Welcome to My Flocking Life

NORTH CAROLINA CONDO INSURANCE LAWS EXPLAINED

If you can read through this breakdown and understand it, you too can understand insurance as it applies to condominiums and the North Carolina Condominium Act. G.S. (47c)

INSURANCE BREAKDOWN

In regards to the insurance policy Condo Associations like ours are governed by General Statute 47c (G.S. 47c). The Insurance Policy according to G.S. 47C-3-113 is broken down like so:

QUESTION 1: The first question normally asked by those who do not read the general statutes fully is: “Are you as the unit owner the “insured” The answer is YES and here is how:

G.S. 47C-3-113(a)(1)(2)
– (a) Commencing not later than the time of the first conveyance of a unit to a person other than a declarant, the association shall maintain, to the extent available:
(1) Property insurance on the common elements insuring against all risks of direct physical loss commonly insured against including fire and extended coverage perils. The total amount of insurance after application of any deductibles shall be not less than eighty percent (80%) of the replacement cost of the insured property at the time the insurance is purchased and at each renewal date, exclusive of land, excavations, foundations and other items normally excluded from property policies; and
(2) Liability insurance in reasonable amounts, covering all occurrences commonly insured against death, bodily injury and property damage arising out of or in connection with the use, ownership, or maintenance of the common elements.

Under 47c-3-113(a)(1)- Property insurance on the common elements which in condominiums are mainly the roof and siding (but doesn’t always include JUST those). Direct loss to the unit owners can come from failure to maintain common elements.

– Explaining (a)(2) – You will see the underlined phrases and see “property damage” and in connection with use of common elements EX: like the roof.

G.S. 47c-3-113(d)(1)(3)-

(d) Insurance policies carried pursuant to subsection (a) must provide that:

(1) Each unit owner is an insured person under the policy with respect to liability arising out of his interest in the common elements or membership in the association.
(3) No act or omission by any unit owner, unless acting within the scope of his authority on behalf of the association, will preclude recovery under the policy;

– The legal efinition of ‘preclude’ means: to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible. It refers to shutting something off (stopping it) before it occurs.

FINAL ANSWER: Meaning we are all the insured. (1) clearly states EACH UNIT OWNER is an insured person under this policy and (3) clearly states No Act or omission will preclude recovery under this policy

QUESTION 2: Do we go by G.S. 47c-3-113(e) or G.S. 47c-3-113(h)?
– The answer is 47c-3-113(h) regardless of whether the damage is small or damage is large. The difference between G.S. 47c-3-113(e) and (h) are explained here:
– G.S. 47c-3-113(h)- starts out saying “Any portion of the condominium for which insurance is required under this section (meaning G.S. 47c-3-113) which is damaged or destroyed (like from a poorly maintained roof or hurricane, flooding, etc) shall be repaired or replaced promptly by the association.
– G.S. 47c-3-113(h) is mentioned under G.S. 47c-3-107(a). The very first sentence of G.S. 47c-3-107(a) starts out saying, “Except as provided in G.S. 47C-3-113(h)”. Typically when reading G.S. like this other mentions of Statutes are important because they are usually the ones that govern other sections under the particular G.S. like 47c

*G.S. 47c-3-113(e) states:
(e) Any loss covered by the property policy under subsections (a)(1) and (b) shall be adjusted with the association, but the insurance proceeds for that loss shall be payable to any insurance trustee designated for that purpose, or otherwise to the association, and not to any mortgagee or beneficiary under a deed of trust. The insurance trustee or the association shall hold any insurance proceeds in trust for unit owners and lienholders as their interests may appear. Subject to the provisions of subsection (h), the proceeds shall be disbursed first for the repair or restoration of the damaged property, and unit owners and lienholders are not entitled to receive payment of any portion of the proceeds unless there is a surplus of proceeds after the property has been completely repaired or restored, or the condominium is terminated.

*When reading this your mind goes everywhere but hopefully this will help break (e) down for you.
– Under this section there is a clause that changes how you legally read this section. The phrase is “subject to provisions of subsection (h) which we know how that starts out about there being damage or destruction to property and then you stop reading and refer to (h).

– The legal definition of “subject to provisions” means: “conditional or dependent upon”

Further Explained: Damage and destruction to property under (h) means any damage that falls under the insurance on the condominium building as a whole.
– Example: in July of 2018 we took damage to our back bedroom upstairs. It was raining through our drywall causing mold issues, carpet damage, ceiling damage. When the insurance adjuster came out he looked at the damage and then in September (after being ignored) we found out the insurance company turned down the claim due to “failure to maintain” the roof. The roof on our condominium hadn’t ever been maintained or replaced since 2006. Our damage from July 2018 falls under G.S. 47c-3-113(h) however because of the reason it was turned down now it will fall under G.S. 47c-3-107(c) which you will see in a photo posted at the end of this article.
– Another example was our unit took additional damage during Hurricane Florence which caused “destruction” to the inside and outside of every unit in Long Bay Commons.

FINAL ANSWER: Your insurance payout is to be governed by G.S. 47c-3-113(h)

QUESTION 3: So then the question becomes well why does G.S. 47c-3-113 (e) exist, and what does it even mean?
– All insurance claims falling on the property owners association is to be adjusted with the association. Condominium insurance is called typically HO6 insurance.

