Friday, April 24, 2015

Cedar Run Legal Update - Robert Sher Demands Payment of $17K+



In an invoice/letter dated 3/9/15 that Robert Sher sent to HHSG (the receiver), Sher has demanded that he and Jack Shaw be paid an immediate sum of $17,645.64.  This is allegedly 'owed' to them for their 'services'  from December of 2014 through February of 2015.

Furthermore, Sher's letter also states that he and Jack must be paid a total sum of $5,881.88 EVERY MONTH going forward until the YEAR 2020!!


In the letter, Sher claims that the (now ousted) master board had made an agreement with the 'oversight committee' (Robert & Jack) to pay them every month for five years with an optional three year extension (total of eight years - i.e through 2020).  Sher claims that he and Jack are owed this money because of the 'savings' they created for Cedar Run.

This letter was presented in court by the receiver on 4/22.  The receiver HAS NOT paid anything to Robert or Jack, and in the receiver's own report, he "[does] not recommend payment based on previous court decisions...."  In other words, he will not make this payment unless told by the court to do so.


Next Hearing 5/5/15
There will be a hearing on 5/5 to discuss this issue and to decide whether or not Sher/Shaw have the right to be paid.

We will not speculate on how the judge will rule on this matter.  We will let him speak for himself at the 5/5 hearing.

But keep the following things in mind.

  1. Sher's letter claims that there is an 'agreement' with the Master Board, but it stops short of using the word 'contract'.  This may indicate that there was never any kind of written agreement or obligation for the board to pay him indefinitely.
  2. The board that supposedly made this agreement likely had no legal right to make such an agreement.  This is primarily due to the fact that they were operating under a bogus set of Bylaws.  Also, they almost certainly did not have enough directors to make up a quorum as defined by our true governing docs.
That said, we expect the Sher/Shaw clan to have quite an uphill battle if they expect to prove that they are entitled to any payment from HOC funds.   We are looking forward to hearing what type of argument that the Shaw sisters will cook up and present in court in hopes of getting their father and brother-in-law paid.  Stay Tuned!

8 Year Agreement

To give an idea of how ridiculous the terms are of Sher's so-called 'agreement', we thought we'd show an excerpt from a typical, professional condo property management contract.

TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
The Agreement may be terminated by either party with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days  prior written notice.


What does this mean??  It means that a board of directors has the right to fire their property management at any time and for any reason, as long as they provide sixty days notice.


Conversely,  in the case of Robert Sher.....


He first tried to adopt Bylaws that make him (and Jack) virtually impossible to fire.  Now, he claims that there was a five year agreement to have them both paid -AND- a three year 'optional' extension that is somehow already in effect (even though the first five years has not yet elapsed).  And even though both he and Jack have been ousted from any management role on the property, Sher still claims that the agreement entitles him to payment.


In Closing

While we must wait patiently for the completion of the financial audit results and election announcement, we ask all Cedar Run homeowners to keep the following in mind:

When Sher campaigned for your vote in the summer of 2012, did he mention anything about putting himself (or Jack) on the payroll for almost 6 grand per month?  NO!

Did he mention anything about abolishing elections, scrapping the bylaws, or signing himself to an 8 year contract and no possibility of being fired or removed?  NO again!

Had you known these were his plans, would you have voted for him?  We hope NOT.

.....And we hope that the past two years will serve as a lesson to all homeowners when making their decision in the upcoming election as well as their phase elections.


Check back regularly for more info.
We'd love to hear from you!
(224) 544-9058


 SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
Enter your email address:


Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Cedar Run Legal Update - Receiver to Appear in Court 4/22/15

On Wednesday, 4/22, Al Schroeder from Heil, Heil, Smart & Golee will appear before Judge Garcia and present his second report on the status of Cedar Run.

As soon as the report becomes available, we will post it on the blog so homeowners can read it in its entirety.  For now, we encourage you to read the last report which can be found HERE.

The transcript for the hearing where this report was presented can be found HERE.

We are quite interested in seeing what this second report has to say, as there were many unresolved issues when the last report was presented.  Some of those issues included the disposition of certain documents that should have been turned over to the receiver, the status of the association's insurance coverage (workers' comp, liability), and a handful of others.  We hope to find out if there has been any progress on any of these  issues.

Stay Tuned!

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Cedar Run Legal Update - 3/25/15 Transcript Available

Dear Cedar Run homeowners,

We have now obtained the court transcript from the Rule to Show Cause hearing against Robert Sher.  It is quite long, but it contains some very telling information, including a sworn testimony from Robert Sher himself.

