Veteran & his family in Oak Island, NC still living with Hurricane Florence Damage because of their Property Owners Association.

Property Owners at Long Bay Commons in Oak Island NC, Marine Corps Veteran Stephen and his wife Heather Conrad filed a lawsuit against Long Bay Commons Property Owners Association Board of Directors in February of this year claiming they have had damages to their home since July of 2018 and since the Board of Directors failed to act before Hurricane Florence their condominium now has close to $36,000 in related damages and are living with 2 types of toxic mold in their home. Despite their family’s declining health the Property Owners Association remains firm in not fixing anything. This is their story.

The Property Owners Association Board of Directors were made aware of the roof conditions back in July of 2018, 6 weeks before Hurricane Florence, by the roofer who the Conrad’s hired to stop a leak in their back bedroom upstairs. The roofer, who was a woman, informed the President (male) of the Property Owners Association about the conditions of the roof only to be told that “women do not do roofs” and as such the Property Owners Association ignored the warning and failed to repair the roof before Hurricane Florence. As a result the Conrad’s sustained further damage when Hurricane Florence hit and have since been living with mold.

According to the Conrads North Carolina General Statute 47c governs their condominiums. The roof is a common element and the Conrads state the roof had no maintenance since 2006 when the building was built. The Property Owners Association is responsible for the maintenance and care of common elements to keep the units from property damage. Because the Property Owners Association failed to do any maintenance to the roof they are responsible for repairing the damage from July of 2018 and Hurricane Florence. The Conrads informed the Board of Directors in late September of 2018 about the mold and damages from Hurricane Florence and reminded the Board of Directors about their previous damage back in July of 2018 the Conrads said that’s when their battle really begun. They stated they were completely ignored among other things by the Property Owners Association and even dismissed the concern from Stephen Conrad who was a board member at the time. Mr. Conrad tried bringing up the issue during board meetings and was dismissed by the President of the association at the time.

In mid-January the Conrad’s found out finally the Property Owners Association received their settlement from the insurance company via email between Board members. The Board of Directors would do nothing with the insurance money until late January 2019 after the Town of Oak Island decided to fine one of the Board Members at Long Bay Commons because of the exposed siding, the Board of Directors decided to finally vote on contractors to start repairs so that particular Board Member would not receive any fines from the Town of Oak Island.
As part of a Condo Association the Conrad’s fall under the North Carolina Condominium Act (General Statute 47c) and as stated under insurance proceeds (G.S. 47c-3-113(h) the funds are broken up for common elements and per unit. As it states in the Condominium Act moneys allocated toward the common elements go to the Property Owners Association for repairs and moneys allotted go to the unit owners for repairs. The Property Owners Association Board of Director’s attorney wanted to state the Conrad’s repairs fall under G.S. 47c-3-113(e) however the POA and the attorney failed to miss one line in (e) that changes how you legally read it. Under 47c-3-113(e) it says “subject to provisions of subsection (h)” meaning “conditional if (h) does not apply. (h) does apply in this circumstance and 47c-3-113 (h) is mentioned prior in 47c-3-107(a) directly addressing damage and destruction to property and how the POA has a duty to restore in a timely manner. No one, not even the attorneys, who were later acquired by the Conrads, will listen to them on this subject, despite  numerous 3rd parties, including adjusters, contractors, other attorneys agreeing with Mr. & Mrs. Conrad .

