Joe Smith and Enver Masud visited CMS Services on August 21 and obtained documents that show the following:
- August 17, 2006: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1711 in the amount of $3000—with neither an invoice to Southampton, nor authorization by the Board.
- November 6, 2006: Brian J. Moran, P.C. submitted an invoice for "Professional Services" to Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson in the amount of $7085.
- November 16, 2006: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1771 in the amount of $4085—with neither an invoice to Southampton, nor authorization by the Board.
- January 16, 2007: Stephen R. Pickard, P.C. submitted an invoice for "Expungements" to Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson in the amount of $1800.
- January 25, 2007: Julie Handley received from CMS a Southampton check number 1818 in the amount of $1800—after a three minute Executive Session in which the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.”
A June 30, 2006 letter from Rachel C. Plzak, Bond Claim Representative, St Paul Travelers, states: "based on the information provided to date, there is a question as to whether the conduct complained of stems from their capacity as members of the Board of Directors. To the extent that the complained of conduct stems from actions taken outside the scope of Ms. Thompson's and Ms. Handley's capacity as members of the Board of Directors, coverage would be disclaimed."
On July 18, 2007, after we began inquiries, the Association's attorney, David S. Mercer, wrote to St. Paul Travelers seeking reimbursement of $8085 (actual amount paid was $8885) for payments to Ms. Thompson and Ms. Handley.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Condominium books and records inspection
The following was mailed today to Tom Patti and Jess Watkins with copies to Robert Dogan, Maria-ines Pariente, and Rebecca Seekford:
On August 1, 2007, as a courtesy to CMS, Joe Smith and I requested an appointment to inspect the Southampton Condominium's books and records. We have not heard from CMS. Therefore, on or after August 20, during business hours, Joe Smith, and I will visit the CMS office to inspect and copy the following:
(1) All invoices for legal expenditures in connection with the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia against Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
(2) Evidence of payment of invoices for legal expenditures (payments to the firm retained by Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley, and to Association Counsel, David S. Mercer) in the above mentioned case, eg. cancelled checks.
(3) All correspondence with and responses from the Association's liability insurance carrier to CMS and/or Mr. Mercer.
Pursuant to the Virginia Condominium Act, § 55-79.74:1, Parts A and B, which states that the "right of examination ... may be exercised (i) only during reasonable business hours ... and (ii) upon five days' written notice reasonably identifying the purpose for the request and the specific books and records of the unit owners' association requested."
On August 1, 2007, as a courtesy to CMS, Joe Smith and I requested an appointment to inspect the Southampton Condominium's books and records. We have not heard from CMS. Therefore, on or after August 20, during business hours, Joe Smith, and I will visit the CMS office to inspect and copy the following:
(1) All invoices for legal expenditures in connection with the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia against Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
(2) Evidence of payment of invoices for legal expenditures (payments to the firm retained by Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley, and to Association Counsel, David S. Mercer) in the above mentioned case, eg. cancelled checks.
(3) All correspondence with and responses from the Association's liability insurance carrier to CMS and/or Mr. Mercer.
Pursuant to the Virginia Condominium Act, § 55-79.74:1, Parts A and B, which states that the "right of examination ... may be exercised (i) only during reasonable business hours ... and (ii) upon five days' written notice reasonably identifying the purpose for the request and the specific books and records of the unit owners' association requested."
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Why we shouldn't pay Thompson and Handley's legal fees
August 1, 2007
HAND DELIVERED
Southampton Condominium
Board of Directors
Jess Watkins (1679B)
Rebecca Seekford (1741A)
Maria Ines Pariente (1663B)
Robert Dogan (1723B)
Frank Conforti (604A)
RE: THE REDDYS VS THOMPSON AND HANDLEY IN A NUTSHELL
I have not received a response to my letter of June 29 inquiring about legal fees incurred by the Association in defending two Members of the Board: Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carol Handley.
In the meantime, I reviewed the Reddy’s file in this matter, and have summarized their case in the attached one page document: “The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell”.
I am concerned that the Reddys may file a civil suit against Thompson and Handley. Is it then your intention to pay for the defense of Thompson and Handley in the civil suit?
I believe that the Association should not pay to defend Board members for acting beyond the scope of their lawful duties, and against the specific advice of Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer (see attachment, April 14, 2005). While I am not a lawyer, I believe that neutral attorneys and our insurance carrier would agree.
Now that you have information that may not have been available when you voted to reimburse Thompson and Handley for their legal fees, it may be in your personal interest to rescind your decision. It is in the Association’s interest, and your fiduciary duty.
Furthermore, the vote to reimburse is questionable. If one eliminates those with a conflict of interest, and with one member of the Board absent, there could not have been a quorom.
