QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
Owners have asked many questions regarding the operation of The Towers. The following is an attempt to address some of those
questions we have recently received by e-mail. If you have further questions, please contact the Committee for Fair Assessments.
We will not use owners' names or identifying information in this question and response page, unless someone specifically requests that their name be given. The reason for this
is because too many people have expressed concern over the security of their property and the negative way that they have been treated by some board
members.
Letter from an owner, April 29, 2008.
Question:
I understand that The Towers pays for an internet account but I do not understand why. The office never uses the internet to contact owners,
to share information. Why then do we have an internet account and who uses it? Isn't this yet another waste of our association money?
Response:
We share your concern about unnecessary spending. Using the internet to contact owners would save the association lots of needless expense of
printing and mailing. We would suggest that this topic be brought up at the next board meeting, but there do not seem to be any board meetings
scheduled! Perhaps with the next board we get, we can have some more responsive and responsible people handling our funds.
Question:
I have a comment to the 2 bedroom owner. I have a standard unit. Why should I pay the same insurance as a 2 bedroom unit but get a
much smaller pay off in the event we collected? Also, I don't have a garage space. But I had to pay alot of money to fix up the
garage for the people who owned a space! I feel like this. Before someone buys a condo they should read the documents and either
agree to live by them or don't buy! I do have a question also. Is Brenda Mohler and Charles still the ones collecting the
laundry money? Has anyone seen an accounting of the over 20 thousand we take in on the dysfunctional washers and dryers?
Response:
Our insurance premium has always been part of our proportional monthly fee, except for the one equal assessment the board voted
for the insurance premium in October of 2006 ($190,000 assessment). In court, Judge Parsons made it VERY CLEAR that insurance was, of course,
to be done proportionally. It only makes sense. The lawyer for the board was arguing about the assessments in question as if they had
all been for hurricane damage when in fact only one out of the four wrongly levied assessments were for hurricane damage.
It is true that everyone contributed to the repair of the garage spaces, even though those are privately owned. They are still part of our
common holdings. It's a tricky issue for sure. It might have been fair to have assessment each space owner a certain amount to contribute to
the repairs, but that wasn't even discussed, in our recollections.
As for the laundry money, that is just one more area where, since we do not have regular meetings or regular financial reports, it is impossible
to know how much money is being collected.
Question:
We own a 2 bedroom unit. It is unfortunate that there has been
all of this political back-stabbing...back and forth from both sides. When we purchased the condo in 2003, we thought we were buying into
a smooth running operation. I guess we were mistaken. I do understand why the assessment committee took action, but I am not sure I agree
with the original documents for the condo. Here are our thoughts why.
1) The common grounds are everyone's responsibility. Why should we pay more assessments for them, when we already pay more in
monthly maintenance fees?
2) We noticed when we finally spent the last 4 months there, that the middle balconies are much larger than our balcony. The upkeep of
such a balcony will cost more, yet these units pay less.
The condo is in terrible need of painting and the balconies, especially on the north side, are a disgrace. We hope there won't be another
assessment in the next year, due to the recent one from the lawsuit. Our suggestion is that everyone be given the material to take care of
the repainting of their own balcony. We did ours when we were there. If you can't do it yourself, then hire someone to do it.
The building can not continue to deteriorate, or no one's unit will be worth anything. Hopefully, if money from the insurance company comes
back for the roof, it will be used towards the upkeep of the building. It is disgraceful that so many people owe back assessments.
We truly wished there had been a board meeting at the time we were at the Towers. When we asked when they were held, we were told only
when they are needed. Perhaps the board should start to hold meetings once a month, like they do in other condos. There is always something
to discuss. It is very hard to please everyone in such a situation, but people should be given the opportunity to be heard. We had issues
with things like the exercise room and the washer/dryer on our floor. When we come down in 6 months, we wonder if there will be anything
different. Thank you for reading this and hopefully, someone will respond to our concerns.
Response:
You have raised many questions and have many good ideas!
It is indeed unfortunate that there has been so much political back stabbing. There were many opportunities for this process to have gone much
more smoothly and end much sooner, but those went by the wayside. Hopefully things will settle down now that this lawsuit is finally
over. However, our association is involved in other lawsuits as well. We're not sure why so many suits have been filed in the past few years.
This place used to run smoothly, with a cheerful, helpful staff. Sadly, that has all changed in the last few years. And now the front
desk staff has all been fired (so we understand), so we are about to get yet another batch of employees. Since there haven't been any meetings,
as you pointed out, we don't know why the change in employees is being made. Our building manager didn't appear to know either, when asked about it
recently.
