11-22-2017, 10:18 AM
Welcome to Punaweb, Mr P!
|
OLCA lawsuit
|
11-22-2017, 02:32 PM
quote: Great to finally be living here... I hope we can make it! Gonna give it one heck of a try. And, if the good people of Punaweb sell us a lot, ill grade the dirt road, or at least the little section that is in front of my lot. Thanks PaulW for the welcome and Aloha to everyone else.
11-22-2017, 04:51 PM
Whether you make it is, in my experience, completely up to you and only you.
Enjoy paradise! Even when things aren't as great, it's probably better than where you were.
11-22-2017, 06:29 PM
quote: Thanks Terracore, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't want to hear what I have to say. Too late now anyway. Do you know if the report will be public information and how it can be accessed?
03-11-2019, 08:18 PM
This is an old thread but some good info on it. Moving forward, the OLCA lawsuit is going on 4 years now and may be starting to heat up. There have been roughly 70 filings with the court over the last month and 3 hearings in the last 3 days. Jury trial scheduled for 3-25-19 but I would not be surprised to see it postponed. The minutes from the first of the 3 hearings have been posted on the court's website and I have copied them for you here:
MOT 3C01 CV 03/07/2019 08:30 A DEFENDANT ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS MOTIONTO TERMINATE APPOINTMENT OF MASTER FILED 1/14/19 DEFENDANT ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS MOTIONTO IMPLEMENT COURT'S 4/11/18 ORDER RE: UNFREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNTS FILED 1/14/19 DEFENDANTS DONALD J STONER, TEGEN H GREENE, ELIZABETH M. WEWERS AND GERALD A AKANA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED 2/1/19 OTH CTRM Cal. Type CV Priority 0 Judge I.D. JGNAKAMURA Video No. Audio No. Minutes CONVENED AT 8:45 A.M.; RECORDER: FTR 3E APPEARANCES: T. HOGAN, ATTY/PLTF R. HELLER, ATTY/ORCHIDLAND COMM ASSN C. PEREZ-MESA, ATTY/STONER, GREENE, WEWERS AND AKANA D. HARADA-STONE, ATTY/R. TUNRER S. TAKAHASHI, ATTY/F. WIRICK . AT 8:47 A.M. ARGUMENTS RE: ORCHIDLAND COMM. ASSN (2) MOTIONS: R. HELLER UNTIL 8:54 A.M. C. PEREZ-MESA, JOINED IN OLCA'S MOTIONS; D. HARADA-STONE, TOOK NO POSITION S. TAKAHASHI, JOINED IN THE MOTIONS T. HOGAN UNTIL 8:59 A.M. . CRT'S RULING: RE: MOTION TO TERMINATE MASTER, INFORMED THE PARTIES MS.CABRAL DID CONSULT W/THE CRT AS TO HER PROPOSAL; SHE WAS INSTRUCTED TO INFORM THE PARTIES OF HER ACTIONS; ORDERED THE MONIES GIVEN TO MS. CABRAL TO BE RETURNED TO THE MEMBERS; WILL NOT TERMINATE APPOINTMENT OF MASTER BUT WILL SUSPEND IT; ORDERED THE BANK ACCOUNTS TO BE UNFROZEN; . AT 9:00 A.M. ARGUMENTS HAD RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: C. PEREZ-MESA UNTIL 9:07 A.M. R. HELLER, UNTIL 9:07 A.M. HARADA-STONE: JOINED IN MOTION W/RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL/PERSONAL LIABILITY; TOOK NO POSITION AS TO DISSOLUTION; TAKAHASHI JOINED IN THE MOTION; T. HOGAN UNTIL 9:16 A.M. C. PEREZ-MESA REBUTTAL UNTIL 9:19 A.M. . CRT'S RULING: GRANTED THE MOTION TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF SEEKS DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF ORCHIDLAND COMM. ASSN; STATED THE BASIS FOR HIS DECISION; . RECESS. ________________________________ Since I have very little contact with these people (both sides) the only information I get comes from the 2 group's newsletters, orchidland.org website, and the court's website. There may also be some info on the Arthurs Group Facebook page but you have to join and I don't do Facebook so I don't get that, and they have a website that is basically defunct. The hearing minutes posted here say that 1. Special master is suspended and monies given to her are to be returned to the members 2. Bank accounts are to be unfrozen, and 3. Not clear, but I believe the ruling is that there will be no liability to OLCA members, but individuals could still be held liable. Liable for what? I'm assuming it was for the use of an unlicensed contractor but maybe there's more? Seems like the judge is ok with how they are doing business now. Perhaps someone a little closer to the situation can shed some light on what is to be accomplished by following through with a jury trial.
03-16-2019, 04:17 PM
We recently paid our OLE road fees and used documents from the title company to "correct" that they were attempting to overcharge us by 30%, years after we purchased the property.