Unless rescinded, your authorization of funds for the defense of Thompson and Handley may expose you to criminal charges.
signed
Enver Masud
---
The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell:
April 14, 2005 - Minutes of Board: “Mr. Dogan asked if the Board has the authority to remove items that are on the common area. Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer, stated that yes, they were authorized to do this, however, firmly suggested that a picture should be taken first, then a letter written, and if no action was taken, then to remove the item(s), but not before advising the resident.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Handley, Pariente, Dogan, Seekford, Dougherty. [Southampton Condominium Homeowners Manual, 2000 Edition, page 15, permits plants in common areas. This change was made following an “illegal” change of the Bylaws.]
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Ron Graham (1663A): “noticed two ladies [Thompson and Handley] exiting the area between the hedges and windows of 1635A and carrying plants by the stems. I continued to watch the ladies put the plants in the back of a green pickup truck. . . . Lynn and Julie told the officers that the plants belonged to them.”
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Enver Masud (1707B): On October 1 around 8:30 PM observed Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson moving plants from area adjoining 1635A to Handley's place. [They were at it until my return from a walk about half hour later.]
October 2005 - Enver Masud (1707B): Mr. Guevarra, detective Arlington County, told me that Lynn and Julie claim the plants in the area adjoining 1635A belonged to them. I told him I often saw Mrs Reddy tending plants there—never Lynn or Julie.
October 13, 2005 - Mr. Mercer, in a conversation with the Reddys' responded that “the incident was not a Board matter”. The minutes appear to confirm this—they do not indicate that this matter was discussed by the Board until January 11, 2007.
Sometime in 2005 - Pariente in a conversation with the Reddy's said the matter of the plants was discussed by the board but they have not authorized anybody to remove them. According to her it was not a board issue.
December 29, 2005 - Letter from Evelyn Troy (1705B): “when they traveled I watered their many lovely plants. . . . some of them were across the street . . . saddened to find out that more than half of those healthy and irreplaceable plants had been stolen.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Nora Collins (1635A): “I have resided at 1635A . . . for two years come this April 1st 2006. Mrs. Devi Reddy approached me late one afternoon to request permission to put some of her plants in a mulched garden to the left of my condo unit. . . . I happily agreed to grant permission to her simple request. For several months Mrs. Reddy attended to all their care. . . . At no time did anyone in the condo complex inquire about the ownership of the plants nor complain to me about their presence in my side garden.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Christine Kitchens (1629A): “I noticed that their garden had extended across the street . . . These plants also were being tended to and well taken care of by Devi and Ram. . . . I was very honored when they asked me to take care of their plants when they went on vacation August 26th - September 3rd, 2005.”
May 17, 2006 - Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley arrested. Charged with “Grand Larceny”—reduced to “Misdemeanor” (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
June 9, 2006 - Letter from Dr. Narayanswamy Subramanian, President, Sri Siva Vishnu Temple: “She brings to the temple special leaves . . . for performing worship to various Gods. . . . These rare religious plants are not usually available in North America.”
October 19, 2006 - Thompson and Handley found not guilty. Prosecuting attorney—appointed less than two hours prior to trial—failed to prove plants belonged to Reddy's. Letter from Dr. P. B. Reddy to Richard Trodden, Commonwealth Attorney: “the plants that were stolen were described by the defendants as trash and weeds. . . . None of the people from whom we presented letters were interviewed or called as witnesses to certify that the plants belong to us”.
Enver Masud (1707B): I have lived at Southampton since it was built, and have never seen Thompson or Handley picking up trash. Their claim to have picked up “trash” (32 to 34 potted plants worth $3000) over half an hour or so, and haul it away in a private truck, is not credible. They would have asked CMS to pick it up, or asked the trash company to haul it away.
January 11, 2007 - Minutes of Board: In a 3 minute Executive Session the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Watkins, Conforti, Handley, Pariente, Dogan.
HAND DELIVERED
Southampton Condominium
Board of Directors
Jess Watkins (1679B)
Rebecca Seekford (1741A)
Maria Ines Pariente (1663B)
Robert Dogan (1723B)
Frank Conforti (604A)
RE: THE REDDYS VS THOMPSON AND HANDLEY IN A NUTSHELL
I have not received a response to my letter of June 29 inquiring about legal fees incurred by the Association in defending two Members of the Board: Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carol Handley.
In the meantime, I reviewed the Reddy’s file in this matter, and have summarized their case in the attached one page document: “The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell”.
I am concerned that the Reddys may file a civil suit against Thompson and Handley. Is it then your intention to pay for the defense of Thompson and Handley in the civil suit?
