Kangaroo Court 5: The Board and Its' Lawyer vs the Defense!

As shown in our previous post...
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?
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?

The Board and Mara Hedy Feldman-Fox huddled with Howie Dakoff, their expensive lawyer and..

To Be Continued!

Kangaroo Court 4: Where does Howie Dakoff Stand on the Rights of Unit Owners?

After receiving the "noxious and offensive" letter, we contacted Mara Hedy Feldman Fox about a) receiving the specifics of the accusations so we could prepare a defense to present at the hearing and b) questioning the accusers/alleged witnesses Diego Arce and art therapist Eddie Foss.

We note we have not yet received the requested written complaints you ( Mara Feldman-Fox ) claim prevent our questioning listed accusers Eddie Foss and Diego Arce (both of whom will be present at the kangaroo court, but, because of their status as accusers, cannot vote on the proceedings) so that aspect of your legally-incorrect claim has been rendered moot.

All we've received is a vaguely-phrased (and badly-written) synopsis, none of which is legally-acceptible.
We requested...
"Said relevant information about the charges to include (for each charge):
1) the initial complaint
2) the warning letter detailing the specific charge(s) (To be fair, you did provide the warning letters, which are, in fact quite vague, but not items 1 or 3)
3) the violation following the warning letter.
NOTE: the information for both the complaint and 2nd violation should include 1) date/time of occurrence 2) description of occurrence 3) name of complainant (Especially if the complainants are different.)
Since you, of course, have all this information on hand in anticipation of the hearing, sending electronic copies (.doc, .word, .pdf) to B at (my e-mail) should entail no additional work on your part beyond attaching said documents to an e-mail.
And you are, naturally, eager to cooperate to avoid the appearance of impropriety on your part (and the board's) and allow the accused (my husband) to prepare a defense."

Here's links to your own lawyer, Howard Dakoff's, videos (which will be presented at the hearing) about your lack of written evidence and witnesses...

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/condo-complaints-not-in-writing-27652/
(Link does not embed properly) go to site to see video)
and this on YouTube...

We've also posted your quote "Per the Assocation's attoney, Mr Howard Dakoff, note that B and you do not have the right to cross examine witnesses.
If there is a written complaint, the witness does not have to be at the hearing." along with both the late Mark D Pearlstein's and Dakoff's public writings (including the above videos) contradicting that statment at several legal advice sites.
One example by Dakoff in his Chicago Tribune column:
"The standard of review a board uses to levy a fine is merely the reasonable determination of the board members.
Video or fingerprint evidence is not required for a fine to be levied, but the lack of any eyewitness account associating a particular person with an alleged violation does raises questions about the reasonableness of levying a fine, and thus its validity."

So, Howie Dakoff backs the idea of rational discourse and interaction...but, as we will see, not where it involves his clients!

Kangaroo Court 3: Enter the "Noxious and Offensive" Lawyer...

After pointing out how Mara Hedy Feldman Fox violated the Condomimium Property Act as shown HERE, we decided to be gracious, and held off on contacting the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to report her egregious violations, because, quite frankly, it would be a hassle, and a lot of work.

Besides, she had received the fine (under protest), so we thought, like rational beings, the matter was closed.

Around September 18th or so we received a letter allegedly from Howard Dakoff of the law firm of Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC, though, IMHO, it doesn't read like something a competent lawyer would pen...

10-DAY NOTICE OF VIOLATION

CEASE AND DESIST

This Notice of Violation suppliments, and amends when necessary, previous Notices of Violation sent on July 29, 2013, August 5, 2013 and Auguat 29, 2013. As such, any fines referenced as levied in such Notices are hereby withdrawn and shall be handled as stated below.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, pursuant to the Declaration of Condomimium for the Claremont Condominium Association ("Declaration") and Claremont Condominium Association's ("Association") rules and regulations, the below violations of the provision of said documents are now outstanding against you and your ownership interest in Unit GE.

The following violations of Article XVII, Section 9 of the Declaration, and the Association's rules and regulations regarding Nuisances, consists of the actions by B, occupant of Unit GE, as follows:

Repeatedly engaging in noxious and offensive activities in the Common Elements by turning on the '60 basement lights on (sic) daily and leaving it (sic) on; leaving the washer and dryer doors open; 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 of the Common Elements of the Association.