You can read the transcript by clicking HERE.

***UPDATE***
COPY OF COURT ORDER NOW AVAILABLE
CLICK HERE
**************

For now, here are some highlights:


CONTEMPT OF COURT
Judge Garcia did rule that a letter sent by Robert Sher in early March DID VIOLATE the TRO order (and/or the stand still order).  Therefore, Robert Sher was found in contempt of court.

The Judge stated that Sher's letter, despite a small disclaimer, was still an attempt to communicate with homeowners in an official manner (page 47, line 14).  The large headlines about assessment reductions, the countless references to his actions while on the oversight committee, and even the return address on the envelope claiming to be from "Cedar Run" (see below), were enough to convince the Judge that Sher was simply trying 'get around the order' but still communicate with homeowners in an official capacity.

Return address from Sher's March 2015 mailing


SHER'S TESTIMONY


Robert Sher insisted that he has done "nothing but good" for the Cedar Run community.  That's right, folks...NOTHING BUT GOOD!  He says it at least twice during his testimony (page 14, line 12; page 15, line 17) .  We won't even touch this one right now.  We find the truth to be quite self-evident on this topic.

The blog continues to gain notoriety.  Robert Sher says the word 'blog' (referring to THIS blog) at least 10 times during his testimony.  He tries to argue that the information we disseminate on this blog is false and that he was entitled to issue his letter (as an individual) and defend his name.

Our response:  The information on this blog is not only TRUE, but we back it up by posting documents and evidence that PROVE IT IS TRUE.  When this information is not favorable for the Sher/Shaw cause, Robert Sher resorts to measures like telling owners that the court transcripts we've posted are fake.  The truth has almost always been against the Sher/Shaw group's interests, and Sher will go through great lengths to suppress any facts that aren't favorable to him.

That said, we'd like to thank Robert Sher and the entire Shaw clan (Barbara, Jack, Anne, and Caryn) for reading and following our blog.  Many thanks as well for providing the feedback (in court) that proves that this blog has made a difference.  Your feedback tells us that this blog has provided Cedar Run homeowners with the badly needed counterpoint to a narrative that the HOC (under the direction of Robert, Barb, & Jack) has created via their slanderous, self-aggrandizing, so-called 'Newsletters', and the (even more slanderous and self-aggrandizing) clubhouse presentations.



Anne Shaw Removed From Courtroom


After interjecting multiple times and trying to object to other arguments made in court, Anne Shaw was told by the Judge to leave the courtroom (page 34, line 20).  Apparently the Judge would only allow one Shaw sister to speak or object on behalf of Robert Sher, and the Judge decided it should be Caryn Shaw.  Anne apparently did not respect this, so OUT THE DOOR SHE WENT!!

While this incident may be quite embarrassing for Anne Shaw professionally, it really had no bearing on the Judge's ruling.

Consequences

While it is still not clear what type of sanctions there will be for Robert Sher (if any), we do know that a letter will be issued and sent to homeowners by the receiver.  This letter will address all of the major points and falsehoods in Sher's letter, in an effort to clear up any confusion it spurred.  Timeline of this letter is still not clear.

****UPDATE****
The letter that will be sent by the receiver will "purge the civil contempt", meaning that there will be no further sanctions against Robert Sher. (page 3, paragraph 3 of the court order) so long as this letter addresses all concerns raised from Sher's letter.

The Judge will be reviewing drafts of the receiver's letter in court on April 13th, 2015, and he will hopefully make a ruling as to its contents.  That said, the earliest we would see this letter in our mailboxes would be the 3rd week of April.
****************

What we must also clearly state is that the order against Robert Sher for contempt of court is NOT any kind of CRIMINAL verdict.  The Cook County Chancery Division is a CIVIL Court.  Based on some of the reader comments on previous blog entries, we feel it is important to make this distinction.

Still Unresolved

One significant issue that the Judge decided not to address at this hearing was Sher's handling of documents that should have been turned over to the receiver.  To recap, on March 10, 2015, the receiver's report stated that certain expense records had not been turned over by Robert Sher.  This was supposed to be addressed at the 3/25 Rule to Show Cause hearing.

The Judge decided not to address this on 3/25, because he had received a written reply from Shaw Legal Services that appeared to be satisfactory.  However, based on comments made in court by David Bloomberg, the receiver and accountants may not totally concur the reply from Shaw Legal Services.  This issue may very well come up at a future court date.

Check back regularly for more info!
(224) 544-9058


 SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
Enter your email address: