The Whole Truth Please
The May 14th Plantation Master Association Meeting minutes have now been published and there are some issues that at best are misrepresentations of the facts, and at worst are words that try to create a narrative that is not based on the facts. Hopefully, the words that were included in the minutes were written without Judge Jon Medema’s decision having been read. If the language and holdings were known to the author of the printed minutes, then the text and the minutes need to be publicly clarified so neighbors in The Plantation Community are allowed to decide for themselves what has transpired over the past several years between the involved parties.
The minutes mis-inform homeowners about what happened regarding certain legal activities. At the end of those minutes, there is also the summary of a certain “concerned neighbor” who apparently had not read Judge Medema’s ruling before he offered his comments which mis-characterize what happened to Virginia Morris as "a personal legal attack". Of concern and in need of clarification, context and correction are the following entries in the May 4th, 2025, minutes:
“Legal update.
a. Brindee...stressed that the HOA is not an active party in these legal proceedings.
...
d. As part of its motion to dismiss, LB River Club’s counsel asked PMA’s President to sign a declaration stating the number of voting members in the community. Although the number the President cited was 2 more lots than homes and did not materially change the 5% needed erroneously claimed by The River Club Counsel, it has been falsely stated that the President’s veracity was now in question and this was what required her to seek personal legal counsel.
e. Because Brindee represents the HOA and not individual board members, the president was required to hire a personal attorney at her own expense. All board members have been advised to retain personal counsel if they are also called to be deposed”.
The above text in the May 14 minutes suggests the HOA President's entanglement in the legal case was due simply to inaccurate information supplied by the HOA President about counts of property owners within the HOA. This is a misleading and grossly incomplete representation.
HOA attorney Brindee Collins is correct that the HOA is a non-party in the legal proceedings. Plaintiffs took great care to avoid entangling the HOA, wanting and negating the HOA to at least be a neutral party. Given this neutral position, very early HOA Attorney Collins either should have, or perhaps did, advise all HOA Officers and Board members of the importance of maintaining neutrality if the HOA is to avoid entanglement in the legal proceedings and unwanted legal costs.
Subsequent to Collins' retention as HOA counsel, LB River Club representatives apparently asked the HOA President to provide it (LB River Club) with written information supporting the defendant's pleadings in the legal case. The HOA President did so in affidavit form thus supporting the defendant's court actions. The Defendant then submitted their written pleadings to the court, attaching the HOA President's supporting statements and private HOA information. This made the HOA President a witness in support of the Defendant's actions. It also appeared to be a potentially glaring breach of HOA neutrality. Upon discovering the HOA President had become a witness for the opposition, Plaintiff's attorney had the duty to confront and potentially depose such opposition witnesses who presented themselves to the court. Failure to do so would be negligent.
The HOA President, due to her independent and ill-advised actions in support of the Defendant, apparently has retained her own attorney to support her during Plaintiff’s depositions.
Thus, no one has or was "suing" the HOA President. No one was undertaking "a personal legal attack". The President, by her own actions, unauthorized by either the HOA attorney or the Board, independently stepped forward as a witness supporting Defendants' pleadings in a legal action. She thus exposed herself to examinations that Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct on all witnesses.
The question is now before the Board as to whether the HOA will reimburse the President for personal legal expenses arising from actions that were not undertaken on behalf of the HOA. Of course, any reimbursement by the HOA may thus be seen as further participating in the support of Defendant's pleadings and could have consequences for preservation of HOA neutrality in the legal matter, and protection from unwanted costs. We respectfully ask and hope for the preservation of that neutrality.
Finally, it should be noted and memorialized in the HOA minutes that a threat was made to a homeowner in the audience. It was heard by at least 5 people. It was not a “perceived threat”. It was a real threat made by a real person. The words “I’m coming after you” were real and were absolutely inappropriate under any circumstance. A mention in the minutes that the Board discourages this type of conduct would be appropriate, especially in light of Ms. Collins words “for the record” immediately after the incident.
We respectfully ask that the minutes be corrected to appropriately reflect to the Plantation Community what has actually occurred. Maybe reprinting Judge Medema’s decision would also be appropriate and help to answer a lot of questions.
— John Livingston