You'll note there's no "alleged violations" listed, as would be required in such a document, just "violations", indicating the inept writer of this letter has already decreed me GUILTY without even a trial!
It's an un-American attitude belying the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that will continue throughout the proceedings that follow.

And look at the list of "noxious and offensive" activities...

Leaving washer and dryer doors open!

Turning on lights in a basement!

Leaving magazines on a table!

Then we get weirdies like lint in storage lockers and attempting to remove...what, exactly? The document never makes it clear!

The pitiful text continues...

You must cease and desist all such conduct, and allowing B to cause such conduct, in the Common Elements.

In the event that the violations stated in this notice are not corrected, abated, and permanently ceased on or before the ten(10th) (sic) calendar day after the date of this Notice, pursuant to Article XVIII of the Declaration and Section 9.2 and 18.4 of the Condominium Property Act, the Association will take one or more of the following steps:

• a  Assess fines against Unit GE
• b  File a suit for manditory injunctive relief against M, the Unit Owner of Unit GE and B, to prohibit Mr B from continuing to violate the above-cited sections of the Declaration, and rules and regulations, and delcare a termination of the Unit Owner's rights to control, occupy, and own Unit GE, and allow the occupancy of B.
• c  File a lawsuit for manditory injunctive relief against M, the Unit Owner of Unit GE and B, to prohibit any further noxious and offensive activities in the Common Elements.
• d Assess all legal fees and costs incurred by the Association to enforce the provisions of the Declaration and rules and regulations.
• e  Exercise  any and all future remedies or rights provided by the Declaration under law.

And that's for leaving a washer and dryer door open!

Imagine if I had (allegedly) done something serious!

You'll note "d", which is in the Declaration, and meant to help the Board recover costs from Unit Owners who were delinquent in paying their assessments, not to stifle free speech, as it was used here.

It also explains why Mara Feldman-Fox was using Howie Dakoff who charges $385 an hour, rather than the Condo's lawyer of record, David Weininger, who charges far less per hour than Howie.
With us paying the bills, Mara had no problem "keeping the meter running".

The finale sets the stage for the farce to come...

You are further notified that pursuant to Section 18.4(l) of the Condominium Property Act, the Association's Declaration and rules and regulations, the Board of Directors of the Association is hereby holding a fine hearing for violations referenced in the Notices on Devember 18 2013 @6:45 pm in (the usual location over a mile from the condo itself) and intends to levy a fine in no less an amount no less than a (sic) $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 of no less than $250 for each additional future violation that occurs after the date of this notice.
You are granted an opportunity to be heard regsarding this Notice of Violation.
If you fail to appear at the fine hearing, a fine shall be levied against youir Unit in your absence and shall be a lien against your Unit.

Considering the established fine structure (as seen HERE) was $50, then $100 for each successive "violation", changing the existing structure without a meeting to vote upon it (there was no meeting between the two letters), the imposition of a new fine structure is another violation of the Condominium Property Act, which Howie Dakoff seems quite comfortable with implementing!
In addition, the validity of voiding an already-paid fine and imposing a higher one for the same alleged violations is double-jeopardy, which is illegal under American jurispridence.
But, again, Howie seems fine with that, as well!

Be here for our next entry, when we explore the contradictions of Howie Dakoff's interpretation of the law.

Kangaroo Court 2 "The Tale of the Condomimium Property Manager Who Could Not Read a Calendar"

Two weeks after the "violation" letter and invoice as detailed HERE...

..we received this additional invoice.

Notice anything a bit...inaccurate...about the totals?

Look at the "1-30 days past due" column at the bottom.

The $50 fine is listed as "1-30 days past due".

It was sent August 5th, making it due the first of the month (September 1st) as are all assessments.

(Also note, no terms of payment timeframe contradicting that are anywhere on the bill.)

How could a bill dated August 5th be 1-30 days overdue on a bill printed on August 19th (but not received until August 23-24th)?

Another example of the superb mathamatical talents of Mara Hedy Feldman-Fox!

Despite Mara's inability to read a calendar, or send a bill on time (the notice above was received less than ten days before the first of the month, when assessments are due.

