Hard to believe that the first blog entry to this website was a year ago, on July 23rd. If it’s not a case of “time flies when you’re having fun”, it’s at least a relief looking in the rear view mirror at all of this wasted money and effort–even while it does cause you to shake your head “why?” It’s also satisfying being able to publish facts that fly in the face of lawsuit related mis-information that was spewed by the Complainants and their enabler–the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG)–for way too long.
I was thinking originally that a year would be enough time to get all of this information in the public domain. But the Modification to the Consent Judgment slowed down my reporting a little. And like the posting before this one, people keep providing more information to publish on top of the mountain that I was sitting on to start with…a mountain that is still pretty high.
At the very top, I want to thank those who are reading the site regularly. This is dry subject matter and only relevant to The Harbours and its residents. Many of the topics are obscure unless you know the background and why so much detail is warranted. I even want to thank the OAG for doing what was right in the end by folding their tent. It was not and never will be a popular decision with the Complainants who cared very little how much time and taxpayer money was being wasted. But when you get back one-tenth of what you spent to litigate, any lawyer, judge, or jury would call that a “waste”. While it took years–literally–the OAG finally recognized that.
Unfortunately, it’s not ALL in the rear view mirror. Since the OAG first visited The Harbours in August 2010, there have been four property managers (vs. one longstanding prior manager) and 22 Board members (vs. 16 prior). Based on simple turnover, the OAG litigation has had an unsettling effect on The Harbours that continues to this day through the words and actions of the Complainants who still live there.
Thanks to the 500 visitors to this site in the last year who registered 3,000 page views. I guess these subjects do interest a few people! I’ll keep trying to make the information as clear as possible to understand and worth your time to read.
Sheila Rudder is a longtime resident of The Harbours Condominiums and has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the litigation brought by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG). She once worked for the Developer during the initial marketing phase of the building conversion project that began around year 2000. She has an Indiana real estate license but says she doesn’t actively engage in property sales at The Harbours.
Immediately after the lawsuit was settled in August 2015, Rudder began complaining publicly about the settlement terms. One of her biggest gripes was the return of parking space 601 to the homeowners association (HOA). Her claim is that space 601 wasn’t an actual parking space, it didn’t belong to any of the Defendants, and the OAG was duped into accepting it as settlement property. She also questioned its value since the space wasn’t sized to accommodate an automobile.
Since the Developer’s exit, Harbours records have always shown 601 to be a deeded parking space and privately owned. It is and always will be listed in a recorded document, a deed or parking assignment. It is issued a parking pass like all other parking spaces during the annual Thunder Over Louisville celebration. And it is in a strategic location near a building entrance. The Harbours Board of Directors could restripe that area of the parking garage to accommodate a new parking space for handicapped or temporary use. Its location was a major reason the space was judged to be of value to the HOA.
Within a couple weeks of the original settlement, the Defendants were contacted by the OAG questioning space 601. This was instigated by the Complainants, most of whom were unhappy with the small amount of assets transferred in the settlement. And after several more months of back and forth, a modification to the agreement was voluntarily entered by both sides. The details of the modification were posted here previously. Parking space 601 was returned by the HOA in exchange for another garage rooftop space that would accommodate a full-sized car. However, this substitute space is well away from any of the building entry/exit points.
Sheila Rudder’s fixation with space 601 didn’t end with the settlement agreement and modification. Despite the OAG’s efforts to resolve the issue, she continues to pursue her agenda with them. She wrote to OAG staff member, Paula Jennifer “Jennie” Beller, who formerly handled this case even though Ms. Beller has been reassigned. In fact, Rudder has enlarged her issue with the parking space. It’s not as much today about whether the OAG should have negotiated for the space. Her viewpoint now is that the HOA should be in full possession of that area of the parking garage separate from the litigation. Rudder claims that it’s a good location to, for example, load and unload a car. She was recently photographed parking and unloading the borrowed, red vehicle above in this location. And observers have actually witnessed her in 601, a parking space that the HOA surrendered BACK TO THE DEFENDANTS at her beckoning.
So, while everyone else directly involved with the OAG litigation worked toward a solution, it’s unclear what has been settled with Sheila Rudder and her fellow Complainants. …Not when one of them will complain about receiving something and then complain about giving it back.
In addition to Sheila Rudder’s comments in the linked posting above regarding the settlement/modification, here are some additional comments she has made generally and about parking space 601. Note how little of her overall unhappiness she lays at the feet of the entity at the center of the lawsuit and the one originally embraced by the Complainants with so much optimism, the Indiana Office of the Attorney General.