EXAMPLE: In our case the insured is “Long Bay Commons Property Owners Association INC provided by Lloyds of London and underwritten by Johnson & Johnson. They sent adjustment firms out here that reviewed all the damage inside and out. Because there is damage that exists inside where human beings live this is where (e) stops and (h) begins.
– Example: Had our condo buildings suffered outside damage only and no unit owner’s unit suffered then would G.S. 47c-3-113(e) apply.

*The Board of Directors and members of the Condo Association SHOULD get together and vote on an “insurance trustee” it absolutely may not be the Board of Directors according to G.S. 55A(f) where it clearly states Board of Directors shall NOT be trustees in regards to proceeds such as these. Why you ask? for this very reason, bias to a party. The Insurance trustee is to be a non-bias 3rd party.

Sub-Question: What about the words after “subject to provisions of subsection (h), if (e) did apply?
Example: If G.S. 47c-3-113(e) did apply and the example was used of the outsides being the only damage means lets just say the damages to the outside common elements was estimated by the insurance adjuster for $20,000 grand and the insurance company paid out $20,000 grand but the contractor estimated for $14,000. Then the association as a whole would have an extra $6,000, what they could vote to do is put it in their common fund or if they didn’t hold such a vote the $6,000 would be split up between each unit owner.

Why is the money split up, you ask, even though there isn’t any damage inside the units according to your scenario?

– Because we as the association as a whole pay our POA dues which goes to paying for the insurance policy and we are ALL policy holders. Most POAs who communicate normally vote in scenarios like we brought up to put the money in the common fund but it HAS TO BE VOTED on. The Board of Directors cannot take it upon themselves to do what they wish without consent of the association as a whole.

FINAL ANSWER: Know that any damage inflicted on your unit by a common element, natural disaster, wind or hail storm, failing to maintain any outside common element etc, G.S. 47c-3-113(h) applies.

QUESTION 3: OK since we know G.S. 47c-3-113 (h) applies because there is damage and destruction to property in regards the units and common elements, what happens now?
– An adjustment firm from your HO6 insurance company through your POA/HOA/COA comes out and estimates the damages for the common elements and the individual units. Then the association votes on a 3rd party NON-BIAS insurance trustee to disburse the “allotted” insurance funds to the common elements which go to the board of directors and the allotted amounts go to the unit owner’s mortgage companies to hold until the unit owners find someone to repair their units.
– G.S. 47-3-113(h) – gives the breakdown of how the funds are supposed to be disbursed. Once the breakdown comes back from the adjustment firm 2 checks are supposed to be issued by the insurance company. The amounts the adjuster gives for each individual unit are supposed to go to the unit owner’s mortgage companies or them to give to a contractor (any they choose) for repairs.
** In NO way does it state the Board of Directors choose who comes in your unit to repair it because it must be replaced promptly. The only vote the board has is to whom does the repairs on the common elements. **

QUESTION 4: Ok, so what happens if my allotted amounts do not cover cost of repair. Simple, the contractor you hire supplements the insurance claim to the “insurance trustee” for the association who does it for you.
Example: Our insurance supplement was supposed to be given to the insurance company for supplement being that ours was so far off due to the “missed room” but the board of directors took our supplement and did nothing with it. This is why there is suppose to be a unbias 3rd party so this does not happen. In this case our Board of Directors have violated the following G.S. under North Carolina Law:

– The Board of Directors according to G.S. 55A-8-30(f) is not supposed to be deemed a “trustee” in matters which it addresses. Long Bay Commons Property Owners Association, INC is a corporation under North Carolina.

G.S. 55A-8-30(f):

A director shall not be deemed to be a trustee with respect to the corporation or with respect to any property held or administered by the corporation, including without limit, property that may be subject to restrictions imposed by the donor or transferor of such property.
FINAL ANSWER QUESTION 4: Anything above your allotted insurance amount should be supplemented to your HO6 insurance company through your insurance trustee. Not through your Board of Directors.

QUESTION 5: What happens if what is supplemented the insurance company decides not to fully supplement it all.
FINAL ANSWER TO QUESTION 5: Simple, as G.S. 47c-3-113(h) states anything above and beyond the insurance payout comes from the common fund.

QUESTION 6: Well I have mold do I have to handle that myself?
FINAL ANSWER TO QUESTION 6: The answer is no, because while you will never find an HO6 insurance policy that covers mold, Your POA is still responsible because it arose out of damage and destruction from a common element, especially if the common elements were poorly maintained before the damage or destruction happened. Even so, they are still responsible and then G.S. 47c-3-113(h) states anything above and beyond the insurance claim comes from the common fund. At this point your Board or your whole association can vote on someone to do mold remediation promptly or you can have your Board pay the mold remediation company you hire.

QUESTION 7: Well I took care of the mold remediation myself, does our POA/COA/HOA pay us back?
– FINAL ANSWER TO QUESTION 7: Yes, you are entitled to be paid back according to G.S.47c-3-107(a)(b)(c) which are very self explanatory and shown at the end of this article.

Question 8: I took care of all of the repairs on my own before my POA got the insurance payout, do I get money and get paid back?
FINAL ANSWER TO QUESTION 8:Yes! you are entitled to reimbursement through your allotted insurance payout for your unit per G.S.47c-3-113(h) because they ARE YOUR ALLOTTED INSURANCE FUNDS.
– Allotted by legal definition is a verb meaning to disperse, dispense, allocate. Allocate means “income to be paid”

QUESTION 9: Since 47c-3-113(h) applies what happens to the money that is left over from the comment elements repairs?
FINAL ANSWER TO QUESTION 9: After the association as a whole sees the repairs are complete on the common elements as it states the left overs are broken up between the unit owners. The Board of Directors can’t simply take the money and do what they wish fixing things that weren’t damaged from the event that caused the destruction unless voted on by the whole association to do so. Money being left over from the common elements could very well make up the difference for the unit owner and the association to not have to pay out of a common fund for repairs above and beyond the cost of insurance.

EXAMPLE OF QUESTION 9: in our case according to repairs for the siding and roof there was roughly $35,000 extra left over from the common elements insurance payout, so divide that by 16 units that is an extra 2,187.50 to every unit owner to go towards their repairs. This is why an “insurance trustee” was needed in our case because when the Board came back and said oh we are gonna repair these lights outside that haven’t worked in the 3 years with the insurance funds, the “insurance trustee” would have looked at the adjustment sheet and said no the adjustment and insurance payout was not for any light repair. This money was for “this, this and this” with the common elements.

The above scenario is a prime example of how our Board of Directors “misappropriated funds”. Which leads us into how your Board of Directors or one board member can misappropriate funds or by NC law “embezzle” funds.

WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, HOW PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS CAN, BY NORTH CAROLINA LAW, “EMBEZZLE AND MISSAPPROPRIATE” FUNDS
In this section there will be explanation in regards to our association and how they are guilty of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds.

Under G.S. 14-90 (Article 18) Embezzlement, embezzlement is received upon any of the following conditions under G.S. 14-90 (a) & (b) in any HOA/POA/COA case it would be G.S. 14-90 (a)(3)(4) because there is a fiduciary relationship between the Board members and the unit owners.
– Regarding insurance settlements G.S. 14-90 (b)(1)(2) mentions G.S. 45A-3 the Good Funds Settlement Act – Under G.S. 45A-3(14)(15) the Board members of our association accepted the insurance check and they became the “settlement agents”. In normal POAs/HOAs/COAs the settlement agent would be the “insurance trustee”.
With our POA also deeming themselves as “trustees” they are in violation G.S. 55A-8-30(f). The POA attorney tried saying in our CCRs that it states they can be deemed the trustee, this is where there is a mistake along with several others we have caught over the course of time in our CCRs. So read over your individual association’s CCRs to make sure they are in correspondence with North Carolina’s G.S. 47c.
– If there is any conflict between the CCRs and G.S. 47c then G.S.47c wins and if any other G.S. conflicts with our CCRs the G.S. in North Carolina always win because your CCRs are supposed to in accordance to your state’s General Statutes.

SO WHERE DOES IT BECOME CRIMINAL?
– “Misappropriation of funds” has been defined by the NC Supreme Court to fall under G.S. 14-90 (article 18) embezzlement.

The taking of funds and using the funds for your own use or to misapplying them is considered in North Carolina, embezzlement.
Ex: Like our particular POA Board’s refusal to hand over allotted insurance funds and use the insurance funds how they see fit without repairing what should be by insurance standards. If our POA Board has used insurance funds or even regular POA funds to fund their “individual” defenses then they are guilty of embezzlement. Because their attorney has chosen to aid in coving up where the insurance funds were spent or how much he is getting paid there are definitely red flags with our POA. Also, not to mention the attorney is guilty of violating his own Code of Professional Conduct/Ethnics with the NC State Bar. That is addressed in another blog we have written.

So to sum all of this up, think about it like this:
– If our condos were individual houses and our insurance company gave us a check and sent it to our mortgage company. If after we found a contractor to repair our “house” and our mortgage company (considered as a third party) refused to give us our insurance funds. They would be guilty of a crime that attorneys, DAs, the Department of Insurance would go after criminally and attorneys for the plaintiffs would go after them civilly for damages without question.
Then let’s also say our mortgage company decided to use the funds to catch up on our account if we were behind on our mortgage without our permission while it would help us it would still be misapplying funds, they would also be guilty of embezzlement in NC according to G.S. 14-90 (article 18).

Apply the above theory to our situation and call our POA “our mortgage company”. Because this is an unpopular non-ventured territory by attorneys, DAs and Detectives in criminal cases here in North Carolina our POA Board members are able to get away with white collar crime hiding behind the words “Property Owner’s Association Board of Directors”.

BELOW you will find the North Carolina General Statutes as mentioned in this article and the highlighted & underlined sections as they apply accordingly.

Please note a regular person, not a person with a law degree, nor a paralegal, wrote this article. While some of the General Statutes can be confusing we were capable of reading, researching & looking up legal terms. This can be made clear to anyone who takes the time to read over the information provided. Our hopes now is it makes things more clear for anyone who reads this article.

(Image Above) G.S. 55A-8-30 reference (f)

(Image Above) G.S. 14-90 Article 18 ref: (a)(3)(4) & (b)(1)(2)

How Lawyers in North Carolina have forgotten their own Rules

Over the course of going Pro Se in Superior Court because we had no other choice has really opened our eyes to just how far astray attorneys have gotten in their professional code of ethics and conduct.

To high light some of these actions we will be going through the North Carolina State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct and giving you examples of what we have dealt with.

We will start out with Rule 4.4 – Respect for Rights of a Third Person: (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

[2] Threats, bullying, harassment, insults, slurs, personal attacks, unfounded personal accusations generally serve no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden others and violate this rule. Conduct that serves no substantial purpose other than to intimidate, humiliate, or embarrass lawyers, litigants, witnesses, or other persons with whom a lawyer interacts while representing a client also violates this rule.

