A Critique: The Travis Law Firm of Arizona

The Travis Law Firm 3146 E. Rock Wren Rd Phoenix, Arizona 85048 480-759-9499
Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organismsof different species where one organism, the parasite, benefitsat the expense of the other, the host. - Wikipedia
If you are fighting a Crime Free Lease Addendum in Arizona that gives your association the right to terminate your lease, the 2014 Arizona Legislature has provided you all the necessary ammunition you'll need. The legislature added ARS 33-1806.01.G which provides that "An owner may use a crime free addendum as part of a lease agreement." This means that as of 2014, an owner and his tenants cannot be forced by an HOA to sign a Crime Free Lease Addendum (particularly one that is manipulated to require the homeowner to acknowledge the HOA as a 3rd party beneficiary to the lease, or manipulated to require the tenant to acknowledge that any violation of the CC&Rs is good reason to terminate the lease). Shaw & Lines LLC echos the following regarding the new law (see page 2 second to last sentence of the previous link): "Owners may use a Crime Free Lease Addendum; however, community associations may not require the owner to do so." Despite the high costs to battle the Travis Law Firm over a bogus Crime Free Addendum that had no legal standing (described here), our victory was the drafting of this particular section to 33-1806.01.G in 2014. Kudos to our very wise Arizona Legislature.

FOREWORD: This is a five part posting that will explain how I spent $6000 to get rid of the board, management company, and it's partner The Travis Law Firm. In the end, I learned I didn't have to spend a dime... because my neighbors were quite willing to help out!

The Travis Law Firm has contracted with the following Homeowners Associations throughout greater Phoenix in 2013: Biltmore Promenade Condominium Association; Boulder Creak HOA; Brookfield East I Homeowners Association; Cave Creek Villas HOA; Coldwater Springs Homeonwers Association; Crystal Gardens HOA; Deer Village Neighborhood HOA; Dos Rios Community Association; Eastwood Park HOA; Estrella Park Homeowners Association; Finley Farms South; Fremont Cove Homeowners; Garden Lakes Community; Greenway Hills Property HOA; Landmark Gilbert Commons HOA; Las Torres HOA; Legacy Parc HOA; Madrid Place HOA; Mission Ranch Community Association; New River Shores HOA; Papago Ridge Condominium Owners Association; Paradise on 25th Condominium Association; Pecos North HOA; R.S.F. Homeowners Association; Ranch Homestead Owners Association; Rancho Mirage HOA; Rancho Verde Estates HOA; Redhawks Homeowners Association; Rovey Farm Estates HOA; San Tan Ranch HOA; Shangri La Estates Homeowners Association; Superstition Point Mesa HOA; Tahitian Village Condominium Association; Terramere Homeowners Association; Valley Vista Homeowners Association; Villa Charme Five Townhouses Association; Villa Del Ecntro Condominium Association; Villages at Estrella Mountain Ranch; Vista Portica HOA; Vista Views HOA; Vive Nuevo HOA; Westbrook Townhouse Association; Westgreen Townhouse Association

CHAPTER ONE: FORGED MEETING MINUTES?
On May 6, 2011, our board passed new rules and an amended our Declaration that homeowners who rented would be required to pay a $200 management fee and could no longer lease for less then 12 months at a time. Additionally each homeowner and their tenant would be required to agree under threat of fine, collections, or lien that the board would have "third party beneficiary rights" to cut off power, cut of water, change locks, and or terminate a lease for "a single violation of the community documents". A sample of this document (made up of rental rules and a Crime Free Lease Addendum it is known as the CFLA) can be viewed here.
On several occasions I attempted to reason with board and management firm that the fees were extraordinary and that no fees for leasing had ever existed in the previous 14 years of the HOAs existence. I also attempted to reason that limiting lease terms was in direct violation of CC&Rs Article 8.13. Next, I attempted to reason that Crime Free Lease Addendums (CLFAs which are endorsed by various municipalities) were never intended to enforce non-criminal violations of the community documents (aka - trash can, parking, and landscaping violations). Finally, I attempted to reason that crime monitoring and prevention is outside the scope of the HOA and is better suited to an organized block watch program that would be assigned a direct Avondale police resource.
When these line of reasoning failed, I resorted to examining the procedures by which the vote was handled. After confirming twice over the phone, and in receipt of an email dated July 6th which stated that Chris Gillies held the position of both Vice President and Treasurer, I wrote the following to the management company and board:

"Section 4.2 and 4.7 of the WES Bylaws specify that the office of Treasure may be held by a single officer or a shared duty of the Secretary. As it stands today, Chris Gillies is identified as VP and Treasure which is in clear violation of section 4.7. If an Addendum [the CFLA and renal rules] was passed by an illegitimate configuration of Directors, how might this help a legal case to have the Addendum delayed until a proper vote of directors can be made?"

Several days passed, and finally on July 12th, the management company responded with the following:

"I am sorry for the delay. I have actually forwarded your message to the Association Attorney and am awaiting a reply. He was out of the office last week and I am sure he will be getting back to me shortly. I will be in contact with you in the next couple of days."

On July 18th, upon response from the attorney, the management company came back with the following:

"I misspoke in my last email regarding the offices held. Please also refer to the attached minutes to see the offices held."

Sure enough, 11 days after my inquiry, and only after consultation with Chandler Travis, the meeting minutes emerge, and reflect that the directors reconfigured themselves appropriately just before the voting on the CFLA.

As of this writing on January 16, 2013 at the Arizona Corporation Commission filing, Chris Gillies is still listed as the Treasurer of Westwind Homeowners Association. Only a few weeks ago, he resigned his position as Vice President of the Association. But it get's worse. The Arizona Corporation Commission Filing of 2012, filed on March 3, 2012 and signed by Chris Gillies lists Chris Gillies as Vice President/Treasurer. Clearly, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm, the board, and the management colluded to modify the meeting minutes to reflect a reconfiguration of the board prior to approval of the CFLA and rental rules.

CHAPTER TWO OF FIVE: $4K DOWN THE DRAIN
Within the rental rules and CFLA adopted by the board on May 6, 2011, were new requirements that lease terms would be limited to a minimum of one year. This was a blatant and obvious variance from Article 8.13 of the CC&Rs which stated, "Nothing in the Declaration will be deemed to prevent the leasing of a Lot and Detached Dwelling Unit to a Single Family from time to time..." Regardless of how blatant and obvious the variance of the new rule was in contradiction to the CC&Rs, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm required me to spend over $6K before he was finally forced by the courts to capitulate on this singular matter.

Chandler directed the board and Management company into a logic that argued that no action by the board could ever conflict with the Declaration since Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs gave the board authority to unilaterally "adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations of the Project." He convinced the board and management company to this logic despite 6.5's stipulation that any rules adopted by the board "will not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with this Declaration".
In March of 2012, I proceeded to azturbocourt.gov which provided an easy to use, self-help mechanism for the filing of disputes through the county justice courts. My complaint consisted of three arguments:

Without proper amendments to the CC&Rs (requiring 75% or more of the total eligible votes as proscribed in Article 11.7), the HOA is not empowered to impose separate rules on a subset of owners.
The CFLA and associated rules is vitiated by duress and/or coercion, and thereby the CFLA should be rescinded and made voidable.
The Rental Rules and CFLA was enacted by an illegal configuration of the board.

To support the second argument, I was prepared to present evidence that the Westwind CFLA was a manipulated/forged version of any CFLA endorsed by jurisdictions throughout Arizona, and that if homeowners did not agree to new terms that would grant the board "Residential Control" over their private property, that they would face a series of fines, collections, or liens. To support the third argument, I was prepared to present evidence from the Arizona Corporate Commission that listed Chris Gillies as Treasurer, and Association documentation that listed Chris Gillies as Vice President - a director holding the title of both VP and Treasurer is a violation of the Westwind Bylaws. I was also prepared to present evidence that Chris Gillies and Steve Wadding both held three year terms which is also a violation of the Bylaws.The azturbocourts.gov form required the physical address of the defendant in order to establish the proper venue for a hearing. I named the defendant as "Steve Wadding AKA President Westwind Homeowners Association", and used his physical address to complete the online submission. That was my most critical and devastating mistake. By calling out Steve Wadding, it allowed Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm through a series of motions to argue that I was attempting to go after Steve as an individual and separate from the necessary collaboration of the other board members involved in the dispute. While I was certainly prepared with rock-solid evidence to defeat Chandler's logic in court, I was absolutely unprepared to handle the series of hurdles he would throw in my path.

Throughout March and April of 2012, Chandler would file a series of motions to dismiss the case on various procedural grounds such that the defendant was not properly named, and arguing that justice of the peace have no jurisdiction over HOAs. In one particular motion, Chandler refereed to the $200 CFLA fee which I had requested be returned to me if the judge were to rule the CFLA voidable. Concerning the fee, Chandler wrote "Steve Wadding does not have the $200". The relationship between my wife and I suffered greatly during these series of exchanges. We both feared that the case would be dismissed on procedural grounds, and that we would be charged with Chandler's escalating fees without ever having presented our case. It wasn't enough that during this time we were battling a brain tumor which threatened to leave my wife blind in one eye.

On May 2, 2012, my wife and I had our most serious discussion on the case. We agreed that I should have never attempted to file without the guidance of a lawyer. We decided to cut our losses, and re-file our case with the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety who the Arizona legislature had given jurisdiction to hear complaints between homeowners and their associations. On May 3, 2012, I filed the following:

To mitigate the objections of the defendant re-stated in the recent Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (filed April 30th), to reduce the additional legal costs of procedural objections levied upon association members (my neighbors) by the defense, and to head off further delays, I am asking the court to dismiss the case so that the I can make necessary changes to the initial pleading and resubmit with an Administrative Law Judge with the Arizona Department of Building, Fire and Life Safety.

Justice Jeff Fine of the Estrella Mountain Justice court ( now named White Tanks Justice Court ) summarily granted Dismissal of the case without Prejudice such that no one was named victor, and that the case could be re-filed at a later date. However, in his grant for Dismissal, Justice Fine gave the defendant an opportunity to recover litigation costs at the expense of the plaintiff.

And so without ever presenting a single logical argument to the original three complaints filed in Case CC2012046812RC, Chandler was able to profit $3923.35. Chandler had successfully intimidated me - that I had improperly named Steve Wadding as the Defendant, and that I had maliciously forced the individual Steve Wadding to incur the expense of defending himself for actions that additional board members were accountable for. In the end, you might expect that I would have made a check out to Steve Wadding, but to pour salt on the wound, Chandler had me make my check out to Westwind Homeowners Association - the party he had argued was not enjoined to the original suit.

Below is an image of the check. You can see that before mailing it, my wife scratched out the letters GFYS that I had written in the memo field.

The Travis Law Firm

CHAPTER THREE OF FIVE: RISE OF THE HOMEOWNERS
In June of 2012, I immediately re-filed my complaints with the Arizona Department of Fire and Building Life Safety (DFBLS). The legislature approved of this body to mitigate disputes between homeowners and their HOAs. For a fee of $500 per dispute, or $2000 for multiple disputes, a petitioner can have a case heard without the obligation of having to pay lawyers fees - win or lose. Now, the DFBLS has limited scope, and can only rule on specific allegations pertaining to the HOA Bylaws, CC&Rs, and ARS 33 Chapter 16 (for condominiums ARS 33 Chapter 9). Therefore, only one of the complaints I filed in civil court could be translated to the DFBLS. The other two complaints had to be modified to specifically call out references of violation to within DFBLS' scope. And so, I filed the following three complaints:

The Board unilaterally amended the documents without 75% or more of the total eligible votes in the association in violation of Article 11.7 of the CC&Rs.
The board ruled to impose a compulsory contract on a class of owners with language contrary to ARS 33-1803(B) forcing the class of owners to submit that any and all violations are "irreparable" contrary to ARS 33-1803(B) which assumes all violations of CC&Rs are reparable by correction or a reasonable fine.
The board adopted rules that discriminate between owners in violation of Article 6.5 of the CC&Rs.

The case would not be heard until November 6, 2012 the day after the scheduled Annual Members meet.

In August of 2012, I began passing flyers out in the community to remind folks of the upcoming election in November and to advertise a blog site that I had been using to document various criticisms of our board. I was eager to find out if there were other like minded members who were fed up and welcomed change. A year prior in August of 2011 I wrote to the management company:

Today I will begin the distribution of fliers in the neighborhood as a grass roots movement to change the membership of the board. Without agreeing to the compromise bullet'd above I will conclude that the irrationality and discriminatory nature of your Crime Free Lease Addendum is cause for firing of Lighthouse Management and will encourage members of the community to motion to do so in the next meeting.

Of course it took me nearly a year to begin walking the neighborhood, as I had decided to begin litigation procedures first. Huge mistake. Had I known how many folks in the neighborhood were eager and willing to collaborate for change, I wouldn't have lost so much money to Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm. Still my effort to walk the neighborhood in the August heat fell flat. I nearly avoided a heat stroke after posting flyers to only 80 homes. I decided to wait until the meeting neared.While I waited I analyzed all meeting minutes and financials from the HOA since 2006. The financials and meeting minutes portrayed a serious problem of complacency and disrespect for the CC&Rs and Bylaws not to mention the fiduciary responsibility the board had to it's members. I wrote to 5 of the top 10 management firms in the valley to get an opinion on the management fee of $6600. The opinions from the other management firms were unanimous - that the fee was extremely high and unusual. And so, I set out to create a timeline of my findings which I made available here.
In October, the management company distributed candidacy forms for the upcoming election. I immediately thought that if I were to run, I would be able to declare one or more of my findings on my candidacy form and have it mailed to every homeowner in the HOA. My qualifications were poor, but my wife's were stellar. My wife had been a public face for years, had managed a high-school, was familiar with discipline and budgeting, and knew how to humbly handle complaints and praise. At first we filled out her candidacy form with the intent of informing as many neighbors as possible of the extreme management fees, and the need for security patrols in the neighborhood. After submitting it, we decided having Julie on the board would be a great benefit to the community and to ourselves - though she was quite hesitant to be a loan righteous director on a rogue board.
The weekend before the scheduled members meet, I posted flyers on 500+ homes noting "Four Good Reasons to Vote". They included evidence that:

Our HOA paid extraordinarily high management fees.
The management company had use our associations account for unauthorized, interest free loans.
Board members were compensated in violation of the CC&Rs & Bylaws.
Family members of the board were compensated in violation of ARS 33-1811.

The flyers asked neighbors to view the evidence to each of the items here.

Our turnout for the meeting on November 5, 2012 was historic. Absentee ballots + members present accounted for a 54 member quorum - several short from the 25% needed. The events of the meeting are recorded here. While we didn't make quorum, the meeting gave everyone an opportunity to share their grievances with the board and management company. The board expanded there seats by two, and requested Julie and Lola Ortega to take those seats. Meanwhile, the neighbors exchanged emails and within a few days had launched http://westwindavondale.nextdoor.com. Membership grew to the teens in a matter of weeks, and the site gave us the necessary communication needed to organize ourselves for the rescheduled meet on December 11, 2012.

Though the meeting had been historic such that it was the first ever election for Westwind Homeonwers Association, it had been purposefully botched by the board, Chander Travis, and the management company in order to protect the 1 & 3 year director seats held by Pedro Lopez and Steve Wadding. Since November 2012 marked the 15th annual members meet, the election should have been for 2 board members (the 1 & 3 year director), not for a single board member (the 2 year director) as Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm, the board, and the management company insisted. In addition, the 2 year director cannot be up for election without also the 1 year director being up for election - math simply doesn't allow a 2 year director to be the sole director up for renewal when a 1 year director must be elected year-after-year. The board, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm, and the management company had been informed of this weeks prior by me, but the complaint went unanswered. I was too focused on the DFBLS suit that would be heard the following day to bother filing a new complaint with the DFBLS, but soon, the efforts to suppress the succession of the 1 & 3 year director would come to a head.

CHAPTER FOUR OF FIVE: CHANDLER'S LAST MEETING... MOST LIKELY...
In late December, under threat of lawsuit, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm finally capitulated that Steve Wadding and Pedro Lopez must be made eligible for succession and that interested homeowners must be given the opportunity to become candidates. Still he wasn't about to allow this without inflicting great trouble and confusion on the homeowners. Rather then correcting the annual meet to include the election of all 3 directors, he devised a scenario such that the rescheduled annual members meet to elect the vacant 2 year director would be followed by a special members meet requiring a 25% quorum in order to hold elections for the 1 and 3 year director. If the 25% were not made at the Special Members Meet, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm proposed that the meeting could be immediately rescheduled for the same evening at a reduced quorum of 10%. Thus 2 separate candidacy forms were mailed, and two separate ballots were mailed.
Several homeowners expressed confusion as to why they were being asked to make a quorum of 25%. Others wondered why they were being mailed two separate ballots. Some had thrown their second ballot away believing that it had been resent in error. Candidates wondered if they won the first election, what would happen to the absentee ballots for which their names were cast in the second election. Further complicating matters, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm advised the board that the scenario required all board members to agree to the rescheduled and reduced 10% quorum. All directors agreed to the complicated and confusing scenario except for Steve Wadding.
While Steve Wadding agreed to allow a vote for his succession on the 28th, he was set to require a rescheduled meet to continue into February at reduced quorum. On the 18th of January, beyond the time limit for Steve to have agreed to the immediate reschedule, Julie Jones contacted Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm to see if there was any way to proceed with 10% quorum election of Steve Wadding and Pedro Lopez on the 28th. Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm indicated to Julie that there was no legal mechanism since their was no time to provide the required 10 day meeting notice.

In the late afternoon of the 18th, Julie and Michael Jones retained a lawyer to argue that Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm, Steve Wadding, and Pedro Lopez had overseen multiple Annual Members meets that intentionally disenfranchised homeowners from rightfully succeeding the 1 & 3 year director, and that homeowners were disenfranchised from becoming candidates for these expired seats. The board, Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm, and the management company were informed of the complaint and the lawsuit on Saturday the 19th. The following Monday (Martin Luther King Day 2013), Steve Wadding and Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm notified the management company that the immediate reschedule at 10% reduced quorum would occur on the 28th. The cost to Julie and Michael Jones to reverse Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm' and Steve's direction in a matter of days: $375. Shameful.
As of this writing, the management company, Steve Wadding, Chris Gillies, and Pedro Lopez have been removed from managing Westwind Homeowners Association because of a like minded group of neighbors who used social media to organize and topple a board that had grown corrupt, complacent and dictatorial.

Still the man who's desperate logic and mis-guidance led the board and management company to their fate, (the Parasite of Westwind HOA) remains contracted with Westwind Homeowners Association. The new board and City Property Management are obviously very suspicious and wary that his prior missteps will continue to cause damage to the community - and rightfully so. Today I received my $2000 from the associations insurance company to recoup the filing fee on the case that I won. Likewise, under Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm' legal guidance, the association has had to pay out $400 this week for breach of contract fines levied by the Department of Fire and Building Life Safety.

CHAPTER FIVE OF FIVE: CHANDLER IS FIRED!
In February I received my $2000 check from Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm on behalf of Westwind HOA - my filing fee for the case won in the Department of Fire and Building Life Safety. At approximately the same time, I began to approach Chandler with the inevitability of his contract termination. In a board meeting on the February 11, 2013, the new management company indicated that the board would be better suited to choose a lawyer with a more conservative approach, vs. a The Travis Law Firm that would experiment or have a "let's try this and see" approach.
Yet there were plenty more indications that Chandler would soon be fired. In the same meeting, a member of the community indicated that anyone associated with the previous management company (referring to Chandler) needed to go. Board members took this to heart, while still fresh in their minds the desperate measures Chandler orchestrated to prevent the succession of the 1 year and 3 year director only weeks before.

In an email, I gave Chandler all this as proof that his contract would be terminated within a matter of months, and offered that if he were to resign, that this blog would be scrubbed of his name. Certainly it would stay for the benefit of future homeowners who have run into similar situations, but there is no sense or purpose for having Chandler's name plastered on this blog - especially if he were to "fall on his sword", take accountability, and resign his post. The fact that this blog and particularly this post still has Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm' name plastered all over, is by Chandler's own ignorance, arrogance, stubbornness, and shortsightedness.

On March 11, 2013, the board voted to fire Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm. Good riddance!
Still, there is one matter that I cannot let go, and that is Chandler's breach of ARS 33-1805 which protects homeowners from being penalized for requesting meeting minutes and or financial records. Such requests are to be fulfilled in a timely manner, and without penalty, yet during this year and a half, Chandler managed to penalize me for meeting minutes and financial records in the amount of ~$250. Now, the Leadership Centre offers a unique service called "Solve-It" such that a homeowner or HOA can be offered mediation on behalf of the Leadership Centre to resolve a dispute. I have requested The Leadership Centre initiate mediation on this matter between Chandler, the HOA and I. Coincidentally, Chandler serves on the board of the Leadership Centre. If the Leadership Centre ignores this mediation request, then I suppose I'll reach out to Gary Harper of 3 on Your Side, and/or sue Chandler in small claims court. Here is my letter to the Leadership Centre:

Hi Les, Rebecca, Wendy, and Cynthia of the Leadership Centre,

This morning I have filled out for the second time a "Solve-It!" Community Mediation Service Request form via your on-line portal. My previous submission in early February seems to have been ignored.

I am requesting a mediation where my current HOA management company and Chandler Travis of the Travis Law Firm can be present to discuss the The Travis Law Firm's breach of ARS 33-1805 whereby Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm instructed me to "communicate only through me (The Travis Law Firm) with the Association", but then proceeded to charge for processing and delivering meeting minutes and financial records outside the scope of any litigation. These charges were ultimately billed to me. I am requesting mediation to answer the following question: Why were my records request not processed per ARS 33-1805 whereby they would have been delivered to me by the management company or the board members without penalty?

Now, Chandler Travis of the Travis Law Firm is a board member of the Leadership Centre - Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm. Thus, it should be fairly simple to set this meeting up. If I do not have mediation soon with the Leadership Centre and Chandler Travis of The Travis Law Firm, then I will necessarily resort to "3 On Your Side", whereby our good friend Gary Harper can seek your comment on Chandler's breach of ARS statute, and your unwillingness to assist in the matter.
I look forward to hearing from you soon. Here is what I've submitted:

In first quarter 2011, I filed a civil complaint against the President of my HOA for illegal actions taken by the board member on May 6, 2011. Subsequently the HOA management company cut off all communication with me, and I was ordered to communicate directly with the HOAs legal counsel. During this time, I made records requests that were outside the scope of the actions on May 6, 2011. One such request was for historic meeting minutes and financial records unrelated to the civil lawsuit. While such requests are protected by ARS 33-1805, the legal council proceeded to bill me for processing and delivering of these records "as a representative of the Association". Here are the numerous times that the legal council demanded that I deal only with him for all inquiries to the board and management company:

12/28/11 - Our firm represents the Westwind Homeowners Association. Please direct any further questions/inquiries to my attention for response.
1/6/12 - I attach[ed] the Board Meeting Minutes that you requested via e-mail on December 28, 2011. Please contact me with any further requests.
2/2/12 - As you are aware, I represent the Association. I will answer your questions, but will not be able to provide any legal advice to you.
5/3/12 - As you are aware, our firm represents the Westwind Homeowners Association (“Association”). Lighthouse Management is the Association’s managing agent, and acts on behalf of the Association in performing compliance inspections of the community and issuing violation notices as set forth in the Association’s Enforcement Policy. Therefore, please direct all further communication regarding Westwind and its affairs to my attention. You have previously been instructed to communicate only through me with the Association.

I am requesting immediate mediation with the Leadership Centre so that we can determine whether my HOAs legal counsel broke ARS statutes by charging me for meeting minutes and HOA financials.

A Critique: The Travis Law Firm of Arizona

Monday, August 17, 2015

Travis Law Firm sued for violation of US Code 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

Monday, August 10, 2015

Chandler Travis, the Parasite of Westwind HOA