In preparation for our appearance at the hearing, we requested the complaints in writing.
We were turned down.
We then stated we wanted to question the accusers (Board members Diego Arce and art therapist Eddie Foss ) at the hearing.
We were told we couldn't do so since the complaints were in writing.
We then, again, requested copies of the written complaints...and were turned down!
Faced with little option, we presented our defense as best we could at the hearing...
Present were property manager Mara Hedy Feldman Fox, lawyer Howie Dakoff, and Board members business analyst Carol J Krengelis, accuser Diego M Arce, and accuser and art therapist Edward V Foss...
Why are we here?The Board and Mara Hedy Feldman-Fox huddled with Howie Dakoff, their expensive lawyer and..
I'm a little confused.
In August, there were allegations of misconduct!
A fine was imposed...and paid!
There have been no further incidents, since!
Sounds like "problem solved"!
Sounds like the concept behind 605.18.4(l) worked to perfection!
So, why are we here?
Let's look a little deeper…
Back in August, M received, quite out of the blue, a warning letter about some naughtiness it was alleged I committed.
A week later M received a second letter fining her.
She paid the fine, which Mara acknowledged receiving.
Then, in the middle of September, M received a rather unusual letter stating it was both a warning against future "outrages" (which included leaving newspapers on tables), and fining Mary at least $500 for alleged "past violations", which Mary had already paid the original demanded fine for.
So are Mara Feldman-Fox and the Claremont Condo Board asking for a second fine for the same alleged violation?
It appears so...
Since we've been denied access to either of the witnesses, Diego Arce and art therapist Edward Vincent Foss, on the basis of there being written statements, and then being denied access to the written statements for no coherent reason, we cannot address the allegations directly, since we have no knowledge of them, having not done anything.
But we can address what we DO know, thanks to what little documentation Mara Feldman-Fox has reluctantly provided.
Let's run through the timeline here…
On July 31st Mary received a letter about her "tenant and husband".
It was alleged that I...
turn the 5060 basement light on daily
leaves the washer and dryer doors open
leaves magazines on the laundry room table
throwing lint into storage lockers
trying to remove the concrete around the drain cover
It also stated…
If this behavior persists, the Board of Directors will take whatever actions they deem necessary not limited to fines.
Since I hadn't committed any of the alleged offenses, the letter was disregarded as simple harassment or a delusional complaint by art therapist Edward Vincent Foss, a Board member who had called the police three times in one month to complain about…
my sitting inside my home looking out the window!
and my holding the building's front door open for him to pass though.
I thought I was being polite, but he apparently didn't think so…
On August 7th, M received another letter.
This one stated…
It has been reported that Brian is opening the '58 basement windows.
The Board of Directors has levied a $50 fine and will continue to levy fines until the behavior stops.
The next fine will be $100.
Oddly, no mention was made of a hearing before the fine would be imposed, which under Section 18.4(l) of the Code was a requirement!
When we received our monthly assessment invoice (late as usual) around August 23rd, two weeks later) it included the $50 fine, which of course meant that no hearing or appeal was possible since it had to be paid by September 1st and the next meeting wasn't until December 18th.
Curiously, the fine was listed on the invoice as "30-60 days late", though it had been imposed only two weeks earlier, and was not due until a week later!
Another example of "creative" Feldman-Fox accounting.
By the way, the letter mentions something NOT listed in the previous "warning letter" which says NOTHING about either the '58 basement or opening windows of ANY kind.
So, technically, this should have been a "warning letter", not a "fine letter", since it alleges a totally-new "violation" not tied in by action or location to the previous letter.
M paid the fine (under protest) and I included a note pointing out the flaws in the letter and adding:
Enclosed are the payments for…
the fee for the so-called "violation" to avoid further misuse by you of the authority of Property Manager.
Note that because you, Mara Feldman-Fox, violated (ironically) Section 18.4(l) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, we reserve our right to challenge this egrigious and flagrant violation of the Act.
On August 29th, Mara e-mailed Mary at work:
The Board of Directors has levied a $50 fine which was posted on your account and subsequently paid.
Per your request, the Board welcomes you to attend the next scheduled Board of Director’s meeting to discuss this behavior and the fee imposed.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 18, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the (usual location over a mile from the condo).
M passed it on to me and I responded:
Had you followed the law, you would not be in the position you are in now.
As it is, you failed miserably to do your job and will be held accountable.
Mara contacted a lawyer…but not the Condo's lawyer of record, David Weininger, who usually handles things like assessment delinquencies, foreclosures, and other legal matters.
Instead she contacted Howard Dakoff of Levenfield Pearlstein LLP, who has less experience than Weininger, but charges far more.
Now, why perform what appears to be a counter-intutitive move hiring a more-expensive lawyer?
Because a codicil in the Claremont Condo contract states that in legal disputes between the Board and unit owners, the owners have to pay the reasonable (note that word, "reasonable") legal expense for the Board/Property Manager, unless, of course, the Unit Owner prevails in court.
Of course, deliberately hiring a lawyer who charges far more than your regular lawyer's rates for the same work the less-expensive (though more-experienced) lawyer could perform may not be considered "reasonable" by the authorities.
And, ironically, a rule implemented to make sure delinquent Unit Owners DO pay is now being used as a vindictive weapon against M, who has NEVER missed an assessment payment, unlike the Board, specifically business analyst Carol J Krengelis and chief accuser art therapist Edward Vincent Foss!
