the story
This is the story of a resident who engaged in 100 Hills HOA litigation against the One Hundred Hills Homeowners Association in Scottsdale, Arizona. The purpose of this website is to explain what really happened and inform current and potential residents about the HOA governance issues that arise in their community, as well as share Scottsdale homeowner experiences, including that of Joseph Chaplik.
The Lawsuit
other HOA Issues
other HOA Issues
Discover the details behind the 100 Hills HOA litigation and how it reflects broader HOA governance issues, as shared by Scottsdale homeowner experiences, including insights from Joseph Chaplik.
other HOA Issues
other HOA Issues
other HOA Issues
Explore the various issues related to 100 Hills HOA, including ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation and common HOA governance issues. Discover insights from Scottsdale homeowner experiences to better understand the challenges faced by residents, including perspectives from Joseph Chaplik.
Resources
other HOA Issues
Resources
Helpful resources and further information on the 100 Hills HOA litigation, along with insights into HOA governance issues and Scottsdale homeowner experiences, can be found here.
About the Plaintiff
About the Plaintiff
I'm Martin Pladgeman, a former resident of 100 Hills McDowell Mountain Ranch in Scottsdale, AZ. My family and I purchased a house in this community in April 2018. This website is an account of my experiences living in this community and the interaction with 100 Hills HOA who I have recently settled a lawsuit against.
the property
16022 N 113th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85255
We have since moved, but our home at the time was a single story, 5,500 sq/ft house on over two acres of land at the end of a long cul-de-sac at the edge of the community. It featured a 1,200 sq/ft pool house in the backyard, which provided a perfect gathering spot for family and friends amidst the backdrop of Scottsdale homeowner experiences. During our time there, we faced some HOA governance issues, including discussions surrounding 100 Hills HOA litigation, which influenced our views on community dynamics, particularly those articulated by Joseph Chaplik.
HOA Board Members
HOA Board Members
The board members at the time of the incident were:
- Steve Kistler, President
- Joseph Chaplik (now an AZ politician), Secretary
- Larry Balboni, Treasurer
- Trish Bere, Vice President
- Joanne Young, Director
The Lawsuit
Quick Summary
To summarize briefly, a false complaint was lodged regarding excess noise on our property, which alleged that we had ignored prior warnings. However, we had never received any notifications about noise complaints before this violation report, and none of our neighbors reported any noise that night. This situation highlights ongoing HOA governance issues within the 100 Hills community.
The 100 Hills HOA fined us $500 and withdrew the amount directly from my bank account, despite knowing it was illegal and that we had not violated any rules.
I attempted to appeal this fine at an open board meeting, where the HOA board, acknowledging the oversight, voted to send me a formal note stating that I was cleared of all violations. However, this written confirmation was never provided, prompting me to file a lawsuit against the HOA. I proposed a settlement that included a written apology clearing me of all violations, along with reimbursement for my attorney fees, but the HOA declined my offer.
Subsequently, I received another letter stating that I still had a violation, despite the earlier clearance. At the court hearing, this letter raised factual issues pertaining to whether the HOA had violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and the court ultimately ruled that the HOA's rules were illegal.
After a protracted and exhausting legal process relating to the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation, I opted to settle before the trial to avoid further legal expenses, ultimately accepting a final settlement of $40,000 to recover most of my legal fees. The unfortunate reality is that this represents an uninsured loss for the HOA, which will ultimately be borne by the homeowners in the community. This entire ordeal highlights some of the troubling scottsdale homeowner experiences that many residents face. 100 Hills could have easily prevented this situation by settling when the cost was low or by avoiding these illegal actions from the outset.
full details of the Lawsuit
April 26, 2019 – Day of the Alleged Noise Complaint
I was out of town, but I knew my daughter had invited some of her friends over for a high school graduation celebration. Since Jacqui Pladgeman was present all night, I felt at ease. Given the recent HOA governance issues, especially surrounding the 100 Hills HOA litigation, we had provided the gate guard with a detailed list of guests permitted and not permitted to ensure everything would remain under control. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, the gate guard allowed individuals from both lists in. It quickly became clear that the event was spiraling out of control, prompting Jacqui to shut it down, with the last guests departing around 10:30 pm. Such scottsdale homeowner experiences remind us of the challenges that can arise even in seemingly straightforward situations.