I'm not suggesting that there was any malfeasance by any of the parties involved. But when you get your bill, make sure it is accurate before you pay it. ETA: clarity
03-17-2019, 12:32 PM
I found discrepancies on my bill too. According to the Special Master, Data Processing, Inc. is a well respected accounting firm and she found no irregularities. Mistakes can happen, but they shouldn't and when they do, especially in multiples, the board should be asking some questions. I agree that this doesn't illustrate malfeasance, but it doesn't give confidence either.
Meanwhile, the 2nd hearing was held on 3/8 and here are those minutes: CTRM Cal. Type CV Priority 0 Judge I.D. JGNAKAMURA Video No. Audio No. Minutes CASE CALLED AT 10:10 AM (RECORDED ON FTR) APPEARANCES ENTERED: TIMOTHY HOGAS FOR PLAINTIFF; RONALD HELLER FOR ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOC. DAVID HARADA-STONE FOR DEFENDANT, R. TURNER MICHELLE LUKE FOR DEFENDANT, A. WIRICK CAROLS PEREZ-MESA FOR DEFENDANTS, STONER, GREEN, WEWERS AND AKANA . MOTION #3: M. LUKE; ARGUMENTS 10:11-10:13 AM HELLER, HARADA-STONE & PEREZ-MESA JOINED WITH MTN . T. HOGAN: ARGUMENTS 10:15-10:21 AM FURTHER DISCUSSION TO 10:27 AM M. LUKE: ARGUMENTS: 10:27-10:28 AM T. HOGAN: ARGUMENTS: 10:28-10:33 AM M. LUKE: ARGUMENTS: 10:33-10:35 AM COURT GRANTED MOTION AS TO ALL COUNTS EXCEPT 1 & 2. MOTION #2: D. HARADA-STONE: ARGUMENTS 10:40-10:43 AM R. HELLER TAKES NO POSITON M. LUKE & C. PEREZ-MESA JOINED T. HOGAN: ARGUMENTS 10:43-10:44 AM COURT GRANTED MOTION. . MOTION #1: T. HOGAN: ARGUMENTS 10:58-11:01 AM M. LUKE: ARGUMENTS 11:01 R. HELLER HAD NOTHING TO ADD COURT DENIED MOTION - MOTION IS MOOT. . M. LUKE TO DRAFT THE ORDER. . MOTION #4: C. PEREZ-MESA WILL WITHDRAW. RECESS CASE RECALLED AT 11:47 AM APPEARANCES REENTERED: TIMOTHY HOGAN, RONALD HELLER, DAVID HARADA-STONE, MICHELLE LUKE, CARLOS PEREZ-MESA . COURT WILL VACATE THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NEXT WEEK MONDAY (3/11/19) AND THE TRIAL THAT IS SET FOR 3/25/19. WILL HAVE A HEARING TO ADDRESS THE 2 MOTIONS (MOTION TO AMEND SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS & RENEWED MOTIONS AS TO COUNTS 1 & 2). . HEARING WILL BE SET ON 5/2/19 AT 9:30 AM Without seeing the motions I have no idea what was granted and what wasn't. This stuff is public information, but you have to physically go to the courthouse and wade through the file to get it. It would be nice if someone from at least one of the 2 sides would show an interest in transparency and share this public information with us. What is clear is that the hearing scheduled for 3/11 and the trial scheduled for 3/25 were vacated. New hearing date 5/2/19 and no new trial date set. Gonna be 4 years and counting...
03-17-2019, 12:46 PM
"I found discrepancies on my bill too."
I don't know a lot of people, but we're two people and we both have accounting discrepancies? "According to the Special Master, Data Processing, Inc. is a well respected accounting firm and she found no irregularities" Wasn't the special master a property manager, not a forensic accounting investigator? I'm not doubting her due diligence, I just don't know that she has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to recognize accounting "irregularities", therefore that part of her analysis should not be considered by the court.
03-17-2019, 01:07 PM
"Wasn't the special master a property manager, not a forensic accounting investigator? I'm not doubting her due diligence, I just don't know that she has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to recognize accounting "irregularities", therefore that part of her analysis should not be considered by the court."
Right. Which begs the question: Why was she selected for the position in the first place? Is the complaint about anything other than how money was used? Maybe this is part of why she was suspended and ordered to pay the money back.
03-17-2019, 01:45 PM
To summarize:
1) I've been charged for road fees I did not vote on / agree to. 2) People who do not pay road fees are not allowed to vote. 3) When I tried to pay road fees, the amount due was grossly inaccurate. Does that immediately send me back to #2, and therefore, back to #1? ETA: This is why I'm not against receivership. Also, my road fees are paid and up to date, thanks to help from the title company. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)