Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Apparently the young man who built the little free library enjoyed helping to choose the books that were donated and also loved watching members of the community use it. Whether these boys damaged it to specifically hurt his feelings is unknown, but their actions certainly accomplished that.

The boys have a history of ruining HOA property with the little free library and the one family has a known history of specious lawsuits. There's a good reason why the HOA doesn't want that kid anywhere near the property until he's an adult.

Special needs kid being sad if unfortunate, but really doesn’t have any legal penalty. It wasn’t his property. I keep seeing “have a history” of ruining HOA property, well then they have more evidence for a case. His parents being sue happy does not make a difference- banning them for this reason is discriminatory. They have to right to file whatever lawsuit they want. The board has no legal grounds to ban them. That needs to come from a court of law

It is clear that you have no idea what the law will or will not allow. Many of us on this forum do understand the law, and your statements are wildly legally deficient! I hope the parents do sue the HOA, because then the HOA will get to speak, but now they are being smart and keeping their mouths shut and not talking to the press, while letting the parents and others take, which gives the HOA a free deposition. "He who speaks first, looses", and I am confident that the parents loose in this matter, especially if they sue. I can see the HOA counter-suing the parents for defamation!!! Then they could own a couple of homes in the association by enforcing the judgment and kick this irresponsible parents out of the community. Based upon what I read, there would be a celebratory party if that happened.

Yes. And someone that doesn’t know the difference between loses and looses is well versed in all legal matters.

+1
The dcum "lawyer" is like a broken record, rambling on incessantly about liability, liability, liability blah blah blah.

Residents would be much more supportive of the HOA if they actually trusted the HOA. When you consistently display poor judgement and try to throw your weight around, your support quickly goes down the drain. And that "free little library" is actually a glorified birdhouse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Apparently the young man who built the little free library enjoyed helping to choose the books that were donated and also loved watching members of the community use it. Whether these boys damaged it to specifically hurt his feelings is unknown, but their actions certainly accomplished that.

The boys have a history of ruining HOA property with the little free library and the one family has a known history of specious lawsuits. There's a good reason why the HOA doesn't want that kid anywhere near the property until he's an adult.

Special needs kid being sad if unfortunate, but really doesn’t have any legal penalty. It wasn’t his property. I keep seeing “have a history” of ruining HOA property, well then they have more evidence for a case. His parents being sue happy does not make a difference- banning them for this reason is discriminatory. They have to right to file whatever lawsuit they want. The board has no legal grounds to ban them. That needs to come from a court of law

It is clear that you have no idea what the law will or will not allow. Many of us on this forum do understand the law, and your statements are wildly legally deficient! I hope the parents do sue the HOA, because then the HOA will get to speak, but now they are being smart and keeping their mouths shut and not talking to the press, while letting the parents and others take, which gives the HOA a free deposition. "He who speaks first, looses", and I am confident that the parents loose in this matter, especially if they sue. I can see the HOA counter-suing the parents for defamation!!! Then they could own a couple of homes in the association by enforcing the judgment and kick this irresponsible parents out of the community. Based upon what I read, there would be a celebratory party if that happened.

Yes. And someone that doesn’t know the difference between loses and looses is well versed in all legal matters.

+1
The dcum "lawyer" is like a broken record, rambling on incessantly about liability, liability, liability blah blah blah.

Residents would be much more supportive of the HOA if they actually trusted the HOA. When you consistently display poor judgement and try to throw your weight around, your support quickly goes down the drain. And that "free little library" is actually a glorified birdhouse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Apparently the young man who built the little free library enjoyed helping to choose the books that were donated and also loved watching members of the community use it. Whether these boys damaged it to specifically hurt his feelings is unknown, but their actions certainly accomplished that.

The boys have a history of ruining HOA property with the little free library and the one family has a known history of specious lawsuits. There's a good reason why the HOA doesn't want that kid anywhere near the property until he's an adult.

Special needs kid being sad if unfortunate, but really doesn’t have any legal penalty. It wasn’t his property. I keep seeing “have a history” of ruining HOA property, well then they have more evidence for a case. His parents being sue happy does not make a difference- banning them for this reason is discriminatory. They have to right to file whatever lawsuit they want. The board has no legal grounds to ban them. That needs to come from a court of law

It is clear that you have no idea what the law will or will not allow. Many of us on this forum do understand the law, and your statements are wildly legally deficient! I hope the parents do sue the HOA, because then the HOA will get to speak, but now they are being smart and keeping their mouths shut and not talking to the press, while letting the parents and others take, which gives the HOA a free deposition. "He who speaks first, looses", and I am confident that the parents loose in this matter, especially if they sue. I can see the HOA counter-suing the parents for defamation!!! Then they could own a couple of homes in the association by enforcing the judgment and kick this irresponsible parents out of the community. Based upon what I read, there would be a celebratory party if that happened.

Yes. And someone that doesn’t know the difference between loses and looses is well versed in all legal matters.

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to know more about this "library" that was vandalized. It's not an actual public library, and in some of the facebook comments for the article people describe it as one of those "little free libraries"--basically about the size of a mailbox where anyone can leave or take a book.
I doubt the HOA actually installed it, I'm guessing it was a service project by a scout or other teen/kid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended.

If you think you know exactly how a judge would rule, then you clearly know nothing about the legal process. And, you if knew the facts as they are presented, this was much more than throwing some books in the woods, this was destruction of a little library built by a special need child for the benefit of the HOA.

And one of the children who participated in the destruction is also special needs. Does that cancel out the special needs of the builder of the little free library?

No, the only child with special needs what the child that built the library. The three children that caused the destruction to this library were not special needs children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Apparently the young man who built the little free library enjoyed helping to choose the books that were donated and also loved watching members of the community use it. Whether these boys damaged it to specifically hurt his feelings is unknown, but their actions certainly accomplished that.

The boys have a history of ruining HOA property with the little free library and the one family has a known history of specious lawsuits. There's a good reason why the HOA doesn't want that kid anywhere near the property until he's an adult.

Special needs kid being sad if unfortunate, but really doesn’t have any legal penalty. It wasn’t his property. I keep seeing “have a history” of ruining HOA property, well then they have more evidence for a case. His parents being sue happy does not make a difference- banning them for this reason is discriminatory. They have to right to file whatever lawsuit they want. The board has no legal grounds to ban them. That needs to come from a court of law

It is clear that you have no idea what the law will or will not allow. Many of us on this forum do understand the law, and your statements are wildly legally deficient! I hope the parents do sue the HOA, because then the HOA will get to speak, but now they are being smart and keeping their mouths shut and not talking to the press, while letting the parents and others take, which gives the HOA a free deposition. "He who speaks first, looses", and I am confident that the parents loose in this matter, especially if they sue. I can see the HOA counter-suing the parents for defamation!!! Then they could own a couple of homes in the association by enforcing the judgment and kick this irresponsible parents out of the community. Based upon what I read, there would be a celebratory party if that happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Apparently the young man who built the little free library enjoyed helping to choose the books that were donated and also loved watching members of the community use it. Whether these boys damaged it to specifically hurt his feelings is unknown, but their actions certainly accomplished that.

The boys have a history of ruining HOA property with the little free library and the one family has a known history of specious lawsuits. There's a good reason why the HOA doesn't want that kid anywhere near the property until he's an adult.

Special needs kid being sad if unfortunate, but really doesn’t have any legal penalty. It wasn’t his property. I keep seeing “have a history” of ruining HOA property, well then they have more evidence for a case. His parents being sue happy does not make a difference- banning them for this reason is discriminatory. They have to right to file whatever lawsuit they want. The board has no legal grounds to ban them. That needs to come from a court of law

Anonymous wrote:^ Apparently the young man who built the little free library enjoyed helping to choose the books that were donated and also loved watching members of the community use it. Whether these boys damaged it to specifically hurt his feelings is unknown, but their actions certainly accomplished that.

The boys have a history of ruining HOA property with the little free library and the one family has a known history of specious lawsuits. There's a good reason why the HOA doesn't want that kid anywhere near the property until he's an adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended.

If you think you know exactly how a judge would rule, then you clearly know nothing about the legal process. And, you if knew the facts as they are presented, this was much more than throwing some books in the woods, this was destruction of a little library built by a special need child for the benefit of the HOA.

And one of the children who participated in the destruction is also special needs. Does that cancel out the special needs of the builder of the little free library?

No, the only child with special needs what the child that built the library. The three children that caused the destruction to this library were not special needs children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended.

If you think you know exactly how a judge would rule, then you clearly know nothing about the legal process. And, you if knew the facts as they are presented, this was much more than throwing some books in the woods, this was destruction of a little library built by a special need child for the benefit of the HOA.

And one of the children who participated in the destruction is also special needs. Does that cancel out the special needs of the builder of the little free library?

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But none of that makes the HOA punishment right.

The HOA is wrong here, even though the mother is a litigious obnoxious nut and the kid is a badly behaved kid with medical issues.

The HOA is charged with protecting the community. This isn’t about punishment but rather about protecting the community from the unnecessary expense of litigation costs of this family due to the conduct of this child. I do think the punishment aspect of the community protection is unfortunate. But I’m not certain the HOA is wrong in their determination that this ban is necessary for the community. People are acting like the HOA is a criminal court that needs to rehabilitate the child and that’s not it’s role.

What type of litigation are you referring to? Everything posted about past behavior of this kid is simply speculation. Yeah, the mom is nutz, but how would the HOA be liable by imposing a lesser punishment? Ostracizing a 12 year old for 7 years makes these HOA board members look like total buffoons.

The PP is referring to future litigation if the kid is allowed back into the community swimming pool and based on prior incidents showing little-to-no parental supervision as well as bad judgement would get into some kind of trouble again. Trouble that the litigious mother, who has quite a history with the law herself, would sue for.

Do you mean the prior incidents made up by a pp?

The analysis previously provided is legally sound and made by a person that understands the law, and more importantly, liability avoidance. The HOA now has direct knowledge that these children would deliberately cause damage to HOA property. If the HOA were to allow these boys back onto community property without having some sort of comfort that this was an isolated incident, and one of these boys caused further damage to HOA property, or if they were to act irresponsible and hurt someone, then the HOA would have legal exposure for not doing everything possible to avoid future destruction or property or harm to persons. This is similar to a slip and fall claim. Example: Lets say a bottle of soap had dropped of the shelve and splatter soap all over the floor in a store. An employee walks by and sees the soap on the floor, therefore has knowledge of a situation that could be dangerous or harmful, and does nothing to protect the patrons from slipping on this soap. After this, a patron does slip and fall on this soapy floor, the store would be libel since they had knowledge of the soap that caused the injury.

Sound more like an interpretation of the law by someone who watches Judge Judy. If you're a lawyer and you think that allowing some kid who threw a book into the woods on your property is a liability issue, then you need to get a refund from the law school you attended.

If you think you know exactly how a judge would rule, then you clearly know nothing about the legal process. And, you if knew the facts as they are presented, this was much more than throwing some books in the woods, this was destruction of a little library built by a special need child for the benefit of the HOA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that they punched in the library door and tossed books in the woods but the parents are only paying $125 in fines collectively.

They should be paying $1,000 for the cost to replace the door and the library materials. The fact that they also weren't arrested for destruction of public property?

The hoa prob backed away from anything that would go on permanent record and negatively affect college applications.

A bunch of sidwell friends kids stole from a ruined a house when some frenemies showed up to a house one girl was house sitting for. When the homeowners returned they had cameras and a list of who came and went and didn’t press charges but did what their stolen stuff back. They made it clear they wouldn’t press charges but wanted an apology. Half the kids did. The other half their parents insisted that was not their kid or phone records at the house. Disgusting.