Examples of Rule 4.4 –

Personal attacks – The defense attorney saying they have a personal problem with us.
Threats & intimidation – The defense attorney using their “authority” to threaten for “injunctive relief” if we did not let Trogdon come in our home while we were Pro Se. The defense attorney had forgotten they are not the voted on attorney for the POA. The attorney was hired to defend the POA Board members against negligence, breach of fiduciary duties and misconduct.
Intimidation – The defense attorney threatening us as Pro Se litigants after we filed for a court date in June. We asked for a few days to visit with attorneys and the Defense attorney came back saying no way and further threatening us. However, you wanted us to be gracious while you were in trial even though our lives are at risk living in these conditions.
Personal attack & unfounded personal accusations – The defense attorney telling the judge in the court hearing that the attorney was scared there would be favoritism shown because of my husband’s job and the relation to the court calendar clerk. It was uncalled for.
Delaying and causing burden – The defense attorney was well aware of us living with mold and was also in possession of the 127+ pages of exhibits showing their clients misconduct. The defense attorney has had an ill regard for the life and well being of us.
Delaying and Causing Burden- When the defense attorney filed for a gatekeeping order and when there was no ruling, the defense attorney then decided to write the gatekeeping order which took away the right for us to speak and be heard per Article 1 Section 19 of the NC Constitution. The defense attorney also decided to ignore the request for words to be changed on the proposed orders when most of the dismissals were supposedly for “service of process” not under rule 12(b)(6).
Using methods to obtain evidence that violate legal rights: more in our case being methods to avoid giving us what is rightfully ours by law per General Statute 47c. The “books” spreadsheet omitting all attorney’s fees. If this had been done by the accounting firm and bank records were given as we are entitled to then it would not look like the “books” we received.
Delay and burden – The Defense Attorney knowingly allowing the POA to engage in withholding information, insurance money and delaying repairs for the safety and well being of us and our property is unethical and driving down the criminal lane without brakes.

We could go on and on but this is just one rule out of so many for Attorneys to abide by under Ethics/Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys according to the North Carolina State Bar.

RULE 8.4 – MISCONDUCT – this rule has already been brought up in our case to the Defense Attorney. Since it went disregarded here are examples of how the Defense Attorney violated this Rule.

The Rule States the following: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (we will leave (b) up to the State Bar to decide)

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;

UNDER COMMENTS IN THIS RULE: [4] A showing of actual prejudice to the administration of justice is not required to establish a violation of paragraph (d). Rather, it must only be shown that the act had a reasonable likelihood of prejudicing the administration of justice. For example, in State Bar v. DuMont, 52 N.C. App. 1, 277 S.E.2d 827 (1981), modified on other grounds, 304 N.C. 627, 286 S.E.2d 89 (1982), the defendant was disciplined for advising a witness to give false testimony in a deposition even though the witness corrected his statement prior to trial. Conduct warranting the imposition of professional discipline under paragraph (d) is characterized by the element of intent or some other aggravating circumstance. The phrase “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” in paragraph (d) should be read broadly to proscribe a wide variety of conduct, including conduct that occurs outside the scope of judicial proceedings. In State Bar v. Jerry Wilson, 82 DHC 1, for example, a lawyer was disciplined for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice after forging another individual’s name to a guarantee agreement, inducing his wife to notarize the forged agreement, and using the agreement to obtain funds.

[5] Threats, bullying, harassment, and other conduct serving no substantial purpose other than to intimidate, humiliate, or embarrass anyone associated with the judicial process including judges, opposing counsel, litigants, witnesses, or court personnel violate the prohibition on conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. When directed to opposing counsel, such conduct tends to impede opposing counsel’s ability to represent his or her client effectively. Comments “by one lawyer tending to disparage the personality or performance of another…tend to reduce public trust and confidence in our courts and, in more extreme cases, directly interfere with the truth-finding function by distracting judges and juries from the serious business at hand.” State v. Rivera, 350 N.C. 285, 291, 514 S.E.2d 720, 723 (1999). See Rule 3.5, cmt. [10] and Rule 4.4, cmt. [2].

Examples of Rule 8.4:

8.4(a)- the “fake books” and knowingly having the POA leave off the Defense Attorney’s payments. Having access to the books and financial records includes every payment and where exactly the money goes. The defense attorney cannot say they haven’t taken payment since March 2019. Reference Rule 3.4(a)(b) Fairness to opposing counsel
8.4(c) – having read over the 127 pages of exhibits the defense attorney if aware their clients have engaged in dishonesty by withholding insurance funds and allowing a family to live in mold and damages in excess of $36,000. Also, the defense attorney is misrepresenting the POA as “lawyer for the POA” though the defense attorney was hired to defend the POA not to represent the association as the association had voted on another law firm. Several times the defense attorney has “used their authority” to intimidate and threaten the Pro Se Plaintiffs. All on paper by the way.
8.4(e) – implying that Pro Se Plaintiff Stephen Conrad will use his influence at the Sheriff’s office to take out warrants on the Defendants ) when that is a conflict of interest and against a Deputy’s code of conduct. Also the defense attorney’s stating there will be prejudice because of Pro Se Plaintiff Stephen Conrad’s job and the relation to the Calendar Coordinator.
8.4 under comments (4) – The defense attorney for the POA changing the proposed orders to include people whose ruling was different. Making a gatekeeping order for another defendant in the same case who’s attorney never requested one. Trying to dismiss their clients with prejudice when the Judge never said those words because it deprives the Plaintiffs of their claims per Article 1 Section 19 of the NC Constitution.
8.4 under comments (5)- The defense attorney for the POA depriving the Plaintiffs of their claims against the individual defendants. The defense attorney never answered the complaints for any of the defendants and per Rules of Civil Procedure every complaint “MUST HAVE AN ANSWER”. The Defense attorney also has impeded the Plaintiffs right to truth finding facts via things the Plaintiffs are entitled to in the first place.

