Be Carefull What You Wish For (update on HPPOA lawsuit)

[HiloJulie]

Julie - ”…on the 5% issue, my opinion is that I think it is unwinnable for the Plaintiff as the bylaws do clearly allow for “up to 5%” to be transferred for non-road use and they really have no specificity as to what the 5% can be used for in any and all non-road matters. Again, that’s MY opinion.”

Bylaws have to have legal foundation or they are null and void.  I can’t stress this enough.  It’s amazing how many people don’t get this and think that they can make law in the boardroom.  I believe Plaintiff has quoted another section of the bylaws that says that the road funds are for roads only.  So there is a conflict within the bylaws.  I wondered about this, and why she didn’t just go straight to the road fee judgment for foundation for her argument.  That judgment is strictly for roads, nothing else, and to my knowledge there has never been any modification or additions to it.  So MY opinion is that Defendants will have a difficult time showing legal foundation for the 5% rule.
I agree, going to court is a “crap shoot”.  I think the judge is more likely to rule on points of law, which would favor the plaintiff and Watamull.  It’s harder to guess what a jury might do.

From what I have seen, the “5%” rule has been in the HPP Bylaws since 2004. Further, I can tell, by the formatting used when the 2004 Bylaws were written, that a lawyer wrote them. So, I would assume, there is somewhat of a legal ground that would allow for a portion of the fees collected to go to non-road use. It appears that and according to the 2004 bylaws, the “fee” for non-road use items was started at $24,000.00 and then capped at 5% each year thereafter.

But then, just EXACTLY what is “non-road” versus “road” use? How does one define that? Do “road” use fees collected and then only to be used for “roads” cover the cost of an office? A copy machine? A postage meter? BOD election ballots? A water cooler?

None of those items pave one inch of road. So, to me, this is trying to split a hair 10 different ways. And if anything, it’s not really an argument based in law, it’s an argument based upon the order of words. What makes one paragraph about road fees being used for roads only the “law” and another paragraph that allows for a portion to be used for non-road use “illegal?” Confusing, yes, indeed. It’s been in effect with the HPP Bylaws for 21 years now and no one has legally challenged that clause until today?

At any event, yes, this entire case is a crap shoot. And a ridiculous one at that! And unfortunately, as you say, no one knows where the jury is going to go, but my gut feeling is that this entire matter is going to cost HPP dearly. In terms of cold hard cash. And lots and lots of it.

If the lawsuit, as some want to say, is a waste of time and money, then it is ALL the fault of the HPPOA board.

And the Board prior, and then the Board prior to the prior Board and then the Board prior to the prior Board...

But then again, the Board is a "reflection" of the HPP residents. They were elected.

And as we see more that ever today, you get what you voted for!