It's a standard technique used by credit card companies to create late fees, which Mara Feldman-Fox tried to do to us...but only once.

Because we sent our payments to her via Priority Mail, we were able to show the notice was demonstrably false and she was forced to retract it and apologize in print) we sent payment for all three items before the first of the month as individual checks along with this note...

Enclosed are the payments for...

the monthly assessment

the lawyer's fees for the real estate taxes

the fee for the so-called "violation" to avoid further misuse of your authority as condomimium Property Manager.

Note that because you, Mara Feldman-Fox, violated (ironically) Section 10.4(l) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, we have reported the matter, using your own documentation, to the appropriate agencies (all four of them) and reserve our right to challenge this egrigious and flagrant violation of the Act.

This prompted a quick response both by mail and e-mail to M at her workplace...

I am corresponding with you on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Claremont Condominium Association.  I am in receipt of your note that was mailed along with the monthly assessment payment, real estate tax appeal payment and the money order for the fine imposed based on B’s violations of the Rules & Regulations previously reported on July 29, 2013 and August 5, 2013.
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 (several months later) at 7:00 p.m. at the (usual location over a mile from the condo itself).

...note the after-the-fact attempt to cover her butt, provoking this response from me...

I am corresponding with you at the request of unit owner M.

As pointed out, since you, Mara Feldman-Fox, violated Section 18.4(l) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, we reported this matter, using your own documentation, to the appropriate agencies (all four of them) and reserve our right to challenge this egrigious and flagrant violation of the Act.

You are assuming it would be at a Board meeting (which, by law, you were supposed to offer us the opportunity to speak at before imposing the fine).

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.

We are passing on this after-the-fact attempt to cover-up your failure to the same authorities.

In addition, you were previously specifically-instructed not to contact Mary at her place of employment due to the time, concentration, and labor-intensive nature of her work.

All commmunications were to go through me, just as you wanted all contact with the Board to go through you.

You failed to follow those instructions.

Arbitrarily-disregarding clearly-established instructions and protocols (both by law and mutual agreement) is not proper behavior for a licensed property manager and is being reported as another, separate, case to the authorities, again, using your own documentation and documentation indicating your failure to follow both the Code and mutually-agreed instructions.

(We archive everything between the Board, Fox Management, and ourselves.)

Note: the Board is included in this correspondence since you included them.

I would not have included them otherwise.

I follow the rules, even if you don't, Mara.

I am not the one without honor in this matter.

Any further attempt to contact M at her place of employment will be considered harrassment and reported to the authorities as yet another, seperate, case.

Needless to say...

To Be Continued...

Kangaroo Court 1 "The Saga Begins"

At the previous Board meeting, my wife made the mistake of informing the Board we were putting our unit on the market.
A couple of weeks later, on August 7, 2013, we received the following missive from Mara Hedy Feldman-Fox...

Click to enlarge

Along with the notice was this bill...

Click to enlarge

What's wrong with these pictures?

Under the Illinois Condominium Property Act, specifically Section18.4(l)...

To impose charges for late payment of a unit owner's proportionate share of the common expenses, or any other expenses lawfully agreed upon, and after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to levy reasonable fines for violation of the declaration, by-laws, and rules and regulations of the association.

We were entitled to a hearing (as one-sided as it might be) before imposing a fine!

You'll note there's no such notice in the letter.
Instead, it's automatic presumption of guilt, not even "guilty until proven innocent", since there's no hearing offered!
(The fact the next meeting was several months away, in December, might have something to do with it.)
Did Mara Feldman-Fox expect us to not pay the fine and fight the obviously-ludicrous charges, thereby enabling Fox Management Group and the Board to hit us with a lien for non-payment, which could be jacked-up to a higher amount since we were eager to leave this noxious and offensive enviroment?
If so, they were in for a major disappointment...

To Be Continued... 

Mara Hedy Feldman-Fox's Professional Associations ... or LACK Thereof!

Several years ago, we ran a check of professional associations Mara Hedy Feldman-Fox claimed to be a member of on her bio page...
She was not a current member of any of the professional associations she listed.
Last year we decided to update the information since she still lists the organizations on her page.
These were the responses from the organizations she lists...Note: these are actual quotes...
CAI: Community Associations Institute

Mara Feldman-Fox or the firm she represents is not a member of CAI-IL.  We have no knowledge of her or her firm.