My remarks below are in [bracketed black text].
“I cannot phantom (sic) that any Director past or present would think this [settlement] is OK…” (8-15-2015)
“This parking space 601 that was given to HARBOURS HOA in their settlement is NOT even a parking space… What was the OAG thinking?…” (8-17-2015)
“This is not a parking space; looks like [the Defendants] had no fear of the OAG. How could you pass this off as a parking space? Is this not fraud or at least a violation of the Law Suit settlement agreement?… THIS SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN AN EASY FIX! What are people thinking???…” (8-18-2015)
“Tax fraud, mortgage fraud, manipulation of structural walls between units & plumbing without…permits, tampering with the United States Post Office, appropriating common areas for 4 Directors’ personal gain. (All 4 Presidents.) The employees used to carry out some of their, in my opinion, egregious crimes are still employed at the Harbours; and, continue to create community confusion & hostility against targeted residents…” (8-19-2015)
“Does the fraud on [parking space 601] negate the whole settlement of the Attorney General’s law suit against Zipperle, Mary Lou Trautwein Lamkin & Sharon Chandler?…” (11-14-2015)
[Rudder doesn’t want the lawsuit over or settled; she wants it to continue.]
“Anyone heard if this fraudulent non-parking space given back for the dozens manipulated by directorship privilege negatedTHE Attorney General law luit settlement against Zipperle, Mary Lou Trautwein Lamkin &Sharon Chandler? The thousands & thousands of tax payers $s spent on protecting our community shouldhave gotten us more than two unusable handicap parking spaces…” (12-6-2015)
“[Replacement parking space] 657; nor 635 are decent parking spaces for handicap or elders. Both are on roof out in the elements with no access to entry doors without hard negotiating up slants. When icy it is impossible. Shame on these people & shame on the Harbours’ Directors who promote & endorse it.
“Why didn’t the HOA current directors work with OAG to get at least 2 DECENT spaces to replace the dozens manipulated through directorship??? 601 is not a parking space it is a walkway belonging to BUILDING? What current HARBOURS HOA directors thought this was acceptable? WHO is protecting our Community?
“Even though the Attorney General law suit stipulated Harbours HOA was NOT to pay for these three being sued’s legal fees, our HOA Board led by them & their supporters allowed HOA INSURANCE to be used to defend their personal actions that were shown by their depositions to harm our community & it’s (sic) membership.
“HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars were paid to criminal attorneys [in fact, the amount paid by Harbours insurance was $64,054; and this was civil litigation, not criminal…], HOA staff support paid for by HOA & now parking space fraud has been allowed OR endorsed by Directorship to protect these Directors that were sued to protect the community & it’s (sic) membership. All directors who assisted in this fraud against our community should be required to resign. And reimburse our HOA. SURELY, that would cut our Maintenance Fees way down… Fraud in our Community is still harming our residents & our value…
“Time for this stuff to stop.
“Both parking spaces Zipperle ended negotiating with are on roof & not handicap accessible. What good are they? AGAIN, why is directorship going along with this? Who is protecting this community?
[The Harbours Board wanted no say on specific parking spaces. Only the OAG had that role…]
“I wouldn’t think even THE Directors who appear to feel elitist & entitled would risk going thru what Zipperle, Lamkin & Chandler have. Next time there might not be the leniency of current law suit settlement…” (12-31-2015)
“Why were the defendants allowed to spend hundreds of thousands of HOA insurance dollars [$64,054] to protect them from their personal actions?… It appears so to many… Listening to [the current and five-time appointed Board President] is just like listening to Zipperle…” (1-1-2016)_
_
“It is interesting our past directors & current directorship have many handicap & convenient parking spaces that were once recorded as handicap or assigned to elderly residents with disabilities. However these spaces were accumulated by the president & secretary of the Board of Directors it does not seem fair to the elderly who cannot walk or residents with disabilities
“These Directors walk & run miles every day; yet, usurp the elderly & handicap; having had the privilege to get parking spaces developer advertised when selling condos were for handicap or first come first serve…
“Note on 6 floor of garage the fire exit walkway painted 601; directorship allows [Zipperle] to say he owns it. How can an owner dictate who can use a walkway to the fire exit? This is insane & yes owners need to be aware…
“The only way I see to correct the parking issue that the transition committee made [the 2003 Transition Committee had no voting power…] is to take a majority vote to have garage on a first come basis. I believe THE Majority of owners will vote for this because of how parking space assignment take-overs have skewed perceived ownership creating mis-use of ownership & unfairness to all owners paying for a select few to run a business; whether renting spaces, or selling cars out of our garage for personal enrichment
“People will park closest to where they live. There will be no more parking on the street if some one is in your assigned spot when you come in.
