NT Properties v 666isMONEY

NT Properties, the majority lot owner in Sycamore Vista served a Complaint for “Breach of Contract” on me today. On it’s face, the Complaint looks totally bogus, not even any documents attached. Moreover, the Assignments of the Special Assessments Mr Russo sent to me do not mention lots 67 & 68 as being assigned to NT Properties. The “Assignments of Assessments” also show that the liens/contracts expired due to statutes of limitations: contracts expire in six years, A.R.S 12-548 and, liens for assessments expire in three years, A.R.S. 33-1807.

NT Properties v 666isMONEY (Complaint, the complaint mentions lots 67 and 68 those lots were actually assigned to someone else.)

AmendedComplaint (Omits lots 68 & 67, cover letter is weird: assessments have expired due to limitations like the liens, when did he think the assessments were due?)

Assignments of Assessments (Copies of NT Properties’ authority to go after me. Did Russo really pay Sullivan $12,500 per lot?! I had sent Mr. Sullivan a notice, two quit claim deeds and $10, which is what you do prior to quieting title and Sullivan’s lawyers then must have contacted Russo.)

The person who originally bought these Assignments (Sullivan) was a friend of the previous majority lot owners, he lost a lot of money investing in New Tucson / Sycamore Vista. A $1-billion bankruptcy lawsuit was filed against the company he was CEO of, First Magnus: “it [he and 39 others] were a significant cause of the credit crisis.” (Another local story about First Magnus with good comments.)

coronadetucson

Corona de Tucson brochure from promotional materials sent to a buyer in the 1970s. The original plat maps called the subdivision “Corona de Tucson,” the 1964 deed restrictions also mention the name-change.

I found an attorney to represent me

His name is Steven W. Cheifetz, he’s one of the attorneys who won the Dreamland case, which I’m going to use in challenging the lawsuit against me. I really like this lawyer, I told him, “I love your attitude,” he is very sharp and enthusiastic, he asks all the right questions too.  Here are some of our goals:

  1. Paragraph two of the Complaint mentions the CC&Rs of the HOA so we’re going to bring in the HOA and counterclaim the CC&Rs are bogus, per the findings in the Dreamland case. (Dreamland says Deed Restrictions can’t be changed into CC&Rs with dues, assessments, etc.)
  2. Try and get back all the dues and maybe the assessments I paid into the HOA — over $6000 in dues and $60,000 on two lots in Unit 2 that they were supposed to help me sell to KB Homes.
  3. By the end, my lots will be free and clear, we won’t have to pay any more dues or assessments.

He was also astonished about the Assignments of Assessments to private parties. He’s not the only one I talked to that wondered about the legality of this. In California, a statute prohibits an association from assigning liens:

Under Civil Code §1367.1(g) an association may not “voluntarily assign or pledge the association’s right to collect payments or assessments, or to enforce or foreclose a lien to a third party. . .” There is an exception to this rule when the association assigns or pledges the right to collect or foreclose to a financial institution or lender as security for a loan obtained by the association. (Source.) (It’s now Civil Code 5735)

Mr Cheifetz said, “I’m not bragging but I’m probably the best attorney in Arizona regarding fighting HOAs.” I believe him! Tuesday I have an appointment with him in Phoenix.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

First lawsuit Against the HOA/Developers (We lost)

Dear Carmine DeBonis.

In 2004, Jim Mazzocco  forced the HOA/developers to go to court to see if it was legal to force us vacant lot owners into an HOA. It was case number C2004-1194, Amelia Craig Cramer was the attorney for the County. (Read entire lawsuit HERE.) The County lost the case but there is new case law that will certainly change the way this subdivision is developed.

Currently, the developer/HOA is threatening to foreclose on 6-year old special assessment liens for the infrastructure/development on my lots worth $600,000. This court case says this is illegal, Dreamland v Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42, 226 P.3d 411:

Deed restrictions for residential community without common areas, containing only restrictive covenants pertaining to each lot owner’s personal residence [this is what we had before the HOA was established], could not be amended by majority vote of lot owners to require membership in homeowners’ association and imposition of assessments, and thus amended declaration of restrictions requiring lot owners to pay assessments to association was invalid.

These developers/HOA “majority lot owners” voted to force us into the HOA and have been stealing our lots one-by-one. It is now time for them to stop.

Best Wishes,

Raquel Baranow

Read New Tucson Unit 8 v Pima County.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Fatal Blow to the Sycamore Vista HOA

Image

Click pic to enlarge and read the “Dedication.”  Note the annotation on the plat map where the County deeds all alleys, drainageways, equestrianways and easements to the HOA at DK 12965 PG 293 (5 January 2007); the 1964 Dedication made all those “public.”

