Heritage Woods Homeowner’s Association



Heritage Woods Homeowners Association

PO Box 5883

Deptford, NJ 08096

Minutes of the HWHA Meeting of February 27, 2007

I. Call to Order

Dennis Pierattini called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Board members Dennis Pierattini, Bill Dougherty, Mary Shute, Christine Minot and Rob Abate were present. 59 members of the Association were present in person and 3 persons voted by proxy.

II. Minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting were read by Christine Minot and were approved and passed. At this time it was reported that Steve Monreal had resigned from the Board and that the vacated position had been filled by Rob Abate.

III. Treasurer’s Report

The Board announced that an audit of the Association’s finances from the years 2005 and 2006 had been conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant. Copies of his report were distributed.

IV. Elections

1). Elections were held for two seats vacated on the Board of Directors. Seats were vacated by Bill Dougherty and Christine Minot. Keith Jung and Tammy Ringenary were sworn in as election judges. A question of order was raised from the floor as to whether the seat held by Rob Abate was also up for election. A reading of the By-Laws determined that this was not the case.

2). Leonard Wisniewski was allowed to speak at this point. He stated that it was his intention to file a lawsuit against every person who had served on the Board of Directors from the year 2000 to the present. He stated that he would have the papers served the next day and that this case would be filed in the Law Division, and not in the Chancery Court.

3). Nominations for the vacated positions were accepted from Bill Dougherty and Christine Minot. The candidates ran unopposed and except for two write-in votes were elected unanimously.

V. Old Business

Dennis Pierattini opened by asking if all homeowners had received the Question and Answer fact sheet that had been sent out that detailed the status of the Association’s lawsuit against the owners of 140 Azalea, and how that lawsuit had caused all homeowners to be assessed a special $200 payment. A discussion lasting several hours followed.

Several points were raised from the floor, including the following:

-The Board’s authority to bring a lawsuit was questioned

-The benefit from such a lawsuit to all homeowners was disputed.

-Did the Board have a personal grudge against the owners of 140 Azalea?

-Can the Association donate the Common Property to some organization?

-Why were only the owners of 140 Azalea brought to court for building on Common Property when there was a possibility that many other homeowners had also built there?

-A concern exists that any lawsuit can be protracted and that additional assessments would be levied.

-Homeowners were only advised of the lawsuit at annual meetings, and not by mail or other communication.

-Could the Association’s case be handled on a contingency fee basis by our law firm?

-A management company should be engaged to oversee the affairs of the Association.

Several points were raised by the owner of 140 Azalea, including the following:

-He reviewed his interpretation of the current court documents and judgments.

-He stated that at least forty people had infringed on the Common Property, and that many had infringed even more than he had

-He represented his understanding that no municipal law forbade his use of Common Property.

-He promised to pursue his case to the New Jersey State Supreme Court.

The homeowners all agreed that they would like to settle this case outside of the courts. The consensus was that all of the lawsuits should stop. There was some sentiment that the Association should pay its own legal fees and the owners of 140 Azalea pay their legal fees. The owner of 140 Azalea proposed that as part of the settlement the homeowners should pay him all or part of his legal fees. He quoted amounts ranging from $40,000 to $70,000. The Board agreed to explore settlement after the hearing concluded.

[Editor’s note: After the general meeting the Board met and directed Association counsel to extend a written settlement offer. Counsel’s March 14, 2007 letter is attached to the minutes. No formal response was ever received, except that less than two weeks later counsel received the Second Amended Complaint filed against all officers and directors of the past five years.]

Several points were raised by the Board of Directors, including the following:

-The Board derives its authority to bring legal action from the By-Laws, which derive their authority from state law.

-Legal action was taken against the owners of 140 Azalea first because they were the first on record to have breached the Common Property. For financial reasons, the Association cannot pursue multiple lawsuits.

-Legal action was necessary because the use of Common Property by individuals is in violation of NJ state law, municipal ordinance and the Association’s insurance policy. Documents were produced to support these claims, including a copy of the New Jersey Land Law, Deptford Township Ordinance, documentation from State Farm, and a copy of the survey of 140 Azalea.

-Insurance liabilities could result in the bankruptcy of the Association in the event of a catastrophic loss, which could have severe consequences for the property values of everyone living in the development.

-The Board will inspect all Common Property to ascertain whether any other homeowners have breached the Common Property.

-The Association By-Laws clearly state that the Board of Directors has an absolute obligation to protect the rights of the Association, including bringing lawsuits. Any Board that fails to do so is in violation of the By-Laws.

-It is the responsibility of each homeowner to be informed concerning their rights and obligation as members of the Association, including reading and understanding the By-Laws and Declarations, familiarizing themselves with their legal obligations, attending annual meetings, and confirming information through independent means.

VI. New Business

Dennis Pierattini noted that several acts of vandalism had been committed in the development recently. He stated that he had contacted the Deptford Police concerning a town watch program and that residents from Hunter’s Gate were interested in joining with members from our community to start a town watch. No one present at the meeting offered to volunteer and the matter was dropped.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download