Many residents may not be familiar with the President and Vice President of Estates II. We would like to introduce Alan Rothenberg and Cindy Davidowitz, who have restricted access to board meetings and denied residents’ ability to review the minutes from those meetings. They are responsible for dismantling the landscaping committee, security committee, and other committees that encouraged resident involvement in Estates II. Additionally, they demand that board members keep information secret from residents. It was a lot more fun in Estates ll before Alan and Cindy moved here.
JULY 20,2020
Subject: Challenge to Capital Contribution Fee
Dear Estates ll homeowners,
We hope this letter finds everyone safe and healthy during the continuation of this pandemic and what seems to be the new way of life for everyone.
We are writing to you regarding a challenge to the $5000 contribution fee paid since August 2016 by all buyers at closing. Most importantly, after consultation with our attorneys, it has been determined the fee is valid. Based on what? HOW did't the attorney determine the fee is legal? Valid vs Legal.
Estates ll Declaration:
(c) Any amendment to this Declaration shall not take effect until it is recorded
in the Office of the County Clerk of Nassau County.
You should note the fee was approved by previous board managers to reduce the need for periodic assessments that fund improvements, including the pool, tennis courts and sprinkler system. The board of managers had no right to approve the fee. The fee had to be put to a proxy vote by the residents. Only the residents can approve something that involves amending the bylaws, in order to be implemented.
Last January resident of 145 Dove Hill Dr., who is buying another home for resale did not pay the fee. Their attorney stated that we could not collect it because it was not authorized in our bylaws. Notably, resident husband, resident, did not question the fee when he served on as a board member. In fact, some of you will recall when he ran for reelection last fall, he wrote in his candidate statement. I am the only resident in the history of our community who has come up with an idea to raise money for the condo… Concept of charging new homeowners a capital reserve via $5000 when they move in. It is very deceitful to try to blame the person who came up with the idea for the boards failure to perform due diligence on how to legally implement a $5000 fee. The resident learned Estates l amended their bylaws to legally implemented the $5000 fee and knew Estates ll had done no such thing. This is the same resident who realized the board altered the language from the proxy to the amendment.
April and May during the pandemic, Mr. resident and three other homeowners questioned the fee and demanded refunds. In addition, the Estates ll was threatened with lawsuits. Due to the threat of lawsuits, we had to get our attorneys involved to make sure we were not responsible to return all of the prior fees paid. Vindictive and unprofessional. Cindy Davidowitz only names one family.
Here are the facts: the fee had been paid by 44 buyers for a total of $220,000 no buyer had ever objected to it. Their attorney's should have asked to see the bylaw or the amendment to the bylaw for the Capital Fee. The fact that people assumed the fee was legal does not make the fee legal. Why all of a sudden were people asking for their money back? Because they learned that there had to be an amendment to the bylaws to make the fee legal. The board asked these homeowners for patients while we work to resolve the issue; especially given that we were in the middle of a pandemic. Having to refund money that was already spent would have necessitated and assessment to the entire community since the money was already spent. The money was sitting there unspent until the clubhouse project of 2024. Another lie. Unfortunately, these homeowners did not relent and continue to send letters, including one anonymous letter that could've only come from one of a number of these homeowners, wanting money back and even engaged to attorneys to send threatening letters to Estates ll. The residents wanted case law and received no information. Attorneys are always a last resort.
After Mr. Mrs. resident challenged the fee, we hired Schneider Bouche LLP specialist in condominium law to weigh options that would resolve the matter. Lying is not an option. During numerous meetings and discussions, we struggle to find a solution that would move quickly as a result of gathering restrictions during the pandemic. That sentence intentionally says nothing, pure gobbledygook. What restrictions did the pandemic present. Attorneys work in their office and board members are available by zoom or phone. In addition, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the board had to turn its attention to more critical matters affecting the health and safety of the community. How many hours could the board spend on pandemic issues? Do we have a management company to run Estates ll or not? Did TCM do anything during the pandemic?
Now that Long Island has adjusted to the present pandemic circumstances, and we are in phase 4 of the reopening, we've been able to spend a little more time focusing on this issue. Our attorneys have now advised us that based on their review of case law, (which case law please) which essentially makes the fee valid due to the passage of time Estates ll can collect the fee, and that fees previously collected, do not have to be returned. This means that our community can continue to fund capital projects without having to rely solely on assessments.
(c) Any amendment to this Declaration shall not take effect until it is recorded
in the Office of the County Clerk of Nassau County.
How can there be a time limit to dispute a fee? What is this made up passage of time limit Justin Buchel esq. is referring to? This is a fee that only applies to new homeowners in Estates ll, so how can someone who does not live here dispute the fee, during the made up time limit to be able to dispute the fee. The fee is either legal or not. No need for bylaws or laws at all if everything becomes legal after the passage of time.
However, given the level of criticism from these homeowners, once we gather, we will be coming to you for your vote on whether you want to continue or abandon the fee going forward and will be seeking an amendment to our governing documents formalizing that position so that we can avoid wasted legal fees and baseless challenges going forward. Only an amendment would make challenges baseless. Cindy or Rick changed the language from the proxy to the amendment with the help of Justin Buchel. The attorney who said the fee was legal due to the passage of time. It took Rick Saccullo and Cindy Davidowitz until 2023 to file the certificate for the amendment. This letter is dated July 2020.
Residents asked the board on many occasion when the amendment was filed and whose name was on the amendment. Residents assumed Cindy's name would have been on the amendment but as it turns out the board waited years to make the fee legal, even after the residents signed the proxy.
In that regard, unfortunately, the community has incurred substantial legal cost due to these challenges and the board has spent countless hours on the complexities of this issue how complex was the issue if the attorney came up with "valid due to the passage of time"– a huge loss for us all. We hope that moving forward these homeowners who sent us letters from their attorneys during a pandemic, will consider the best interest of the community as a whole, and not their personal interest. Is this communism? One of the most ridiculous statements made by the board of managers. People must look out for their own self interest especially with this board of managers. Why would anyone hand over $5000 if it's not legal. It should be noted Rick Saccullo did not pay the $5000 capital fee even though he moved in right around the time it should have been paid.
Estates ll Board of Managers
Cindy Davidowitz President
Alan Rothenberg, Vice President
Mike Friedlander Treasurer
Rick Glassman Secretary
Sherry Bookbinder
Donald Feldman,
Rich Leonard,
Rick Saccullo
Ely Zaken
______________________________________
Subject: Capital Contribution Fee
Date: December 9, 2020 at 9:40:34 AM EST
Good morning Rick,
I am in receipt of your letter dated Dec. 1, 2020, that had the wrong address on the envelope, regarding the Capital Contribution Fee (CCF).
December 2019: Before I closed on 55, my attorney asked the Condo, on multiple occasions, to see the by-law that stated I had to pay the CCF and not the seller, who had agreed to pay the fee. My attorney’s questions were not answered and his emails not acknowledged. December 2019: Ken went to the clubhouse to pay the $5000 fee, it was refused by Daniella and she said the board would get back to me shortly. I put the five thousand dollar check in a drawer and waited to hear from the board.
July 2020: The Condo sent residents a letter that slandered us by calling our names out to the community while referring to the other people who asked for their money back as residents. The letter tried to blame Ken for the CCF problem because he came up with the idea. The letter stated people could not get their $5000 returned because it was time barred. Sighting time barred is an awful way to keep your neighbors money. Essentially the Condo is stating: We messed up but since no one noticed until now we are keeping the money. One can assume if the Condo had case law to support the legality of the CCF it would have been stated in the July 2020, letter and in my Dec 1, 2020 letter. Time barred is not case law for future collection of the CCF. I am not sure time barred is a valid reason to keep money people had no idea they were not legally obligated to pay. People assume the Condo is doing the right thing. People assume the fees are/were legal and not in breech of the by-laws. If I remember correctly, it was the July 2020 letter that stated the Condo was going to send a letter to the residents to amend the by-laws so the Condo could legally implement the CCF. Why hasn’t the Condo bothered to change the by-laws?
One year later my concern is the Condo states "after legal review" the CCF was deemed legal without case law or an explanation to back that statement up. Estates ll did not change the by-laws like Estates l did, to implement the fee, so how is the fee legal? I would have hoped the Condo would have offered the case law that the Condo’s law firm is using to deem the fee legal since there is no by-law that makes the fee legal. It does not make sense to me to state something is legal and not offer up proof. I am asking for something more concrete. With all due respect, before I pay the fee, I would like to see proof. My concern, as a resident, is in the future there will be a time when a buyers' attorney will ask to see the by-law regarding the $5000 fee and what will the Condo do? Will the Condo tell another attorney the fee was deemed legal? Now this attorney tells the buyer this Condominium is committing fraud and the Condo has no legal authority to collect the fee. The attorney will recommend the buyer not purchase the unit. Now the seller has a case against the Condo. The Condo is exposing every resident to future lawsuits involving fraud. The Condo will be uninsurable if any attorney is successful in litigation against us. In court a Judge will ask to see the by-laws. Since there is no by-law to justify the CCF I guess a judge will ask for the case law. Change the by-laws.
A while ago and months after the fact, I was sent a bill for roughly $11,000 from the Condo for a small claims lawsuit. I was told the payment due would be added to my monthly statement, which meant to me I would be incurring late fees if I disputed the charge. This was very upsetting and I was shocked the Condo would allow their attorney to run up such a large bill for a small claims action. How can one justify a legal fee thats is more than double the small claims action? I called the Clerk of Nassau County Court, gave her the index number and asked her if the Condo had the right to charge me for its’ legal fees. She looked up the case and explained to me the Condo has no legal standing in making me pay the legal fees. The Condo was not awarded legal fees and the case was dismissed, so there are two reasons why the Condo would not be entitled to legal fees. Did the Condo commit mail fraud by demanding I pay $11,000? It sure felt like that at the time. Had I not looked into the legality of the Condo’s demand for the money I would have ended up paying $11,000 for no reason to the Condo. The attorney wrote motion after motion and spent all that money to prevent me from looking at Condo records the bylaws state I can look at. That’s an awful lot of other peoples money to spend to stop me from looking at the books. This place used to be an open book.
After I received the bill for $11,000, I was sent a seven page certified letter from the Condo’s law firm regarding 55. Its’ very upsetting and intimidating to get a seven page letter from one’s Condo’s law firm. I always thought the Condo only resorted to using the attorney when a resident was in breach of the by-laws or in financial arrears. It seemed to me the Condo was using the attorney to perform managements job because there was nothing legal stated in that letter. The letter must have cost a fortune and I still do not understand why the Condo chose to spend legal fees on a seven page letter that served no purpose other than to intimidate me. At the end of the letter the attorney stated he would be working with me on the repairs at 55. I sent him a lengthy reply trying to address everything in his letter. He replied he would read my letter, review it with his client and get back to me. I never heard back from him again. Money down the drain. A board member told me I received the letter because I was including my attorney on my emails to management. That is a ridiculous reason to hire an attorney and it was also not true. I told that board member he should look at my emails to management. I told him if I wanted to keep my attorney apprised of what was going on at 55 I would do so privately. So whomever spread that falsehood to justify waisted legal fees should be ashamed of themselves.
I hope you understand, based on what happened with the $11,000, I would like to know how the Condo came to the conclusion I now owe the CCF. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
No reply from the board