THE BOARD OF
GRAND VISTA ATTEMPTS TO TRICK PROPERTY OWNERS
In
a recently mass mailing by the Board of Grand Vista, a letter dated
December 10, 2002 attempts to TRICK property owners. The letter was
written in Spanish but it has been translated below. The Board
discredits the most recent newsletter
distributed by the Special Action Group by stating that the newsletter did
not reflect the entire story about the election investigation. They
indicate that the election was approved by DBPR investigators because they
were just "Technical Violations" caused by lost or misplaced
documents that occurred during the change of property management
companies. The Board denies also that the property has ever been
without insurance and includes a letter in English which appears to be
misleading if one does not read it carefully. <<BACK>>
BOARD LIES
AND SAYS DBPR APPROVED THE ELECTION
The
Board's letter goes on to explain that the Department of Business and
Professional Regulations, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums
("DBPR") investigated and found only technical violations
with the retention of the election records. Then they
trick owners by telling them that the DBPR approved this election because
there were only 10 envelopes missing and that meant that there were still
an overwhelming number of votes for the incumbent board. This could
not be furthest from the truth. The DBPR DID NOT approve this
election as this letter falsely states.
The Division does not have the jurisdiction to approve or remove a
board from office. Their role
is to document and monitor violations of F.S. §718 and Rules 61B
F.A.C. From the very lengthy
documentation the Division presented, nowhere does it state that this
election was approved. (Click to See "Grand
Vista Violations") In
fact, in a personal meeting, investigators for the Division informed the
Board that the next step would be that unit owners may do a recall, file
for arbitration, take the matters to court or the Board could simply
resign to avoid this process. The DBPR issued three warnings regarding this election, and
NOT just for the retention of records, as the Board informs. Copies of the
letters from
the DBPR are available on this web-site. There are far more than
"three
pages", as the Board mentions in their letter. That is the reason
why the newsletter could not contain copies of all the pages of the DBPR
report.
BOARD DENIES
THAT INSURANCE WAS CANCELLED
With
regards to the insurance situation, this Board makes an amazing decision
to lie to property owners by stating that the unit owners have never been without
insurance. They seem to rest claim to this statement to
insurance agent, Jorge Blanco of Kornreich. In his letter, Mr.
Blanco DOES NOT SAY that we have never been without insurance. The
letter indicates "since they [the policies] were rewritten."
The policies were rewritten on June 8, 2002. The Board breached
their fiduciary duty by failing to maintain the insurance on the property active,
because they bounced a check and then failed to mail the remaining
installment payment of just $1,317.41 during the month of March.
A copy of the letter of cancellation is posted on this site and can be
printed for your reference. The committee has not indicated that the
policy has cancelled since it was rewritten. Perhaps the calls Mr.
Blanco refers to in his letter were made by property owners who are
concerned that we are left without insurance again. <<BACK>>
KORNREICH
NIA'S POLICY ABOUT INSURANCE INFORMATION
Though
it states in Mr. Blanco's letter that his office has addressed numerous
phone calls inquiring about the cancelled insurance, this committee has
experienced a different response from that office. In fact, if you
call Kornreich you are informed that it is company policy not to provide
this information over the telephone. Callers are then instructed to
request the information in writing and by mail or fax. This was the
case on July 22, 2002. Property owner, Eduardo Hernandez contacted
the office of Kornreich and was informed to send his request in
writing. He did so that same day, and he is still waiting for his
written reply. <<BACK>>
WHY WOULD THE
BOARD LIE ABOUT THE INSURANCE?
Board
of directors have several fiduciary responsibilities. Among those,
they have the responsibility to make sure the insurance on the property
remains active. If they fail to do so, unit owners
can be made responsible for payment of individual insurance for their
property and unit owners may be required to pay for damages that occur
within the property that would normally be covered by an insurance
policy. This happened during the months of March to June of
2002. Unit owners ALL had to pay from their contributions for
fires, vehicle damages and other items because of the cancellation.
