Compton Green News
Compton Green News
If by chance you send a letter to the Compton Green Homeowners' Association, please send this website a copy by a Word document and we will post it here. The Board of Trustees do not share correspondence with the property owners and this site has been established to help in community communications and information.
Regarding Charles Kimbrough and the Washington State Bar Association Complaint
P.O. Box 70067
Bellevue, WA 98007
Please be advised that we are making a records examination request pursuant to RCW 64.38.045(2). We are making specific requests as outlined below because during the previous examination we were provided records which had no organization and were over burdensome to examine. We are usually available every day during normal business hours except for all day Thursdays and Monday afternoons for the next 30 days. We are asking to specifically examine;
1. All notices to the members of Compton Green for meetings of the Board of Directors for the period 1995 to the present date with agenda items to be discussed.
2. All meeting minutes of the Board of Directors for the period 1995 to the present date.
3. All liens filed against property owners in Compton Green for the period 1995 to the present date.
4. All meeting minutes of the Board of Directors for the period 1995 to the present date.
5. All correspondence from all members to the Board of Directors or the association for the period 1967 to present date.
6. All correspondence from the Board of Directors/association to any member of Compton Green Homeowners' Association for the period of 1967 to present date.
7. All correspondence from any Compton Green attorney to anyone other than the Board of Directors.
8. All sign in sheets for all meetings and proxy votes delivered to the Board of Directors or board members for the period 1967 to present date.
9. All liens for failure to pay any assessment or fine for the period 1967 to present date.
10. All notices for violations of the governing documents of Compton Green for the period 1967 to present.
11. All notices of fines levied against any Compton Green Property owner for the period 1967 to present date.
12. The check register, checks and all receipts pertaining to checks written for the years 2003 and 2004 and 2005.
Please advise when these records will be made available. It would be helpful and expedite the examination of the requested records were organized to subject matter.
July 6, 2008
To: Washington State Bar Association
1325 Fourth Avenue Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-2539
Re: Compliant against Charles Kimbrough (CK) & Ken Hart (KH).
RPC 8.4 (a)(c)(d)
We ask the WSBA to require Charles Kimbrough and Ken Hart to answer this complaint.
RPC 3.3, CANDOR TOWARDS THE TRIBUNAL, (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal, (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, (c) If the lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall promptly disclose this fact to the tribunal.
In a litigation matter in 1996-98 Charles Kimbrough represented the Compton Green Homeowners' Association (CGHOA). We are both members of that association. The litigation involved an unused dedicated easement. Charles Kimbrough represented the Association and thus each member.
Without a long explanation of the case but right to the point of this complaint; Charles Kimbrough wrote and produced a declaration to the court by the president of the CGHOA that stated “The Compton Green Homeowners' Association has no ownership interest in the property underlying the disputed trail, nor does the Association have easement rights in the property.” See exhibit 1.
This year in February, the Association had a meeting with the City of Bellevue regarding the unused trail which was litigated in 1996-98. He stated at the meeting that the Association has easement rights in the trail. This is literally a contradiction to his statement in the declaration. He either then believed his statement to be correct or he produced a false statement to the court. Somewhere between the litigation and this February he changed his opinion.
The importance of his flip flop is extreme. Had he correctly stated to the court the Association had easement rights in 1996, the litigation would have been changed drastically. The plaintiffs would have had to name the Association as a defendant because they would have had the same rights as we did. Also he would have had to acknowledge his own rights in the unused easement.
Why did Charles Kimbrough take this position? He had a huge conflict of interest in the litigation. He wanted to keep his unused trail easement closed. So he sided with the plaintiff’s position that rights to the trails had ceased. Had he represented to the court the correct facts he would have been admitting he too had a valid easement.
The other conflict of interest is that his wife was a board member approving payments to him. CK and his wife enriched themselves while giving the association property rights away and apparently protected themselves too.
The Rules of Professional conduct prohibit conflicts of interest. This is exactly what the rule is to prohibit. CK was essentially protecting his own property interests by using association funds in which some property owners were opposed to the plaintiff’s assertions. There were two camps. CK chose to go with the camp which most closely represented his own interests and not the associations' interest. CK should have stepped out of the paid attorney role and just remained as a property owner. His conflict of interest was over the top.
To this end he also violated all the above other mentioned RPC’s. But not to confuse the matter it can not be disputed that the statement CK made to the court is false. He either knew it was false or made a mistake. If it’s a mistake CK is obligated by 3.3(c) to retract his statement. If he actually knew he was making a false statement to the court, then he has committed fraud and misconduct of the RPC’s.