“The parking spaces are not deeded. They are assigned. [All properly written deeds contain parking space numbers…] I never could understand the Quest to collect them, as at any time THE MAJORITY CAN vote to make garage open parking…
[Parking space assignments are recorded legal records in the Clark County Courthouse. They are freely bought and sold and many have been transacted separately from condo sales. Property rights laws and compensation would likely be involved in any attempt to change the current system of ‘ownership’…]
“Right now on surface by freight elevator. President & Secretary owns numerous spaces right by door, past director owns multiple parking spaces there that are rented; maintenance man parks in handicap right there, another director has a space there but it came with his condo. Doesn’t leave any room for handicap or elderly to load, unload or park emergency vehicles.
“First floor: multiple parking spaces owned by present & past directors.
“Sixth floor: handicap space was assigned to pass director. It was not returned when no longer needed for handicapped owner & logo has been painted over.
“Sixth floor walk way to fire exit stairs somehow was assigned to [Zipperle]. He wants anyone parked NEXT to it be towed. [Not ‘anyone’–only Rudder and Complainants…] HOW can a past director own THE walk way to fire exit? (Jeffersonville Fire Marshall has been asked to advise.)
“Where can people unload groceries? If you cannot use your arm it is hard to manipulate doors. Does no one care about their neighbors?…” (5-6-2016)
Mary Lou Trautwein-Lamkin was deposed by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on November 18, 2013. Her deposition was conducted on the same day that Part II of Kevin Zipperle’s deposition was taken. The deposition occurred at the offices of Culotta & Culotta in New Albany, Indiana. Here is the link to her deposition transcript:
On a number of questions during the second part of my deposition, I was instructed by our attorney to assert my Fifth Amendment privilege of not providing personal testimony that could be used in the prosecution of a criminal charge against me. This is commonly known as “pleading the Fifth”, and that matter requires explanation here.
One of the baseless and ultimately unproven allegations by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) was that Mary Lou Trautwien-Lamkin and I had violated the “Home Loan Practices Act”, or more specifically, the statutes listed under IC 24-9-3 for “Prohibited Lending Practices Generally”. See again the Plaintiffs’ allegation on p. 36 of the Complaint under “Count II” (¶ 259). Note that this statutory language is written in the context of the mortgage creation market in Indiana–originators, underwriters, and processors working in that line of business. Fannie Mae is a federal entity, and Indiana law is not written to police the conduct of cash buyers of their repossessed properties.
The alleged violation stemmed from our signing an owner occupancy affidavit in conjunction with the purchase of condominium 1104 from Fannie Mae in a sealed bid auction. Originally, I signed the affidavit as the purchaser. Eventually Ms. Trautwein-Lamkin did when she decided to buy and reside in the condominium—which she still does today. Several offers were submitted by us while Fannie Mae kept evaluating and repricing that condo and the competitive bids. There was actually one contract that included both of our names and for which we signed the same affidavit. This was during a brief time in which Ms. Trautwein-Lamkin was deciding whether or not to buy the condo as her residence. Both of our signatures on the paperwork covered either outcome of her decision.
The OAG inaccurately assumed that both of us signing the same affidavit was our promise to cohabitate the property. While that particular contract was not accepted by Fannie Mae, an attempt to conceal anything relevant on the owner occupancy affidavit is a violation of law and subject to criminal prosecution. (Our attorney said that charge carries with it a misdemeanor penalty–the basis of exercising a Fifth Amendment privilege–and a maximum $10,000 fine.) What the OAG wasn’t aware of when the lawsuit was filed is that individuals may cosign the same affidavit without all of them intending to cohabitate, as long as one of the parties fulfills the terms of the affidavit which Ms. Trautwein-Lamkin always has. The OAG tried to sue the Defendants over a transaction that was lawful.*
This type of flawed analysis on the OAG’s part undoubtedly fed their decision to later settle the lawsuit for what amounted to nuisance charges. Also, there was no mortgage on condominium 1104 at the time of purchase or to finance the purchase, which calls into serious question the OAG’s use of statutes related to “prohibited lending practices” to file suit. There were no “lenders” involved in the Defendants’ purchase of condo 1104 because it was an all-cash purchase.