In late February after being ignored and no word of repairs came from their Property Owners Association and speaking with several attorneys who failed to help, the Conrad’s were forced to file a lawsuit in Superior Court alone. They filed suit because at that point Heather Conrad had become increasingly and noticeably worse where she was unable to function day to day. The Conrads at this time had already spoken with their homeowner’s insurance company USAA, which covers from the drywall in, and were turned down for the claim due to it being on the Property Owners Association to repair. The Conrads spoke with FEMA and had the same result. The attorneys the Conrad’s went to see all said the same thing, you have a claim but unfortunately there isn’t anything we can do but write a letter asking them to comply to the Long Bay Commons By-Laws, Declarations (CCRs) and the NC Condominium Act and ‘threaten’ a lawsuit despite the Conrads going to several attorneys in Brunswick, New Hanover and Onslow County to acquire representation. The Conrads provided proof of bullying, harassment and negligence on paper but no attorney would help them. One example of intentional misconduct the Conrads spoke about happened on Feb 22^nd 2019. An email had been accidently sent to all the property owners at Long Bay Commons by the Board Members stating in so many words they were plotting against the Conrad’s instead of trying to help them. After the email was accidently sent to all the property owners at Long Bay Commons a follow up email stating “Please disregard that last email” was sent out. 

On February 27^th 2019 the Conrad’s filed the lawsuit on their own in Superior Court against several parties which included every member of Long Bay Commons Property Owners Association Board of Directors at the time. The Conrad’s said even after filing a lawsuit the Property Owners Association kept bullying them.

Shortly before and after filing the lawsuit the Board of Directors had hired a contractor to do the inside and outside repairs to Long Bay Commons. The Conrads were visited by the contractors only to find out the room with the most damage from Hurricane Florence in their home had been left off of the insurance adjustment even after the adjuster for the Property Owners Association Insurance had been in that room and taken pictures back in early October of 2018 but remarkably the room that sustained damage in July of 2018 before Florence had been added to the adjustment as Hurricane Florence damage, even after the Conrads told the adjuster that particular room was already turned down by the POA’s insurance company in July of 2018 for “failure to maintain the roof”. The cost repairs to the Conrad’s unit was estimated for only $1567.00 but after being re-evaluated by the contractors hired by the Property Owners Association their damages are upwards of $20,000. After the Property Owners Association received the updated cost of repairs from the contractors they have now refused to pay for the damages to the Conrad’s home and hired another contractor that does not do mold remediation to come in and repair the hurricane damage only without mold removal.

In mid March, after the 1st annual meeting Long Bay Commons has had in more than 3 years, Mr. Conrad went and sat down with the newly voted President of the Board of Directors for Long Bay Commons. The new President of the Board wasn’t aware of all that happend and promised Mr. Conrad he would “help make the Conrads whole”, even if the funds had to come directly from the POA funds and shook his hand. The Conrads took the new President at his word only to received a threatening letter around March 28^th 2019 after the 1st meeting of the new Board at Long Bay Commons from the new President and Board Members stating they are holding on to the Conrads allotted insurance funds unless the Conrads comply with the Board of Directors to let the other contractor come in and just basically do the drywall repairs with no mold remediation and only repair the Conrads Hurricane damage and not the damage from negligence in July of 2018 even though it had been included as “hurricane damage” on the adjuster’s report.

With the Conrad’s lawsuit pending the POA Board members acquired representation for their defense and in doing so used 1/5^th of the POA funds for the Board and individual member’s defenses. Despite having told local law enforcement this the Board of Directors hid the sums paid to their defense attorney when the Conrad’s asked for the books recently. The Conrads received print outs and spreadsheets but absolutely no money was showing had been paid to Board of Director’s attorney (this was in August of this year). This prompted the Conrads to also inquired as to the spending of the insurance money as the Property Owners Association was to profit roughly an extra $36,500 in excess because the roofs were finally replaced in November of 2018 from POA funds and the difference was around that number. Also, the Conrads know the association was almost broke at the end of 2018 and they believe some of the insurance proceeds have gone towards payment for Property Owners Association Board Of Directors and individual POA Board members’ defense. If so the Long Bay Commons Board of Directors can be found guilty of embezzlement under North Carolina law.

