The recall petition continues and those of us on the recall committee have been honest and upfront with this quest, I can't say the same for our board members and attorney. Nothing like manipulating the facts to make a point...the cheaters way of doing things; hardly Christian like to me.
After reviewing the papers that Mr DeHart sent to Department of Business and Professional Regulations, I must say whatever DeHart wants, he gets..Sadly, it's done with the seal and zest of someone determined to get his way regardless of how much manipulating it takes.
Ms Shirley J. Whitsitt, Arbitrator, requested more info from the Petitioner (Poinciana Village Nine) because Mr. DeHart was unable to do his job correctly the first time. What he sent was vague, incomplete and only makes it questionable as to why since he is suppose to be the legal expert. Guess the added fees our association has to pay doesn't bother our incompetent board members. Then again, he may have been hoping that Ms Whitsitt wouldn't do her job competently and not ask for added information to clarify what DeHart had sent her.
Ms Whitsitt wanted to know who 'Mark' was. Yep, one of those 'let's skim over who he is' by the attorney. Well, now she wants to know and do you think DeHart could be honest with his answer? No. He referred to Mark Taliento 'is the representative of Showcase Mobile Homes Sales, Inc.' Gee, funny how one can interpreter that. Actually, Mark is the OWNER. Hmmm..wonder why DeHart had to use so many words and not use the ONE that would describe who Mark is.
Another interesting tid-bid of misinformation is who Mark purchased the lots from. According to DeHart, Mark bought these 101 lots from 'THE ORIGINAL OWNER'...wrong!!!..The original owner was Avatar. They are the ones who plated out phase 1 and phase 2. Mark purchased his lots from Schoolfield who bought from Avatar. Why was it necessary to lie about that?
When Mr DeHart makes reference to Poinciana Village Nine Documents, it talks about voting interest and to him that means those lots that Mark owns. Therefore, we did not have enough signatures. What Mr DeHart is hoping is that us common folks or Ms Whitsitt is not familiar with State Statute 720.307 (1) (b) in regards to transition from developer (Avatar) to members:
720.307 Transition of association control in a community.--With respect to homeowners' associations:
(1) Members other than the developer are entitled to elect at least a majority of the members of the board of directors of the homeowners' association when the earlier of the following events occurs:
(a) Three months after 90 percent of the parcels in all phases of the community that will ultimately be operated by the homeowners' association have been conveyed to members; or
(b) Such other percentage of the parcels has been conveyed to members, or such other date or event has occurred, as is set forth in the governing documents in order to comply with the requirements of any governmentally chartered entity with regard to the mortgage financing of parcels.
For purposes of this section, the term "members other than the developer" shall not include builders, contractors, or others who purchase a parcel for the purpose of constructing improvements thereon for resale.
We have gone through the transition with Avatar and Mark is not THE developer. DeHart is twisting what's in our documents (voting interests) while excluding state statute. Pretty devious if you ask me.
Stay tuned..more to follow....