* The program administered by Fannie Mae to sell off repossessed properties is known as “Homepath”. Here is a document that was furnished by a real estate professional detailing the owner occupancy considerations which are part of the program. Note esp. the highlighted text:
“In a co-purchaser situation, as long as one buyer is occupying, then the sale is eligible as an owner occupant sale. The occupying buyer must be a ‘natural’ person and excludes corporations, trusts, LLC’s, etc. The occupying buyer must sign the Owner Occupation Certification form and all buyers must be on the contract, mortgage (if applicable) and deed. The non-occupying buyer may be an individual or a company.
Note: Owning another property does not automatically make a buyer an investor…”
You can find other Fannie Mae references online that show the same criteria for determining owner occupancy. This link contains one such example clarifying the situation when multiple parties sign an affidavit to occupy a Fannie Mae property.
The second part of my deposition was similarly taken in the presence of the other Defendants, our defense counsel, and staff members of the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG). The first part was linked in this post. The second part took place on November 18, 2013, about three months after the deposition was started. It encompassed about half of that second day, the remainder used by the OAG to depose Mary Lou Trautwein-Lamkin.
The subpoena to continue the deposition was likewise issued by the OAG, and the deposition occurred at the offices of Culotta & Culotta in New Albany, Indiana. Here is the link to the transcript for Part II:
The page numbers in this transcript continue from the transcript for Part I. And to reiterate my disclosure, the depositions are being edited to remove personal information and the names of parties who were not behind the litigation, mainly former employees and former Board members who were not involved in the allegations.
Martin Dale “Marty” Haley (above center) is the son of Betty (left) and Earl (right) Haley, all of whom live or lived at The Harbours. Earl is now deceased. They were also in the group photo in the prior blog entry, Complainants’ Legal Counsel. All of the Haleys submitted complaints to the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG). Betty and Marty Haley have also been involved in criminal prosecutions at The Harbours, the details for which were linked in the previous blog entry. Marty launched an unprovoked attack on an office staff member in 2012 that was reported on WAVE 3 news with their cameras present. Here is a clip from the televised portion of their news video.
While all three of them sent complaints to the OAG, only Marty sent emails to the OAG according to discovery records. His emails (linked here) were limited to a handful, and most of the content was in fact someone else’s comments. His own remarks are in GREEN.
Marty Haley was elected to the Harbours Board of Directors on two different occasions. He was a member of the first elected Board that took office on April 27, 2004, and he served eight months for the balance of 2004 choosing not to run for a new three-year term at his term expiration. He then ran for a new three-year term and began serving on January 1, 2007. However, he resigned his position on April 2, 2009. To date, Marty is believed to be the only Board member who has served in multiple nonconsecutive terms. He has since run for a Board seat but has been defeated.
As far as his emails are concerned, of much greater interest are those that never made it to the OAG. While serving on the Board, Marty participated in all of the decisions and actions that the Board took. He was also once Chair of the Building & Grounds Committee. And in his communications, he commented extensively on issues that ranged from elections to bird droppings on cars. Here is a file of supplemental emails that Marty authored as a Board or committee member. His more significant comments are quoted at the end of this blog entry, arranged by subject, and worth reading.
Ironically, Marty Haley was once a very outspoken critic of Harbours residents comprised today of complainants and disgruntled homeowners. Today, he exemplifies that group. He rationalizes his complete metamorphosis as once being unaware of what was going on and now being enlightened. When you read his comments below, ask yourself if these are the words of someone who was unsure and indecisive. How likely is it that someone who once referred to complainants as “these bastards”–two of whom were his own parents–could so misjudge them? Or is it more likely that there’s another explanation?
Enjoy the read.
♦ Marty Haley on Harbours property management and policy making…
“From my point of view it shows we have faith in our procedures and they have served us well through past lawsuits, emergencies, and the more repetitive tasks of running this building. …I don’t feel it is unreasonable to ask that you observe something in action that has worked in the past before you insist on changing it.” (February 08, 2008)
“I feel we should stick with the improvement and upgrade schedule as planned.” (October 16, 2008)
“[Complainant] Thom [Pike] I don’t know if that was for me but if it was my answer is this. I will continue to send each board member and [former property manager] a copy of anything I have to say regarding this building. If you say you want honesty and transparency then go and stick your head in the sand because you don’t like the point of view being expressed we are never going to have an honest open discussion of policies and procedures. Why we have them, how we formed them and why we haven’t changed them.
