Thomas E. Maloney Attorney
Debby Strott, Daniel Rosen
and The Board of Trustees
MLEHOA
PO Box 173
Ironia NJ 07845
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I am in receipt of your letter of October 14, 2009.
Though you vaguely refer to N.J.S.A. 15A, the Association by-laws and a particular case, you fail to provide a specific citation which you believe affords the Board, at its sole discretion, the right to deny the membership from reviewing the books & records. Just generally saying so does not make it so. In refutation of your self-serving opinion, in fact, The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards, Bureau of Home Owner Protection’s “Association Regulation Initiative” states that access to financial records shall be granted to members. Section 16(d) of the N.J.S.A 46-8b-14(g) “empowers the Department, acting through the Bureau of Homeowner Protection, to enforce this right of inspection. The right of inspection includes the right to make copies.” I urge the Board to be open and transparent as much as possible and when a particular situation warrants discretion, the Board should offer some reason and not simply deny requests with no apparent logical explanation. Also, according to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs the Non-Profit Corporation Act, Title 15A, which you refer to generally, requires audits which the Board has fought so hard against. Any member is allowed to review books & records of a Homeowners Association and The Association Regulation Unit has the authority under N.J.S.A. 46:8b-16(d) to ensure an association responds to membership requests to review and copy the financial records required to be kept.” Note the Association is required to maintain the accounting records, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (G.A.A.P.). Obviously, given the Board’s history of mishandling the books & records and Association operations, it has failed on both these responsibilities. This is irrefutable given the Board’s reckless behavior as exampled by not filing annual state reports causing the Association’s corporate status to be suspended, not collecting half the Association dues in a given year, etc. As you should be aware, N.J. law provides for more accountability to owners in common interest community. Condominiums and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are governed in this regard by New Jersey's Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act ("PREDFDA"). The New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Homeowner Protection accepts complaints from Homeowners Association members as well as Condominium Association members utilizing the same law previously cited. According to Ms. Jane DiCristina Director of Association Regulation in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the standards for transparency for condominium associations are the same for homeowners associations. To be more specific and to quote her directly:
"We would support your right (or any other owner in the homeowner's association) to access financial information by using language from both the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act and the Condominium Act."
-Ms. Janet DiCristina, Association Regulation, N.J.D.C.A.
You erroneously state in your letter that I was “never refused access to a review of the Association’s books of account”. While your memory may be faulty, the record is not. The stenographic transcript of the June 30, 2006 Motion hearing before Judge MacKenzie incontrovertibly shows the Board argued, through attorney Mr. Gregory Hyman that the Board was of the belief that it did not have to cooperate with my multiple books & records inspection requests over an period of almost one-year. As it turns out this opinion had no basis and was utterly rebuffed by the Court. To refresh your memory, below is the relevant verbatim exchange from the transcript:
Mr. Hyman: And the Board of trustees believed they did not have to respond to someone who was not in good standing.
Judge MacKenzie: Is there something in the bylaws that says that or is that –
Mr. Hyman: The bylaws are silent on that issue, your Honor, but that is the belief that they had.
---Source; Stenographic Transcript of Motion, June 20, 2006 before Judge MacKenzie; page 15 para.6
As it turns out what was your “belief” is not a legal basis for denying a member access to the Association’s books & records. I’m sure what was true in 2006 is true today. The Court dismissed your opinion or “belief” as it were, entirely and completely. Your recollection of the facts today is refuted by the transcript of what you argued three years ago. Note that this argument was totally rejected by the Court as it ordered the Association to provide access to the books & records. Notably absent in the Court’s subsequent order was any mention that it was at the Board’s discretion as to what could be viewed by a member.
The unsigned letter that you provided presumably from Thomas E. Sheridan seems to be in response to my request for the Association’s insurance loss run. However it is not sufficient as it is not a loss-run of the Association. Though I have asked twice for the Board to give Mr. Sheridan permission to answer any questions I may have, to date the Board has ignored my requests.
You continue to maintain that no cash deposits have been made. If you believe this is true, then the Board should not have a problem in asking the bank to provide all details regarding cash transactions –including deposit information related to the dates in question. Specifically, $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. I request the Board provide me access to this bank documentation for these dates.
Unless the Board can show that the information any member requests is privileged, the Board should produce any documentation requested. It is my opinion and that of many expert legal sources (specifically Mr. Christopher Florio, Co-Chair of Stark & Stark Community Association Group) that almost all functions of the Association, including documentation, should be open and available to the members of the Association as they relate to the general operation of the Association.
In both Judge MacKenzie’s July 13, 2006 Order and Judge Langois’ March 23, 2007 Order, the Board was ordered to allow me to “inspect the books & records of the Association.” The judges made no mention that what was to be provided should be determined by the Board.
