May 23, 1988. Final Engineer’s Report for Assessment District No. 87-1 Sycamore Village. Prepared by Willdan Associates. “The proposed works of improvement to be financed under these proceedings for this Assessment District are described…together with ornamental vegetation and landscaping and all appurtenances and appurtenant work in WOOD RANCH PARKWAY and other streets of rights-of-way, said improvements to serve and benefit the properties located within boundaries of this Assessment District.”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
[/dropdown_box]
July 29, 1988. SCV CC&Rs Para 6.01. “maintain and manage such areas…is or may become obligated…pursuant to written agreements with any governmental authority, including, without limitation, the Simi Valley Landscape disctrict No 1…”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
July 29, 1988. SCV CC&Rs Para 7.01. “Repair and Maintenance by Association…all drainage facilities and easements…public rights-of-way and other facilities are required by the Association pursuant to and in accordance with written agreements therefor between the Association and the City or any agency or department thereof”
July 29, 1988. SCV CC&Rs Para 13.09.“Repair and Maintenance. There is hereby reserved to Declarant, together with the right to grant and transfer the same to the Association, an easement for the purposes as provided in Article VII hereof…”
[/dropdown_box]
October 1, 1990. Resolution No. 90-111 of the City Council of the City of Simi Valley. “Approving Engineer’s Report…The City Council has required that developers of certain designated tracts annex said tracts to the Simi Valley Landscape District No. 1 for…maintenance of certain landscaping in said tracts….Tract 4053 – Annexation 86 – Zone 86…located in the Sycamore [Canyon] Village area of the Wood Ranch development….The landscaped parkways and slopes along Wood Ranch Parkway, Martha Morrison Drive…are proposed for annexation as Fallback zones with the Sycamore Village Homeowners Association assuming responsibility for landscape maintenance.”
October 15, 1990. Resolution No. 90-121 of the City Council of the City of Simi Valley. “Therefore, the City Council of the City of Simi Valley does resolve as follows…Annexation No. 86 (Zone 86)…to Simi Valley Landscape District No. 1 are hereby ordered…”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
- Exhibit 6 Landscape Annexation Map — Tract No. 4053
- Sycamore Canyon Village HOA Maintenance Obligations
[/dropdown_box]
April 20, 2007. Board letter acknowledges Sullivan’s concerns. “I have forwarded your comments to the board including your request for an on-site meeting. The Board has asked that I extend an invitation for you to attend the next board meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, May 1st at 5:30 p.m. to further discuss your concerns.”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
May 8, 2007. SCV Landscape Committee Meeting minutes. “Theodore Sullivan…has requested to meet with committee members to discuss concerns regarding irrigation, brush clearance and common area responsibilities…”
[/dropdown_box]
June 29, 2010. Letter from Board’s Attorney declining to insure the Sullivans. “Please note, however, that the Association must deny your request that the Sullivans be named as additional insureds …. The Association does not … have a duty to do so. Although the Association understands the Sullivans’ concerns of potential exposure to liability, there are other recourses available to them in the unfortunate event a claim is made.”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
May 18, 2010. Letter from the Sullivans’ Attorney requesting to be named as additional insureds. “For so long as any trees planted by the Developer and/or Board of Directors/LC remain planted on the Property, both Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan will be named as additional insureds …”
April 24, 2013. Deposition of Theodore M. Sullivan. “…we asked to be added as additionally insured … two months later when they responded, they didn’t even have the courtesy of replying. They didn’t say yes, we’ll add you, no, we won’t add you.. So we had to ask again through an attorney…”
[/dropdown_box]
March 15, 2011. Letter from Board’s Attorney declining mediation. “This letter is in response to your letter dated March 11, 2011…the Association declines the Sullivans request for mediation…”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
February 22, 2011. Letter from the Sullivans’ Attorney requesting mediation. “As a result of the above dispute, the Association is hereby requested to agree to submit the dispute to a form of alternate dispute resolution, specifically mediation”
March 11, 2011. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney requesting mediation. “We have received your letter…dated March 8, 2011 (“Notice”)…Given that the subject of the Request for Resolution and the Notice is the Association Trees, we must conclude that the Notice constitutes the Association’s rejection of the Request for Resolution.”