With regard to the documents, we are bound by law to follow our original documents unless our association changes them. That can happen, but it would take nearly all of
the owners to agree to a change, and that isn't likely to happen in the near future. Meanwhile, our committee wanted to make sure that the board
followed the documents, which are quite clear as to how assessments are to be made. While common grounds are available to everyone, a larger unit
has the potential for greater impact due to the potential for more people in the unit. That could be more people using the elevators, more people
walking on carpets, more people using the pool, etc. Also, larger units have more "hallway" frontage and "outside building" frontage, which impacts
things like inside and outside painting.
Your suggestion of having owners repaint their own balconies was a good one. Perhaps more owners will follow your example!
We are not sure why the building has not been maintained adequately in the past few years. There used to be a much larger maintenance staff and
all (or nearly all) the maintenance was done in-house. Those folks were constantly repairing, repainting, and they did larger improvements as well.
Lately it seems that we only have two maintenance employees, plus our manager, who does not seem to do any of the maintenance work himself. Since
board meetings are infrequent and since we haven't had a functioning Building and Grounds Committee for years, it is not possible to answer the
question of why things are the way they are. We'd like to know, too.
Monthly board meetings is a good idea. That way, owners who are here part of the time might be able to schedule their vacation to coincide with
a meeting if they wanted to attend. There also used to be a regular newsletter put out by the association board. That stopped several years ago, too,
and we're not sure why. Keeping owners informed seems to be something the board would want to do. Perhaps if people were informed, there would
be less speculation and gossip. In the fall when owners are asked to submit their names for the board, we encourage you to do that. You
have good ideas. We clearly need people like you on our board! Thank you.
Question:
Why hasn't Charles Mohler resigned since he made such a big mistake that cost our association so much money?
Response:
Maybe he needs a little encouragement to do the right thing.
Question:
Has the board, and especially Charles Mohler, apologized to the people who had to file the lawsuit to get him to do the assessments the right way?
Response:
Hahahahahahahaha! That would certainly be the mature thing to do, but no, there has been no acceptance of responsiblily or
ownership of the part he played in this. And we do not expect an apology. It takes a big
person to admit when they have made a mistake and a bigger person to then apologize.
Question:
I do have a question. A few.
I was at the last meeting and no one voted to install all the new surveillance equipment but it has been done anyway. Did the board have a meeting we don't know about and decide to do this? If so, was it because we are having security problems? Should the owners not be aware?
I have never seen the treasure or assistant treasure. The only people I see in the office is the president and vice president. Are they making all the decisions?
Thank you.
Response:
We are not aware of any discussion at a board meeting regarding the installation of the surveillance equipment except for the replacement
of the camera on the parking deck on the south side. We also have not seen other board members around. It appears that Mohler and Blake are
still making decisions on their own, without the guidance and support of the board. That is not the way our board is supposed to operate.
Question:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Business/Headlines/bizBIZ09040208.htm
Hey guys....our asst treasurer, Jack Aberman, only owes 19 million (I wonder if that includes the 24K he owes on his assessments?)
Is this the type of person we need having anything to do with the finances of our association?
Response:
Good question. Seems like Charles Mohler was his big supporter. You'll have to ask him about that. If a few more of his units get foreclosed on, he
will no longer be an owner here. We'll have to replace him on the board.
Question:
I felt the letter we just got was a smooth over by the board saying the judge said to do it like we did for 30 years. That isn't why he
ruled like he did in my opinion. He ruled on it because what the board did was not legal.
Thank you all for all the hard work, time, and tenacity for getting this done once and for all.
Response:
The letter certainly did not give an adequate explanation of the judge's reasoning for his decision. It was clear to him, and to most anyone
who has actually taken the time to read the documents, that the intent of the documents is that all assessments are to be made proportionally.
In addition, the copy of the documents filed in Volusia County, which is the copy that is binding, has a very clear statement that all assessments
are to be done proportionally. Why certain members of our board were unwilling or unable to understand that isn't clear. However, Keith Broll
did make the statment in a letter that Charles Mohler has difficulty understanding legal terminology. Perhaps he just wasn't able to read and
understand our documents.
Question:
Hello.
I know Lisa Chamberlain while on the board voted to have equal assessments. She even spoke at times about having equal regular monthly assessments.
I see by the letter the office sent out she will get a refund of almost 9,000.00. Did she pay that in assessments for 110 ?
