VG Blog

The Board of Directors, consisting of Chris Meyer, Connie Imerti, and Miranda Bridge, who had previously declared the August 2023 election invalid, approved a prepayment agreement with StoneKastle on April 22, 2024. This agreement involved an advance payment of $192,000 to StoneKastle for their services through June 30, 2025, which was the remaining term of their contract. The agreement stipulated that the payment would be considered earned upon receipt, and StoneKastle would retain the funds even if the Board decided to terminate the contract early.

This financial arrangement was approved just two days before a scheduled appeal hearing regarding the contested August 2023 Board of Directors election. It's worth noting that these three board members had already lost a legal challenge in January, but they appealed the judge's decision. The appeal hearing took place on April 24, 2024, where the judge once again ruled against them, upholding the previous decision.

In April 2023, I was reviewing the contract our HOA has with StoneKastle, who is our Property Management Company.  I came across this section that caught my eye:

"Effective January 1, 2021 StoneKastle Community Management as part of this contract will provide a 100% dedicated manager and assistant that will work in the StoneKastle Community Management office for the sole purpose of managing Victoria Grove Maintenance Association"

Paige Frost has been our Community Manager since the Fall of 2021.  A simple Google search revealed that she has also been the Community Manager of another HOA - Villa Point in Newport Beach since at least then.  So from Nov 2021 to at least April 2023 (18 Months)  Paige Frost (she happens to be the daughter of the owner of StoneKastle) has been working for at least two different HOA's as their 'Community Manager", in direct violation of the '100% dedicated manager' clause in their contract.

I brought this to our Board of Directors attention and later wrote a letter to the Board asking what they did to correct the problem, but they never responded.  

Note: Starting in August 2023, the Board of Directors approved a $780 a month raise for StoneKastle's Property Management Services.

StoneKastle (Initial Contract) (920.86 KB)

 Villa Point HOA Web Site: http://myhoa.com/villapoint/documents_menu.htm

The very first VGMA Bylaw states:  ”The principal office of the Master Association shall be located in Riverside County, California."  

The "principal office" of an HOA typically refers to the physical address of the property management company's main office. This is the location where that company handles administrative tasks, stores files, and conducts its day-to-day operations related to managing the HOA's property.  Our current property management company is StoneKastle and they are currently located in Yorba Linda, which is in Orange County and in violation of this Bylaw.  Earlier this year, I brought this to the attention of our Board of Directors and their response was to have a new form filed with the California Secretary of State which indicated that Victoria Grove now had a new 'onsite office' and it was located at 12615 Blackburn Rd.  You may not be familiar with that address, but if you Google it, you will find out that is the address for the bathrooms at our community pool...

Another problem, according to our CC&R's, is VGMA is prohibited from having an onsite office: 

5.3.1. Property Manager. The Master Association shall not hire any full time employees; rent, lease or otherwise furnish offices, personnel or other facilities, whether
located within the Properties or off-site; nor utilize any Master Common Area as office space or other facilities for an "on-site" Manager or for performing other Master Common Area
day-to-day administrative activities. The Master Association Manager shall at all times be a professional manager employed as an independent contractor, officed at its own place of business.

UPDATE

In December 2023, I was again elected to the Board of Directors in their 'restart' election. As a director, I exercised my right under Corporations Code § 8334 to inspect all association records, including Executive Session Minutes dating back to 2001. I submitted a written request to StoneKastle for access to these documents, which they were legally required to provide within 30 days.

When StoneKastle failed to comply within the mandated timeframe, I filed a small claims court case at Corona Superior Court in January 2024. The hearing, originally scheduled for April, was postponed to May 28, 2024, at the defendant's request.

At the hearing, Lori Yarborough, our Community Manager and owner of StoneKastle Management, represented the HOA. She argued that the association was not obligated to provide the requested documents due to a 'conflict of interest' stemming from a lawsuit the HOA had filed against me in April regarding our fence issue. However, the judge ruled in my favor and ordered the Association/StoneKastle to produce the documents as well as  imposed financial penalties for failing to comply.

Upon obtaining the documents, I discovered that the Board of Directors had in fact approved the relocation of our fence during a “Special Executive Session Meeting” that took place on October 26, 2004. “The board approved the homeowners who moved their fences... but acknowledged the motion was passed to correct a previous architectural error”.  Additionally, during an Executive Session Meeting that was held on May, 2 2006, the board reviewed information provided by legal counsel, and it was noted in the minutes that we had signed their 'maintenance and use' agreement. Had StoneKastle or the three Directors (Chris Meyer, Connie Imerti and Miranda Bridge) simply checked these minutes, they could have saved the Association thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees.

The new Board of Directors granted my request for a hearing, where it was determined that we were not in violation of the CC&Rs. As a result, the lawsuit was dropped. This outcome highlighted the importance of thorough record-keeping and proper due diligence in HOA management.

 Take a minute and look through the photo's first, so you will have an idea what I am talking about.

In 2004, we submitted plans for our yard to the Architectural Review Committee, which included moving our backyard fence to another location on our property.  Several months later and well after work was underway, we were notified that there was a problem. The ARC had made a mistake. The HOA has an easement on that portion of our property that was now enclosed by our fence, and they are required to maintain the landscaping in that area.

It should be noted that my next-door neighbor also moved their fence after we did and found themselves in the same situation.  Fortunately, both of us were able to resolve the situation amicably with the HOA by signing a simple legal agreement - we would now be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in those areas. (These agreements were to be recorded with the County, so they would always be available).

Read more …