Article Courtesy of The Miami Herald

By YAHNILET COLON

Published June 15, 2006

The Village of Kings Creek Condominium Association may be fined $5,000 by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for misuse of funds.

According to a warning letter issued by the DBPR, the association is in violation of Florida law for using $10,000 in association funds to hire an outside attorney to contest Dadeland Breezes, a development project rejected by the Miami-Dade County City Commission last year.

According to section 718.115 (l) of the statute, association funds are only meant to be used for the operation and maintenance of association property and any other expense designated as a common expense.

The association board is required to issue a response, in which it must include a plan of action for preventing any further violation.

The DBPR received a response letter from Village of Kings Creek President Astrid Buttari on May 10. A plan of action, however, was not included. The Villages of Kings Creek, 7711 Camino Real, is at approximately Southwest 82nd Street and 77th Avenue.

Instead, in the letter, Buttari stands behind the association's use of the funds, insisting that the money is a common expense because it was used to object a zoning controversy that would affect the community's 1,067 units. She requested a reconsideration.

Gary Mars, the association's attorney, said he is aware of the complaint and that the association ''provided a response in a timely matter.'' He could not provide further comment, he said, because Buttari and Property Manager Mireya Villaverde were both on vacation.

Whether a $5,000 penalty will be issued is still not certain, said DBPR Division Director Michael Cochran.

''We're attempting to work out a settlement with the association,'' he said.

Some Village of Kings Creek homeowners have said the warning letter is like a slap on the wrist. Some have protested continued misuse of funds and complete control of the 16-member board of directors on the part of Buttari and Villaverde, who live in the same apartment.

One homeowner wondered why decisions on the large board often receive a unanimous vote.

Buttari and Villaverde would not return repeated phone calls from The Miami Herald seeking their side of the story.

It all began when homeowner Lance Paskewich forwarded an e-mail to the DBPR in February, in which the donation of $10,000 by the association is mentioned. The warning letter was issued in late April.

Paskewich, the association's former consultant and former chairman of the Legal and Budget Committees, said such a large sum was never brought before the board. He said he was removed as consultant and chairman soon after the DBPR investigation commenced and the reason given was ``well, you know.''

According to the minutes of the June 25, 2005 meeting, a motion by Buttari 'that the association contribute the amount of $10,000-$15,000 for the purpose of hiring a land use attorney to represent the association at the August 25, 2005 Board of County Commissioners' hearing,'' was passed unanimously by 10 board members present.

Paskewich, who attended the meeting, said such a sum was never clarified and alleges that the meeting minutes were often changed at the discretion of the president.

Rafael Miquel, a homeowner listed in the meeting minutes as present, does not recall attending a meeting where the donation of these funds was discussed. He said either he must have left early or a purpose was not clearly stated for what the money would be used.

''This seems like an issue that people would've discussed,'' Miquel said. He also said that meetings are often poorly attended, there are no open forums and decisions made aren't publicized.

''One thing is what they say and another is what transpires,'' the former board member said.

Meanwhile, allegations are flying among the condo owners, who are pointing at one another.

For example, in her response letter to the DBPR, Buttari stated Paskewich was getting paid $800 a month for 5 years.

Homeowner Herbert Rose said he believes Paskewich was being paid illegally because Paskewich does not have a license to give a legal opinion. Paskewich denied this and said he felt he was being used as a cover at one point because he was not allowed to see important documents.

There is some agreement among the homeowners. Some have compared the current association board to a dictatorship and said they believe the president and property manager are using association funds in other inappropriate ways, such as clubhouse parties and personal expenses.

Cochran, of the DBPR, said there is no set date regarding the decision to issue a $5,000 civil penalty. Some homeowners, including Miquel, hope for a change in the board. Paskewich said he wants to see the association funds returned and said he is waiting for an official dollar figure from the DBPR in order to pursue reimbursement through Directors and Officers insurance, which covers illegal acts of the board.