PonyFans.com

How can I post a scanned doc?

mr. pony wrote:How can I post a scanned doc?

Upload it to http://www.imageshack.us/ by pushing the browse button and finding the file on your computer, then post the code it generates onto Ponyfans.

Keep in mind that Vodicka's lawsuit is not about SMU's acquisition of the property,but HOW it was acquired. He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.

(cue the potential jury pool members who already know that Vodicka "has no case")

jtstang wrote:Keep in mind that Vodicka's lawsuit is not about SMU's acquisition of the property,but HOW it was acquired. He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.

(cue the potential jury pool members who already know that Vodicka "has no case")

I pee in pools

smupony94 wrote:I pee in pools

Jury pools?

CalallenStang wrote:

mr. pony wrote:How can I post a scanned doc?

Upload it to http://www.imageshack.us/ by pushing the browse button and finding the file on your computer, then post the code it generates onto Ponyfans.

Thanks.

jtstang wrote:He alleges that SMU's conduct amounted to a fraudulent takeover of the HOA.

Fraudulent? Interesting. Granted we don't know all the facts...but it seems pretty staight forward to me. They purchased a controlling interest in the condos then used their controlling interest to shut it down. Their reason for doing so makes no difference. A library or a parking lot...they made an offer to the individual owners and the owners sold their condos for an agreed amount. SMU is not flipping the land so it's not like they bought a Mercedes for $200 dollars and turned around and sold it for $200,000. Would have someone else offered the owners more for their condos? Evidently no one did. Guess we will see what a judge thinks.

I haven't been following the case, but I think the original allegation was that the HOA agreement stipulated that no one owner could own more than 10% of the units, the only way then for SMU to get a controlling interest was to commit some sort of fraud to bypass the HOA agreement.

CalallenStang wrote:

Dooby wrote:I have heard stories of the settlement discussions as well. Money is only part of what he wants. Vodicka is off his rocker.

Any specifics?

Multiple trips to play golf at Augusta National.

jtstang wrote:

smupony94 wrote:I pee in pools

Jury pools?

I never get picked when I am in a jury pool.

Dooby wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

Dooby wrote:I have heard stories of the settlement discussions as well. Money is only part of what he wants. Vodicka is off his rocker.

Any specifics?

Multiple trips to play golf at Augusta National.

More likely a trip to a local Gentlemen's Club on "All Inclusive Night".

abezontar wrote:I haven't been following the case, but I think the original allegation was that the HOA agreement stipulated that no one owner could own more than 10% of the units, the only way then for SMU to get a controlling interest was to commit some sort of fraud to bypass the HOA agreement.

I read the complaint and the argument was more tortured than that. His basic argument was that the Association rules provided that each condo unit owner had a vote, but according to Vodicka, SMU only counted as one condo owner, even though it owned 90% of the units. I read the condo rules he referenced and attached and I didn't read them that way, while I suppose if you really tortured yourself, you could read it that way. Also, if I recall, multiple SMU entities owned units so his argument isn't even technically accurate. I also recall that even by his reading, there was still a majority of votes to sell the thing to SMU, just not the 75% or whatever was needed to dissolve the thing.

His really big F'ing problem is that he only represents himself and not the other owners. His damages are really nominal, even if they exist. He also never raised his clever voting argument at the time of the vote. After all , if he had, SMU would have just put each unit in its own LLC and had them vote "independently."

The guy is a con-man with a law degree and this is just a shakedown. He has no credibility. Anyone that followed his forum hopping and the repeated bk filings he engineered to keep the thing going as long as he has will recognize this.

Dooby wrote:

abezontar wrote:I haven't been following the case, but I think the original allegation was that the HOA agreement stipulated that no one owner could own more than 10% of the units, the only way then for SMU to get a controlling interest was to commit some sort of fraud to bypass the HOA agreement.

I read the complaint and the argument was more tortured than that. His basic argument was that the Association rules provided that each condo unit owner had a vote, but according to Vodicka, SMU only counted as one condo owner, even though it owned 90% of the units. I read the condo rules he referenced and attached and I didn't read them that way, while I suppose if you really tortured yourself, you could read it that way. Also, if I recall, multiple SMU entities owned units so his argument isn't even technically accurate. I also recall that even by his reading, there was still a majority of votes to sell the thing to SMU, just not the 75% or whatever was needed to dissolve the thing.

His really big F'ing problem is that he only represents himself and not the other owners. His damages are really nominal, even if they exist. He also never raised his clever voting argument at the time of the vote. After all , if he had, SMU would have just put each unit in its own LLC and had them vote "independently."

The guy is a con-man with a law degree and this is just a shakedown. He has no credibility. Anyone that followed his forum hopping and the repeated bk filings he engineered to keep the thing going as long as he has will recognize this.

Please...remove...Bates avatar...hottub...Aaaarrgh!

Not until a bowl game, baby!

Dooby wrote:Not until a bowl game, baby!

If those are the terms, what do we get to replace her? It had better be good.