We believe even after all the time that has passed, which really isn’t that long since the date of the last court filing, CK should go back into the court and correct his mistake or the fraud.
We also believe it important that the WSBA also knows that Ken Hart, attorney for plaintiff’s worked closely with CK and no doubt conspired with him. There is a letter that was discovered way past the trial that shows that exact fact and is directly related to the misstatement of fact and evidence which this complaint complains of.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and on behalf of all those also believing CK sold out the association property rights without discussion or permission.
2008 Compton Green
Annual Meeting Minutes
Please send corrections to email@example.com
Jack Creighton brought the meeting to order at 7:10 pm. He first allowed the announcement to be made about recording the meeting. The announcement of the recording was made with a statement that said if certain conditions came about regarding certain comments being directed towards the recorder then in that regard those comments will be recorded. None of those conditions came about so no recording was made. There is more about those issues below. Noticeably the Kimbroughs were absent from the meeting. There were questions ready to pose to them about selling out the CGHOA members and those property rights in the previous trail trial. There were only about 45 properties represented by vote. That is 35% of the hard cores controlling the works of Compton Green. It is important to vote “NO” at least by proxy if you don’t want to vote yes. (Comment)
Secretary Poole read the minutes of the February meeting regarding City improvements which would help with pedestrian safety. No copies were made available for the members. It was evident that although there are safety issues with speeders through Compton Green that those present in February did not care to have that corrected. The February meeting members persuaded the COB to not due the safety related projects. Remember there was never a formal vote by all the members in this regard. There was discussion that property owners from Compton Trails are the speeders. However Jack Creighton admitted to speeding through the neighborhood and he has changed his habits. Another member after the meeting was overheard that he (ACC member) had gotten a speeding ticket also. Jack Creighton said he will send a letter to the property owners of Compton Trails.
There was discussion about the budget and the number of lots required to pay dues. It was stated from the membership that dues according to the CC&R’s are per lot. There are 123 lots on the recorded plat map of Compton Green plus three Tracts (G, E1&E2). That totals to 126 lots/tracts required to pay dues. Jack Creighton stated he counted 120. It was noted that there are property owners like Davis 120/121 and Scott 118/119 who have two legal lots but have historically only paid one due. Scott wants to knock down house and build two houses. Davis could do the same. The failure of these multiple lots owners to pay the proper dues costs the CGHOA about $1,000 per year and much more over the past years.
There was discussion about the chipper. About 30-40 piles were out when the chipper came around this past spring. One property owner found it very beneficial to use the chipper. She figured it on cost her 16 dollars but got hundreds in value from it. One benefit of the chipper is the chips for some trails. The chipper remained in the budget.
The mailbox kiosks were discussed. They are to be redone starting in July. A notice will be sent out. It was suggested that Green metal roofs should be installed. Mr. Del Dotto thought that to be good idea and will look into it.
There were no negative comments or objections regarding a proposed ten lot subdivision at Tract G. Jack Creighton had previously agreed that Compton Green has changed and is no longer a horse community. With that as a fact there was no opposition regarding the subdivision.
There was no negative comments or objections about Tract G not paying dues since 1995 as a protest against the CGHOA policy of a two class system when everyone is be equal.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Updated October 13, 2007
President Jack Creighton does not want to give members of the association notice that the governing board is going to meet. He can not, and thus has not been able to explain how all the members of the association are going to know when the board meets so that they can observe it as explicitly allowed by State Law. RCW 64.38.035(2) “All board meetings are to be open for observation.”
Lee Davis, of lot 120/121, has stated that she is not interested in opening the trail on her property because she has selfish motivations. She says her privacy is more important. It’s certain that she uses other members’ trails to walk her horses but she does not want anyone to use her trail. A lot like the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude. Lee Davis does not understand that we are all in this community together. We are all equal and if the entire system is to work correctly then we all need to contribute equally. She is from South Africa so maybe they just do things differently there. Maybe that is why there are so many problems, the natives got tired of attitudes and that’s why her e-mail address is xcape2usa. Now she has brought that NIMBY and selfish attitude to the USA and right into Compton Green. She is an elitist for no reason. She is not above the law as she thinks. It’s a very bad attitude.
Not only does she express herself as selfish, but her improvements on her property are illegal and in violation of the community covenants. Her stable is in violation of the City Codes, a complaint is pending, and her fences are in violation of the screening easements of Compton Green. In Compton Green, no structure is to be built within ten feet of the Bridle Trail Easements. The Compton Green Covenants define fences as structures. There is only landscape allowed in that area.
It's more about Lee Davis' violations of City Code and community violations. Who is enforcing the rules in Compton Green? Is it up to each and every owner by themselves?