“I truly get the feeling Thom that you and [former Board member] are mad because we didn’t make you two president, vice president, secretary and treasurer at our first meeting after you two were elected. I don’t believe in a two person mandate for drastic changes. …I don’t hide my email address on anything I send out. If asked I will give a clear reason why I take a stance on any issue. If you don’t want to read it delete it. As an elected member of this board you have a right to be included in meetings and board correspondence. I am not going to let it be said I conspired to keep someone out of the loop on any issue that this board addresses.” (March 12, 2009)
♦ Marty Haley on parking…
“[Complainant] Thom [Pike], I think the biggest problem we have with parking in this building is the free parking mentality. There would be no cars to tow if people would park in the space they own.” (June 09, 2008)
“…the ideal (sic) that this is an ongoing problem and we need special parking spaces people can write their own pass for is B.S. A cart of groceries will go through any door connected to the parking garage. The fact you must first take an elevator from the garage to the first floor, get a cart, and return to an automobile parked in a space you own for them does not seem like a hellish strain on the elderly and infirmed to me. This is not an assisted living center.” (June 10, 2008)
“People should park in their parking space and not in the driveway. We have ask (sic) and warned now it’s tow time.” (January 31, 2009)
“As chair of B&G I am done with the [Complainant Betty] Cantrell bird crap issue. Any swapping of [parking] spaces falls under resolution or some other committee. Please don’t email me on this issue again.” (June 16, 2008)
“I agree this action should stop all negotiations with [Complainant] Betty [Cantrell] immediately. Despite the excellent work of Gary [Davis] and the committee to come up with a space swap solution to her problem, she insists on pursuing meritless lawsuits that eat up meeting time and association resources. Fill my email box with gibberish. And make me want to put a bird feeder filled with white castles in the tree in front of her car. Maybe that isn’t bird poop on her windshield, just the manifestation of her own bad karma.
“On an unrelated issue, can we blow up the I-65 bridge? The birds from it poop on my red truck in my outdoor space on the corner of the fifth floor. The developer sold it to me without a written estimate of average annual bird poop accumulation. This is clearly someone else’s fault, and I deserve relief.” (July 16, 2008)
“Who said we have to tow it and make the towing company rich. Since it is association property that is being misused by these folks I feel we should keep the revenue. Everyone check out www.tirelock.com. It shouldn’t take too long to recoup our purchase price for one of these. I think a fifty dollar fine for an unclamping during regular business hours, and one hundred bucks for evenings, weekends and holidays is very reasonable. And as always, if the offender is in an owner’s space, not an association space, they get towed. Really obstinate people can even be charged a daily fee for parking space and wheel clamp rental after 48 hours.” (July 21, 2008)
♦ Marty Haley on complainants and disgruntled homeowners…
“Why don’t these folks the current board is supposedly blacklisting from committees…seek a board spot using an honest, out in the open, written agenda. Not a bunch of mudslinging, and secret unsigned innuendo letters as has been their campaign strategy in the past. If I read [Complainant Tom Pike’s] e-mail correctly, they already claim to have the support of ten percent or more of the membership. All they need is a little more than a third of the remaining ninety percent and they should be a lock. I guarantee their (sic) will be at least 1 seat in the next two elections without a running incumbent. I also don’t plan to publicly endorse anyone. That fair enough for them.” (July 02, 2008)
…It’s the constant repeating of a message the majority think is B.S. They have been spewing this stuff since before the developer turned over the building, and will continue until the last shovel of dirt covers their casket. Funnier still, they seem offended that those of us who ran openly supporting [former property manager] and Kevin and the current staff have not now abandoned them. Why would I or anyone else for that matter, loose (sic) their integrity, abandon their principles and forget a promise to make this a better place to live for everyone, just to make these few miserable malcontents happy. These are the same old ideals (sic) that have been loosing (sic) elections for many years now. I have no intention of presenting them as my platform even though I’m a lame duck. Because the ideals (sic) and the changes this group wants benefits them more than the owners as a whole. I truly believe, and this keeps me going and makes it all worthwhile, that the majority of owners think this group is hateful, nuts or at best just plain wrong anyway.” (July 03, 2008)
“We are not a corporation and our survival does not depend on the whimsical forces of the invisible hand. We are here to serve the residents of this building and as long as it stands there will be a board. If they don’t like us they can get rid of us… In the end, your books are only as good as the integrity of the person keeping them. I feel we are well covered in this regard. Our residents are better served by consistent accounting principles that have been explained in detail at past budget meetings.” (October 30, 2008)
“…Pursuing loosing (sic) causes and petty stuff with no tangible payout should be left [to] the domain of the [Complainants] Cantrells and Rudders of the world. I see no sense in dragging out something that costs us credibility, and isn’t going to result in some real federal prison, breaking rocks time for these bastards.” (October 30, 2008)
[From Complainant Betty Cantrell on November 15, 2008: “And FYI malicious threats from Marty Haley will not cause me to run me from my home.” See email S-014.]
“…if we don’t start calling this ‘The [Complainants] Hackruder Film’ we are taking ourselves way too seriously.” (December 16, 2008)
“I’m afraid that what ever happens friday will only be a prequel to a civil suit or another round of mudslinging against the entire board.” (December 16, 2008)
“…anything I actually email has been toned down at least twice from my original draft.
“Agendas are good it’s what you want to accomplish. HIDDEN AGENDAS are where I have a problem. Just tell me what the end goal is, and you may have an ally, maybe not… Don’t piecemeal out a bunch of the same old disjointed complaints I have heard since the turnover [by the Developer] and think I’m going to take you seriously. Especially if your largest and most vocal supporters are all absentee landlords that only materialize for board meetings, and people who have sued this association and slandered it’s (sic) board members.” (March 12, 2009)
♦ Marty Haley on Harbours elections…
“What is [Complainant] Betty’s [Cantrell’s] point? That since the board didn’t elect officers at the first meeting after the annual meeting, we are forbidden to do it in the future. Fine with me, the officers can stand from the previous board, or we could just not have officers and adopt a more parliamentary structure. Although I doubt either outcome would please Betty.” (December 27, 2008)
“I have no problem with neutral observers either as long as they are neutral. Having one of the most vocal and unwavering critics [Complainant Betty Cantrell] of all things done by this board hovering over a person while they prepare election packets is a lot to ask. Too much I would say. …I’m tired of living in a building that feels like a company being raided in a hostile proxy battle. Especially when the raiders [Complainants et al.] have never made a positive suggestion for change I can recall. They have only criticized what has been done and the people who did it. …If you want something painted blue, ask the painter to paint it blue. Don’t tell the painter yellow and orange suck then leave him to figure it out.” (January 25, 2009)
“I feel it is the job of the board to encourage owners and residents to learn about the issues in our home and be involved in the process. But you have a right to be stupid, and disenfranchise yourself if you want. You are free to let someone else think for you.” (March 06, 2009)
“…the feeling I’m getting here is that people [Complainants et al.] who have not had a great deal of success winning elections on a platform of their issues want to tweak the process to gain an edge. Yes everyone has a right to be heard. Not everyone has the right to make policy. You have to win elections for that. Letting people make election rules that plan to run for election gives us no transparency, no true critique of past issues. It merely continues a partisan fight over turf. And special elections only require a 10% owners group to call and cost no more than a regular election which Tom says we can have for no cost to the association anyway. Viva democracy. However the last time this was tried it didn’t go so well for the people that called for it. Are they really stupid enough to think doing it again would make them seem like heroes. That would be a whole new level of stupid there.
“Let me state as clearly as I can. I will not seek reelection on this board. I have seen organizations stagnate and feel smart people with fresh ideals (sic) are the only way to keep that from happening here. There are previous candidates for this board I would never under any circumstance vote for because I feel they have hidden agendas and lack the basic integrity to do what they know is right. Some of them won’t park in their own spaces that came with the condo the bought. Others resort to smear campaigns and mud slinging innuendo. But they never state an actual ideal (sic) or reveal the things they can do better and how they would do them. For crying out loud, open the curtain a bit wizard. I’m already on my way back to Kansas.
“I will continue to serve on any committee the board may ask me to for as long as I’m needed. But I’m not singing Kum Ba Yah, and we already know I do not suffer fools well. But unless you really want to turn the asylum over to the inmates I may be able to help.” (March 09, 2009)
♦ Marty Haley on owners’ rights to privacy and related issues…
“Folks I’m an Iron worker if I think it I say it. Blame my mom and dad too. I plan on making the motion I put forth in a previous post at our next meeting. The one about releasing all records to any member that asks… Funny how full disclosure sounds like a good idea until you are the one bent over the table with your drawers on the floor while the doctor lubes up the scope.” (March 12, 2009)
“The privacy policy is to protect people’s right to privacy. Nothing more. If an owner is paying their fair share of common expenses and not creating a problem why would another owner or third party be entitled to the information this policy would protect. I would like anyone seeking this information on their neighbors to explain to me how having it will ease their mind.
“I think the majority want more privacy for themselves. My proposal just makes it official policy. The people who can’t live without these details about their neighbor are not good neighbors in my opinion and should consider a detached single family dwelling to comfort them. As long as my co owners are paying their fair share of common expenses that is all the info I need about them. I don’t care what deal they made with the developer or past owner of their condo or their current landlord for that matter.
“I’m also tired of having the fact I favor privacy rights of owners and residents spun to look like I’m part of some conspiracy. If future candidates for the board feel so strongly that this info is community property and should be freely distributed they can clearly say so in their campaign and run on it. It would be a nice change of pace from the past elections with campaigns full of job resumes and broad nonspecific feel good stuff about getting along, saving money and whatever else is popular at the time. A candidate could stand up and say ‘I want to release all the records in the office for any owner to look at and that includes personal info about you and me.’
“Funny thing is there is one public disclosure I have fought for and been soundly defeated on by the board at every turn. I wanted a Wall of Shame in the mail room. Here the association could post the name and unit number of any owner 30 days late on their HOA dues. The board has always opted for a more private means of encouraging payment. Wimps.” (March 24, 2009)
Questions and remarks occasionally come up on this subject. Some believe that the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) served as legal representative for the complainants. The OAG was always quick to point out that wasn’t true although evidence will be presented that sheds an interesting light on their relationship. Still others have asked if their lawyer of choice, Larry Wilder, was “that same guy.” The “guy” was referenced on this webpage in the Derivative Lawsuit blog entry, more specifically in the original documents, the withdrawal of plaintiffs, and the corresponding chronological case summary. Mr. Wilder served as plaintiffs’ counsel in that action.
He was first identified by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) in a photo appended to the Complaint itself, standing in front of members of the Complainant group in Exhibit MM. That photo is reproduced here along with the legend.
Larry Wilder has represented some of these individuals in cases unrelated to the AG lawsuit. Among them are current and past criminal litigation involving Don Cantrell, Marty Haley, and two cases filed against his mother, Betty Haley (link 1, link 2). Wilder also represented Wade Morgan as a defendant on a civil case brought by The Harbours. All of these are in the public record and accessible through a Clark County, Indiana court records search.
And yes, Larry Wilder is the “same guy” many have seen in other situations and cases locally.
This blog entry contains a link to emails forwarded to the Defendants by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for the above complainant. These documents were provided by the OAG to comply with the Defendants’ discovery request.
Unlike the situation for the first two complainants, Ms. Snodgrass is a current and longtime owner. She and her husband, David Finnegan, lease their unit most of the year but maintain an active interest in The Harbours. Snodgrass was one of the more engaged complainants with the OAG during their investigation. Her individual emails have been condensed down to the ten email threads in the file linked above. With one exception (discussed below), she did not send much in the way of file attachments to the OAG. Most of her emails simply passed along other emails to which she was a party.
The Character of Sandra Snodgrass
Email 005 in the link above is perhaps an enlightening and entertaining thread that starts with an incident at a Harbours Board meeting in July 2010. The meeting was held in closed session, and Ms. Snodgrass entered the meeting without permission and was recorded on video. A brief segment of that video is linked below, and a transcript of the dialogue follows in case the audio track is difficult to understand. Sorry for the poor quality of the video which was recorded on a handheld digital camera.
This video file is shown in the original email in the 005 thread as “Not Once, But Twice”. The filename is a reference to the number of times in the video that Snodgrass denied sending the OAG complaints against Harbours Board members and management. This video was recorded in late July 2010. Her OAG complaints were dated in July 2009 and March 2010, and they were against, respectively, six individual Directors and the “Harbours management and Board of Directors”.
In the ensuing 005 emails, she goes to great effort trying to justify the complaints while sidestepping the issue entirely of whether she lied to the Board during that meeting and in the video. Her explanation eventually is that she didn’t lie because she didn’t individually name every Board member in her complaints, mentioning one Director–Tom Pike–as someone she excluded. (Pike also submitted a prior complaint against the “Harbours Condominium Association” which he acknowledges in the video.) In essence, Snodgrass’ analysis is that since she didn’t submit a complaint against every Board member, she didn’t submit a complaint against any of them.
