Court hears arguments against Arbomar board

Arbomar unit owner Pete DiNicola says the condo’s board sanctioned illegal construction work, held meetings in violation of condo bylaws and neglected maintenance after firing manager Kent Lagro.

Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Gilbert Smith Jr. heard three hours of testimony Tuesday at the Manatee County Judicial Center for an emergency motion DiNicola filed Sept. 22, seeking a receivership to manage the condo association’s affairs while his lawsuit against the board is pending. Smith did not rule on the motion because the allotted three hours for the hearing ended before attorneys for DiNicola and the board could present all their witnesses.

DiNicola’s lawsuit seeks more than $15,000 in damages and claims that unlicensed work impacted the 31-unit condo’s safety and property values. The suit stems from DiNicola’s allegations that the board’s president, Walter “Chip” Major conducted illegal construction work on his and three other units in the condo, including the residence of board member Judith Spiezio. He also alleges that board members illegally held meetings in secret and didn’t follow proper procedure when they approved an $8,000-a-unit window project.

His emergency motion states: “...the Board has consistently defied procedural safeguards, notice requirements for meetings and requirements related to special assessments. As a result, Arbomar unit owners, many of which (sic) are elderly, have faced and continue to face imminent potential harm arising out of unpermitted and defective construction by an unlicensed Board member…”

Although the town red-tagged one unit for not having proper documentation, bringing a temporary halt to construction, the town removed the tag and issued permits for all three units.

DiNicola’s testimony lasted for more than half of the three-hour hearing.

“They can no longer govern the building as they’ve been entrusted to do because they’ve breached fiduciary responsibility,” DiNicola said.

The hearing ended before attorneys for the board could call witnesses to the stand, however, they told the judge that they will seek testimony from at least three or four witnesses.

Questioned by the board’s attorneys, DiNicola said he never actually saw unlicensed contract work in the units, however, he insisted that letters from the board to unit owners and documents from the town’s Planning Zoning & Building Department showed that unlicensed work occurred.

The board’s response to DiNicola’s motion, filed Nov. 3, describes it as “just another attempt to misuse this Court and the remedies provided by Florida law, to air his displeasures with the Defendants, further his crusade against the Defendants and ask the Court to ignore the wishes of the majority of Arbomar residents and instead help (the) Plaintiff exact his will on the Defendants.”

The board’s response cites a June recall effort that failed, with 15 owners voting to keep the board in place and 13 votes in favor of a recall.

DiNicola said in court that board members own six of 31 units and that unlicensed work occurred in two other units.

“In effect, they controlled eight votes, which is a quarter of the votes,” he said, insisting that among other unit owners, “the overwhelming majority of people wanted the board removed.”

Lagro, who owns a unit at Arbomar, has said he believes his termination in June was retaliatory for working with DiNicola to document unlicensed contract work.

Lagro said he believes the board had no plan in place for managing the property after his termination.

“Once this took place, no services were performed for between two to three weeks,” Lagro said. “There was no grass cutting, no pool cleaning. Someone took the garbage out, I guess.”

He characterized building security as “very poor” after his termination but said it had improved since then.
Lagro and his wife, Heidi, also have a suit pending against the association and board members that seeks more than $15,000 in damages for causes that include defamation, libel and slander.

Smith ended the hearing shortly after noon, in the middle of Lagro’s testimony.

The hearing will resume Nov. 17 or Dec. 3, depending on scheduling considerations.