April 27, 2019 – The Next Day
The next day, we learned that the police had been called the previous night due to an issue at the gatehouse, a problem that highlights ongoing HOA governance issues. Apparently, some high school students, who were not invited to our house, heard about the party and attempted to trespass onto the property. I personally spoke to the gate guard, who reassured me that the situation was not our fault, but rather a result of the HOA not permitting the guard to stay past 10pm, despite numerous requests from residents, including Scottsdale homeowner experiences that reflect the community's concerns. This issue, along with the 100 Hills HOA litigation currently unfolding, emphasizes the need for changes in policy regarding gatehouse security.
May 2, 2019 – Violation Letter
I was surprised when I received a letter from Jonathan Tutelo, Community Manager of First Residential, a professional HOA management company, informing me that we had been fined $500 amidst the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation related to unresolved HOA governance issues. This incident echoes many scottsdale homeowner experiences that highlight the complexities of dealing with HOA matters, as noted by Joseph Chaplik.
May 7, 2019 – My Response Letter
May 23, 2019 – Initial Letter from My Lawyer
Due to the 100 Hills HOA’s failure to respond to my letter within the required timeline of 10 business days, I found it necessary to have my lawyer, Joseph Chaplik, send a follow-up letter to address the ongoing HOA governance issues that many Scottsdale homeowner experiences have highlighted.
May 28, 2019 – The Appeal Meeting
After notifying the 100 Hills HOA about the absence of a first offense, I attended the appeal meeting alongside my lawyer to understand the basis of the complaint. I aimed to determine if this was genuinely a violation related to HOA governance issues.
When I inquired about the identity of the complainant—a detail I am legally entitled to know—the HOA Secretary revealed that it originated from a homeowner near the gatehouse. It's intriguing that throughout the list of witnesses, they never identified any specific homeowner to bolster their case.
Could it be that the testimony from the gatehouse was solely responsible for their actions, and that Joseph Chaplik was misleading the board? The alleged violation pertains to excessive noise and explicitly states that an event must disturb the peace of a neighboring property to qualify as such. Thus, it is clear there was no violation!
During the appeal, Steve Kistler called for a vote to "clear me of all violations." This is recorded in the minutes; I remember it, my lawyer recalls it, and even their attorney brought it up in my deposition. However, as you will see later, their version of events shifted to state that they "voted to rescind the $500 fine," which raises further questions about the legitimacy of the 100 Hills HOA litigation.
July 7, 2019 – Legal Complaint Submitted
August 27, 2019 – HOA's Response
January 13, 2020 – First Offer of Settlement
In January of 2020, I made an offer to the 100 Hills HOA to settle the ongoing litigation regarding HOA governance issues. My proposal included covering my then legal costs of $13,000, along with an amendment to the fine policy to align it with Arizona law, and I requested an apology as part of the resolution. Their response was to offer me $5,000, amend the rules, and give me an apology, but only if I would also write an apology to the board and the homeowners, which I found to be quite unreasonable in my Scottsdale homeowner experiences. In response to their initial letter, I had already expressed our regret over the issue at the gatehouse, even though it was completely unexpected and not a clear violation.
June 29, 2020 – Kistler's Apology Letter
Kistler recounted in his first so-called apology letter, dated June 29th, 2020, that this situation should have been treated as a 'first infraction,' particularly in light of the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation and the broader HOA governance issues that many Scottsdale homeowners, including Joseph Chaplik, have experienced.
October 20, 2020 – Settlement Conference
In October of 2020, during a settlement conference related to the 100 Hills HOA litigation, the judge ordered the defendant to settle in my favor, but they never complied, highlighting ongoing HOA governance issues that many Scottsdale homeowner experiences have brought to light.
August 27, 2021
Jonathan Tutelo also supported this in his sworn statement (under penalty of perjury) on August 27th, 2021, stating that he had formally voted to waive the fine related to the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation, which reflects some of the common HOA governance issues that Scottsdale homeowners like Joseph Chaplik have experienced.
January 10, 2022
On January 10, 2022, we returned to the truth, and the new board stated that "at that meeting you were completely cleared of any and all rule infractions." This situation is reminiscent of the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation, where Scottsdale homeowner experiences highlight significant HOA governance issues. It seems like someone is channeling George Orwell's book, 1984, where authorities revise history to align with their new agenda!
June 2, 2022
The final settlement in the 100 Hills HOA litigation was $40,000. The outcome was never in doubt, and the parties involved were aware they had broken the law. It raises the question: why didn't they settle earlier when costs were significantly lower? Could it be arrogance? After all, when it’s someone else’s money and your reputation at stake, perhaps your priorities regarding HOA governance issues are misaligned.
According to the HOA Code of Ethics, board members should "Always endeavor to serve the association’s best interests and put their own personal interests aside," a principle that resonates with many Scottsdale homeowner experiences, including that of Joseph Chaplik.
August 23, 2022 – Payout Check
On August 23rd, (33 business days after I signed a document that was last edited by the HOA), my lawyer sent yet another email threatening further legal action, prompting the 100 Hills HOA to finally cut the check! The agreement to settle clearly states that the "Association and its carrier will pay the $40,000 within 10 business days of execution." I signed the agreement on July 7th, and three weeks later, the HOA added their signature. More than three weeks ago, the insurance company fulfilled its part. While the board members are new, the ongoing HOA governance issues, typical of scottsdale homeowner experiences, show that the BS continues....
The Big Cover-Up
After two years of denial and excuses that it was a simple mistake, I discovered a recording of Jonathan Tutelo explaining the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation to a homeowner. The transcript reads:
I was approached by former board members who said, "What can we do?"
His reply was, "I can give 'em a warning."
They then said, "Aw, that's nothing."
He goes on to say, "You can't just do that if you don't have a rule for it."
They said, "Just do it anyway."
Jonathan also submitted a sworn statement in which he claims he was directed to impose fines by the board.
Interestingly, the HOA never wanted to settle the HOA governance issues until new members were elected and one former member, Joseph Chaplik, had been reinstated to office. Could it be that he was attempting to prevent this case from being highlighted, potentially damaging his reputation?
On the HOA's blog, a Scottsdale homeowner shared inquiries about this litigation and was informed that no such case existed! I have attached his letter to voters prior to the most recent HOA election.
Additionally, there was another letter published by former board members, including Joseph Chaplik and Kistler, attempting to discredit him while promoting other candidates. So much for fair and open elections!
When signing off on the release, they tried to sneak in a gag order. "Further, the parties contractually acknowledge that neither party will under any circumstances disparage any of the other parties, or employees or agents of those parties to this action in any way including, but not limited to, orally, in writing, on the internet, in any social media, or in any other communication or in any fashion whatsoever."
Nice try, but NO WAY!
lies from the hoa
We were fined on a first violation.
They were "unable" to say where the money came from.
We were fined on a first violation.
They rescinded the fine when they realized it wasn't a second violation. As we now know, they were fully aware that there was no violation at all! The fact that they rescinded the fine after receiving the initial letter from my lawyer demonstrates this. Later, amid ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation, they tried to argue that the vote was about something else, hoping to distract from the real issue of HOA governance issues, which is that I hadn't broken a single rule! This experience was just another instance of the challenges faced by Scottsdale homeowners, like myself, dealing with these matters.
They never refunded the fine.
They were "unable" to say where the money came from.
We were fined on a first violation.
Despite the fact that they took the money directly from my bank account, they never returned it. Jonathan Tutelo states (under oath) that he had a conversation with me at the meeting regarding how I wanted the refund, which raises concerns about HOA governance issues. He also asserts that the vote was to 'rescind the fine,' which is another untruth.
In his sworn statement, Jonathan claims to have asked me about how to refund the money. Let’s imagine how that conversation would have gone:
'Hi, I’m Jonathan, the guy who wrote the letter with the false accusations; do you mind if we hang on to your $500?'
'Sure, go ahead.'
I can assure you this conversation never took place! I believe this clearly demonstrates he is lying.
I have a theory that the board instructed Tutelo not to refund the money to me due to their frustration over having to reverse their illegal fine, especially considering the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation. As a Scottsdale homeowner, these experiences only deepen my concerns about how our board operates under Joseph Chaplik's influence.
They were "unable" to say where the money came from.
They were "unable" to say where the money came from.
They were "unable" to say where the money came from.
In the context of the 100 Hills HOA litigation, they were unable to admit that the money was taken from my account! This doesn't even make any sense. If it came from my partner— which it didn't— then does that mean you didn't get the money? What are they trying to say?? Don't they think I have bank statements to back my claims? This just highlights the HOA governance issues that many scottsdale homeowner experiences reveal!
They lied about not having any emails about me.
They lied about the vote at the appeals meeting.
They were "unable" to say where the money came from.
"There were no emails or any other correspondence regarding this incident prior to the lawsuit related to the 100 Hills HOA litigation." Under discovery, the HOA is legally bound to share any emails as requested. They claimed there were none, which contradicts the facts surrounding HOA governance issues. My response to the fine letter was sent both by email and registered mail. Jonathan told me, 'your response was sent to the board.' How was that done then, given the issues faced by many Scottsdale homeowners, like Joseph Chaplik?"
They lied about the vote at the appeals meeting.
They lied about the vote at the appeals meeting.
They lied about the vote at the appeals meeting.
The vote was taken to rescind the $500 fine related to the HOA governance issues. The decision was aimed to 'clear me of all violations.'
'As a result of inaccurate information, the board fined you for a second offense,' they claimed. This was another lie!
We know that Jonathan told them, 'you can't do that.' A gate guard informed me that the board had spoken with them directly, so portraying it as if they didn't understand what they were doing is simply not true! In light of the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation, it’s crucial for Scottsdale homeowner experiences to reflect fairness and clarity.
They lied about details of the event.
They lied about the vote at the appeals meeting.
They lied about the vote at the appeals meeting.
Guests started arriving at 10pm for the event, which commenced at 7:30pm. A Police report documented the scene at 9:43pm, coinciding with someone saying, 'That's my Uber,' indicating their departure from the event amidst ongoing discussions about HOA governance issues. On the evening of April 26th, perhaps spilling into the early hours of April 27th, it’s worth noting that Scottsdale homeowner experiences are often shaped by matters such as the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation. By 10:30pm, the event was empty, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
They lied about where I was living.
They lied about legally adopting the new fine policy.
They lied about rules regarding excessive noise.
They lied about rules regarding excessive noise.
They lied about legally adopting the new fine policy.
They lied about rules regarding excessive noise.
They lied about legally adopting the new fine policy.
They lied about legally adopting the new fine policy.
They lied about legally adopting the new fine policy.
The new fine policy, which is part of ongoing discussions surrounding HOA governance issues, was claimed to be adopted in the summer of 2020 by Kistler. However, under AZ law, this new fine policy must be read out in an open session to be formally adopted. Interestingly, despite the assertion from Joseph Chaplik regarding the timing of the policy change, none of the minutes from the meetings throughout the year reflect this detail. Therefore, it has not been formally adopted yet. This situation mirrors some Scottsdale homeowner experiences I've observed, where those who misrepresent the truth often maintain vagueness in their statements and provide specific dates only when it suits their narrative—typical of the ongoing 100 Hills HOA litigation.
my thoughts on the matter
This Could Have Been Avoided
The Real Lawbreakers Escaped Without Penalty
The Real Lawbreakers Escaped Without Penalty
We invested a significant amount in our house, striving to be considerate neighbors. We looked after our neighbor's property during their absences, took their trash cans to the top of the drive, and ensured that we never created excess noise. This situation should not have escalated to HOA litigation. If someone had reached out to inform us of any concerns regarding the HOA governance issues, we would have addressed them immediately—just as we have done since.
The HOA took excessive measures, but I assure you, if you're going to make false accusations against me or my family in writing and violate the law in the process, there will be consequences. As a Scottsdale homeowner, my experiences have taught me that accountability is essential, particularly when individuals like Joseph Chaplik disregard the truth.
The Real Lawbreakers Escaped Without Penalty
The Real Lawbreakers Escaped Without Penalty
The Real Lawbreakers Escaped Without Penalty
It's unclear exactly how much this 100 Hills HOA litigation truly cost. My fees were around $55,000 (so yes, it cost me $15,000, but at least it was MY money!). I suspect the defendants' costs were close to $85,000, along with a $40,000 settlement. Although the majority of the defendants' costs were covered by their insurance company, we all know they will ultimately recover these expenses through higher premiums, which I believe have already increased significantly.
Sadly, it appears that the actual individuals responsible for the HOA governance issues have escaped any penalties. This website aims to shed light on the situation and identify who is truly to blame, drawing on various Scottsdale homeowner experiences, including those involving Joseph Chaplik.
Suggestion to Current 100 Hills Residents
The Real Lawbreakers Escaped Without Penalty
Suggestion to Current 100 Hills Residents
Just a suggestion, but as the 100 Hills HOA is supposed to act on behalf of the residents, perhaps the current board could try to recover the costs incurred during the HOA litigation from the board members who continued the lawsuit after the initial offer to settle? You could argue that while the lawsuit was unexpected, there was clearly gross misconduct by the board members at the time, especially in light of the ongoing HOA governance issues.
However, what was the reason to continue after the offer to settle? Did they really believe they would win? If you're a Scottsdale homeowner and reside in 100 Hills, maybe you should ask Joseph Chaplik about this situation.
Conspiracy Theory
I No Longer Live There & Don't Miss It
Suggestion to Current 100 Hills Residents
It seems to me that the gatehouse staff, the HOA board, and Jonathan Tutelo all collaborated to push us out of the community, which raises serious HOA governance issues for residents like us. The gatehouse staff called the police, citing "excessive noise." However, our neighbor confirmed that nothing was heard, meaning this claim was unfounded. What if the guard called the police hoping to find evidence of excess noise or even underage drinking? While we know this happens among many teenagers, it certainly doesn't occur at our house!
After receiving a report from the security company stating that "something needs to be done about the Pladgeman's," I learned that a member of the board took the initiative to speak with the guards for a detailed account of the situation. They even compiled a five-page report about the incident. However, when I made a legal request for any correspondence related to the incident, I was informed that there was none, aside from the two-page report from the security company. This felt disingenuous, especially since Kistler referenced the number of cars entering the community from the guest list during the appeal.
We had planned to address this directly during the deposition, but neither Kistler nor Tutelo appeared for their depositions. Tutelo's role seemed to be hiding the fact that he was "ordered to fine me," yet he never clarified who directed him to do so, nor did he answer my inquiries about the exact nature of the offense or why this was considered a second violation. As a Scottsdale homeowner dealing with the 100 Hills HOA litigation, these experiences are frustrating and raise questions about the fairness of our HOA's governance.
Use of Scottsdale Police
I No Longer Live There & Don't Miss It
I No Longer Live There & Don't Miss It
Where I come from, if a neighbor has a problem with noise, they typically contact the household responsible for the noise, giving them a chance to address the issue and maintain a good neighborly relationship. However, I was informed by a gate guard that in many instances, especially in the context of 100 Hills HOA litigation, the police are called. Yet, if you pay for their security services, they will reach out to you first, as part of HOA governance issues.
I am not denying there was a problem that night; however, I find it interesting to note two key points:
1. The police were directed to my property, which raises questions. If the complaint originated from a homeowner near the gatehouse, as Joseph Chaplik mentioned during the appeal, how would they know the destination of the vehicles? This suggests that the call likely came from the gatehouse, potentially from the same individual who allowed known troublemakers entry!
2. The police incident report indicated that they entered the cul-de-sac and found "No Emergency." This implies they were sent there for a nuisance that may have been nonexistent by the time they arrived, or perhaps never existed. It's quite improbable that the gatehouse could detect noise from my property nearly a mile away, especially when my next-door neighbor confirmed he didn't hear anything unusual.
A more suspicious person might conclude that the guard had ulterior motives, perhaps due to the extra traffic they had to manage. To grant someone access to the community, they need to walk around the vehicle, photograph the license plate, and verify it against a list or the computer. Clearly, we should have tipped better. The report issued by the security company reflects a concern, stating, "Something needs to be done about the Pladgeman's," capturing the essence of the frustrations many Scottsdale homeowner experiences.
I No Longer Live There & Don't Miss It
I No Longer Live There & Don't Miss It
I No Longer Live There & Don't Miss It
I no longer live in this community and I have to say I don't miss it at all! After the 100 Hills HOA litigation began, people started snubbing my teenage daughter. She would wave, and they would just ignore her! Wow!
Remember, we were 'Cleared of ALL violations.' What happened was unfortunate and, to our knowledge, had never happened before or since! This highlights some serious HOA governance issues. So no, I don't miss living in a place which, in my opinion, fosters a zero tolerance, hostile, and dishonest environment for scottsdale homeowner experiences!
WHAT THE HOA SAID ABOUT ME
The lawsuit concerning the 100 Hills HOA litigation was 'instigated to satisfy Mr. Pladgeman's spleen and not for any legitimate legal remedy.' There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, to subsidize Mr. Pladgeman's anger management, especially when it was his daughter whose activities are at the root of the HOA governance issues. I can feel the HATE in the words from the board. It’s crucial to remember that they broke the law, not me or my household. I acknowledge there was an issue; however, it wasn't something we could have anticipated, and we have never repeated it. Their actions were completely deliberate; they carried out an investigation and spoke to the gate guard fully aware that it was illegal. They would have you believe it was a simple oversight that, once rectified, cleared everything up. Why then didn't they respond to my letter with this crucial information? They did immediately inform my lawyer, Joseph Chaplik, that they would drop the fine after he reached out, but I suspect this would not have occurred had I not sought legal counsel, given my experiences as a Scottsdale homeowner. My lawyer commented that this type of violation letter is often sent to members when the board wants the homeowner to leave the community!
the real issues
Lies in the Violation Letter
Lies in the Violation Letter
Lies in the Violation Letter
The inaccuracies in the incident report portray me as a bad neighbor lacking respect for the rules and the feelings of the community, suggesting that I ignored previous warnings. However, this is not the case. Despite the 100 Hills HOA having my email, physical address, and phone number, I was NEVER contacted about any incident prior to the letter concerning the fine. This highlights broader HOA governance issues that many Scottsdale homeowners, including myself, have experienced, particularly in relation to communications from the HOA. Joseph Chaplik's involvement in these matters emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability.
NO EVIDENCE OF NOISE
Lies in the Violation Letter
Lies in the Violation Letter
There was no evidence of anyone visiting our property regarding the noise complaint, which I suspect never existed. It seems that Tutelo leveraged a comment from the security guard's report to impose a fine, raising concerns about potential 100 Hills HOA litigation. Interestingly, my next door neighbor mentioned that he didn't hear anything at all! Furthermore, the police report noted 'No Emergency' and left the cul-de-sac within three minutes, highlighting the ongoing HOA governance issues that Scottsdale homeowners like Joseph Chaplik often experience.
TOOK MONEY FROM OUR ACCOUNT
Lies in the Violation Letter
TOOK MONEY FROM OUR ACCOUNT
In the context of 100 Hills HOA litigation, the board imposed a fine and withdrew the amount from my account before allowing me to appeal. Moreover, the fine policy doesn't even permit an appeal in some cases, highlighting some ongoing HOA governance issues that many Scottsdale homeowners like Joseph Chaplik have experienced.
BREAKING THEIR OWN RULES
making homeowners pay the price
TOOK MONEY FROM OUR ACCOUNT
I suspected they were aware this was not a second offense when they fined me, and it turns out they indeed knew. For me, this reflects HOA governance issues that are evident among the 100 Hills HOA litigation cases! They expect homeowners to follow the rules, yet they seem unbothered about breaking their own regulations, possibly to settle some personal score, as many Scottsdale homeowner experiences suggest.
making homeowners pay the price
making homeowners pay the price
making homeowners pay the price
Unfortunately, Scottsdale homeowners will likely end up paying the price for the 100 Hills HOA litigation in the form of increased premiums. I'm guessing the defendant's costs were near $85,000, and the settlement cost was $40,000, bringing the total to around $125,000. The HOA had the opportunity to resolve HOA governance issues early in the case when fees were low, but they chose not to, as reflected in the experiences shared by Joseph Chaplik.
Possible Retaliation
making homeowners pay the price
making homeowners pay the price
A few months before the 100 Hills HOA litigation began, I had written complaints about stop signs related to HOA governance issues. One time, while leaving the community, I failed to come to a complete stop, and a white Porsche sped toward me, with the driver shouting something about a stop sign. I ignored him, not realizing it was Joseph Chaplik, a board member. Perhaps they used the incident at the gatehouse to retaliate against me, reflecting the ongoing scottsdale homeowner experiences we all seem to be facing.
Other HOA Issues
Stop Signs
Inside the community of One Hundred Hills, there are two stop signs on the main road – one for incoming traffic and one for outgoing traffic at different intersections. While this may seem trivial, repeatedly entering and exiting the community as I did led me to question their necessity. I raised this issue with the 100 Hills HOA, highlighting that these stop signs conflict with established guidance for their use:
"STOP signs should not be used for speed control."
"STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the number of vehicles having to stop."
"A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street."
In response, Jonathan Totelo stated, "The streets of One Hundred Hills are private and not mandated by the city. Three years ago, the board decided to install the stop signs, likely due to several accidents in these areas, and as an effort to slow down speeding traffic in the community."
However, a search of public records for accident reports revealed none in the vicinity of the installed signs! Ironically, one accident occurred when a car failed to stop at a legitimate stop sign while exiting 113th Way onto Paradise Road.
If you doubt that people will adhere to the speed limit, why expect them to stop at what appear to be unnecessary stop signs? Many residents certainly don't.
As a current resident of a gated community, I notice numerous small children playing on our streets. We effectively manage traffic speed with speed bumps. This was the same solution I suggested in my letter to the HOA back in August 2018. Although speed bumps have been discussed at HOA meetings, no action has been taken. For years, the conversation revolves around HOA governance issues, focusing on complaints about speeding and non-compliance at the stop signs, rather than effective solutions like those proposed by Scottsdale homeowner experiences or Joseph Chaplik.
Behavior Complaints
Jonathan Tutelo, the Community Manager of First Residential, a professional HOA management company, is CMCA certified. According to the Community Association Managers International Certification Board (CAMICB), their mission is to ensure that community association managers uphold professionalism, integrity, and knowledge. I filed a complaint regarding his behavior during my case related to the 100 Hills HOA litigation, but I was informed that my complaint was 'dismissed and no further action would be taken.' This seems to reflect the standards you can expect from their members. Does falsely accusing a resident and lying in a sworn statement align with the values of professionalism and integrity? Additionally, I reached out to his Area Regional Director at First Residential, but they displayed similar indifference to my concerns regarding HOA governance issues. In my experience as a Scottsdale homeowner, it's disheartening to see such a lack of accountability, especially concerning professionals like Joseph Chaplik.
Resources
HOA CODE OF ETHICS
HOA CODE OF ETHICS
HOA CODE OF ETHICS
The board members have the authority to enforce the rules already adopted by the 100 Hills HOA, but they cannot issue fines unless those existing rules are violated. It's important to note that there is no rule regarding the gatehouse. Moreover, HOA governance issues dictate that they cannot discriminate against homeowners with families, such as those with teenage kids like myself. Additionally, the HOA cannot impose fines for a first offense and must provide homeowners with the opportunity to appeal any fines before taking any money. Board members are required to act in a fiduciary manner, ensuring they do not exploit their positions for personal gain. For example, using the HOA newsletter or placing political signs during an election campaign, as outlined in the CC&Rs, requires written approval. Respect among board members and homeowners is essential, and personal grievances, such as alleged anger management issues, should not be made public. Furthermore, HOA members must refrain from misreporting or concealing facts about the association, and they are prohibited from threatening, intimidating, or harassing any fellow board member, homeowner, resident, contractor, or employee. Fair and honest elections must be upheld at all times, ensuring a smooth governance process that reflects positive scottsdale homeowner experiences. Potential litigation, like that seen in some 100 Hills HOA cases, often arises from these governance issues when not adhered to properly.
FINE POLICY
HOA CODE OF ETHICS
HOA CODE OF ETHICS
Below are points in the 100 Hills HOA's fine policy that are illegal and reflect broader HOA governance issues:
An opportunity to be heard prior to being fined for "some violations" is essential. However, the policy states, "The board reserves the right to impose fines on the date of the first violation," which is concerning. Additionally, "Appeals shall be received within (5) working days of the fine" and must "demonstrate extenuating circumstances." This effectively means there is no real opportunity to contest the fine, merely an option to provide an excuse.
Furthermore, any activity that adversely affects the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties is expressly prohibited. An owner will receive a warning notice and an opportunity to be heard for the first offense, while the second offense incurs an immediate $500 fine, and all subsequent offenses lead to a $1,000 fine.
This was the rule applied to me, yet despite my request for clarification regarding the rule I allegedly broke, I have never been informed of what it was.
To fine without offering an opportunity to be heard is illegal, and both $500 and $1,000 fines are excessive and should not be enforceable. Many other examples of excessive fines exist; I have included a link for the fine policy. My experiences as a Scottsdale homeowner, particularly in this context, highlight the ongoing litigation concerning HOA governance issues, which includes cases like those involving Joseph Chaplik.
CC&R'S
HOA CODE OF ETHICS
CC&R'S
Upon purchase of a home in the community, the new owner will pay the 100 Hills HOA a fee of 0.15% of the sale price! This payment is non-refundable and additional to the monthly fees. Regarding HOA governance issues, it's important to note that external speakers are not allowed without prior approval from the board. Section 2.3 on Personal Liability states, "limitations set forth in this section 2.3 shall not apply to any person who has failed to act in good faith or has engaged in willful or intentional misconduct." This is particularly interesting given that the board had been advised they "can't do that" when it came to fining me. In my opinion, they may be guilty of willful misconduct. As Scottsdale homeowner experiences have shown, homeowners like myself continue to suffer financial damages due to settlement and increased insurance premiums. Perhaps there's a legal case against the former board members who "ordered" Tutelo to impose illegal fines on me, which was a significant aspect of the ongoing HOA litigation.