Dear Mr. Neff: I just read your article about Raimey v. Dreamland, I was wondering what your opinion of this case is in regards to the documents you drew up for New Tucson. At the time, according to the plat maps, there were no common areas in the subdivision, all areas were “dedicated to the public.” When the HOA formed and building permits were applied for, the HOA assumed ownership of the “Equestrian Ways,” drainage areas, etc. as separate, assessed parcels. Am I as a lot owner required to pay assessments and dues to the HOA?

I should add: does the HOA now owe me all the money I paid in dues & assessments!?

The AZ Court of Appeals found:

Deed restrictions for residential community without
common areas, containing only restrictive covenants
pertaining to each lot owner’s personal residence,
could not be amended by majority vote of lot owners
to require membership in homeowners’ association
and imposition of assessments, and thus amended
declaration of restrictions requiring lot owners to pay
assessments to association was invalid.

Read annotated PDF of Raimey v Dreamland.

Plat map shows common areas belonged to the public and that in January 5, 2007 (Docket 12965, Page 293) were deeded by Pima County to the HOA.

Plat map detail shows common areas belonged to the public and that on January 5, 2007 (Docket 12965, Page 293) were deeded by Pima County to the HOA.

Neff drew up the CC&Rs for New Tucson (which is now called “Sycamore Vista”), prior to that there was only three pages of deed restrictions.

Notes to self:

One lawyer’s comments on the Dreamland case.

Another lawyer’s comments on the Dreamland case.

Interesting, similar Arizona case that goes in depth about “unconscionability of contracts,” Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation Inc.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

New Tucson / Sycamore Vista Maps & Aerial Views.

Image

Looks like sometime in 2011– CLICK PICS TO ENLARGE.

Click HERE to see Google aerial view of the 48 lots in Unit 5 the majority lot owners plan to pave and to see the latest Google aerial view of this area.

Image

January 1999, I bought my first lots in 1997, you can see DeGregorio’s cabin.

Image

Units 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10N & 10S. Unit 6 is not a part of this fiasco, they were invited to join but declined. Lots in yellow are mine, the ones with “X’s” I sold.

Image

Units 2 & 5. Unit one in the NE corner was developed in the 60’s, there’s a baptist church on the large corner lot. Below Unit 1 is a part of Unit 5 that was developed too, they opted out of the Unit 5 HOA. Lots in yellow are mine.

Image

Unit 4 by the golf course, which recently closed. I own Lot 170. Someone dug a trench and brought water and electric to my lot and never charged me. Aerial pic is from 2007?




Push 2 Check

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

New Tucson Unit 5 Budget, 31 Dec 2008

It boggles my mind looking at these budgets from after the prior majority lot owners went bankrupt and caused National Bank of Arizona to lose $35-million, the biggest loss in their history. The prior majority owners never paid any dues.

“WRS” refers to “Western Recovery Services, LLC,” which sold our Special Assessments for lot development to suckers. The HOA allegedly “sold” the Assessments to WRS. WRS is actually a shell company of the former majority lot owners called, “Equity Lenders & Consultants, LLC,” many of the people in WRS & EL&C are being sued by one of the “suckers” who invested $2-million, some of it in “New Tucson.”

Western Recovery Service

A Search of the Pima County Recorder’s office shows Western Recovery is still active in stealing lots from people.

Who is Western Recovery Services

Who is Western Recovery Services, Western Associates Development? They are the former majority lot owners and members of the HOA boards being sued for securities fraud by Derry Dean Sparlin, Sr. (Click pic to enlarge.)

Western Recovery Lawsuit

Western Recovery Lawsuit. Click pic to enlarge. Attorney for this case is Kenneth E Chase, from Scottsdale, he specializes in securities fraud. The Complaint is about 50-pages and reads like a novel, brilliant work and research. I sent Mr. Chase info (email) about these guys but never heard from him.

Read entire Sparlin lawsuit HERE or HERE, New Tucson is mentioned on pages 28 & 55. 2nd Amended Sparlin Complaint

Image

Note the $800,200 “Purchase Agreements” liability for WRS (Western Recovery Services), what is this for?

