Sex at the Park, CA 7XSF367

There were a number of cars parked at the entrance to the Sky Ranch park, and people were coming and going to the cars. I saw movement in the back of the car farthest up the hill. The windows were heavily tinted so I couldn’t see exactly what was happening but it appeared to be a couple having sex. When I took a photo of the license plate they appeared to get dressed and crawl into the front. I then started to call the Sheriff and they drove away. They passed by and appeared to be leaving the development as I was still on the phone. So classy to do this in broad daylight (7:15 pm, tonight) by the sidewalk by the entrance to the park with people walking by.

Fees for Botched Pool Slide Lawsuit

The judgement in the botched pool slide lawsuit says, “Defendants Yasir Younis Ballo and Mayada Ballo may move to recover their attorney’s fees from Plaintiff Sky Ranch Community Association by noticed motion.” The HOA lost the case because they filed it too late.

No documents have been recorded recently so it appears they settled it quietly, with no apparent desire to inform we homeowners who paid for it. I have asked the HOA what we are paying to them for costs and legal fees. I received the following response: “The association’s counsel will be preparing a disclosure for distribution to the membership.”

This secretive HOA does not like to disclose so we must ask these questions.

Sky Ranch Unit 2 Accepted by the City

On March 23, 2022, the City accepted the public improvements for Unit 2 of Sky Ranch (Resolution 032-2022.pdf). The public streets/sidewalks in the area are now the responsibility of the City. Concerns regarding streets, sidewalks, and streetlights, in the area can now be directed to the City. Unit 1 was accepted previously. The City anticipates that the improvements to Unit 3 will be accepted in the next 3 to 6 months.

The Sheriff’s Department now has full enforcement authority on the City streets. I have confirmation that the information was sent to the Sheriff’s Dept. Previously, they were unable to enforce infractions on the streets in Unit 2 as they were all private. Some streets such as Calabria in the multifamily units remain private.

Unit 1, map below, was previously accepted by the City.

Botched Lawsuit #2: Sky Ranch HOA v. Lennar

Alleging construction defects, on November 20, 2017, the Sky Ranch HOA sued the developer, Lennar, for damages in excess of $100,000. The allegations included defective drainage, landscaping and irrigation systems.

Sky Ranch v. Lennar. Construction Defect

The HOA did not have the authority for the lawsuit because they failed to get approval from the members. The HOA should have had a vote of the members, which is required per the CC&Rs. There was no vote of the membership at a meeting, nor via ballot. We were denied our vote in the matter.

There is an entire section (19.3) of the CC&Rs dedicated to Construction Defect Disputes. There is even a subsection (19.3.3) called “Association’s Construction Defect Claims.” That paragraph provides the mandate for the vote.

There are a number of reasons that homeowners might have wanted the opportunity to vote against the lawsuit. The same section of the CC&Rs, 19.3.1.1, requires the HOA to follow maintenance recommendations and schedules. Failure to do so “may reduce or preclude Owner's and the Association's right to recover damages relating to such Lot or Association Property.” The lack of maintenance is obviously apparent, thereby lessening the value of such a suit.

Prior to filing a civil action regarding the property, the HOA is required to have a meeting. The HOA must provide written notice to each Member. The notice must specify “(a) that a meeting of Members will be held to discuss problems that may lead to the filing of a civil action, (b) the options, including civil actions, that are available to address the problems, and (c) the time and place of the meeting.” There was no public discussion that included the members. There was no notice to discuss the problems and options, as required.

Twenty-eight days after filing the lawsuit, the HOA posted a cryptic agenda for a meeting to be held at the home of the HOA President. If this was their purported announcement, it lacks the specific details required (see above). The meeting was not open to the membership, so a vote of the membership was not possible. Incidentally, it lists three items called “Personnel Matters,” though the HOA has no personnel.

A Memorandum of Settlement Agreement between the HOA and Lennar was signed by the HOA president on June 25, 2020.  The HOA assumption of maintenance for Lot L was the focus of the memorandum.

Frustratingly, the HOA had managed to snatch defeat from the limited victory that had been won previously.  Because Lot L is near our home we were involved with negotiations involving us, Lennar, the HOA, and the City.  The HOA was represented in the meeting by Dave Quinsey and HOA attorney Bill Bud.  In an effort to end the issue, Lennar agreed to install irrigation and plants.  The HOA rejected the offer.  Now, following the settlement, the HOA will have to clean up the excessive native vegetation and install new plants to comply with the fire regulations. 

Despite promises to the contrary, the HOA remains silent about the details of the settlement.