I do not have a record of her being a current member.

NAHC: National Association of Housing Cooperatives

NAHC is a not-for-profit voluntary membership organization and by organizational policy we do not divulge or confirm membership information with the public for individuals, housing cooperatives or any business, even for credentialing checks.

However, since you are looking searching for a Mara as a professional member, we do provide the public with an online professional directory. The professional members listed on our website are public record and are in good standing with their membership. 

http://coophousing.org/resources/professional-directory/?type=3
Fox Management is not a member.

ACFA: Assocation of Certified Fraud Examiners 

She is not an active member with the ACFE, therefore, I have forwarded this to our legal department.

Interesting, eh?
What does that say about her ethics and morals?

UPDATE 1/9/15:
Mara Feldman-Fox no longer appears anywhere on the website of McGovern/Greene!

The $30.000 Condo Con

Back in 2012, the Condo Board, supported by Fox Management, tried to impose a $5,000-$10,000 special assessment, ostensibly for security cameras...despite the fact there was no need for them since there was no crime (as detailed HERE)!
We managed to stop them by sending a flyer detailing the facts of the matter to the unit owners, who protested by e-mail and snail mail, though none actually showed up at the meeting besides M and myself.
The craven cowards of the Board and Fox Management backed down...never officially posting that the matter had been defeated in the Minutes, of course.
The Board and Fox Management then took their wrath out on M and myself with fines based on false and unproven charges along with outrageous legal fees.
We knew that, after we sold our unit and moved out, it was only a matter of time before the Board and Fox Management would try such a sleazy scheme again...
This past weekend, I met up with a current Claremont condo owner who informed me about Mara and the Board's most recent depredation...a $30,000 special assessment, ostensibly for a new boiler!
Without us to organize resistance to the matter, no one spoke up (or probably even showed up) to contest the matter.
Here's an interesting question: Would a new boiler for a 13-unit complex cost $30,000?
Or, is it far less...and someone (Guess who) is pocketing the difference?
Or, is it all a con?
Here's a bit of speculation...
What if the whole "boiler replacement" premise is a sham, and the property manager and Board are using it to mask acquiring a desperately-needed $30,000 cash infusion without explaining the true reasons?
Makes more sense than a special assessment for a boiler that might never be purchased and installed.
Considering only Board member / art therapist Eddie Foss has a key to the Boiler Room, no one else will see if the Boiler has been replaced!
They could say it's been done, even though nothing at all was actually done!
And the money might go to cover shortfalls caused by possible mismanagement or fraud on the part of the Board and management company.
Remember, it's only speculation...but it makes a frightening amount of sense.

The Empire Gets Struck Back

My response to the letter from Mr Pearlstein:

Mr Pearlstein (& Ms. Kida):

With all due respect, after three decades in publishing (both fiction and non-fiction), I'm well aware of what constitutes libel (and slander).
If anything, your client has slandered and libeled me to numerous third parties including the Better Business Bureau.
I have documentation on all of it, which I will happily produce upon request (in fact, most of it is on the blog).
Plus, I don't post anything that can't be verified seven ways from Sunday with documentation, including the ultimate smoking gun, your own client's e-mails and letters.
I've been a professional archivist with, among others, Collier's Encyclopedia, and thus, know the value of verifiable documentation in legal matters.
I always use the proper wording to invoke opinion, not fact, when I speculate on various matters.
And, as they say, "Never say something you can't back up."

For the record; My wife has always met her financial obligations to the Association, never missing an assessment payment, unlike most (if not all) of the other unit owners, including most (if not all) of the Association Board members (and yes, I have Mara's own documentation to prove that).
That being said...

Problems dealing with Mara Feldman-Fox and the Board have been going on for the past seven years, ever since we moved into Claremont...
1) Your client, Mara Feldman-Fox, charged us $75 per hour for condo financial information requests (which you, Mr Pearlstein, pointed out was illegal in a recent Tribune column, IIRC)

2) She consistently sends assessment bills less than ten days before they're due, creating a situation where payment can't possibly arrive on time (the first of the month) by normal means, creating late fees.
(We always send out payments via Priority Mail with Delivery Confirmation which proved vital when Mara falsely tried to bill late fees.
We proved with the Delivery Confirmation receipts [which we always use in correspondence with her] that she received them on time, and she was forced to retract and apologize.)