August 31, 2012. Email from the Board’s Attorney (second law firm) responding to Sullivan’s Attorney. “To that end, I will be recommending to my clients that they participate in mediation in hopes of reaching an amicable resolution to this matter. Please advise whether your clients would be willing to participate.”
September 10, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to Board’s Attorney. “…our clients have always been willing to mediate and, in fact, proposed it prior to filing their lawsuit, only to have it rejected by the Association. We proposed mediation to Mr. Gorney, with suggested mediators, most recently in our letter to him dated July 27, 2012. We have not received even the courtesy of a response to any of our requests.
[/dropdown_box]
April 13, 2011. SCV Board expands dispute/lawsuit with letter. “It has come to the HOA’s attention that the required 100-foot brush clearance along the perimeter of your property, which had been cleared by the HOA in the past, is the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain.”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
April 27, 2011. Sullivan’s Attorney response letter. “It is not possible that the subject of the brush clearance has just come to the attention of the Board of Directors. Instrument No 89-123061 (“Deed”)… described a fuel modification zone easement…over portions of Lot 384…The Board cannot simply transfer its maintenance obligations to the Members, to whom it owes that responsibility, on a whim.”
May 6, 2011. SCV Board’s response letter. “we are currently in the process of further investigating…as it pertains to the easement…the Board is hereby withdrawing its request… for this year. Upon completion of the review of the documents…you will be provided with a determination letter… as to the responsibility for future… brush clearance.”
April 24, 2013. Deposition of Theodore Sullivan. (source)
Q: So when do you think the harassment started?
A: … they already knew they had the obligation. They had been doing it for 20 years. … They hired a civil engineer … He told them they had the fuel mod/brush clearance easement and months later, they sent us a letter that it’s come to their attention it’s no longer their obligation.
[/dropdown_box]
July 14, 2011. Letter from City of Simi Valley to the Sullivans and SCV HOA about who installed Association Trees. “…the Roberts Group representative Craig Messi was responsible for the tree installation.…As you may be aware, the Roberts Group was the developer for portions of Wood Ranch Sycamore Canyon village, which includes tracts 4053…”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
May 21, 1993. SCV Board Meeting Minutes. “Board Members present…Craig Messi, Secretary”
[/dropdown_box]
June 15, 2012. SCV Board expands dispute/lawsuit with STOP WORK ORDER letter. “This letter shall serve as a STOP WORK NOTICE…stopping the installation of any additional trees…until you (i) have submitted an architectural application…fines of $100 per week may be assessed….”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
June 25, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to STOP WORK ORDER. “This Stop Work Order…constitutes continuing harassment…and the Board’s intentional refusal to acknowledge our clients’ property rights…as they apply to their ownership of a single family farm/ranch lot designated as Planning Unit 100 in the Wood Ranch Specific Plan.”
August 16, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to Board’s Attorney. “The Association has failed to respond to our letter dated June 25, 2012…in response to the “Stop Work Order”…Please be advised…the Association’s failure to respond…to constitute the Association’s withdrawal and rescission of the Stop Work Order.”
February 1, 2013. Email from Sullivan to his Attorney regarding Farm/Ranch lots. “I called Kurt Jaeger…he is sure he did not submit any application for approval…for the planting of the Avocado trees…we are the only party to be issued a Stop Work Order for Agricultural activity and only for one of the many agricultural activities we have undertaken. “
April 24, 2013. Deposition of Theodore Sullivan, p. 177.
Q: Have you asked permission from the HOA to engage such a harvester?
A: No.
Q: Do you intend to?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because it’s an agricultural activity. It’s not an architectural activity…We asked many times for guidance from the HOA regarding any standards that would pertain to agricultural. Nothing was ever forthcoming.