Response:
We do not know if the former owner paid those assessments, if Lisa paid them, or if they were paid at all. But her unit points out one of the
many reasons we tried for 3 years to get the board to stop assessing improperly until it could be determined what the legal way to assess it.
With people selling units, new owners buying, the situation became more and more complex to sort out in the end. The board had ample opportunity
to do things the legal way, but they chose not to. They also chose to drag out the situation for several years, to the detriment of all owners,
as we all paid for the attorney, Keith Broll, the braintrust who Mohler says gave him the original bad advice.
Question:
In the letter of January 28, 2007, Charles Mohler seemed upset over the cost to the association for the monitoring of the election. He said,"...many owners
have contacted the board to express concern over this cost that really was not necessary. We all know we must spend enough money to maintain our
property and protect our investment. We are willing to do that. However, we feel unnecessary expenses such as these are unacceptable." Bearing
that in mind, don't you think that continuing to pay the Rice and Rose attorney, Keith Broll, (the person who supposedly gave Mohler the
bad legal advice that the equal levying of assessments was okay) while our insurance company was picking up the tab of the attorney for the association, was in
Mohler's own words "unnecessary expenses such as these are unacceptable"? It is my understanding that THE BOARD, not one person on the board,
has to vote to spend our association funds. If it is discovered that Mohler acted on his own behalf, hiring Keith Broll, continuing to call
him and have him come to meetings with the other lawyer (the one paid for by the insurance company), then shouldn't he be responsible for paying for
Keith Broll himself? I am sick and tired of all the money this association has paid out in legal fees.
Response:
We went to our files and pulled out the letter you are referring to. In it, Mohler stated that he was "trying to assess the legality of this petition.
Many owners feel that the people responsible for the petition as well as those who signed the petition should bear the expenses of the monitoring." In fact,
the petition was legal and the required number of signatures were there. I think that you have raised important questions about the cost of
having Keith Broll sit in on meetings between Mohler, other board members perhaps, and the attorney who represented the association.
Question:
It is my understanding that there is a legal requirement that minutes be kept of all meetings between any member of the board and an attorney,
when dealing with
association business. That makes sense, doesn't it? The board members are supposed to be dealing with anyone, a lawyer, a contractor, on our
behalf, so we should be able to know what is going on with regard to our property. It makes sense that only a few owners meet with a lawyer, as it
is logistically not feasible for 200 people to sit down with an attorney and ask questions. But, that is the reason minutes are to be kept, so that
owners can read over the minutes and keep abreast of what is happening. Are there any minutes from meetings with our board and the attorneys?
Response:
Unfortunately, Mohler did not follow that requirement and there are NO RECORDS
of the many meetings and telephone consultations he has had with Keith Broll. All we have are the tens of thousands of dollars worth of
legal bills. Sad, isn't it?
Question:
Charles Mohler was apparently concerned enough over a $2,000 bill for election monitoring that he spent association funds to print and mail out a letter
about it to all owners. Is he
equally concerned about the tens of thousands of dollars spent on a second attorney? And if he was so concerned about checking to see that the petition was
legal, why isn't he as concerned about the legality of just one person deciding to spend money on an attorney and obligating the entire association to pay for
it? Is that legal? Where are the minutes of all the meetings? No minutes of meetings? Is that legal? Where are the minutes of board meetings where the
entire board had a chance to vote on whether to spend that money or not? Was it even discussed? No board vote to spend the money? Is that legal then to
spend it anyway?
Response:
We have not seen any minutes from meetings nor do we have evidence that the board voted for these expenditures. If fact, a survey of several
board members has determined that at least 4 of the 7 members of the past board DID NOT vote to spend money on Keith Broll after the insurance
company began paying for an attorney to represent the association. In fact, it was never brought up to a vote. It appears that Mohler made this
decision to spend this money on his own. He may be personally responsible to the association for the money he spent without authorization. Did
the board vote to continue giving Keith Broll our money? If anyone has minutes showing the vote of the board for this, please
share the information. So far no one has come up with actual minutes to show where a vote was even requested, much less passed.
Question:
How about this: If it turns out that Mohler acted without the vote of the board in continuing to use the services of Keith Broll, it seems
that it should be his personal responsibility to bear the expenses. That seems to be in keeping with his suggestion for those who
did the election monitoring petition (which of course, was done properly). Perhaps we can divide the cost up and he can repay it over a 12 month period!
Or does he not hold himself up to the same standards he spouts for others?
Response:
I like your thinking! Excellent suggestion!