It seems as though these attorneys have forgotten things and acted in such ways that can cause disciplinary action. This is why we state that they think they know what the law says. How can they when they don’t listen and act in such manners against their own Professional Code of Conduct?

REGARDING THE HIRED ATTORNEYS AND ALL THE ATTORNEYS WHO THE CONRADS CALLED, SAT DOWN WITH AND TRIED TALKING TO:

HERE ARE SOME RULES THEY FORGOT ABOUT – RULE 1.2 AND 1.4

Under 1.2 comments (5)- it states

Independence from Client’s Views or Activities

[5] Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client’s views or activities.
– Example: When our attorneys told us we do not have enough money to sue. We realize attorneys do not work for free but when you provide them 3 notebooks filled all your evidence, your complaint, your By-Laws, CCRs, and the NC Condo Act and you look up case law and provide General Statutes. All the attorneys have to do is read over the information, negotiate with the opposing counsel and go to court. An excessive fee of $7,350.00 all to hear you do not have enough money to sue just left us speechless. The attorneys are aware we need our money back from having to go this far to sue. NC General Statute 47c-3-107(c) states the association SHALL pay back the unit owners for ANY losses. The attorneys stated to us there is no money in this suit for damages and they would help fix our house but not get our legal fees back. We are sitting here thinking so the association has a “duty to restore in a timely manner” we are living with 2 types of toxic molds, we have $36,000 in damages and 127+ pages of misconduct and there isnt any grounds to sue? But we paid you $7350.00 to get our house fixed without chance of reimbursement and the attorneys arent even going to try? Ok…🤔
– Example 2 : Our case is somewhat controversial but in this case we did nothing wrong, and it is popular disapproval however not when us as the clients have done their research and said here you go attorney we interpreted everything by legal definition, this is how we see it please go fight for us. Like it states we do not have to share the same views as our attorneys but we hired you to do a job for us mainly because we were forced to by misconduct of another attorney.

RULE 1.5 Client-Lawyer Relationships- You will find an image at the bottom of this post about it.

Example: Our attorneys came back about a week ago asking for $20,000 to $30,000 in legal fees. This is clearly beyond reasonable doubt an excessive fee. In addition to this they said, its either that or you fix the damage yourselves. Really? We pay you $7350.00 to get our fixed and to fight for us but since it didn’t work out with the opposing attorney ignoring your emails we should just fix the damage ourselves? What makes it even worse is the same day they asked us to pay them the outrageous fee I was tagged in a video about pro bono attorneys helping victims of Hurricane Florence. Imagine my surprise when I saw the owner of the law firm we were forced to acquire talking about how “when you see a chance to help, you help”(the video was dated around July 19th,2019, while we have been clients). This just literally made my jaw drop to the floor.
– According to Rule 1.5 – lawyers are supposed to do what is in the best interest of their clients. Ours have not done that, they have refused to listen, refused to work with us or help in any way. We came to them with several concerns about things and were told we are going to do what they said. We did what they said and now they are asking for $20,000 to $30,000 or fix our damages ourselves.
– Also according to Rule 1.5- asking for a clear excessive fee is something they should not do. I think my entire income for a year is absolutely absurd. We are supposed to pay them that much after we did all the research for them, highlighted and underlined it, looked up case law and general statutes and said here you go just read. I don’t think so. We also aren’t going pay that much because they wouldn’t listen to us in the first place. They are getting stuck on they can only sue for $36,000 in damages. This clearly tells me they haven’t looked at our mold reports or looked at any case law we provided on water intrusion and mold cases here in the state of North Carolina and they clearly haven’t read General Statute 1D-1 (25) under punitive damages which can be asked up to 3 times that amount, not including medical bills, loans we had to take out, pain and suffering.
– Could our lawyers work on a contingency? Oh absolutely, if they even remotely looked over the information and exhibits provided this case is a slam dunk for any good attorney. When you have proven misconduct on paper there is no question. Could we make payments or work out some kind of plan? Oh absolutely, that is why this rule exists. Our attorneys though either don’t remember or didn’t know about it.

RULE 1.2 (a)(2) – (2) A lawyer does not violate this rule by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel that do not prejudice the rights of a client, by being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process.
– Example: The opposing counsel in our case has done just about everything they can to prejudice us, including wasting time getting back to us. Rule 1.3(1)(2) Workload clearly states it must be controlled so that each matter is handled competently. (1) states regardless of opposition or obstruction of personal inconvenience the lawyer must make lawful efforts. There is prejudice from opposing counsel and our lawyers should give no courteousness to the defense being the defense attorney gave no courteous to the Plaintiffs and being there is a matter of urgency.

We could go on and on but this is just a small portion of how attorneys have gotten away from their professional ethics/conduct. We remember asking our attorneys since the defense attorney has a not objective view, since they have done this and this should they be allowed to represent the POA. Clearly the answer is no but our attorney’s answer was they haven’t done anything to warrant reporting to the bar.

Ummmm……..well we will leave that thought here.

What have we been through with other attorneys?

One attorney took $100 from us, told us they would take our case, ignored us for a week, finally emailed us back and told us they were too busy and it would get dismissed anyways.

We had one attorney know we were coming to them to acquire them as representation and drove an hour and a half only to be told when we got there, they were too busy and here is referral. They told us the other attorney was expecting your call. We called that attorney, left a message only to never receive a phone call back.

We emailed, called and visited several other attorneys all for them to tell us no, we have case but we just want to write letters, after we explained to them that isn’t going to work clearly! and others to just not even bother returning calls, emails or really give our information any kind of look over at all. We feel if we are going to provide an attorney with information ahead of time, they should look it over before speaking with us or just saying no. Clearly in above stated Rules of Professional Conduct they shouldn’t not take a case just because it isn’t a popular subject, especially when we have all we do.

So you will have to excuse us for feeling the way we do about attorneys at this moment. We shouldn’t have had this much trouble finding an attorney and here we are having to figure out what our next steps are. To say things need to change within the profession of attorneys is an understatement especially here in North Carolina.

TELL US ARE THERE ANY GOOD, ETHICAL LAWYERS LEFT? Hopefully one can prove us wrong.

Reference:
http://www.ncbar.gov Ethics/ Rules of Professional Conduct

Reference:
– Court hearing transcripts from May 13th 2019 after 1pm
– All correspondence between the Defense Attorney and us as pro se plaintiffs can be acquired through fwded emails and in case file number 19-CVS-400 at the Brunswick County Courthouse, Bolivia North Carolina.

“Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do”

From the North Carolina State Bar
PROFESSIONAL RULES OF ETHICS
Rule 1.5 Client-Lawyer Relationship

“LONG BAY COMMONS”
From left to right: 5008, 5016 & 5022 E Oak Island Dr, Oak Island N.C.
Name of POA:
Long Bay Commons Property Owner’s Association, INC.

Long Bay Commons is located right beside the BBQ House on Oak Island Dr.

Long Bay Commons consists of 16 units.
Commercial units are located downstairs and the 2nd and 3rd floors are residential.
In this picture is our condo located above a business.

Long Bay Commons, the story you didn’t know.

The Board members at Long Bay Commons have deprived the Conrad’s of their 4th ammendment rights of due process. Robbing the Conrad’s Constitutionally isn’t the only crime they’ve committed.

The members of the Board of Long Bay Commons a Condominium Property Owner’s Association in Oak Island NC have come up with several excuses over the past year. The Conrad’s have decided to answer publicly since the Board Members fail to do the simplest of things and that is to sit in a room and talk. As for the white collar crime, that can be addressed in another article the Conrad’s have written. For now the Conrad’s address Long Bay Commons Board of Directors and their ‘excuses’ plus a few scathing details you didn’t know.

Besides the facts of negligence and misconduct on the 127 pages of exhibits the Conrad’s have on file at the Brunswick County Courthouse. Long Bay Commons Property Owners Association was founded in Fall of 2005 when the original 2 buildings 5008 & 5022 were built. In the spring of 2006 the construction was completed on the 5016 building where the Conrad’s live. What you don’t know is besides the 1st established Board of Directors at that time, there since has not been a board of directors for Long Bay Commons officiall until the fall of 2016 (yes seriously) In the meantime, no maintenance to the common elements like the roof nor the siding had any such care. Because of this negligence for so many years it led to the damage the Conrad’s sustained in July of 2018 which the President of the Board at the time then ignored too.

This led to the much larger problems they have now which they are ever taking so lightly. Doesn’t matter to them they are killing a family or committing a crime. They just feel the need to sit back and make excuses while killing a family for whatever reasons they have deemed necessary.

BUT did you know the Board of Directors actually stopped the repairs on the Conrad’s home in March of 2019? And did you know the Board of Directors took the Conrad’s insurance supplement and did nothing with it? Also, did you know all the Board of Directors have to do is give the Conrad’s their money to fix their house? That simple.

So here are their excuses to justify killing a family.

EXCUSE: “You didn’t let Trogdon Construction in your unit like we said”

RESPONSE: Long Bay Commons Board of Directors in Feb of 2019 after finding out we knew you had the insurance supplement and one of the board members was about to start racking up fines for the exposed siding. You as board members jumped right on fixing things for that board member, but could have cared less about helping us. You hired Deluxe Roofing to repair the inside and outsides of Long Bay Commons. You also during this time became aware we were filing a lawsuit against you. Once you as the Board of Directors found out, the President resigned a week out from the first annual meeting we had in 3 years and you as the Board decided to keep on ignoring us. Anyways….

Once Deluxe Roofing came in to our unit (remember you as a board voted on them for repairs) they saw a room was left off of our insurance claim and our damage from July of 2018 was magically on the insurance claim. Deluxe Roofing put in a supplement to the insurance company and despite the numerous attempts to get ahold of someone at the insurance company Deluxe Roofing handed the supplement to one of the Board Members, which never sees the light of day again.

When you got served with lawsuit instead of saying woah hold on let’s have a special meeting per NC General Statute 47c you decided to hire Trogdon Construction who was working independently for one of the unit owners. We did as you asked and spoke with Trogdon over the phone and he told us I cannot help you because you need mold remediation. Now why was it ok for this unit owner to hire a contractor of their own but the Conrad’s couldn’t? You as the Board of Directors supplemented an insurance claim for that unit and reimbursed that unit owner and every other unit owner but the Conrad’s.

