 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF
FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN
RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Mark Stern, Petitioner,
v. Case No. 2007-06-6957
Unit Owners Voting For Recall, Playa
Respondent, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
CLARIFICATION MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION Comes now petitioner Mark
Stern and motions the arbitrator to reconsider the decision made by ORDER
FOLLOWING EMERGENCY HEARING dated December 14, 2007. The petition was filed
against the entity that caused the recall of petitioner, Unit-owners Voting for
Recall, not This recall was only
successful – so far – because of the willful absence of three board members,
Robert Boffa, Dan Lecht and Michael DeMonia, at the official recall meeting,
officially noticed by these same members, who as well failed to inform the other
three board members of a recall being served in a timely manner.
Board members Mark Stern, Grace Antonelli and Heide Van Schlieffen found
out that a recall had been served when seeing the recall meeting noticed on the
bulletin board. Board members Robert Boffa,
Dan Lecht and Michael DeMonia sent instead Randall Roger, Esq., to this recall
meeting, who falsely represented himself as the association attorney. There was
never a board meeting where a vote of the board was taken to retain Randall
Roger as association attorney. Tape recordings of all board meetings are
available as proof. He was just hired by Robert
Boffa without authorization of the board! Allowing him to defend this recall for
the Unit-Owners Voting For Recall would create as well a conflict of interest if
he is being considered to serve as association attorney, supposedly representing
the association, not a few selected board members. His actions at the recall
meeting have clearly shown that he was representing the interests of the board
members, who failed to show up on purpose to trigger the DEFAULT provision, and
the Unit-Owners Voting For Recall, who schemed to regain the power on the board
of the directors by serving a very suspect recall. At the time the officially
announced recall meeting took place the board was split 3:3 and the
recall would have never been certified if the noticed meeting would have taken
place as required by In the case of Jon Zuch v.
Lake Place Condominium Association, Inc. (Case No. 2006-02-3767) arbitrator
James Earl ruled that the failure to hold a recall meeting doesn’t cause an
automatic certification of the recall, causing the Unit-owners Voting For Recall
(Representative Jon Zuch) having to file for arbitration and waiting 171 days
for the Summary Final Order for taking the seats of the properly recalled board
members -- at high financial expenses for all unit-owners. In this case the ruling of
the same arbitrator creates exactly the opposite result by allowing three board
members to succeed with a tactic that clearly shows bad faith! By directing the petitioner
Mark Stern to serve the association with the recall petition would clearly
violate the legislative intent of the recall provisions enacted by the The list of defective
petitions submitted by petitioner with the initial filing speaks a clear
language as to the validity of many of the petitions that were served by the
Unit-Owners Voting For Recall. Allowing this scam to
succeed, by failure of the arbitrator to recognize the bad faith used in this
case, would clearly violate the legislative intent of the recall provisions. It
is highly unlikely that the legislators intended to create this provision to
allow a group of people gaining power of the board of an association by making a
mockery of the The arbitrator has the
obligation to make sure that his rulings protect the legislative intent that
created this procedure, especially if it is obvious that bad faith was behind
the whole recall filing! Petitioner preys that the
arbitrator corrects his “direct” and lets the original filing stand as
intended: Mark Stern v. Unit-Owners Voting For Recall. This would ensure that
the two parties directly involved in this recall are responsible for the
arbitration proceedings. If this “direct” stands
as ordered it would create a gross case of injustice and financial burden for
the owners of the Playa Del Mar, Inc. Condominium. In case the arbitrator is
unwilling to correct his initial rulings petitioner preys that the arbitration
filing is declared moot so petitioner can immediately proceed to court! MOTION
FOR CLARFICATION Comes now petitioner Mark
Stern and motions the arbitrator to clarify the statements made by the
arbitrator during the Emergency Hearing held on December 13, 2007. Arbitrator James Earl,
during the hearing, stated that a removal of Mark Stern from the board of
Directors of the Playa Del Mar, Inc. would only cause temporary damage that
would be remedied if the arbitrator would rule not to certify the recall and
have Mark Stern reinstated as director of the board. Since the removal of board
member Mark Stern from the board of the Playa Del Mar enabled the three board
members involved in the scheme to appoint two new directors (Carolyn Kerwin and
Annette Gamburg) of their choosing, now creating a 5-2 voting power on the board
in their favor, the certification of the “recall by default” already caused
damage to the owners of the association that may hardly ever be corrected. We ask to clarify this
statement made by arbitrator James Earl that he agrees that both these
appointments would be void if the recall should be overturned and Mark Stern
returned to his rightful seat on the board of directors of the Playa Del Mar. Respectfully submitted on this day of January 3rd, 2008
Copies furnished to: Unit-Owners
Voting For Recall Betty
Cholst, Unit 705, |