As a reasonable matter, your contumacious in maintaining the unwarranted opinion that the books & records should not be provided to the membership, without you ever providing a logical reason for such an opinion, will not further any Association interests. In fact it will result in more Association time and resources being wasted simply to defend some specific Board member’s personal interests. Without the Board’s full cooperation in providing access to books & records to the membership, times when the Board is deficient in its responsibilities and fiduciary duties could go undiscovered at the Association’s peril. Such was the case when I discovered that the Board had neglected to file two consecutive years of annual reports with the State of New Jersey as required by law and the Association’s corporate charter and ability to conduct business in the State was revoked. It should be noted that the Board, in violation of its suspended corporate status, continued to operate in the State of N.J.
If the Board spent as much effort providing full access to Association’s books & records as it does fighting transparency and openness, these situations perhaps could be avoided.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Another spurious claim by Thomas E. Maloney ...just another example of why the MLE gets sued for some Board member's personal acts....Thomas E. Maloney, Jr. (and others for which the membership is currently paying the legal bills) is already facing one complaint of defamation from a homeowner and member of the MLE and now his false claims might cause another:
-------------
Sept 25, 2009
Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I have received your September 2, 2009 letter which was in response to my letter from three months prior.
As the Association’s by-laws and NJ law both stipulate all books and records of the Association are available for any member’s review, I will exercise my right to review the Association’s insurance policies and past ten years loss run report as requested. I continue to think it is incredible that you have made it so difficult for me, a member of the MLE current on all my annual dues, to view the records for which I paid my allotted portion. The request for the past ten years loss run report is a new request given after six months of waiting for a reasonable explanation of the basis supporting the Tom Maloney published comment that “the Melly lawsuit” was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling which has yet to be answered. Notable, the insurance broker’s June 17, 2009 letter-written by insurance broker T.J. Sheridan months after Tom Maloney was asked by me to provide a basis for his assertion, did not cite the Melly lawsuit as responsible for the deductible change. For the record, the insurance broker’s letter didn’t mention the Melly lawsuit at all-thus refuting the latest attempt to provide a basis for Tom Maloney’s claim. After months of patiently waiting and reading a series of changing –and eventually debunked excuses from Tom Maloney, the Board generally and Tom Maloney specifically have not yet provided a legitimate reason for this claim. My request that the Board inform T.J. Sheridan to cooperate fully and answer all and any questions that I may have in regards to the deductible was ignored and not answered by the Board’s September 2, 2009 letter. This request is still outstanding.
If these Association documents will not be made available, the board should notify me before I schedule a meeting with Vincent Papalia so more time and resources are not wasted once again reviewing just partial books and records. The missing monthly statements of October 2003, December 2008, January 2004 and July 2005 should also be made available at this time. The reason for this request is simple, though not a prerequisite for any member’s request and review – a member should be able to view all of the funds going in as well as going out of any MLE account, especially if those funds are purported to be associated with short term loans that are not reflected anywhere else in the MLE records.
Your letter does not address why you won’t answer the question asked in my June 22, 2009 letter regarding large cash deposits of unknown origin and nature. Therefore the request is being made once again verbatim to the request made on June 22, 2009:
“There were also three sizeable cash deposits discovered during the Grand Jury investigation of $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. Please provide all documentation related to these cash deposits, including but not limited to, who deposited the funds on behalf of the Association, on behalf of which homeowners’ accounts the deposits made, all related documentation, etc.”
Please let me know if you are once again going to refuse to answer any questions about these cash deposits or if you will cooperate in providing an explanation with supporting documentation to the nature of the cash deposits.
Your letter also “calls” upon me to “issue a written apology and retraction of” my “false accusations made against Dan Rosen and the Board”. Strangely, your letter fails to cite any specific accusation that is false much less provide a refutation of anything I have said or written. These matters started when I discovered several irregular financial transactions and have sought for years to view the records which would explain the irregularities. For the record, the Board initially and unsuccessfully tried to argue that I did not have a right to see the books & records – this fallacious reasoning was unequivocally rejected by the Court. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to even consider your request. Please state explicitly what exactly you believe was false otherwise I shall assume that everything I have said and/or written regarding Association matters shall be considered by the Board to be true and accurate. If the Board is able to refute “an accusation” that I have allegedly made then I would be more than willing to correct the record. I am sure the Board, given its fiduciary responsibility to make sure everything it reports and publishes is true and accurate at all times, would be more than willing to do the same. The fact remains, six months have passed since Tom Maloney was asked to provide the basis for his claim that I was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling and after he has made various attempts to provide a basis –none have turned out to be true. Therefore the Board is, for one last time asked to correct the record or you will leave me no other choice but to seek a court ordered remedy. This would unnecessarily cost Association money and resources for no reason other than furthering some personal agenda which is not in the best interests of the Association.
