EMHA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE BAD FAITH
In a meeting of the EMHA Board of Directors occurring on January 31, 2021, Joaquin Tadeo discussed how the Association had spent more than $7,000 in legal expenses in a discrimination complaint filed by a single homeowner.
One of the basic contentions of this homeowner is that the Association has acted in bad faith regarding the design review process. For example, part of the claim revolves around Timothy Hinker, Design Review Chair 2019-2020, and Henry Trost, Design Review Chair 2020, telling the homeowner his lighting request was being denied because the Association had adopted new rules which would not allow the use of his proposed exterior lighting.
Bad faith can be defined as:
bad faith noun
- intentional deception, dishonesty, or failure to meet an obligation or duty
The EMHA Board of Directors simply refuse to consider that the homeowner might be telling the truth, or does not care whether the event occurred as the homeowner claimed. They have taken the approach that they will simply defame the homeowner, call him a liar and demonstrate that his request is somehow unreasonable in light of Association rules and unwritten policies.
This approach has proven, so far, to be expensive and has produced little benefit to EMHA or its members.
"THIS DEVELOPMENT ADOPTED THAT"
Henry Trost was standing next to Timothy Hinker on July 1, 2019, when the homeowner was provided paperwork, by Hinker, who then claimed that "this development adopted that." In the video the document can clearly be seen in the homeowners hands. There were a lot of statements made during the relatively short meeting, almost all of which were outright lies or deliberate misrepresentations of Association rules. Hinker and Trost clearly intended to mislead the homeowner into believing that he, and only he, would be required to follow the same standards as the federal park service had established for the Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument.
The document provided to the homeowner by Hinker and Trost is a lighting plan for the Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, a high altitude national park located in Mountainair, New Mexico. The actual lighting plan they gave me is from a different website, on the same subject of the national park, but solely focused on lighting for the circa-1600 mission structures. Hinker gave me a copy of the federal park services lighting plan for Salinas Pueblo National Park, which can be downloaded here. Then he clearly said that "this development adopted that." Henry Trost was present for the entire conversation.
SALINAS PUEBLO MISSIONS NATIONAL MONUMENT IS OPERATED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. IT IS NOT A RESIDENCE OR OTHERWISE PART OF A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION.
In addition to spending the last 18 months denying that the homeowner was told any new rules had been adopted, the Association has argued that the information provided was "helpful guidance" for the homeowner to help design an "acceptable" residential lighting plan for his residence, which is not an historic national monument, nor is it located in a high altitude area or funded by the federal government. It defies logic how anyone could consider an expensive, restrictive lighting plan for a federal park could be considered "helpful guidance" in any residential situation.
The Association later claimed in a newsletter that Dr. Herbert Louis, the Declarant whose investment founded the subdivision, had an "original plan" that "by limiting light pollution, he envisioned a Community where residents could star gaze." This somehow was never recorded in any of the subdivision's documentation, Covenants, Bylaws, etc. There is also no evidence that the now-deceased Dr. Louis ever espoused anything but a love for golf.
There is absolutely no evidence of the Association's claim whatsoever, and it is not enforceable. It seems to be simply a lie to buttress Hinker and Trost's bad faith assertion regarding the national monument lighting plan. It appears to be a second bad faith act of the Association.
The specious claim in the newsletter appears to be an act of bad faith by the Association leadership in support of Hinker and Trost's bad faith claim to the homeowner. The El Mirador subdivision, with no vote by the Board, is now declared a "stargazing" community.
EMHA NEWSLETTER OCTOBER 2019.
It is specious arguments like these that the Association continuously use in their legal defense which brings into question the quality of their legal counsel, Robert Skipworth.
It is also noteworthy that in a recent Board of Directors meeting on January 31, 2021, Judith Pierce both complained about this homeowners lighting and mentioned her desire to stargaze. The homeowner asserts that this is merely further evidence of the collusive nature between EMHA and the Pierces. There is nothing in the homeowner's lighting that prevents Pierce from stargazing.