. See generally
attached to this motion.
To the Defendant’s
knowledge, none of those persons have been sued or targeted by lawyers hired by the property
owners’ association for displaying the American flag, on a flagpole or otherwise.
On September 12, 2012, Plaintiff, via letter from attorney M. Susan Rice, notified Defendant
in writing that “It has been brought to our attention that you are violating the Declaration because you erected a flagpole on the common area of the Association.”
to this motion. Ms. Rice further advised therein that
“Notice is hereby given that you must remove the flagpole from the Association’s common area immediately.”
The president of the Forrest Lake Townhouse Association, Mr. Jim Elswick, later emailed the Defendant on November 15, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. informing the Defendant that an executive meeting would take place later that evening in which
the Defendant could protest the Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the flagpole’s location.
attached to this motion. In response, the Defendant understandably protested, via email reply sent at 4:37 p.m., that he was unavailable and not provided adequate notification of the meeting announced to begin within just a few hours.
It is unknown to the
Defendant whether the Plaintiff actually convened an executive meeting outside of the Defendant’s
presence to discuss the issue of the flagpole. On December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed suit seeking a permanent injunction requiring removal of the flagpole, fines of $200 per day for each day that the flagpole had been erected, and attorney fees of some amount. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lis Pendens
2 Interestingly, the
Notice of Lis Pendens
(which incorrectly references a lawsuit pending in Travis County, Texas) was signed on November 27, 2012 by Forrest Lake Townhouse Association President, Jim Elswick. Yet, this lawsuit was not filed until December 6, 2012. Of course, the lawful purpose of a lis pendens is to publicly record and announce the potential of clouded title to real property to a prospective buyer due to an existing lawsuit, not a lawsuit t
hat hasn’t been
filed yet. It is therefore
unclear how the Plaintiff’s president could
read and acknowledge the lis pendens document under oath (via notary) on November 27, 2012, when his notarized signature
the lawsuit filed in this case and is attached to a notice of lis pendens which quite impossibly references the lawsuit and cause number in this case