Don’t see it R. Near on 20 years was a long time for her to fight the fight. Seems she decided this was the last gasp. Her agenda for SC to fall under T33 wasn’t bad, her tactics to get there were questionable. IMHO. On a brighter note, how are you doing? Haven’t heard much from you of late.
First off, I would like to thank all the people wished me well during my recent hospitalization. It was humbling to see the posts. A special shout out to Carole Martinez for not only the posts here but also visiting me in hospital and helping out Diane, my SO/LP, with legal aspects of running my life while incapacitated. As to the lawsuit, a couple of things, has the plaintiffs paid the RCSC’s fees and costs. The last I heard that negotiations were ongoing. Ongoing, WTF, they lost and dragged this out, they owe and I also think that ARS should contribute since she has been on this crusade for over ten years with OPM. She took down her alleged financial statement from her website that would show her total contributions amounted to less than $600. If she disagrees with this statement, show us what posted and any and all receipts. If she threatens me with legal action for slander, let’s dance cupcake. I would look up the lawsuit myself but some lingering memory issues have affected my research skills. “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Mark Twain
I feel ARS should be left alone to lick her wounds and gather her thoughts privately. She lost her husband during this awful battle, a loss that takes time to recover from. The fact she wanted the RCSC to adhere to Title 33 is admirable to say the least. Not she nor anyone else could have foreseen the political maneuvers to cheat the members of their rightful due. What is called open meetings are nothing more that mere choreographed theatrics for the extremely few who actually show up to hear what the BOD has decided, still behind closed doors. Email is between the directors is not open meetings. Thanks for the kudos GdV, but I am sure you would have done the same for me. I am humbled at the amazing recovery you have made, even to the point of baiting poor ARS. All in a days work, right? The latest case notes on the legal case state the date for submitting all forms for the settlement of legal fees shall be done by 01-03-2020. And so it goes.
One of our resident legal experts can help me out here: Who is liable for those court costs? Is it ARS or the attorneys who saw dollar signs and plowed ahead when they had so little chance to succeed? We know ARS paid them only a small portion of the actual costs to pursue this while they took the case on a contingency basis. Seems to me if they are on the hook, they would be less likely to chase the proverbial ambulance.
The short answer would be who ever lost the suit would owe the costs. The real answer is, since this was a case taken and based upon a contingency, there would have been documents signed by the principal, assuming ARS, guaranteeing a certain amount for the win or loss. The win may have garnered the attorneys up to 40 or 50% of the take, minus costs and other charges. There are court costs, service costs, which are $300 per each document served, for each person, as well as bailiff costs, paralegal costs, etc. The same document would have a guarantee of a dollar amount in case of a loss, plus the aforementioned costs and fees. The attorneys act at the plaintiffs or defendants request. If either says keep going at all costs, guess what, they do. It is also at the behest of the parties to which legal advice is given, and the principal is to make decisions based upon said advice. If at any time, ARS's attorneys advised to stop now, we are not going to win, and the parties associated with the case said keep going, then the attorneys keep going, racking up the costs. I have several feelings about why the fees should be borne by each litigant, but that was not the question. The judge did not award fees or costs to any of the litigants in this case at the time of his rendering, making it a continuing case. The next date to discuss the fees and who shall pay what is now set for January 3, 2020. It is quite possible the costs owed by ARS, just for her attorneys and costs are over $750k. How much more for the RCSC, I don't know as they have an insurance policy in place to help protect and defray the costs. They too bungled the first part of the case, causing additional delays in not going for the class action status first, then having the rest of the suit dismissed. That of course, did not happen, causing this legal action to run for years.
Spot on CM. I said in an early meeting with the attorneys that they should attack the class first, but what do I know having worked with and in the legal for forty years. Four of those years was with Legal Aid working closely with attorneys on class actions both at State and Federal level, drafting complaints, motions and memorandums of law. Personally I thought all of the attorneys were out of their league on this and really were not familiar on how to proceed with this action.
It is good to see you back among the living G de V. Thanks for the answers, not sure how all this will play out other than the word on the street was ARS had drawn down her account to nothing to get buy-in from the attorney who took the ball and ran with it. No question he is in deep as he was footing the bill for all of the mounting legal costs as this dragged on. The best thing that can happen is to put it all behind us and try and get back on track with running Sun City the way it should be run.
Our annual property assessments were increased by $22 beginning February 2017 with the reasons being the mandated minimum wage and legal fees due to the lawsuit. If we win an award of our legal fees outlay, does that mean our assessments will see a minimal reduction or freeze for a couple years starting in 2021? Or, does the $$ go to the RCSC attorneys or insurance company and we see no change?
I would suspect there will be no recovery of monies on this suit. If she is forced to pay anything, she will more than likely declare bankruptcy on all of the attorneys, including her own. So, don't hold out for any recompense on this deal.