Tell me that all the association members have lost the rights to Lee Davis' easements. If you say that, provide documentation for that. The Compton Green Homeowners' Association, Inc. owns four properties which we pay taxes on. The "association" is a grantee of the legal dedication on the face of the plat. That cannot be disputed.
Come on Rosenstein, tell us that the "association" has no obligation to enforce the rules and has no easement rights. For a change, take a stand, that maybe we, the association members can actually rely on. Don't just hide out in the shadows. You have taken how much money out of this association? And we as an association have not but heard you speak for a few minutes. How much more you expect to get from the association?
Updated June 15, 2007
Please find recording law below, just after June 10, 2007 Update. The specific item is highlighted in Red.
Updated June 10, 2007
Compton Green has an e-mail address for you to communicate your thoughts, suggestions and complaints.
To the Members of Compton Green
June 9, 2007
Members we have a problem here. We offered the association a deal to settle all the differences and they did not let you know about that. It’s below. Just scroll down. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT AND COMPROMISE. Chapter 6, posted April 24, 2005. It’s been over two years and the board has never brought this offer to your attention. It would settle the many issues and greatly reduce the legal fess of Compton Green.
If you are or want to remain part of the silent majority you need not go any further. Your rights are being vigorously protected. Read on however to better understand the issues the board has created and how that is costing you the majority of your dues to be paid to an attorney. However it’s important that you know and understand the issues because your fees are being used and wasted. There is no end in sight to this wasted expenditure of fees on an attorney who is not protecting the members but rather protecting and advising the board on how to get around the law.
If you are part of the vocal minority please read on and vote.
A vocal minority of members are controlling the property interests of the silent majority. It’s understood that everyone is very busy and that there are property owners that just do not want to get involved with the community business. That is perfectly ok. However, this vocal minority, then gather their votes and pass agendas and go after property owners without proper due process. State Law on associations is there to protect the members
The board has levied fines for violations of the CC&R’s in the amount of $28,000 and filed a lien for those fines against the Tract G property. This is a very serious legal problem. Especially when there are so many violations in Compton Green. Is Tract G the only violator if at all? No way. There are violations all over the community and they have been there for a very long time. What is Tract G in violation of? Please come forward and tell us.
The due process rights of Tract G have been violated. The board has violated State Law and the By-laws when filing the liens. Tract G has over and over asked for the documents required for this action and nothing has come forward.
Tract G wants to be clear to the members. TRACT G IS PROTECTING THE SILENT MAJORITY AGAINST THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD. The board has access to your yearly dues. They use these funds mostly for attorney fees to protect the board. If the board would be acting lawfully they would not require an attorney, there would be no expenditure on legal fees and the dues could be used for more constructive expenditures such as maintenance of the trails. DID YOU KNOW THE ONLY REASON FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPTON GREEN HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION IS BECAUSE KING COUNTY REQUIRED AN ORGANIZATION TO BE IN PLACE WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TRAILS?
Tract G has proven its position that the fines and liens are illegally done. The board continues to use community funds in the attempt to extort the fines from Tract G.
If you are a silent majority in Compton Green you need to do nothing. Your not voting yes will be considered an automatic no vote.
If you are a supporter of the board and its actions against Tract G then you need to stand up and be identified and counted. Why? Because a majority vote of the yes votes needs to be recorded. If there is not a majority vote of support then what is the board doing by spending the community funds on these actions?
Tract G has told the board that they do not have a majority vote for these actions.
Tract G has told the board that the Rules and Regulations of Compton Green have never been approved by the membership. Have you voted and approved the Rules & Regulations? And if they have been approved why is it that there are no other fines done by the board on the other violations in Compton Green? This is discriminatory actions against Tract G.
Tract G has told the board that even if the Rules and Regulations have been approved then that State Law requires that Tract G be allowed to be heard at an open board meeting. Tract G has never been given the opportunity to speak at a meeting in which the notice stated that Tract G will be given an opportunity to speak. The State Law is below. It was enacted to protect the members of an association not the board.
Tract G has told the board that the board violates State Law by having private and closed meetings without any notice to the members. Every board meeting by State Law is required to be open for observation by each member. The board has had at least five meetings in the past year. How many notices did you get for those meetings? Tract G counts none.
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication — Consent required — Exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
[1986 c 38 § 1; 1985 c 260 § 2; 1977 ex.s. c 363 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 93 § 1.]
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1985 c 260 § 2 and by 1986 c 38 § 1, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Severability -- 1967 ex.s. c 93: "If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1967 ex.s. c 93 § 7.]