In May of this year the Conrads stood alone in the Superior Court of Brunswick County, as a result, they were deprived of their claims, their right to be heard, their due process and their entitlement to life, land and liberty per Article 1 Section 19 of the NC Constitution. They faced judicial prejudice by the Judge and the attorneys involved by certain statements made during the course of the hearing. One being the Judge knowing the attorneys and saying he had worked with them previously and the Conrad’s were sitting across from “3 titans” this statement is against the Judicial Canons. Judges are supposed to adhere to these canons in order to show no prejudice. Another example was when the POA’s attorney stated he was worried about favoritism being shown because Stephen Conrad is a Sheriff’s Deputy for the county and the calendar coordinator is the Sheriff’s Wife. The Conrad’s never made it known what the husband did nor tried to use any influence, so this kind of statement made by the defense attorney should have caused him to be reprimanded by the Judge but he was not. Then against North Carolina General Statute 1D the attorney mentioned the amounts being sought to the judge which is not allowed. Two weeks later the Conrad’s were hit with a “gatekeeping order” though nothing was ruled on during the hearing in May, nor was it really spoken about either. This “gatekeeping order” was written by the defense attorney for the POA and signed off by the judge who did not read it which happens all too often especially in Superior Court. The Conrads then were deprived of their right to speak and be heard and forced to get an attorney which is Unconstitutional.

The Conrads then were forced to acquired representation which came at a very hefty cost and financial burden in June of this year, yet again to be let down a few months later. They were told they could not sue because they didn’t have enough money and “weren’t rich enough”. They put $7,350.00 into the lawsuit all for it never to be refiled and the Conrad’s attorneys failed to strong arm the POA into fixing the house. The Conrad’s attorneys gave them the ultimatum of pay them $20,000 to $30,000 to sue the POA or fix the damages themselves. The Conrad’s had done extensive research, printed it out, highlighted and organized it for the attorneys and provided all the evidence needed to pursue Long Bay Commons Board of Directors for negligence and misconduct in court but the Conrad’s representation failed to do what was in the Conrad’s best interest. Basically the Conrad’s paid $7,350.00 for absolutely no help. The Conrads have recently found out their attorneys along with the defense attorney have acted against their Professional Rules of Conduct & ethics and have made the NC State Bar aware.

The Conrad’s did everything the attorneys on all sides asked and paid an additional $1,500.00 to a 3rd party contractor/adjuster who found additional damaged missed by the original adjusters & the other contractors that is when the Conrads found out the total cost in damages to their home was very close to $36,000.00. Also on advice of their attorneys they paid an additional $450.00 for a mold test only to find out their worst fears were confirmed. Not only was the damage to their house more extensive there are two types of toxic mold in high levels in their home. The two types of mold include aspergillus and penicillin at elevated levels. The Conrads have 4 large parrots & having aspergillus mold spores can cause a deadly disease in large parrots called Aspergillosis where mold spores get in parrot’s lungs causing them to die suddenly without warning. Regarding the penicillin, Heather Conrad has been allergic to penicillin since she was a child, having been exposed to it for this long explains her rapidly declining health and why her lungs burn in her own home. Both Stephen and Heather fear with her declining health over the past year and the further decline this month she will not wake up one morning. Having this detrimental information the Conrad’s thought their attorneys would push to sue but they did not. The Conrads explained to their attorneys this is the very definition of “personal injury” but because the Conrad’s weren’t suing an insurance company the attorneys wouldn’t even entertain the idea.

The Legal Definition of Personal Injury is:

•   A legal standard used in negligence (personal injury) cases. The hypothetical reasonable person behaves in a way that is legally appropriate. Those who do not meet this standard — that is, they do not behave at least as a reasonable person would — are considered negligent and may be held liable for damages caused by their actions.

Personal Injury has been lost in definition by attorneys now. By legal definition the law states “person” not insurance company, not another person who has money but it says “person” meaning people who act in such ways that cause injury to another human being physically and emotionally which has most definitely beyond reasonable doubt happened. However, attorneys now will only pursue personal injury if an insurance company is at fault. So concept being a person can “fake a neck injury” and sue the insurance company for a large sum of money under personal injury and an attorney will help them and 99% of the time win under contingency fees. However an attorney won’t help the Conrad’s get compensation from a group of people who intentionally are killing a family even after the Conrads provided more than ample proof on paper.