3) We have not seen the 2011 Condo Association profit/loss statement as of this date, April 18th 2012, and the previous statements have become progressively less detailed over the past few years.

4) According to the Board Meeting Minutes, there has never been an outside audit of the Association's finances, which you, Mr Pearlstein, recommended in your column be performed at least every five years, IIRC. (None has been recorded in the Minutes)

5) Condo Association Board meetings are held miles away from the condo, in locations my wife and/or I cannot reach without undue hardship since we don't have a car.
Mara and the Board are well-aware of these physical limitations.

6) On April 3rd, 2012, Mara Feldman-Fox and the members of the Board appeared, unannounced at our front door, during our dinner, ordered us out of our unit, then surrounded us and harassed us, reducing my wife to tears.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.
There's lots more...

To clear up one of your charges...

Recently, he sent more than twelve (12) e-mails to Fox Management on one (1) day which is a blatant attempt to stop the operations of the management company and the Association.

The e-mails were sent because your client, Mara Feldman-Fox, claimed she hadn't received an e-mail with a required document that I had sent the previous day.
I re-sent the document in various formats (jpeg, pdf, etc.) both within the bodies of separate e-mails, and as attachments on others, to be certain she received it one way or another.
It was done to expedite matters, not delay them.
You did read the entire e-mail chain, including attachments, not just the excerpts Mara provided...or her unconfirmed statement of such?
I can provide or forward the entire chain, with verifiable dates and transmission data (which your techies can confirm).

I can also refute all your other charges.
I hope I'm not being naive when I say that "Truth is it's own defense."

We are currently without a functioning bathroom, largely due to Mara's refusal to communicate with the on-site coordinator (me), as she was instructed to do from the beginning.
She chose instead, to continually call my wife, who works full-time in a very detail-oriented position, forcing my wife to interrupt her work to contact me, delaying anything getting done, especially if my wife is away from her desk for a meeting or project consultation, resulting in even longer delays. (Phone and e-mail records will verify these facts)
I work from home and am easily reachable, and thus am the logical person to contact.
Unfortunately, your invoking this additional attempt to forestall communication will only add to the time and fiscal costs of the project, creating both a financial hardship for us both and a physical hardship for my wife, who is middle-aged, has bad knees (knee surgery a couple of years ago), and is currently using a portable camping toilet to relieve herself.

Your client is not the aggrieved party here, and I can prove it.

If you have questions, I'll be happy to talk.
We, unlike your client, Mara Feldman-Fox, have nothing to hide.

Respectfully,
B

PS: Love your column. It's must-reading every Sunday!

NOTE: I never heard from Mr Pearlstein again.

The Claremont WhistleBlower Always Rings Thrice

You may wonder why we have three different blogs about the same subject
Claremont WhistleBlower is the original blog, which began on 6/19/08
However, the published posts there only cover from 4/19/12 to 12/18/13.
Return of the Claremont WhistleBlower which began operation on 4/19/12 contains the original  6/19/08 to 4/19/12 posts.
And of course, there's this blog, which will recount what happened between 12/18/13 and the present.

How did this unusual come about?
It all began when we received a lawyer's letter, supposedly from Mark D Pearlstein of Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC,  though IMHO it reads like something written by a precocious 14 year-old with a legal dictionary who was hopped up on a sugar rush from a package of double stuff Oreos and a 2-liter Classic Coke!

April 17, 2012

Ms. M
'60 Claremont

Re:

Claremont Condominium Association – Conduct of B
Our File Number -- 39033-90734

Dear Ms. A:

As counsel for the Claremont Condominium Association, I am advising you of the misconduct and violation of Association regulations committed by B, a resident of your Unit.
Over a period of more than a year, Mr. B has engaged in a consistent pattern of harassment of Fox Management Group, the managing agent for the Association. The misconduct consists of communications by e-mail and his blog which are false and defamatory.
The frequency of e-mails directly interferes with the ability of Fox Management to service the Association. Recently, he sent more than twelve (12) e-mails to Fox Management on one (1) day which is a blatant attempt to stop the operations of the management company and the Association.