EXCUSE: “We do not have to do mold remediation, that comes out of your pocket”

RESPONSE: Um, no Board of Directors. You see you knew about the weak roofs back in July of 2018 and you had 6 weeks to do something about it. Plus as stated and made very clear in General Statute 47c Insurance causing damage and destruction of property is to be repaired promptly by the association. Wind and Hail Insurance covers damaged caused by Hurricanes and mold is a part of that, you will not find insurance that covers mold remediation however when the mold is caused by negligence and failing to maintain outside areas it causes damages inside the units. Again, you as the Board decided to supplement and pay back other unit owners but you wouldn’t do the most simple of things and sit down with the us and talk this out. Instead you played games, bullied and harassed us and took care of everyone else but us. How many times did we try to get you to talk to us? A lot! We made phone calls, sent emails and did what we were supposed to.

If you as the Board of Directors would have gotten the insurance claim, let Deluxe Roofing do the inside and outside repairs as you voted on then pay back everyone there would be no problems. This wasn’t supposed to be this difficult and it absolutely unnecessary to act in the manners that you as the Board did. Had you set down with us the minute you got served or heck even before then last year and spoken with us. You know when you had that “secret meeting” leaving Stephen (who was a board member) out of 2 meetings where you discussed us specifically? You remember that? We do, and we have the minutes finally where you said you wouldn’t reimburse us fully for July or tarping our roof in September because we were supposed to do “preventative repairs” and let yall do the repairs. Umm, we did that and look where we are. Nevermind that isn’t how things are supposed to go. It was supposed to go like it did for everyone else and you pay them back. Plus those meetings were “special meetings” and in General Statute 47c, our CCRs and our By-laws it states EXACTLY how they are supposed to go and there was supposed to be an objective panel made up of other unit owners and they would hear us out and they would vote. NOT THE BOARD, but them.

So your excuses Board members or your “defense” now just isn’t going to hold up. You did everything on paper. Yes you can go against the association and hire an attorney FOR YOUR DEFENSE ONLY, not to run the affairs of the association. The association voted on another law firm in March at the meeting, All you had to do was sign the paperwork they had already sent the former President. You didn’t do that though, you hired the defense attorney and then let them start handling POA affairs but here is your downfall. That attorney cannot represent the association because of the previously stated reason but also because they have a “personal problem” with us. As stated in 47c, our CCRs and our Bylaws the Board of Directors may not adopt any such thing that bias and prejudice towards another unit owner.

EXCUSE: They are posting mean things on the internet and putting our POA business out there.

RESPONSE: Board of Directors, it isn’t slander or “mean things” when it is the truth. Have we used your names or called you any ugly names? No. Are we telling the truth, oh absolutely and we have the exhibits to back everything we say. Plus you aren’t the only Board of Directors acting negligently in this country. You also aren’t the only Board of Directors at a Condo Association to try this switching contractors and not doing mold remediation either. We will tell you what happens, the outcome usually favors the wronged.

There is a condo association in the next state over, their unit owners have banded together and are going after their Board of Directors for 10 million dollars. They don’t have 10 million but because the Board Members acted negligently the Board Members become individually liable, like yall will.

We aren’t asking for 10 million what we are asking for is you as the Board to get over whatever problems you think you have with us, sit in a room and talk to us and pay us back for legal fees and the out of pocket expenses and release our insurance funds to a Contractor who does mold remediation like Deluxe Roofing did before you fired them and let us get our quality of life back. This is our home and you have absolutely no right to deprive us of our life, liberty and property saying we cannot get our house fixed.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN A PETITION FOR HOA REFORM:

– http://chng.it/tZDVmvGt : This petition will help NC lawmakers know there are changes that need to be made to legislation so no one goes through what our family did ever again.

References:

General Statute 47c-3-103(a)

General Statute 47c-3-107(d)

General Statute 47c-3-107.1

General Statute 47c-4-117 Violations on Rights of Actions; Attorney’s fees

*CASE LAW* Right of Due Process

https://www.hopb.co/blog/homeowner-rights-due-process-hoa-violation

Reference: Ironwood Owners Assn V Solomon, Fairwood Greens Homeowners v Young.

The Conrad’s condo unit sits above a commerical space on the 2nd and 3rd levels. The mold affecting the Conrad’s unit will most definitely affect the units below and beside it. Though there is no concern about it from the other unit owners.

Reference G.S. 55A-8-30(f) Long Bay Commons Property Owners Association, Inc is corporation under North Carolina Law. “Property held”, “included but not limited to” means Board if Directors cannot be trustees for the very reasons stated in this article and previous articles. Prejudice against another persons. This G.S contradicts the Long Bay Commons CCRs but takes precedence regardless over the CCRs.

Hurricane Dorian & our Condo Unit

Projection towards Oak Island North Carolina

As Hurricane Dorian took a turn to stay off the coast of Florida. It is a relief to know our friends in the Sunshine State won’t completely get hammered. However for us still living with Hurricane Florence damage our concerns are much greater.

As you know from the previous blog posting we are still living with storm damage from last year as well as prior damage from July. 90% of our house is riddled with toxic mold, leaking main windows and weakened drywall. Our POA is withholding our insurance funds to fix the damage while their attorney is nothing short of stalling to “review the damages”.

