This Is our Village

Friday, May 30, 2014


I am of course concerned about the recent solicitation of legal fees for the Solomon & Karpf requested class action and so I asked our attorney about the legality of Building Associations giving money to support this lawsuit. It was his opinion that the Class Action lawsuit names only unit owners as members of the class. 
 Building Associations are not named parties and are not named members of the class and thus have no economic interest in the class action.  A Building Association has no authority to expend Association funds on a lawsuit that does not involve the Association.  In other words the Solomon and Karpf class action legal expenses have nothing to do with the Associations and these expenses would not be a valid common expense to the Building. 
Now, the question arises; do you really want to sue yourselves? Please ignore this disruptive distraction, and let's get on with the real business of our Village.
Dave Israel


  1. Once more, well stated Dave. Unfortunately, on other blogs, silly insomniacs endlessly try to ponder the nature of the universe and stupid lawsuits against UCO and CV, stirring up nothing but mud and confusion.

  2. Are 617 non-profit corporations required to disclose the names of individuals and corpororate entities that contribute funds?

  3. Where does the law suit stand now?

  4. Hi Mike,
    June 3, 2014 at 1:35 PM,

    The malcontents are begging our unit owners for money to pay their hoping to be lawyer.

    If they can come up with $10K, or perhaps $30K, then it's off to the Courtroom kabuki!

    This is better than anything Cerabino has ever written!!

    Dave Israel

  5. Hi Don4060,
    May 30, 2014 at 7:02 AM,

    Any expenditure by UCO, of Unit Owner monies,is disclose-able to our Unit Owners.

    Dave Israel

  6. Actually, my question is not about expenditures by UCO, it is about contributions to JFR, the entity that is soliciting money for the Solomon/Karpf lawsuit against UCO.

    Would a publically registered non-profit corporation be required, if asked, to disclose a list of contributors? Political organizations are routinely required to disclose their lists of contributors, and these lists are published in newspapers. Do the same rules apply to JFR?

    Consider this scenario: a seasonal CV Homeowner, who is not on the board, reads financial statement at the annual meeting and finds out that his/her Association has made a contribution to the lawsuit. Homeowner is against support for the suit, but has little recourse because the contribution has already been made, and the only option to show disapproval, the Association elections, are a year into the future.

    Publication of Associations which contribute to JFR, NOW, would allow individual Homeowners who are against the lawsuit to voice their disapproval NOW, as well as at their upcoming Association elections.

    Publication of these lists, either here or in the UCO Reporter, would also ensure that Associations that choose to support the lawsuit against UCO, do so in full compliance of the "open meetings" provisions of FS 718.

    I think that it would be wrong, even if legal, to publish the names of individual contributors. What people do with their own money is their own business. But contributions by Associations are, in my opinion, fair game.

    "Let The Sun Shine In"

  7. Hi Don4060,
    June 5, 2014 at 8:00 AM,

    Ah-So, I did not understand the original question.

    I shall run this one by Rod for a legal opinion.

    Dave Israel

  8. What is JFR, Just For Ruination?
    You would think after 4 losses the malcontents would get the message.
    . There was the lawsuit against the Levys, lost, judge disgusted.
    . Complaint against CAM, R. Carver, dismissed, DBPR Tallahassee disgusted.
    . UCO President Recall, defeated, Delegates disgusted.
    . Lawsuit against UCO, Lawyer quit disgusted.
    Now more lawsuits recycling same old stuff.
    There should be an expense line in the UCO budget for these people so residents can see what they cost us.

  9. Today's behavior at the delegates meeting on the part of Olga Wolkenstein was beyond unacceptable. She has answered her own and Esther's question concerning why Dave Israel had to have sheriff's deputies at a delegates meeting several months ago. It began today when, in order to be sure of an accurate count on a vote, Dave asked those who voted no, and then those who had abstained, to stand. Enter Olga, standing for BOTH counts, waving her arms about and mocking Dave, Later she got up to speak, was called out of order, continued ranting and raving, began personally vilifying Dave, and wouldn't stop even when Security from the Village tried to reason with her. It reminded me of the rant a couple of years ago by Dan Gladstone.

    Why should Olga and those of this stripe get away with this? It disrupts an otherwise orderly meeting and wastes the time of over a hundred people. Dave is to be COMMENDED for his handling of this, and if he feels the need for paid sheriff's deputies at further meetings, he should HAVE THEM, no questions asked. Your grounds for criticism of such measures are GONE, Esther, Olga and Company.

    This morning only highlights why UCO committee heads are loath to have these malcontents be on their committees. Who wants constant trouble from the get-go? Your supposed "educational qualifications" don't mean a thing when you cause this kind of trouble.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.