Unit owners should contact an attorney if they wish to file a lawsuit
against the Board of Directors for a breach of
their fiduciary duty. If it is determined that there was malfeasance
or negligence, and if there is not an active D & O (Director and
Officers) insurance, as there clearly wasn't in this case, these Board
members could face personal liabilities. These Board members have
known that they were without insurance. This letter they distributed is a
lie. <<BACK>>
GRAND VISTA
LOSES THE OFFICIAL RECORDS? AGAIN? AGAIN!!
Grand
Vista has a history of losing important documentation from the official
records when someone requests to inspect them. Court
documents in a civil case against a former Board member, Leonidas Gil de
Gibaja (Circuit
Court Case No. 01-11089 CA 20) allege that the Association's complete records
were "stollen" in 2001 after the
newly elected board requested Mr. Gil De Gibaja to turn over the records.
Unit owners have attempted to inspect the official records for over
seven (7) months and have not been permitted full access to
important information. The Board's letter already implies that
important documents from the official records are missing. <<BACK>>
LOSING
DOCUMENTS MAY BE AN ADMISSION OF GUILT
In
the media recently it was learned that Arthur Anderson, consultants for
Enron allegedly destroyed or caused to be destroyed important
documentation required in the legal case. The judge was able to
accept destroying evidence as an admission of guilt. The same could
result to be the case at Grand Vista. Federal and State law requires
the Association to maintain financial information for seven (7)
years. Since Grand Vista is a not-for-profit corporation, these
documents are extremely important for tax purposes. If the IRS
performs an audit, the Association must demonstrate proof of all
accounting activity. Additionally, those records should be made
available to all property owners upon request. Failure to present
the records to any property owner may entitle such property owner to
receive up to $500 per incident. The Association must make the
documents available to any property making this request within 10 days of
receipt of the unit owner's letter. Property owners are encouraged
to send their requests via certified mail, return receipt. For
further information, contact the DBPR at 1-800-226-9101 or click
here. <<BACK>>
PROPERTY
OWNERS REQUEST RECORDS REPEATEDLY
Various
letters have been sent via certified mail to Board and Property Managers
by unit owners who request to inspect and have full access to
the official records. Various items have never been demonstrated. For example, to date, the Board has failed to
provide an annual financial report for FY2001. Though a violation by
the DBPR instructed Board members of their obligation in providing this
information, they fail to comply. The DBPR informed board president
Manuel Carrera on Monday, December 9, 2002 that he must duplicate and
distribute the annual report immediately, but Mr. Carrera has ignored
these warnings. <<BACK>>
BOARD MEMBERS
ARE PAID OVER $9,807.91 AND CAN'T SHOW WHY
The
Board has also failed to explain why two Board members, Pedro Abad and
Jose Maurelo have received checks totaling more than$9,807.01.
In addition, there are checks issued to friends and relatives of board
members and to some individual parties for a total of $79,673.87.
Why hasn't the Board just presented information, receipts or copies of
checks? Why doesn't the Board just attempt to answer unit owner
concerns and permit owners to inspect the records? <<BACK>>
EXPENSES OF
OVER $79,673.87 RAISE SUSPICION
The
following names and check numbers appear on the check register and raise
some suspicion. Requests to see those checks and invoices have gone
unanswered. The Board has failed to provide this information upon
request. Property owners are encouraged to request to see this
information themselves. If the Board fails to provide a property
owner with this information, each property owner may be entitled to
collect from the Association a fine of up to $500. (See "Official
Records" section.) <<BACK>>
Ask
to see the following checks and invoices yourself:
1.
Board Members Pedro Abad and Jose Maurelo –
checks #403, 414, 421, 451, 452, 464, 472, 476, 481, 486, 492, 495, 502,
504, 512, 515, 516, 521, 522, 527, 540, 543,
558, 566, 571, etc. [Total $9,807.91]
2.
Rolando Gonzalez – checks #242, 319, etc. [Total:
$1900.00]
3.
L. Vazquez – checks #245, 389, 546, etc. [Total:
$1350.00]
4.
John’s Garage Door – checks #135, 142, 145, 147, 153, 156, 194, 196,
206, 221, 232, 241, 252, 257, 270, 278, 279, 300, 306, 338, 358, 362, 365,
366, 376, 406, 407, 417, 438, 445, 567, etc.
