RECALL ARBITRATION THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY -- IT WORKED! |
An
Opinion By Jan Bergemann Published February 5, 2010
A
recent recall arbitration case Larkenheath Villas Homeowners' Association, Inc.
v. Homeowners Voting For Recall [Case No.2009-05-6469] ended on January
27, 2010 with a SUMMARY
FINAL ORDER in a very timely fashion -- 96 days after the initial arbitration filing. Considering
that the board was served with the recall ballots on
October 13, 2009 and the initial arbitration was filed on October 23,
2009, it took arbitrator Glenn Lang only 96 days to come up with a final
ruling. No fancy case management conferences -- just plain written arguments.
That's actually the way it was supposed to be -- that was the legislative
intent -- and how it should be!
The main issues: RESCISSION OF BALLOTS BY E-MAIL Five of the ballots were rejected by the board because the board claimed that they were in possession of written rescissions filed in time by owners who signed the original ballots. At issue: The rescissions were done by e-mail. And as the arbitrator rightfully pointed out: "e-mails can be manipulated to appear to be sent by a particular individual, therefore, some method of signature verification must be demonstrated." Arbitrator Lang ruled that these rescissions sent by e-mail were defective and the ballots are counted as valid.
HOMEOWNER DELINQUENT IN ASSESSMENT
Respondents
Owners Voting For Recall quoted the Sandpointe Townhouses Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Homeowners Voting for Recall
(Case No.
2006-00-7925) and the arbitrator agreed with the reasoning of the
quoted case.
REPLACEMENT CANDIDATES NOT PROPERLY ELECTED
CASE CONSIDERED NOT LISTED ON DIVISION'S FINAL ORDER INDEX OR LEXIS-NEXUS Attorney James
DeFurio argued that the Sandpointe case should not be considered because it is not noted on the Division's online Final Order Index or in counsel's Lexis-Nexus
search-engine. Quote arbitrator: "Just because a case is not on the Division's online Final Order Index or in counsel's
search-engine does not mean the case does not exist and cannot be used in argument. The same is true with respect to unreported state and federal cases."
A simple ruling like in the Larkenheath case was really refreshing to read, considering all the convoluted rulings we have seen recently! |