Couple Faces Climbing Fees In Community  

More than $100,000 in legal fees already has been paid,

and the case over resodding hasn't reached a jury yet.

Article Courtesy of The St. Petersburg Times

By DONG-PHUONG NGUYEN
Published February 17, 2006

NEW TAMPA - A jury is scheduled to be seated in Hillsborough Circuit Court on Monday in a case that already has consumed more than $100,000 in legal fees.

The issue: dead grass.

The jury will have to decide who's right in a case involving the Pebble Creek Homeowners Association and a retired homeowner who have been battling it out for years over a $2,000 resodding job.

The case has been heard by five judges, with both sides fighting to the bitter and costly end.

"When you look at the whole thing, you look at it all in disbelief," said Linda Oakley-Clancy, who once served on the homeowners association board. "I think the whole thing is a shame."

The saga began after the drought of 2000. The association, which cites Pebble Creek residents for property violations such as not mowing their grass and failing to pick up after their dogs, warned 150 homeowners to repair their lawns.

Edward and Billye Simmons got one of the letters. For the next 16 months, the association peppered the couple with notices about their yellow lawn on Fox Hollow Road.

Finally, in January 2002, the board approved the removal and replacement of the grass and billed the couple $2,212 for the work. The person who did the work was a board member at the time. He laid down part of the sod - he said some of it was unusable - but charged the Simmonses for the entire load. When the Simmonses refused to pay, the board sued.

The couple countersued, saying the association lacked authority to resod the yard, and in doing so, had trespassed. They also argued that the lawn had been in relatively good shape.

The case hobbled through the overworked legal system, with County Judge Paul Huey ruling in June 2003 that Pebble Creek had the authority to replace the lawn without getting permission from the owners, thus refusing to dismiss the board's suit.

The association, which monitors 1,049 homes in its community north of Cross Creek Boulevard, had given the couple plenty of warning, Huey wrote.

But Huey didn't address the issue of attorney fees, lawn costs and whether the association abused its power by not seeking alternatives before placing a lien on the house.

The Simmonses' lawyer, Burton Williams, wanted a jury to decide the case in early 2004, but it got delayed because Huey was reassigned.

The case was again put on a back burner when the new judge, Michelle Sisco, took maternity leave.

"I thought this was going to be a simple case," said Ed Simmons, a retired Tampa police officer. "It's still a simple case, but it's turned out to be a case that has gone out of control."

Simmons, who has spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, said the case has cost him more than money.

"It's all-consuming," said Simmons, 66. "I'm totally engrossed in this thing now."

Behind the legal scenes was a mess just as big: accusations of mismanagement against the association board and malcontent with its members.

A few residents questioned the way the board was spending their money.

Among them was Oakley-Clancy, who ended up resigning later in frustration.

Oakley-Clancy said she arrived after the mess began and her term lasted just nine months. During that period, the issue with the Simmonses was never brought up.

And to this day, to her knowledge, no itemized budget has ever been sent to homeowners that would indicate that thousands of dollars of their fees are being spent on legal bills.

She believes a lot of residents, who pay almost $400 year in association fees, are still in the dark.

"I think people in Pebble Creek need to seek out what is going on and come to their own conclusion," she said. "I know all of the players and I have respect for all of them. I just think it is very sad that this whole thing happened. It's a big mess."

The association president, Tanya Heires, would not talk about the case.

"I can't comment," she said. "I'm terribly sorry."

So much has been invested by both sides, Oakley-Clancy said, she's not surprised it will go to a jury.

The association wants $2,212 for the sod, plus attorneys fees.

The attorney for the association, Ricky Thacker, did not return calls for comment.

Simmons said he has made offers to settle.

"We recognize it would have been a lot simpler to pay the $2,000," Simmons said. "Of course, it's a matter of principle. Needless to say, I feel very strongly about it."

Both sides continue to fight.

"It should never have gotten this far," Oakley-Clancy said.

4-Year Dispute About Lawn Will Be Heard By Jury

Pebble Creek  Homeowners' Association, Tampa