I believe that the Association should not pay to defend Board members for acting beyond the scope of their lawful duties, and against the specific advice of Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer (see attachment, April 14, 2005). While I am not a lawyer, I believe that neutral attorneys and our insurance carrier would agree.
Now that you have information that may not have been available when you voted to reimburse Thompson and Handley for their legal fees, it may be in your personal interest to rescind your decision. It is in the Association’s interest, and your fiduciary duty.
Furthermore, the vote to reimburse is questionable. If one eliminates those with a conflict of interest, and with one member of the Board absent, there could not have been a quorom.
Unless rescinded, your authorization of funds for the defense of Thompson and Handley may expose you to criminal charges.
signed
Enver Masud
---
The Reddys vs Thompson and Handley in a nutshell:
April 14, 2005 - Minutes of Board: “Mr. Dogan asked if the Board has the authority to remove items that are on the common area. Association Counsel, Mr. Mercer, stated that yes, they were authorized to do this, however, firmly suggested that a picture should be taken first, then a letter written, and if no action was taken, then to remove the item(s), but not before advising the resident.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Handley, Pariente, Dogan, Seekford, Dougherty. [Southampton Condominium Homeowners Manual, 2000 Edition, page 15, permits plants in common areas. This change was made following an “illegal” change of the Bylaws.]
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Ron Graham (1663A): “noticed two ladies [Thompson and Handley] exiting the area between the hedges and windows of 1635A and carrying plants by the stems. I continued to watch the ladies put the plants in the back of a green pickup truck. . . . Lynn and Julie told the officers that the plants belonged to them.”
October 3, 2005 - Letter from Enver Masud (1707B): On October 1 around 8:30 PM observed Julie Handley and Lynn Thompson moving plants from area adjoining 1635A to Handley's place. [They were at it until my return from a walk about half hour later.]
October 2005 - Enver Masud (1707B): Mr. Guevarra, detective Arlington County, told me that Lynn and Julie claim the plants in the area adjoining 1635A belonged to them. I told him I often saw Mrs Reddy tending plants there—never Lynn or Julie.
October 13, 2005 - Mr. Mercer, in a conversation with the Reddys' responded that “the incident was not a Board matter”. The minutes appear to confirm this—they do not indicate that this matter was discussed by the Board until January 11, 2007.
Sometime in 2005 - Pariente in a conversation with the Reddy's said the matter of the plants was discussed by the board but they have not authorized anybody to remove them. According to her it was not a board issue.
December 29, 2005 - Letter from Evelyn Troy (1705B): “when they traveled I watered their many lovely plants. . . . some of them were across the street . . . saddened to find out that more than half of those healthy and irreplaceable plants had been stolen.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Nora Collins (1635A): “I have resided at 1635A . . . for two years come this April 1st 2006. Mrs. Devi Reddy approached me late one afternoon to request permission to put some of her plants in a mulched garden to the left of my condo unit. . . . I happily agreed to grant permission to her simple request. For several months Mrs. Reddy attended to all their care. . . . At no time did anyone in the condo complex inquire about the ownership of the plants nor complain to me about their presence in my side garden.”
January 12, 2006 - Letter from Christine Kitchens (1629A): “I noticed that their garden had extended across the street . . . These plants also were being tended to and well taken care of by Devi and Ram. . . . I was very honored when they asked me to take care of their plants when they went on vacation August 26th - September 3rd, 2005.”
May 17, 2006 - Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley arrested. Charged with “Grand Larceny”—reduced to “Misdemeanor” (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00).
June 9, 2006 - Letter from Dr. Narayanswamy Subramanian, President, Sri Siva Vishnu Temple: “She brings to the temple special leaves . . . for performing worship to various Gods. . . . These rare religious plants are not usually available in North America.”
October 19, 2006 - Thompson and Handley found not guilty. Prosecuting attorney—appointed less than two hours prior to trial—failed to prove plants belonged to Reddy's. Letter from Dr. P. B. Reddy to Richard Trodden, Commonwealth Attorney: “the plants that were stolen were described by the defendants as trash and weeds. . . . None of the people from whom we presented letters were interviewed or called as witnesses to certify that the plants belong to us”.
Enver Masud (1707B): I have lived at Southampton since it was built, and have never seen Thompson or Handley picking up trash. Their claim to have picked up “trash” (32 to 34 potted plants worth $3000) over half an hour or so, and haul it away in a private truck, is not credible. They would have asked CMS to pick it up, or asked the trash company to haul it away.
January 11, 2007 - Minutes of Board: In a 3 minute Executive Session the Board “resolved to satisfy the request for reimbursement of legal fees.” Following were present at the Board meeting: Thompson, Watkins, Conforti, Handley, Pariente, Dogan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