[/dropdown_box]
July 26, 2012. Letter from the Board’s Attorney (second law firm) requesting trimming of Association trees (including non-viable trees) for the second time. “…it was noted that many of the 47 trees located on the Sullivan Lot…are over hanging and in need of trimming, pruning or both…the Sullivans are kindly requested to once again prune or trim the trees.”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
August 16, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to Board’s Attorney. “It is truly shocking that the Association, by and through your office, is once again attempting to shift the responsibility of the Association Trees to Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan. The above referenced action will establish the Association’s intentional and negligent actions that you know contend have increased the Sullivans’ potential liability for the Association Trees.”
August 21, 2012. Email from the Board’s Attorney (second law firm) responding to Sullivan’s Attorney. “The Association’s goal, as I’m sure is your clients’ is to resolve this matter amicably and without the need for further litigation. Upon my return…I will provide a meaningful response to your letter. “
August 30, 2012. Email from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to Board’s Attorney. “We believe that the Association and its members will be ordered to reimburse Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan for their prior tree trimming/pruning and the tree trimming/pruning requested in your letter dated July 26, 2012…we want to give the Association, through your office, one more opportunity…The Association’s refusal to allow Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan to remove the non-viable Association Trees…will be brought to the attention of the jury and/or court at trial. ”
August 31, 2012. Email from the Board’s Attorney (second law firm) responding to Sullivan’s Attorney. “…I reiterate the Association’s position that it will not approve removal of any of the trees at this time and will not reimburse your clients for removal of any such trees. The Association is satisfied that it has sufficiently responded to your inquiries below. Thank you.”
September 10, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to Board’s Attorney. “Given the fact that the Association, its Board and your office are familiar with the subject of the non-viable Association Trees we disagree with that contention. Moreover, the fact that the Association chooses to use two law firms should give the Association more awareness of the issues – not less.”
[/dropdown_box]
July 26, 2012. Letter from the Board’s Attorney (second law firm) asserting limits on the Sullivan’s use of their lot. “As the Sullivans are aware, the Association has an easement to maintain and control that portion of the Lot which prevents the Sullivans from making personal use of the Lot. “
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
August 16, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to Board’s Attorney. “We do not understand, and disagree with your assertion that this easement ‘prevents the Sullivans from making personal use of the Lot.’ Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan have record, legal and equitable title to their entire Property and have a right to use every portion of it as they choose, subject to any specific requirements by the City of Simi Valley or Association that apply to them. Please advise under what authority you made the foregoing assertion in your letter.”
April 24, 2013. Deposition of Theodore Sullivan pp. 171-172.
A: The Adrian Adams law firm letter also attempted to limit our use of the property
Q: In which way?
A: …they said it prevents us from using our lot for personal uses.
[/dropdown_box]
August 16, 2012. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to fourth HOA request for weed clearance of 1500 foot strip of land along Martha Morrison Dr. “This is at least the fourth time that the Association has wrongly requested that the Sullivans remove weeds from the Property which demonstrates the continuing harassment and discriminatory treatment by the Association against our clients.”
[dropdown_box expand_text=”Information” show_more=”More” show_less=”Less” start=”hide”]
July 26, 2012. Letter from the Board’s Attorney requesting for the fourth time for Sullivans to clear weeds. “The Board also requests in fulfilling with their maintenance responsibilities, that the Sullivans clear the weeds next to the split rail fence along Martha Morrison. “
September 1, 2010. Letter from Sullivan’s Attorney responding to third HOA request for weed clearance of 1500 foot strip of land along Martha Morrison Dr. “This letter from Ms. Camarillo is both disingenuous and a clearly veiled attempt by the Board of Directors/LC to avoid its maintenance responsibilities regarding the Strip.”
August 17, 2010. Letter from Board’s Attorney requesting for the third time for Sullivans to clear weeds. “.…the Board of Directors is requesting that the overgrown weeds along Martha Morrison North (inside the split rail fence be cleared/removed)…”
April 11, 2007. Letter from Board requesting for the second time for Sullivans to clear weeds. “We are hereby requesting…complete any necessary weed clearance.. “
July 31, 2006. Letter from Board requesting for the first time for Sullivans to clear weeds. “Please remove the weeds on your property located along the rail fencing along Martha Morrison Dr. are hereby requesting…complete any necessary weed clearance…“
[/dropdown_box]