ImageImage

unit5report0001

Where did all this money go??? See “Bad Debt Writeoff,” which is probably because the prior majority lot owners never paid any HOA dues. I was told at an HOA meeting there was never a forensic examination of the books by National Bank of Arizona. In China, banks would lend money to developers and both would skim money, take kickbacks and pay themselves handsomely:

In China, ventures may be spectacularly unprofitable, yet enrich everyone lucky enough to get a piece. Developers, for example, construct vacant office buildings as an excuse to borrow from state banks. They rake off a cut for themselves, pay bribes to the party officials who deliver the land and reward bank functionaries with sumptuous banquets and trips to Macao. Soon enough, the trophy skyscraper descends into financial disaster, but the developers, bankers and party officials have already extracted their riches, and for long afterward they will still enjoy them. “Lessons the Teacher Forgot,” New York Times, 16 May 2009.

Under new management.

Under new management, total waste of money.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Unit 9 Budget, 31 Dec 2008 vs 2010

Where did all  the money come from (National Bank, which lost $35-million), where did it go?!

WRS is where much of the money went and then they sold special assessments to suckers who lost millions expecting to get 10%.

Unit 9 is totally virgin land.

ImageImageImage

Under new management, this HOA is entirely vacant lots.

Under new management, this HOA is entirely vacant lots.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sycamore Vista HOA, Vail AZ (18 June 2012)

Was recovering from a hangover (got drunk at home Sunday), Steve Russo asked how I was doing and I wearily said, “okay,” he said, “just okay?!” and I told him I was recovering from a hangover, lol. But I was also weary of the BS involved.

I made a video where I nailed Steve about selling our lots to the builders. He said he would “present our lots” to the builder . . . not sure what this means but i suggested that any new contracts with builders would require them to buy from us. Steve said, “there may be some lots the builder does not want.” I’m afraid Steve will tell me that the builder does not want my lots in Unit 2, end of story.

I also asked Steve why we are paying dues in Units 7, 9 & 10, there was only one other person there with vacant lots, his name was Steve DeGregorio. He said he had a septic put on his lot in Unit 5 in 1997 and it was bulldozed by the previous lot owners. Russo told him to submit a claim to the HOA to compensate him for the septic. Russo seemed kind of stunned that he had permission to put a septic in. As U may know, I had heated arguments with the previous majority owners about whether or not septics were allowed. The previous owners perpetrated a myth that only through development could we build on our lots . . . I had permission to put a septic on one of my lots in Unit 7.

DeGregorio seconded my motion to stop HOAs in Units 7, 9 & 10 or make the dues nominal, like $1/year (maybe it wasn’t clear that I did not include Unit 5 in the motion) and then Steve vetoed the idea with his voting power. He said we need to insure our lots(!), I said my homeowner’s insurance policy covers my vacant lots, he said, “well maybe others don’t have insurance.” I suggested that we only pay HOA dues to the Master Association through Units 7, 9 & 10. He vetoed that idea too.

Biggest news is they are going to start developing in Unit 5 . . . beginning in the SW corner (he says SE corner in the video but adds, “it’s the area next to Unit 2,”) which is 42 lots. (I own about 6-lots in this area.) Assessments for the roads will be $10,000!

DeGregorio asked many questions about the lawsuits and who would get the money if they won. Russo said the $250,000 they won from Arcadus (spelling?) went to the HOA’s . . . this lawsuit was about bogus plans that cost about $1-million. The other lawsuit has to do with the sewer impaction. There was a lot of discussion about this impaction. Steve said they have a map showing where in Units 8 & 2 there have been impaction problems; he said in Unit 8, (there were so many problems) that the map looks like one giant blob of red. Unit 2 was not that bad. (I have seen a problem in Unit 2 where there was a hole in the street asphalt.) If they win their sewer lawsuit, the money will go to fixing the sewer problems. He said he spent almost 3/4-million dollars on this lawsuit so far.

There were maybe a dozen ppl for the Unit 2 meeting and maybe 8 ppl for the Unit 8 meeting but many in Unit 8 sat there for the Unit 2 meeting too. Much of the time was spent electing homeowners to the CC&R Enforcement & Architecture Review Committee, where they discussed the heights of sheds.

I didn’t ask (again) for a copy of the Master Association budget . . . last meeting (April 2012), I asked the HOA-manager and sent an email (krubly@chapmanmanagementgroup.com) for them to send me one . . . she seemed kind of stunned when I asked her last time and mumbled something as if this was confidential info or something . . . made me feel very suspicious. I looked at the latest Corporation Commission filings and didn’t see the latest Master Association Budget. If you read the form they submitted (paragraph 9), it seems to suggest that such a budget is required! (Try this link and scroll down for the latest report.) They do have a report for 2009.
http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=11301315&type=CORPORATION

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

FTC Complaint: New Tucson Land Fraud, Etc.

