HA meeting last night?

[Lee M-S]

And here's HARC's answer and counter claim: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1CwxnK...sp=sharing

><(((*> ~~~~ ><(("> ~~~~ ><'> ~~~~ >(>

[missydog1]

Good job, Lee! []
Now you have the straight story at least, a good starting point for discussion.

[Guest]

Well, all these two files are - are the initial COMPLAINT, naming the parties, PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS, and then the DEFEDANTS answers to the allegations contained in the COMPLAINT.

There are no other documents to suggest the Attorney General is involved, that there is an investigation or any of those such items.

The PLAINTIFF alleges DEFENDANT HARC graded and dug ditches in the road which now cause the PLAINTIFFS property to flood during rain.

The DEFENDANT answers that among other general legal facts and procedures, that it does not have information to reasonably believe the allegation is true. It further goes on to allege that the PLAINTIFF should have known about water drainage issues and further asserts that the PLAINTIFF themselves caused, thru various means, to "grade and grub" one or more of the properties, without a permit thus causing natural run off to be disrupted.

Additionally, DEFENDANT HARC has issued a Counter Claim - and allege a whole host of issues caused directly by the PLAINTIFFS.

With all that being said, I am sure there is a whole host of drama involved.

But I can tell you, this is why the Association needs D&O insurance. Regardless of guilt of innocence, without it, a lawsuit such as this with no means of being financially (insured) resolved, the PLAINTIFFS could become the sole owners of the assets of both HACA and HARC by default.

Further, the assets of the Directors and Officers could be personally encumbered.

I see this as a frivolous lawsuit at best. While I am not an admitted Hawaii Lawyer, I am a Lawyer.

And this is frivolous at best. It's only merit, is the grade school playground drama by all those involved.


Edited to add, yes, I do live in the Acres!

[Mtviewdude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken

Well, all these two files are - are the initial COMPLAINT, naming the parties, PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANTS, and then the DEFEDANTS answers to the allegations contained in the COMPLAINT.

There are no other documents to suggest the Attorney General is involved, that there is an investigation or any of those such items.

The PLAINTIFF alleges DEFENDANT HARC graded and dug ditches in the road which now cause the PLAINTIFFS property to flood during rain.

The DEFENDANT answers that among other general legal facts and procedures, that it does not have information to reasonably believe the allegation is true. It further goes on to allege that the PLAINTIFF should have known about water drainage issues and further asserts that the PLAINTIFF themselves caused, thru various means, to "grade and grub" one or more of the properties, without a permit thus causing natural run off to be disrupted.

Additionally, DEFENDANT HARC has issued a Counter Claim - and allege a whole host of issues caused directly by the PLAINTIFFS.

With all that being said, I am sure there is a whole host of drama involved.

But I can tell you, this is why the Association needs D&O insurance. Regardless of guilt of innocence, without it, a lawsuit such as this with no means of being financially (insured) resolved, the PLAINTIFFS could become the sole owners of the assets of both HACA and HARC by default.

Further, the assets of the Directors and Officers could be personally encumbered.

I see this as a frivolous lawsuit at best. While I am not an admitted Hawaii Lawyer, I am a Lawyer.

And this is frivolous at best. It's only merit, is the grade school playground drama by all those involved.


Edited to add, yes, I do live in the Acres!

---

I am not a lawyer, here or anywhere.

However reading the counterclaim. If the plaintiff did buy the mauka lots and graded (without permit) altering the drainage, then created a berm to keep the water out of their makai properties causing the road to flood, I could see them being in deep kimchee. That's just my opinion.

[justthefacts]

i have seen the digging damage caused by the road corp. not just one road , but on upper C road , also huge ditches on sides on the road on B no one person or entity has the right to deliberately damage someones property. no right to drain road water, create a river nothing . imagine if a road backhoe pulls up in front of your house and just digs out a nice big ole trench to start draining water into your front yard.. i guarantee as a homeowner you would become unglued. I think anyone who has a doubt should go look at the property on rd. C right near 6 rd and see how the road corp ruined the property of an absentee lot owner....just think someday that owner is going to show up and there will be another lawsuit. The roads need to be properly fixed. digging holes like gofers is not a repair.

[Guest]

The County is doing the same thing right now on 8 Road between A and C roads

Let's all sue!!!!

[2bad4u]

If indeed the county is digging is it causing damage to private property ?

[Mimosa]

Since both HACA and HARC have not followed the agreements they have with the county on maintaining portions of Rd 8 ,the county is adjusting for safe passage and less ponding.They are not encroaching on private property ,they are just maintaining easement drainage's where HARC and HACA agreed to do this as part of putting in the P.E.A.R. and culvert flood control issues.
The county has been doing this same work on Ainaloa Blvd and it is a lifesaver.
The boards of HARC and HACA both,need to follow the written agreements they have with the county. The county stated,if it is not done,they will not be liable in case of flooding or accidents.
I see the work they are doing as respectful and a great use of tax payer monies,coming back into the HA community.

[2bad4u]

Thank you

[justthefacts]

what the county did on road 8 is clear the grass , as it was coming up onto the road . what the road corp did on C / 6 area property is did a huge canal into a private property. not one but a couple , because the property is vacant I have taken pictures of it and am working to locate the owner of the property to send the photos to the person . the property has been severely damaged . or destroyed is a better word . what right did HARC have to do this and who is going to pay to repair all the damage.