When asked what should have been done, the Conrads said since the Property Owners Association has a duty to restore in a timely manner multiple contractors should have been able to come in per the insurance money being disbursed correctly to the unit owners but it was not disbursed properly. The Insurance money was received in January and it is now currently September. The Association withheld the insurance funds and only used 1 contractor who cannot fully help the Conrad’s anyways. This was after the POA hired the original contractors who could help the Conrads and the Conrads had them scheduled in March of 2019. The POA stopped the scheduling of the repairs on the Conrad’s unit, fired those contractors and refused to supplement the Conrad’s insurance claim but has done so for everyone else.

One of the Conrad’s biggest concerns, besides the attorney for the POA having a “personal problem” with the Conrads, is several times the POA has threatened to sue the Conrad’s for legal fees or “injunctive relief”. After thinking about the concept of how things work, the POA will be using the Conrad’s money to sue them for an amount the Conrads can’t afford to get “compensation” for something the POA feels the Conrads did wrong but the Conrad’s can’t sue them individually or as an association to recoup their losses even with the 127+ pages of willful misconduct and negligence. The Conrads feel they need to be compensated for the losses completely before the original damage occurred to their condo in July of 2018. It is pertinent because before the damage occurred the Conrad’s were within 6 months of refinancing their house out from under an owner finance contract in which they received a 5 year extension. The Conrads have already lost a year of the 5 year extension and will spend the next few years trying to repair their credit from this situation. If they do not recoup all their losses it could potentially leave them getting foreclosed on in 2023 at no fault of their own. 

The Conrads have been asked the question, “why not just cut your losses”. The Conrad’s cannot just “cut their losses” because of this being their first home purchase and per the terms of their owner finance contract they were on track to work on their credit and become financially stable enough to refinance through the VA,FHA or a conventional loan. However, thanks to the negligence of the POA there is no way to refinance through the VA or FHA because of their strict guidelines about POAs functioning correctly and theirs does not even come close to running correctly. The Conrad’s also now cannot refinance through a conventional loan due to increased medical bills, taking out loans for legal fees and falling behind on bills because of it. If the situation is not fixed correctly it will lead to the Conrads being foreclosed on.

Right now as it stands the POA has repaired every other unit, supplemented everyone else’s insurance claims but the Conrads. Even the units of part time residents and those that had other places to live over the past year. The Board of Directors at Long Bay Commons are still currently holding on to the Conrad’s insurance funds and refusing to repair their home. The attorney for the POA has been given proof of the $36,000 worth of damage and the mold report but has done nothing with it for 6 weeks now while the Conrad’s health continues to decline. The defense attorney has even ignored responding to emails from the Conrad’s attorneys. The Conrads state this no doubt stems from the defense attorney’s “personal problem” with them but the Conrads said have already filed a grievance with the North Carolina State Bar against this defense attorney since their attorneys failed to act.

Sign our petition for legislation change in North Carolina for HOAs here: http://chng.it/tZDVmvGt

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE REFERENCE BELOW:

REFERENCE NC Statutes:
-*North Carolina General Statute 47c-3-103(a)
-*North Carolina General Statute 47c-3-107(a)(b)(c)
-*North Carolina General Statute 47c-3-113(h) – Insurance as made ref to in 47c-3-107(a)
-*North Carolina General Statute 14-90(a)(3)(4)&(b)(1)(2)= under Article 18 embezzlement
-*North Carolina General Statute 55A-8-30 = Standards of Conduct for Board of Directors in North Carolina (whole section)

* JUDICIAL CANON: CANON 2B

– Link to the North Carolina Judicial Canons: https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/inline-files/NC-Code-of-Judicial-Conduct.pdf?Zjg7FIMDTZpoWqmY7qxsED4HVrFt7dRj

* Rights of Due Process:
-Cases Ref: Ironwood Owners Assn V Solomon & Fairwood Greens Homeowners v Young
– Link: https://www.hopb.co/blog/homeowner-rights-due-process-hoa-violation