Dear Mr. Russo,

I’ve been studying the Federal Trade Commission Complaint against Horizon Corporation, which was responsible for developing New Tucson, key words to search in the 500-page document is “improvement.” It appears from the Complaint that Horizon deceived buyers into thinking there would be improvements on their lots. Pima County no longer approves a subdivision without utilities and roads.

(564-667 is not available, error at FTC)
14. In the further course and conduct of the aforesaid business respondent has made and is making various statements and representations to members of the public, by means of advertisements in various publications of general circulation, promotional materials TV and radio broadcasts, telephone calls and sales presentations involving oral statements, written statements movies and slides concerning the past, present, and future development of respondent’s properties, and inclusiveness of the purchase price of a lot. The aforesaid statements and representations use words and terms such as communities, “community developer,” “master plan,” “land use plan,” “new cities” and other words or terms of similar import.
15. By and through the statements and representations alleged in Paragraph 14 herein, respondent has represented and is representing, directly or by implication, that substantially all lots are now, or by approximately the end of the purchaser’s scheduled payments will be, located within a self-contained and fully developed community, and that the price of the aforesaid lots is all-inclusive.

There are laws in other states about how much you can charge in a special assessment. How do you expect some of us to come up with HUGE special assessments. California law limits the amount of special assessments to 5% to the annual budget. See also this.

You are acting in the shoes of Horizon Corporation. The FTC said:

3. Propose at any such meeting called pursuant to subparagraph (1), the following amendments in the articles of incorporation and bylaws of each such association as may be needed to accomplish the following:
(a) A limitation on the holding of positions on the Board of Directors, any Committee or as an officer of said association by anyone who, while serving in that position, is or has been a director officer, employee, agent or representative of respondent or any of its subsidiaries or divisions to less than a majority of Board members (continued below)
It does not seem fair to impose HOA fees on lots that will not be developed for many years (see FTC complaint):
(b) Elimination from such by-laws and articles any powers, such as to extend utility lines, which the association has not and is not likely to use because of adverse effects on its non-taxable status.
(c) Postponement of the annual charges and assessments by each undeveloped lot owner until such time as water, sewer and electric utilities are in place in the street in front of each lot, or until such time as the utilities have been contracted for and the date of installation is certain.

Based on the FTC Complaint, it appears that the judge made an error in deciding against the County in New Tucson Unit No. 8 Homeowners Association v Pima County: C20041194.

The judge in the above case should have allowed the majority lot owners to do what they wanted with their lots and NOT involve the minority lot owners in their development, i.e., it doesn’t cost the majority lot owners much more to provide utilities and roads for all the lots. In Unit 4, someone provided electricity & water to my lot there for free!

You should allow me to quiet title against Mr. Sullivan [a sucker who bought $400,000 worth of Special Assessments on 8 of my lots] as I told you in October I planned to do.
New Tucson, Horizon Land Corporation ad, Tucson Citizen, 24 January 1964, p.28 *** Click pic to enlarge.

New Tucson, Horizon Land Corporation ad, Tucson Citizen, 24 January 1964, p.28 *** Click pic to enlarge, you can read it.

NONE of the minority vacant lot owners is happy with the HOA. The people with houses in Sycamore Vista were unhappy living next to vacant lots. (Homes in the lots increases HOA dues.)

I urge you to reconsider your actions and to immediately call a meeting of all members of the HOA to determine our future — such as extinguishing all the expired liens and a discussion on further assessments and dues for vacant lot owners.

Best Wishes,
Raquel!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

DeGregorio Cabin

New Tucson Unit 5 Lot 285, March 2003

Steven DeGregorio’s cabin (on Hershel Hobbs Pl), New Tucson Unit 5 Lot 285, March 2003. Unfortunately, the cabin violates the minimum (800 sq ft) building-size requirements in the original 1964 deed restrictions. He did have a septic system.

Looking south at Santa Rita Mountains

Looking south at Santa Rita Mountains, March 2004, on Hershel Hobbs Place. Note the T-posts at the corners where I had five lots surveyed. I had plans to develop these lots and sell them to hippies. 1977 Honda Civic.

The cabin has been bulldozed, here’s what the area looks like now:

Unit 5 with 10,000 dump-truck loads of dirt to make sewer slope, Hershel Hobbs Pl.

After I saw what they did to Unit 5, I cried.

Federal report about the Pima Pineapple Cactus found on Unit 5.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment