Thursday, January 26, 2017

Email to Trestle Management re their support for regulating HOA Management Co's

From: John Sellers [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:43 AM
To: Marc Vasquez <>
Subject: Disclosure - A Dilemma

Our good friends at Carpenter continue to market the myth that an Administrative proceeding is a lawsuit. They will never give up on that, even when/if they are told by a Judge.
There are houses for sale and the seller has to make certain HOA disclosures as to lawsuits. See attached. Technically, because there are less than 50 units, that obligation falls to the seller. Which creates an awkward situation
The Board and the whole membership is on public record via the filings made by CHDB and their records denial on the Board behalf that there is a “lawsuit”. That message has been communicated far and wide by them.
Having to disclose an Administrative proceeding as a lawsuit is like having to disclose an animal complaint that is being adjudicated by the local animal control. We would disclose everything but not as a lawsuit
Also, case numbers mean something. Try going down to the local courthouse and enforce an ALJ’s Order. They won’t even accept it or recognize it.
Whether the $100,000 is insured by the FDIC is of course a material item in anybody’s book.
We hope to organize a conference call with the FDIC to discuss their already existing position in writing. You’re welcome to join as stated in the meeting.
Does Trestles position as stated in the meeting remain that you support regulation of Management Companies?
If so I’d like to quote you on that and there are some press members who’d love to talk to you.
John Sellers
Letter to Board Members laying out the facts on FDIC Insurance
From: John Sellers
Sent: Thursday, 19 January, 07:26
Subject: Elections
After your years of service on the (Redacted) Board, I’m sure from this week’s Board Meeting, people are thrilled you’re running again. I was also delighted to see in your candidacy statement that you consider looking after the Association assets seriously. Few Board members realize the burden as fiduciary that carries. I assume therefore you agree with taking no risks of any kind with our $100,000+ deposit with Mutual of Omaha.
Based on the FDIC EMAIL I gave to (Redacted) in the Meeting, the FDIC has unambiguously stated the requirement for FDIC insurance to flow through to us. Trestle must be named somehow as “fiduciaries” in the account documentation – not just agent. The ONLY reference to us as beneficial owners of that deposit in the whole PACKAGE given to me, so far, is where we appear as two names together on the bank statement. No mention of fiduciary. All the other documentation names Trestle as the customer. See attached
  1. Are we FDIC insured?
  2. Mutual is assuring us that our deposits are safe. See THEIR LETTER received yesterday attached. What is that indemnity worth if they go belly up and the FDIC insurance is not valid?
Thanks for service and look forward to your response
John Sellers