This storm is set to impact us similar to Hurricane Matthew back in October of 2016. I stayed for Matthew while Stephen was working as a first responder. As our condo is built to sway, the building shifts as needed which over time can cause what happened with Florence. The drywall gave and mixed with the weakened “see through” roof caused us to have $36,000 in damages. I don’t mind staying for this Hurricane but what I am worried about is when the buildings sway from the wind the drywall will start to crack even further and windows will leak more and the patio door will give way to water intrusion causing even more damage.

There comes a point and time that the attorney who has a “personal problem” with us needs to remember the Professional Code of Ethics and look at these people and their misconduct and say, “Hey enough is enough, you have to restore these people and get over yourselves”. Will this happen? More than likely not. There has absolutely been a lack of human decency coming from everyone on the other side. It literally burns my britches to be sitting here in mold and damage while a board member sits out on his patio with his family earlier tonight enjoying his part time home that is fixed.

Our repairs were scheduled for the end of March of 2019 however the POA refused to supplement our insurance claim (but did so for everyone else) and they fired the contractors they hired to do all the repairs and here it is almost a year later and a Hurricane is bearing down on us.

What our POA is doing is nothing short of negligent and willful and wanton misconduct. As far as the other unit owners not wanting to “get involved” or take a stand makes them look bad as well. You don’t see someone suffering knowing you can do something like remove the board completely and say oh its not my problem because I had money to repair my place.

After the storm only actions will tell but one thing is absolutely certain, there is absolutely no doubt they have acted in such ways that should be embarrassing to them.

Reference:

– North Carolina General Statutes: *47c-3-103(a), *47c-3-107(a)(b)(c), *47c-3-113(h)

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).

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

5016 E Oak Island Dr, Oak Island North Carolina

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.

Stephen & Heather Conrad have permanently lived on Oak Island in North Carolina since June of 2015. Stephen is a Combat Veteran & local law enforcement in Brunswick County and Heather is a pet sitter.

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.

Board of Directors North Carolina
gs-55a-directors-officers-statute Download

North Carolina G.S. 55A-8-30 reference (f)

G.S. 14-90 Embezzlement article_18-14-90-1-1

North Carolina G.S. 14-90 (Article 18) Embezzlement
Reference 14-90(a)(3)(4) & (b)(1)(2)

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 19 OF NC CONSTITUTION

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).

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).

“Long Bay Commons”
Left to Right 5008, 5016, 5022 E Oak Island Dr

Long Bay Commons is located right beside the BBQ House on E Oak Island Dr in Oak Island NC. Soon Long Bay Commons will be located directly in front of the new Publix.

Long Bay Commons consists of 16 units. 8 commercial units located on the ground level & 8 residential units that make up the 2nd and 3rd story.
The name of the POA is Long Bay Commons Property Owner’s Association, INC.

From a Board member of a Condo Association in Hampstead. She is fighting for all the unit owners. We aren’t fighting against the insurance company like they are, we are fighting against our Board Members. Wish they acted like this board member

Coming strait from a Board Member of another Association not far from us, who is governed by the same G.S. as we are

Their Condo Association is much older than ours and they made sure this wouldn’t happen to anyone.

My Flocking Blogs

“Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul, and sings the tune without words and never stops at all”.
— Emily Dickenson .

Welcome to My Flocking Life

Mama to a flock of 4 large parrots and 3 dogs, living on an Island off the coast of North Carolina in a most peculiar living space in a Condo with a POA(HOA,COA). Sure life seems pretty flocking perfect but besides all the daily shenanigans that comes along with having such a flock, there is a tailfeather of a different story dealing with those who don’t have two legs & feathers.

LET ME INTRODUCE THE FLOCK:

Kokomo Joe – She is a 9 year old calico macaw. Her “parronts” are a cross of a military macaw and a greenwing macaw. She was the first of the feathered kids, the “OG” if you will, to join the flock at 2 years of age. In 2016 after noticing some things weren’t just quiet right, to the vet she went to find out she had gone blind. I was told she was going blind at her young age due to a lack of a proper diet before she came here to stay. The only reason I had started noticing the change now was because the other eye was losing vision and there wasn’t anything that could be done to have caused such a disaster.
Sarah “aka” Miss Sarah: She is a 29 year old Moluccan Cockatoo. She has no feet. Long before she joined the flock she lived in Oklahoma. Her previous owners left her outside in the cold and she developed frost bite on her feet and they froze off. Her second owner abandon her at a pet store in Havelock NC then she was adopted by her third and permanent owner which is me.
Bozo – is a 5 year old Scarlet Macaw. He was also a rescue and the third to join the flock. He spent time in a pet store that didn’t know what to do with him. He developed gangrene in his beak and had a dent as a baby and was not fully fledged or weened. He had been purchased and brought back 3 times and he was just 4 months old when I took him from the store and he never returned again.
Frostee – is a 1 year old mixed cockatoo. He is a mix of a triton (or blue eyed) cockatoo and an umbrella cockatoo. He hatched in March of 2018 at a breeders not too far from here. I fell in love with him and when he graduated to 3 feedings a day he came home to live with his mama who taught him how to be a real parrot.

Introducing the Fur Kids:

Maggee – is a 13yr old Bichon who has been with her mama ever since college
Mollee – is an 8 year old 4lb shihtzu. She was rescued from a flea market “breeder” in GA in 2011.
Ryan – is a 3 year old Lab/Dane Mix who is the most gentle of all souls. We adopted him from a rescue in Southport NC.

To say life is a little bit hectic isn’t that far from the truth but what makes it so rewarding is seeing these wonderful creatures truly flourish together. So welcome to My Flocking Life!