[Total: $18651.63]
5.
Silvia C. Navarro – checks #266, 327, 466, etc. [Total:
$1730.60]
6.
Walter Has & Sons – checks #288, 302, 324,
etc. [Total: $2135.00]
7.
El Arte Body Shop
– checks #144, 151, 164, 168, 169, 172, 186, 187, 204, 216, 303, etc. [Total:
$3510.96]
8.
Zacarias E. Hernandez – checks #340, 509, etc.
[Total: $1230.37]
9.
Jose A. Lozano
– checks #350, 372, 447, 448, 535, etc. [$2678.25]
10.
Mirta Lopez – checks #392, 401, 480, 525, etc. [Total:
$1269.50]
11.
Marcos Cabezola Marrero –
checks #397, 419, etc. [Total: $1112.00]
12.
Antonio L. Cuello – checks #409, 422, 485, etc.
[Total: $1331.25]
13.
P. Artola – checks #410, etc.
[Total: $800.00]
14.
A & K Garage – checks #475, 479, 503, etc.
[Total: $388.75 missing]
15.
Nadeem Ahmed –
checks #484, etc. [Total: $2735.59]
16.
Fidel Granda – checks #496, 506, 544, etc. [Total:
$500.00]
17.
Awning Center – checks #541, etc. [Total:
$2100.00]
18.
Leonardo Hernandez – checks #550, etc. [Total:
$450.00]
19.
Luis Gonzalez
– checks #554, 559, 568, 569, etc. [Total: $4300.00 + some missing
checks]
20.
Arnaldo J. Quintero – checks #578, etc. [Total:
$218.08]
21.
Julio Amor for the Fire Damage in His Apartment –
checks #526, 530, 557, 586, etc. [Total: $15,000.00 + some missing
checks]
22.
Carlos Nuñez during a period when he was not
employed by Grand Vista (as it appears in the check registry) –
checks #51, 61, 64, 69, 91, 95, 114, 121, 139, 224, 227, 239 [Total:
$6474.88]
TOTAL
QUESTIONABLE EXPENSES $79,673.87
DBPR INFORMS
BOARD PRESIDENT MANUEL CARRERA TO SEND OUT THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 2001
IMMEDIATELY
In
a telephone conversation with Monika Conroy from the Division of Business
and Professional Regulations December 9th, Mr. Hernandez was informed that
Mr. Carrera had told Ms. Conroy that the Financial report for 2001 had
been prepared and was going to be distributed to property owners January
15. However, Ms. Conroy informed Mr. Hernandez that she told Mr.
Carrera that the report, which had been due since March 31, 2002 should be
provided to property owners immediately. That report has still not
been delivered. What was sent along with the letter was the approved
budget for 2002. (See "$52,320
IN PROPOSED RESERVE MONEY DISAPPEARS") and
(See "Budget Approved Without a Meeting")
<<BACK>>
IS THE BOARD
REQUIRED TO TELL THE TRUTH?
A
copy of the letter sent to property owners by the Board of Directors of
Grand Vista Condominiums written in Spanish is included below this
translation. The translation was made literally from the Spanish
text. As there exists errors in the Spanish version, those same
errors have been reproduced in the translated version. This letter
seems very convincing, but contains several errors and lies. (See
explanation in RED letters.)
There doesn't appear to be any statute in Chapter 718 which compels Board
members to tell the truth, however. <<BACK>>
BOARD WRITES
TROUBLING LETTER, DATED DEC. 10, 2002
TRANSLATED
from Spanish
December
10, 2002
Dear
Grand Vista Property Owners:
"Unfortunately
there has been a bulletin circulating around the Association that is
supposed to be from a group known as the Grand Vista Special Action
Committee. This bulletin appears as Edition number 4, version
2 and it publishes certain things about an investigation of the
previous elections at Grand Vista Condominium. Unfortunately such
publication does not tell the complete story.