Your characterization that some of the information requested is “for materials that are not subject to review by Member pursuant to the By-Laws and New Jersey law”. However, you neglect to provide even a rudimentary explanation why or to cite a basis for such an opinion in any statute or case law. As stated above, I am a dues-paying member of the MLE and current on my annual assessment. Do you honestly believe that if we went before a Judge or any reasonable objective person, he or she would believe that I am obligated to pay my dues, I can be sued for not paying my dues, you can put a lien on my house for failure to pay those dues, but the Board does not believe I should allowed to see what you spend my dues for? No reasonable person would believe this reasoning either logical or fair.
I look forward to your cooperation and reply.
-------------
Sept 25, 2009
Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I have received your September 2, 2009 letter which was in response to my letter from three months prior.
As the Association’s by-laws and NJ law both stipulate all books and records of the Association are available for any member’s review, I will exercise my right to review the Association’s insurance policies and past ten years loss run report as requested. I continue to think it is incredible that you have made it so difficult for me, a member of the MLE current on all my annual dues, to view the records for which I paid my allotted portion. The request for the past ten years loss run report is a new request given after six months of waiting for a reasonable explanation of the basis supporting the Tom Maloney published comment that “the Melly lawsuit” was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling which has yet to be answered. Notable, the insurance broker’s June 17, 2009 letter-written by insurance broker T.J. Sheridan months after Tom Maloney was asked by me to provide a basis for his assertion, did not cite the Melly lawsuit as responsible for the deductible change. For the record, the insurance broker’s letter didn’t mention the Melly lawsuit at all-thus refuting the latest attempt to provide a basis for Tom Maloney’s claim. After months of patiently waiting and reading a series of changing –and eventually debunked excuses from Tom Maloney, the Board generally and Tom Maloney specifically have not yet provided a legitimate reason for this claim. My request that the Board inform T.J. Sheridan to cooperate fully and answer all and any questions that I may have in regards to the deductible was ignored and not answered by the Board’s September 2, 2009 letter. This request is still outstanding.
If these Association documents will not be made available, the board should notify me before I schedule a meeting with Vincent Papalia so more time and resources are not wasted once again reviewing just partial books and records. The missing monthly statements of October 2003, December 2008, January 2004 and July 2005 should also be made available at this time. The reason for this request is simple, though not a prerequisite for any member’s request and review – a member should be able to view all of the funds going in as well as going out of any MLE account, especially if those funds are purported to be associated with short term loans that are not reflected anywhere else in the MLE records.
Your letter does not address why you won’t answer the question asked in my June 22, 2009 letter regarding large cash deposits of unknown origin and nature. Therefore the request is being made once again verbatim to the request made on June 22, 2009:
“There were also three sizeable cash deposits discovered during the Grand Jury investigation of $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. Please provide all documentation related to these cash deposits, including but not limited to, who deposited the funds on behalf of the Association, on behalf of which homeowners’ accounts the deposits made, all related documentation, etc.”
Please let me know if you are once again going to refuse to answer any questions about these cash deposits or if you will cooperate in providing an explanation with supporting documentation to the nature of the cash deposits.
Your letter also “calls” upon me to “issue a written apology and retraction of” my “false accusations made against Dan Rosen and the Board”. Strangely, your letter fails to cite any specific accusation that is false much less provide a refutation of anything I have said or written. These matters started when I discovered several irregular financial transactions and have sought for years to view the records which would explain the irregularities. For the record, the Board initially and unsuccessfully tried to argue that I did not have a right to see the books & records – this fallacious reasoning was unequivocally rejected by the Court. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to even consider your request. Please state explicitly what exactly you believe was false otherwise I shall assume that everything I have said and/or written regarding Association matters shall be considered by the Board to be true and accurate. If the Board is able to refute “an accusation” that I have allegedly made then I would be more than willing to correct the record. I am sure the Board, given its fiduciary responsibility to make sure everything it reports and publishes is true and accurate at all times, would be more than willing to do the same. The fact remains, six months have passed since Tom Maloney was asked to provide the basis for his claim that I was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling and after he has made various attempts to provide a basis –none have turned out to be true. Therefore the Board is, for one last time asked to correct the record or you will leave me no other choice but to seek a court ordered remedy. This would unnecessarily cost Association money and resources for no reason other than furthering some personal agenda which is not in the best interests of the Association.
Your characterization that some of the information requested is “for materials that are not subject to review by Member pursuant to the By-Laws and New Jersey law”. However, you neglect to provide even a rudimentary explanation why or to cite a basis for such an opinion in any statute or case law. As stated above, I am a dues-paying member of the MLE and current on my annual assessment. Do you honestly believe that if we went before a Judge or any reasonable objective person, he or she would believe that I am obligated to pay my dues, I can be sued for not paying my dues, you can put a lien on my house for failure to pay those dues, but the Board does not believe I should allowed to see what you spend my dues for? No reasonable person would believe this reasoning either logical or fair.
I look forward to your cooperation and reply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