* Mold and Water Intrusion:
– Link:(copy and paste link in your browser)
https://www.wbmllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Toxic_Mold_a_Legal_Primer.pdf

* North Carolina General Statute 1D-25(c) states the following:

• (c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not be made known to the trier of fact through any means, including voir dire, the introduction into evidence, argument, or instructions to the jury. (1995, c. 514, s. 1.)
• Legal definition of trier of fact: the judge in a bench trial or jury in a jury trial that carries the responsibility of determining the issues of fact in a case (source: Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary)

For the 127+ pages of evidence reference case file number 19-CVS-400 at the Brunswick County Courthouse. – This will also include proof of all the allegations.

• 

• 

• 

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 19 OF NC CONSTITUTION

Right of Litigant to An Adequate and Fair Hearing. – The “law of the land” clause embodied in this section guarantees to the litigant in every kind of judicial proceeding the right to an adequate and fair hearing before he can be deprived of his claim or defense by judicial decree. And where the claim or defense turns upon a factual adjudication, the constitutional right of the litigant to an adequate and fair hearing requires that he be apprised of all the evidence received by the court and be given an opportunity to test, explain, or rebut it. In re Gupton, 238 N.C. 303, 77 S.E.2d 716 (1953).

G.S. § 160A-299(b) did not deprive a home owner of his right to a fair hearing or violate the Separation of Powers Clause of the North Carolina Constitution in his appeal from a town council order closing a road because he had the opportunity to test, rebut, and explain evidence presented to the council at three public hearings held on the road closure over a two-month period; these hearings were the proper place for him to present evidence and to rebut any evidence contrary to his position. Houston v. Town of Chapel Hill, 177 N.C. App. 739, 630 S.E.2d 249 (2006).

Right to Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard. – The essential elements of the “law of the land” are notice and opportunity to be heard or defend, before a competent tribunal, in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case, which is uniform and regular, and in accord with established rules which do not violate fundamental rights. Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579, 61 S.E.2d 717 (1950).

Under the “law of the land” clause of this section, a judgment cannot bind a person unless he is brought before the court in some way sanctioned by law and afforded an opportunity to be heard in defense of his right. Eason v. Spence, 232 N.C. 579, 61 S.E.2d 717 (1950); State ex rel. Bowman v. Malloy, 264 N.C. 396, 141 S.E.2d 796 (1965).

Due process of law implies the right and opportunity to be heard and to prepare for hearing. In re Wilson, 257 N.C. 593, 126 S.E.2d 489 (1962).

Due process of law requires that no man shall be condemned in his person or property without due notice and an opportunity of being heard in his defense. State v. Covington, 258 N.C. 495, 128 S.E.2d 822 (1963).

The “law of the land” and “due process of law” provisions of the State and federal Constitutions require notice and an opportunity to be heard before a citizen may be deprived of his property. McMillan v. Robeson County, 262 N.C. 413, 137 S.E.2d 105 (1964); City of Randleman v. Hinshaw, 267 N.C. 136, 147 S.E.2d 902 (1966). See also, Sutton v. Davenport, 258 N.C. 27, 128 S.E.2d 16 (1962).

As to procedure, due process means notice and an opportunity to be heard and to defend in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case before a competent and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction of the cause. State v. Smith, 265 N.C. 173, 143 S.E.2d 293 (1965); In re Moore, 289 N.C. 95, 221 S.E.2d 307 (1976).

The “law of the land” clause embodied in this section guarantees to the litigant in every kind of judicial proceeding the right to an adequate and fair hearing before he can be deprived of his claim or defense by judicial decree; where the claim or defense turns upon a factual adjudication, the constitutional right of the litigant to an adequate and fair hearing requires that he be apprised of all the evidence received by the court and given an opportunity to test, explain, or rebut it. Shepherd v. Shepherd, 273 N.C. 71, 159 S.E.2d 357 (1968).