The letter entitled "10 day Notice of Violation Cease and Desist" contained the following allegations:
Repeatedly (with the "repeatedly" underlined) engaging in noxious and offensive activities in the Common Elements by turning on the 5060 basement light on daily and leaving it on;
littering in the Common Elements by leaving magazines on the laundry room table
and throwing dryer lint into storage lockers;
damaging the Common Elements by attempting to remove (nothing listed)
causing an annoyance and nuisance to other Unit Owners and occupants in the Common Elements of the Association.
No dates, times, or even how many alleged occurrences were presented in this letter.
It then went on…
You must cease and desist all such conduct, and allowing B to cause such conduct.
In the event that the violations stated in this Notice are not corrected, abated, and permanently ceased on or before the 10th calendar day after the date of this notice…
…listing a number of scary-sounding threats including threatening a termination of the Unit Owner's rights to control, occupy and own Unit GE, and allow the occupancy of B.
Really?
Over unproven allegations of "leaving newspapers on a table"?
Wow!
That's "reasonable"...if you're a fantical Islamist.
It then says that…
You are further notified that, pursuant to Section 18.4(l) of the Illinois Condomimium Property Act, the Association's declaration and rules and regulations, the Board of Directors of the Association are holding a fine hearing for violations in the Notices…and intends to levy a fine in an amount no less than than a $500 for past violations and assess legal fees and costs incurred to date to enforce the Declaration against Unit GE for the above-referenced violations.
Further, the Board will assess additional fines in an amount no less than $250 for each (underlined) additional future violation that occurs after the date of this notice.
…If you fail to appear at the fine hearing, a fine shall be levied against you your Unit in your absence, and shall be a lien against your unit.
Interesting, except that there's NOTHING about fining for offenses allegedly-committed "pre-warning letter" in any of the cited documents.
In addition, the Board had already listed a fine structure of $50 for the first offense, and $100 for each successive offense, which was implemented when Mara Feldman-Fox accepted M's payment of the (admittedly illegal) $50 fine!
With the fine structure now established, the only way to change it (as the $250 per occurrence fine would do), is under 605.18.4(h), to adopt and amend rules and regulations covering the details of the operation and use of the property, after a meeting of the unit owners called for the specific purpose of discussing the proposed rules and regulations.
Notice of the meeting shall contain the full text of the proposed rules and regulations, and the meeting shall conform to the requirements of Section 18(b) of this Act, except that no quorum is required at the meeting of the unit owners unless the declaration, bylaws or other condominium instrument expressly provides to the contrary.
In other words, you have to discuss the change in an open meeting…
vote on it in an open meeting….
Memorialize it in the Minutes which are then distributed to the Unit Owners.
Otherwise, you've created a fine structure just for one Unit Owner...which is illegal!
Now, the expensive lawyer is no doubt thinking "that's not true" since the letter also contained the following…
This Notice of Violation supplements, and amends where necessary, previous Notices of Violation sent on July 29, August 5, and August 29.
As such any fines referenced as levied in such Notices are herby withdrawn and shall be handled as stated below.
It's a rather tenuous concept and totally-negated by a simple fiscal fact...
The $50 fine collected by Mara Feldman-Fox back in August has been neither returned nor credited to M's account as of this date, December 18th, 2013!
If you say one thing, but your actions don't reflect what you claim, the action supersedes the self-serving statement.
You can't say "do over" without resetting to "zero", which includes returning or crediting any money collected!
Mara didn't do that!
Therefore the original fine structure and terms apply…until Mara either returns the money or credits it to Mary's account.
Which invalidates any proceedings involving this letter, since the new terms Mara and the Board tried to establish have not yet, as of this date, months later, been met!
But, it gets better...
After receiving this letter, we contacted Mara about the specifics of the allegations against me, asking to see the written complaints.
Mara refused to provide them, instead sending copies of the original letters of July 29th and August 5th as well as a weird list simply repeating the vague descriptions in those letters, but finally listing who made the allegations…Diego Arce on August 5th, and Art Therapist Edward Vincent Foss on July 29th, as we suspected all along.
I'd go on about the further bluster and stonewalling Mara and her expensive lawyer attempted, but that would simply reinforce the impression that Mara and the Board are, as they say in poker, "bluffing with an empty hand".
By the way, since Diego Arce and Art Therapist Edward Vincent Foss are, in fact, the accusers in this matter, they must recuse themselves from voting, since they are obviously biased.
Only Carol J Krengelis should be allowed to vote and only Carol J Krengelis will be held responsible by us.
So, why are we here?
There's no evidence, witnesses, or even motive for any of the so-called violations it's alleged I committed, which are surprisingly non-destructive!
Why, it's almost as if the so-called "violations" (which could easily be committed by any of the Board members who could then claim "B did it!" and impose a fine) are designed to simply generate some quick cash when needed!
What's the solution?
You've already collected a fine from M, and there've been no further allegations.
Why escalate a situation that has, to all intents and purposes, already been resolved?
Do you want to become Claremont's President Johnson and get yourselves into a VietNam-type morass?
Why not end it here with the fine that's already been paid, get the lawyer paid, and become Claremont's equivalent of JFK by averting your own Cuban Missile Crisis?
To Be Continued!