Article XVII, Section 9 of the Declaration of Condominium Ownership and By-Laws, and the Rules and Regulations of the Association prohibit conduct by any resident which is a nuisance or an annoyance to others. Mr. B’s constant and obnoxious verbal and e-mail assaults on Association management will no longer be tolerated and constitutes a violation of Association regulations.

Effective immediately, and until further notice, management will not communicate with Mr. B and steps will be taken to block his e-mails from transmission to Fox Management.
Any and all communications concerning your Unit must be done directly by you. Mr. B is not an Owner and has no standing or legal right to communicate with management or the Board on any subject or issue.
Furthermore, we strongly suggest that Mr. B remove his blog from the Internet.
The contents of the blog I have read are not mere opinion but rather false
statements reflecting the business and personal reputations of management and the directors that fall directly within the scope of defamatory material.

The most recent series of inappropriate comments from Mr. Boerner relate to plumbing issues.
The plumbing problems do not relate to defects caused by the Board or management. The Board and its plumbing contractor are considering recommendations from your contractor Design Invention, Inc.
The Board must follow the Declaration on all expenditures.
Articles III and VIII of the Declaration distinguish between areas of the Common Elements and the Units.
The Association repairs and pays for maintenance or replacements in the Common Elements.

Certain plumbing issues affect your unit and are a required Unit Owner expense under the Declaration.

If Mr. B and you fail to comply with the foregoing directive, then based upon the provisions of Section 18.4 of the Illinois Condominium Act, and Article XVIII, Section 1 of the Declaration, the Board of Directors will take one or more of the following steps:
1. File suit against you and Mr. B to prohibit Mr. B from harassing Association
management and its Board of Directors.
Any and all legal fees arising from this litigation will be charged directly to you;
2. After further notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the Board of Directors may also asses fines against you based upon violations of the Association Declaration and By-Laws and Rules by Mr. B.
Note that all legal fees incurred by the Association to enforce the provisions of the Declaration, including this letter, will be charged against Unit.

The constant e-mails, including the repeated statement to management that, “Just think, you’ll be doing this for the rest of your life” and the erroneous allegations against Fox Management concerning the manager’s license, the requirement of owner telephone numbers and false allegations of financial misconduct, are outrageous and evidence an attempt to simply disrupt the operations of the Association.
The most recent posting also violates the Rules and contains inaccurate, reckless statements about building expenses and audits (not required by the Act).

I will remind you that unless you control Mr. B’s conduct, you will find yourself in a very
expensive legal confrontation for which no court will sympathize with Mr. B’s actions.

Very truly yours,

Mark D. Pearlstein
MDP/mlk

Cc: Mara Feldman-Fox (Via E-Mail)

You'll note the emphasis on how much any attempt to fight would cost us.
We'll delve into that aspect later.
Did Pearlstein actually write the letter?
Or was it "mlk", one of the office drones?
We may never know.

Be here tomorrow for my response letter to his letter, and what followed.

We're Back, and Fox Management is Doing What They Do Worst...

It's been several months since we sold our unit and left the clutches of the Claremont Condominium Board and Fox Management Group, and it seems they've been up to their old tricks with the new owner of our old condo...

We received this e-mail from the new owner's lawyer a couple of weeks ago (over two months after we sold the place)

My clients have not received a copy of the bylaws for this property. Can you check and see if we can get a copy; or who they should contact to get one?

I e-mailed her back...

Claremont Condomimiums' property manager Mara Feldman-Fox of Fox Management Group should have provided the declaration, budget, and bylaws to you months ago.

IIRC, she collected a not-inconsiderable fee from your client to provide the documents!

Why she's failed to do so despite repeated requests is a mystery.

Is there a problem communicating with Feldman-Fox?

Is Feldman-Fox not responding to e-mails/phone calls?

Please keep us appraised about this situation.

I have yet to hear back from the lawyer.

Sounds like business as usual with the inept property manager, Mara Feldman-Fox.

In another example of incompetence, she failed to provide us with the 2013 expense report before we moved out in early June, 2014.
That's over six months late!
But that's nothing new for Mara Feldman-Fox!