- 5 -
him a liar, harassed him in other ways, belittled him, derided
him, and threatened him.
When asked, the board refused to turn over to petitioner any
financial information related to the maintenance of the balconies
in Phase II. According to petitioner, "the harassment became so
bad that in September of 1996, I filed an action pro se against
the homeowners association." According to petitioner, the suit,
filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of
California, was "in direct response to the extensive harassment
and retaliation that I and my family had incurred as a result of
my inquiries."
Information petitioner obtained in the Federal District
Court action convinced him that the association had mishandled
the finances of PV homeowners. To follow up on his suspicions,
petitioner obtained to assist him a lawyer who specializes in
real estate law. Petitioner wanted the lawyer to go "after the
homeowners association for a full accounting of their finances,
and also related to the CC&Rs."
Petitioner's real estate attorney caused the Federal suit to
be dismissed without prejudice. In late 1997 petitioner pursued
alternative dispute resolution under California law. Petitioner
filed suit for declaratory relief in State court when the
association refused to participate in mediation. The suit in
State court asked for nullification of the "new" CC&Rs, a stop to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011