A few things here. First, thanks for the thoughts Bill. It was a pleasure serving with you and Carole at the same time for two years. There always seems to be a “fly in the ointment” on the Board every year in management’s view, but having three at one time (the three amigos?) might have been a bit overwhelming in their view. CM and I being the legal beagles (no pun intended CM), taught management the beauty of legal research and supremacy of statute. Nice we have this forum to continue our truth telling. Facts are not biased. As for the lawsuit, I realize that I seem to be hard on the fees and costs thing, but this quixotic venture by Anne of Cleavage has cost RCSC and the insurance company a half a million dollars or more, which evidently we will never recover. Considering that Anne did this with other people’s money, including the attorneys who handled on a contingency basis, and her sole contribution was less than seven hundred dollars, yes I am a touch vindictive toward her. One of the unseen costs to the members of RCSC is the amount of coverage, deductible and premium of the Director and Officers coverage. Having spent over thirty years associated with insurance and chair or co-chair or member of the insurance committee, I have seen the downside of this regarding coverage (finding a company who will provide coverage, deductible (has gone up over time) and premiums that have increased over the years. This lawsuit, in spite of winning, will stay with RCSC for several years from and insurance standpoint. If any members wish to have a more in depth discussion on these points, track me down at a monthly Board meeting and I will be happy to expound on these points or check me out on U Tube replay as I ask embarrassing questions. Sorry I cannot make the monthly Monday meeting, have cardiac rehab then until April. Truth dies in darkness.
OTOH, the board could have agreed to all or some of T33 for free. T33 actually threatened nothing other than opening up the running of the RCSC to the membership as it was always intended to be. Instead the RCSC chose to rewrite documents and spend a ton of money resisting for no good reason. Had they conceded on T33 ARS would likely never have garnered enough support for her more obscure complaints. The manner in which the RCSC "won" (ie, getting a bill passed for special treatment after a judge ruled against the RCSC) is absolutely despicable IMHO. The RCSC has way overstepped it's original charter... and since members have virtually no say anymore the RCSC gets to do whatever they want funded by the members without the ability to comment, vote, or contest. We already know the recourse of electing a different board is not a solution since they seem completely impotent in limiting managements power.
Couldn't agree more ic; hell, i made that argument several times with the gm. The only question is would have ars let it go once we had become title 33 oriented. You know her goal was to get us set up under it because suing becomes far more easy.
I'd like to believe that, once meetings were open, members not on ARS' side would have quashed her vendetta over the drainage ditch. As I recall the PIF stuff started as a lets complain about everything we can to discredit the RCSC. As we've seen, she didn't need to -- the RCSC has done very well at discrediting themselves with or without her help. It's sad, in a way. There a lot of good and reasonable people working for the RCSC, but engage many of them in a candid discussion and they target the same culpable management individuals as the autocrats who make the bad decisions. Its irrational that the Board is so blind to that.
We'll never know IC, I always want to believe in the best of people, often i am disappointed. I still struggle with how far removed we have become from how this amazing community was built. I still read the letters to the editor and comments about what a great community we live in, yet it could be so much better. We sacrificed our future to all things golf and left the rest of the community watching as we fell behind similar communities. Club space is a problem, meeting room space is a problem, technology is a black hole we may never crawl out of and life long learning is a fraction of what it should be. The PIF was passed to address our needs and to keep pace with those newer, nicer communities. Unfortunately along the way, the management team became the go to source for what those needs were. How and why the boards along the way compromised and abdicated their authority to become a rubber stamp still leaves me speechless. It's easier to turn a blind eye to the foolishness than to watch it erode and get worse. Not how i was built, but i have come to understand as long as the gm is there, nothing will change.
Granted as Submitted ***See eSignature page*** 1 JonathanA.Dessaules(019439) Ashley C. Hill (032483) 2 DESSAULESLAWGROUP 5353 North 16th Street, Suite 110 3 Phoenix,Arizona85016 Tel. 602.274.5400 4 Fax 602.274.5401 jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com 5 ahill@dessauleslaw.com Clerk of the Superior Court *** Electronically Filed *** M. Corriveau, Deputy 2/6/2020 8:00:00 AM Filing ID 11346868 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF MARICOPA 9 BOLTONandFLORENCEANDERSON,et 10 al., 11 Plaintiffs, vs. 12 RECREATIONCENTERSOFSUNCITY, 13 INC.,anonprofitcorporation, Defendant. No.CV2015-012458 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice, and good cause 21 appearingtherefor, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing this action, with prejudice, with each side to bear 23 theirownfeesandcosts. 24 DATED this _____ day of January 2020. 25 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (Assigned to the Honorable Roger Brodman) 26 HONORABLE ROGER BRODMAN RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY, INC., a nonprofit corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. LINDA MOYER and RICHARD STEWART, Third-Party Defendants. D ESSAULES L AW G ROUP 5353 North 16 th Street , Suite 1 10 Phoenix, AZ 850 16 Tel. 602.274.5400 Fax. 602.274.5401 eSignature Page 1 of 1 Filing ID: 11346868 Case Number: CV2015-012458 Original Filing ID: 11332055 _______________________________________________________________________________ Granted as Submitted /S/ Roger Brodman Date: 2/4/2020 _____________________________ Judicial Officer of Superior Court ENDORSEMENT PAGE CASE NUMBER: CV2015-012458 SIGNATURE DATE: 2/4/2020 E-FILING ID #: 11346868 FILED DATE: 2/6/2020 8:00:00 AM CHRISTOPHER A LAVOY JONATHAN A DESSAULES
Thank You for the update Tom, much appreciated. No one wins in this case, but at least the case is officially closed (with Prejudice), and things can move on in life.