There
was an investigation by the Board of Condominium based on a complaint made
by an owner or owners about the last elections we had. During that
investigation the Board of Condominium indicated that there were TECHNICAL
violations with regards to the retention of the records of the Association
and they said if there was a violation of this nature again in the future
they (The Board of Condominium) CAN impose fines based on such future
violation. [The word "technical" was
never in the text of the DBPR's letters. One of those three
violations involved the retention of records. The other two
violations, did not.]
After
the Board of Condominium investigated the elections, the only thing they
were able to find was technical violations. Then they went ahead and
approved the election in which the majority of the 123 owners voted in
favor of the Board of Directors which has currently been elected and only
a minority of 66 property owners voted for the opposing group. [This
sentence is false and misleading. The DBPR did not Approve the
Election. They also fail to indicate how odd it is that
approximately 85% of the unit owner votes were accounted for. The
math just doesn't add up.] This is clearly democracy at its finest,
where an overwhelming majority of property owners vote for the current
elected Board of Directors. By means of this election it is
demonstrated that an overwhelming majority is in favor of the actions
taken by your Board of Directors. [In favor?
Yet half of the property owners are delinquent on their assessments?]
If
you read the three pages specifically dedicated to this, you will see that
this was the result of the investigation made by the Board of
Condominium. [There are eleven pages, not
THREE. See all of them below.]
We
are sorry if some document got lost during the change from one Property
Manager to another, but the Board of Condominium was able to determine
that even though there were 10 envelopes missing, this would not have
changed the results of this election, because there was an overwhelming
vote by the property owners in favor of your current Board. [The
DBPR never made this statement.]
This
paper also mentions the problems with showing proof of payment. We
are requesting that all property owners who have problems with verification
of their payments or if they do not have proof of payment, to provide the
same information to us. From a correct and moral point of view, it
is convenient to all of us, the property owners and the Board of
Directors. This way we can all make sure that all payments are
credited correctly.
In
reference to the legal opinions this paper apparently says, the Board of
Directors suggests to you that if you were to go to court you would always
have to show proof of payment. You cannot go to court and say
"I made the payments, the Association cannot prove that I made those
payments." We live in a country where you must prove everything
with paper-proof and all property owners who would go to court must show
the judge proof that they made those payments by demonstrating cancelled
or received checks. [So if we live in a
country that requires proof, why can't the board show details of your
account history for the past seven (7) years as Federal law
requires? The court AND the IRS is going to require that the Board
demonstrate this information.]
So
it would be convenient to all of us property owners and the Board of
Directors to send proof of all the payments we have made for maintenance
if it were necessary.
In
reply to the problem with the insurance. It also appears that this
group has bad information, wrong interpretation, wrong explanation, or
wrong understanding about what we have regarding the insurance.
Enclosed with this we are sending photocopies of two things. The
first is a certificate of the insurance the Association has demonstrating
that the insurance is effective from June 8, 2002 until June 8,
2003. The Second is a copy of the letter dated December 3, 2002 from
the Executive Vice President of the insurance company where he very
clearly explains that our insurance has been current at all times and that
we have never been without insurance. [See Mr.
Blanco's letter below and notice that he mentions "since they
[policies] were rewritten". It does not say that we have always
been insured, that would make Mr. Blanco a liar.]
The
Board of Directors hopes that this group of CORRECT PAPERS clarifies
whatever missing information or corrects any errors you may have received
from other property owners of Grand Vista Condominium.
As
always, any questions that you have, you can get in touch with us or the
Property Manager, J & M Condo Management & Maintenance.
Yours
truly,
The
Board of Directors
NOTE
ABOUT THE ABOVE LETTER: It is standard procedure for the
DBPR to warn that future violations may impose fines of up to $5000.
This was Grand Vista's first violation of this nature reported to the DBPR.
The DBPR usually issues a warning before imposing a fine. This
in many cases resolves the situation, since repeated violations may impose
fines of up to $5000. As to the lost or missing documents, the DBPR
received prior to their investigation, a letter signed by board member,
Jose Maurelo which indicated that Mr. Maurelo was provided with the entire
official documents. (See "Lost & Found")
<<BACK>>
ORIGINAL
LETTER IN SPANISH
