must be allowed to change as the gravity of dissolution sets in. Eliminating the GLA leaves no venue for road maintenance, snow plowing or zoning. Property values would plummet as the roads became impassable. Upon quiet reflection I think most signers would have second thoughts and may wish to revoke their signatures". Brockett hopes that the founding members of the dissolution petition will withdraw their lawsuit and work to make the GLA a more effective and efficient board that can faithfully serve all landowners.
We will keep you posted as this story develops.
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Sept 3, 2021 16:43:16 GMT -7
The two lawsuits are totally separate and distinct and should not be discussed as impacting each other. The Judge may combine them, but that is up to the Judge and not any of the petitioners.
Unless Judge Gilbert combines the two cases into one, I do not believe Andrea, John or Jerry have a conflict of interest in addressing the Mizzi/Newman lawsuit. As long as the cases are separate, Directors should only be limited in acting on cases in which they are the petitioners.
I agree that the GLA attorney hired to respond to the Mizzi lawsuit should be asked to hold any actions and charges until the case becomes truly active.
The Board hired a different attorney to respond to the Dissolution lawsuit, and I do not understand why. Both attorneys must spend time, and charge the GLA, to become educated on GLA's Covenants and Bylaws. I see two attorneys as extremely wasteful and wonder why things are set up that way.
Ed has resigned again (3rd time now)!! But the Board is still deadlocked on important issues as was displayed in the 8/31 meeting. I would not call the Board functional just because Ed has resigned his recent seat a second time. This time effective immediately just as he did when resigning in 2017/18
I am unsure whom Director Brockett is addressing as signers of the petition. If he is referencing landowners signing to show support for dissolution, I do not agree that their sentiments are changing. I see them, and many others (maybe a majority) that recognize the cultural differences between North (mainly original landowners) and South ( mainly newcomers) and see great benefits from at least splitting N/S.
A trial will reveal the need for an entity to be responsible for road maintenance and I believe Judge Gilbert will address road management concerns, for safety reasons if nothing else.
FYI - when on the Board, I lead the effort resulting in hiring Tyler Malonie to help GLA begin collecting long overdue assessments. I recall his stating that having 400 lots/Landowners as part of a Landowners Association was very rare and extremely hard to manage with volunteer Directors.
Considering that of 12 Directors 7-8 may be properly called "Seat/Vote Holders" I wonder if GLA remains as both N & S, if landowenrs would not be better served by PAID DIRECTORS? I know that would be expensive.
What stops me from truly discussing that is I believe that to be on the Board, a person should have a financial interest (i.e. skin in the game) to site on the Board. I have no problem with Proxies being given to vote for someone, but unless a person is benefited/armed by the Board actions, they should not be voting on what to do.
I believe Charlotte and Newman sought out non-landowners to "represent" landownbers. Those "Recruits" failed to properly complete their nomination packets. If they did not understand those requirements, how could they be expected to read, understand (truly care about) and enforce our covenants. Would any of them really act in the best interest of GLA, or only in the interest of those who solicited them to put their names in for the Board
Leo
|
|