Whether a person tells the truth should be relevant to whether his or her testimony in an investigation is valid especially if the subject matter is the same.
Transcript from the video file:
[Zipperle is the voice off camera, Snodgrass is standing in front of the camera with an open binder in her arms, and Pike is sitting next to her. The video starts with background comments…]
Zipperle: This lady… Hey, for those of you who don’t pay attention, this lady has filed an AG complaint with each one of you.
Snodgrass: (Looking up and avoiding eye contact…) That is not true.
Zipperle: She’s filed an AG complaint with each one of you.
Snodgrass: That is not true. And isn’t that the…
Zipperle: (Zipperle gesturing at Tom Pike…) Now, this guy has filed an AG complaint with each one of you.
My deposition was taken in the presence of the other Defendants, our defense counsel, and staff members of the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG). It was conducted in two parts, the first taking place on August 26, 2013 for the entire day. The subpoena was issued by the OAG, and the deposition occurred at the offices of Culotta & Culotta in New Albany, Indiana. Here is the link to the transcript for Part I:
The depositions are being edited to remove personal information and the names of parties who were not behind the litigation, mainly former employees and former Board members who were not involved in the allegations. At this time, the information is presented without discussion.
The exhibits referenced and linked in this deposition are the same as those in the Complaint. They were previously uploaded and presented within the early blog post “Remaining Exhibits” dated August 9, 2015. Each exhibit link contains several alphabetized (A, B, C, … Z, AA, BB, …) exhibits, including the specific one shown at each point in the deposition. The same link will appear for all of the exhibits it includes.
This question has been posed to me on occasion, and it’s probably good for a minute to explain my arrangements here. Off the top, it has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
WordPress is a generalized “platform” to start up a website such as this one. The basic service is free, and it allows a lot of information to be uploaded and organized for readers like you. It has been especially useful for its versatility at handling many different types of media and files; indeed, we have only scratched the surface so far. And even the basic service will accommodate a LOT of information. Consider that all of the postings and attachments to date have barely consumed 4% of what’s allowable. Some of the links to this point have referenced large files like the Harbours Declarations and Bylaws which are archived elsewhere. But file storage will be (or would have been) an issue once files specific to this project such as depositions are uploaded.
It wasn’t by accident that WordPress was chosen for this site. One thing that was sought out was a platform that would allow interaction, a site that would allow readers to comment or ask questions. This isn’t a discussion forum, but it shouldn’t be just one person who gets all of the microphone time. The subject hasn’t been covered, but there are no rules at this point for posting a comment. You can remain anonymous, and I have taken off all restrictions to making comments. Your comments appear almost immediately and go through no approval steps. If I see comments that are not appropriate for this site, some moderation may be necessary. But I’m not counting on that.
And other platform alternatives to WordPress were reviewed in terms of their quality and usefulness. Here are a couple of links that talk about WordPress and its broad level of support among website hosting services:
There are no risks to accessing this site. WordPress websites are stable and widely utilized by many bloggers. If you’ve heard otherwise, it could be that someone is simply trying to discourage you from reading the content provided here. And that should prompt you to ask another question — “Why?”
on July 23rd. If it’s not a case of “time flies when you’re having fun”, it’s at least a relief looking in the rear view mirror at all of this wasted money and effort–even while it does cause you to shake your head “why?” It’s also satisfying being able to publish facts that fly in the face of lawsuit related mis-information that was spewed by the Complainants and their enabler–the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG)–for way too long.
Sheila Rudder is a longtime resident of The Harbours Condominiums and has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the litigation brought by the Indiana Office of the Attorney General (OAG). She once worked for the Developer during the initial marketing phase of the building conversion project that began around year 2000. She has an Indiana real estate license but says she doesn’t actively engage in property sales at The Harbours.
The alleged violation stemmed from our signing an owner occupancy affidavit in conjunction with the purchase of condominium 1104 from Fannie Mae in a sealed bid auction. Originally, I signed the affidavit as the purchaser. Eventually Ms. Trautwein-Lamkin did when she decided to buy and reside in the condominium—which she still does today. Several offers were submitted by us while Fannie Mae kept evaluating and repricing that condo and the competitive bids. There was actually one contract that included both of our names and for which we signed the same affidavit. This was during a brief time in which Ms. Trautwein-Lamkin was deciding whether or not to buy the condo as her residence. Both of our signatures on the paperwork covered either outcome of her decision.
Harbours Lawsuit 