New Haven Construction, LLC

There are some misstatements presented in the complaint submitted. The [redacted] Homeowners Association was awarded possession of [redacted] Court, Plainfield, IL as part of a judgment against the home for non-payment of assessments in the amount of $4,650.75. Lieberman Management has at no...

time rented the home, nor made any profit from same. The [redacted] Homeowners Association had legal possession of the home, cleaned it, caused repairs to be made, hired an agent to manage the rental, and proceeded to rent the home. Lieberman Management did not rent the home and at no time had possession of the home. We did receive rent checks in the mail from the tenant and any monies collected as part of that rent were forwarded to the bank and applied to the balance on the account. Per Statute:   (735 ILCS 5/9-111.1)     Sec. 9-111.1. Lease to bona fide tenant. Upon the entry of an eviction order in favor of a board of managers under the Condominium Property Act, as provided in Section 9-111 of this Act, and upon delivery of possession of the premises by the sheriff or other authorized official to the board of managers pursuant to execution upon the order, the board of managers shall have the right and authority, incidental to the right of possession of a unit under the order, but not the obligation, to lease the unit to a bona fide tenant (whether the tenant is in occupancy or not) pursuant to a written lease for a term which may commence at any time within 8 months after the month in which the date of expiration of the stay of the order occurs. The term may not exceed 13 months from the date of commencement of the lease. The court may, upon motion of the board of managers and with notice to the evicted unit owner, permit or extend a lease for one or more additional terms not to exceed 13 months per term. The board of managers shall first apply all rental income to assessments and other charges sued upon in the eviction action plus statutory interest on a monetary judgment, if any, attorneys' fees, and court costs incurred; and then to other expenses lawfully agreed upon (including late charges), any fines and reasonable expenses necessary to make the unit rentable, and lastly to assessments accrued thereafter until assessments are current. Any surplus shall be remitted to the unit owner. The court shall retain jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of the expense of making the unit rentable. (Source: P.A. 100-173, eff. 1-1-18.)  The Association leased to a bona fide tenant and collected rent from same. The lease started in February 2017 and continued until October 2017. During this time the Association collected the rent and any and all monies received were applied as required by statute. The rent paid the past due assessments and charges awarded by the Court on October 9, 2015. This was stayed to February 8, 2016. The eviction with the Will county Sheriff was on July 28, 2017. At that time, items were removed from the home per our eviction order. As of early January 2017, repairs had been made to the home, cleaning had been performed, and the home was listed for rent.   The Association rented within the eight months required by law. The term of the lease was for thirteen months. We are then permitted to put rent monies to expenses to make the unit rentable. Any additional monies collected would go towards to the assessments after the judgment. There was no surplus. When the tenant moved out in October 2017, [redacted] still had a balance on the account and the Association had not yet been made whole. Please review the statue which allows the Association to both rent the home and become whole. There is nothing that says that if the Association attempts to rent the home to lessen the balance that the Association will no longer be able to collect the six months amounts listed in the Illinois Condominium Property Act. Per State Law:  Sec 18.5 (g-1) The purchaser of a unit of a common interest community at a judicial foreclosure sale, other than a mortgagee, who takes possession of a unit of a common interest community pursuant to a court order or a purchaser who acquires title from a mortgagee shall have the duty to pay the proportionate share, if any, of the common expenses for the unit that would have become due in the absence of any assessment acceleration during the 6 months immediately preceding institution of an action to enforce the collection of assessments, and the court costs incurred by the association in an action to enforce the collection that remain unpaid by the owner during whose possession the assessments accrued. If the outstanding assessments and the court costs incurred by the association in an action to enforce the collection are paid at any time during any action to enforce the collection of assessments, the purchaser shall have no obligation to pay any assessments that accrued before he or she acquired title. The notice of sale of a unit of a common interest community under subsection (c) of Section 15-1507 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall state that the purchaser of the unit other than a mortgagee shall pay the assessments and court costs required by this subsection (g-1).  Per Statute, if the Association collects the money, you would have no obligation to pay the six months amount. The problem here is that they didn’t collect all the money. As of January 17, 2018, prior to your first payment (and before we had gotten paperwork on the transfer in ownership), the balance on the former owner’s account was $4,457.69.   The Association is entitled by State Law and the judgment obtained to collect on the former owner’s balance. There is nothing in the law that states if we collect some of the money the buyer doesn’t have to pay. The requirement is that if we collect all of the money, the buyer doesn’t have to pay. The Association still had a significant balance on the account at the time of sale. When an owner purchases a home without obtaining a paid assessment letter, they cannot be guaranteed that the balance has been paid. As a purchaser at a foreclosure/ sheriff’s sale, you should have been made aware that you are responsible for those costs that are specifically designated to be awarded to the Association by State Law, and you clearly are responsible for costs incurred after the sale. Additionally, the Board has a fiduciary duty to all owners to collect the amount provided for by State Law. The Association will already have to write off $2,269.50. They should not have to reduce the amount they are required to collect by Law to benefit one owner to the detriment of 681 owners. Per The Illinois Condominium Property Act, Section 18.5 Master Associations, “In the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board, whether appointed by the developer or elected by the unit owners, shall exercise the care required of a fiduciary of the unit owners.” Forgiving money that the Association is entitled to would be a violation of their fiduciary duty.   Additionally, as of this response, you have not paid any of the amounts required by State Law- that you have been aware of for almost two months. Under the Association’s Collection Policy, a balance such as yours should have been turned over to the Association’s attorney for collection. Lieberman has explained these charges to you via email several times, but failure to make payment will force us to turn this over to the Association’s Attorney per the Board Collection Policy. Please be aware, any costs incurred by the Association to collect these State law required amounts will be charged back to you as well. Due to your dispute, we have been giving you additional time to make payment. Unfortunately, we can not provide any more extensions. Please be aware- your account, per the Association's Collection Policy will be turned over to the Attorney on March 31, 2018. We are sorry that we cannot waive these amounts, but the Association is entitled to this money by State Law and the Association's attorney reviewed this and determined that these amounts are due and owing. Please make payments, or make a request for a payment plan so that we can avoid additional costs.

Charging a fee for a legally required assessment status letter is a standard practice with community association managers in Illinois and other markets nationwide, and not specific to our market. Fees may vary in different metropolitan areas, and our fee for a Paid Assessment Letter is comparable...

with those charged by other Chicago area property management companies. To clarify, the requestor paid out of pocket $150 for the Paid Assessment Letter. The other $25 Paid Assessment letter charge is a buyer's charge, collected at closing. Chicago market pricing for a Paid Assessment letter ranges from $100- 200 with a market average of $162. By statute, the Association has 30 days in which to respond to a request for assessment status. Realizing this is not practical, the industry standard response time is between 5-10 business days for a standard price ranging from $100-200. Most management companies offer to complete items in a faster time frame for an addtional charge, known as Rush Processing, ranging from $50 - $200 depending on turn around. The majority of files at our offices are not processed with Rush Processing, as those firms have planned for their clients needs in a more timely fashion. However, to accommodate the last minute requests, our firm and others offer accelerated processing. Accelerated processing means that other standard process files are temporarily set aside to work on the accelerated files to accommodate their specific closing. The extra cost covers addtional labor costs incurred to process last minute files. Specifically this file was not opened until the requestor placed an order on February 23 with a March 4 closing date, or 8 business days. The requestor had the option to move their closing back a few days if they wished to not pay an accelerated fee, but they elected to pay the fee up front, knowing that the product would be delivered in time for their client. The voluntarily chose to pay the $125 rush fee to meet their needs. The amount charged for preparation of the documents has no direct relationship to the level of assessments paid. Regarding the $25 budget charge, those documents have always been available at no charge to Association members, ie: unit owners. There is no expectation either in statutory language or in the marketplace that third parties who are not members of a Community Association are entitled to any benefit provided to unit owners, and they should pay for documents they elect to purchase.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/10) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted]
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@lmsnet.com
The customer's request to have their March 2015 late charge waived on their account was sent to the Board of Directors and reviewed at...

the May 2015 board meeting.
We previously sent the customer an email on 4/22/2015 to notify them of this process. After careful review and consideration, the Board of Directors declined their request, based on their account history, as the customer has had late charges removed from their account in the past.
Please remember that we are the property management company and can only waive or remove fees at the approval and direction of the Board of Directors.
When the customers payment was made on-line through [redacted] the amount may pull from the customers bank account the same day, but it does not post that same day, per the Paylease website.
Thank you,
[redacted] Property Manager
[redacted] of [redacted]
Homeowners Association
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Is it acceptable that my payment cleared on the 10th of the month and the association waited to post it until the 11th and charge me a $25 late fee?
I received a generic response that payments are not posted on weekends or holidays. March 10th was a Tuesday, clearly not a holiday or weekend. I also received a letter that they denied my request ONLY after I submitted a complaint to the Revdex.com. There was no careful consideration as stated or response. They stated they removed previous late charges from my account. The previous late charge was removed for the exact SAME reason as this time. My payment cleared on the 10th and they did not post it until the 11th and charged me a late fee. It was removed last time. Why is this time different?
I understand that payments are due on the 1st of the month but late fees are not assessed unless received after the 10th. If the payment clears from my account on the 10th, it is paid. I find it very deceitful to post it the next day and charge me a fee. I made the payment days before the 10th and it cleared on the 10th. It states on the payment slip as well that late fees are charged after the 10th of the month.
I have my bank statement that clearly shows it went through on TUESDAY, March 10th and will submit if necessary. Community trust credit union is the bank my account is at (Phone number XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Thank you for your time,
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/06/26) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted],PM
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@lmsnet.com
The customers request was previously submitted to the Board of Director's. The Association's Board of Director's denied the owners request to waive the late fee. As the managing agent for the association, we are unable to waive the fee without approval from the Board of Director's. We must follow the direction of the Board in this matter. Thank you

One of a management companies primarily responsibilities to a community association, is to enforce the Association's Rules and Regulations.  Management is not the decision make in the process, nor does it receive any of the proceeds from any fines.  The Board of Directors of the...

association is the final arbitrator of its Rules issues and the community receives the funds from the violation fine process.  In addition to enforcement, the management company is also responsible to assist the Board in the fair handling and due process of any violation issues.  In this case of the guest parking violations by [redacted], we feel that this matter was handled according to the Rules and Regulations of the community (approved by the Board of Directors of the community) and proper due process procedures were followed.    In detail, the complaint from [redacted], the first violation was reported by a Board member on 8/19/2016 for this unit owner's navy blue Passat, (plate #[redacted]).  The violation occurred from 8/19/2016, 8/20, 8/21, 8/22 and 8/23.  The car was parked in visitor parking continuously. They parked in guest parking again with another vehicle (Silver [redacted] - plate # [redacted]) on 9/1/2016, 9/23, 9/24, 9/25 and 9/26.  Per the rules and regulations:   1. Resident use of guest parking spaces is permitted from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday only.     2. Posted parking regulations shall serve as written warning of required parking procedures so adopted by the Association. Parking violators will be towed without prior written warning.  3. Where a fine is imposed, it shall be in the amount of $55 for a single incident of violation and then the additional sum of five dollars ($5.00) per day for a violation of a continuing nature until the violation has been corrected and the Association has received written notice of the correction.   As approved by the association legal counsel, the posted signs serve as a first warning (in addition to the printed rules and regulation), the owner was sent a violation letter on 9/29 in response to the August violations and they were invited to attend a hearing on 10/18 to discuss the matter.  They failed to attend this hearing.  In absentia, the fine of $60 was imposed for the August violation - $55 fine, plus $5 for the continuous day. They also imposed a $125 fine for the September violations - two separate days ($55 each) plus three continuous days ($5.00 each for a total of $15).   The two determination letters (one for the August violations and the second for the September violations) were sent to this owner that stated that the Board's decision is final, pursuant to the governing documents for the Association.  It did not state that the owner could not dispute the fines, or come before the Board at a future meeting.  In response to the letters, the owner did not follow the offered options to dispute the violations and opted to contact the Revdex.com instead of contacting Lieberman first for additional information or to inquire as to procedures on how they he could go about disputing the fines.   Due to the limited guest parking available, this Board is very strict on how they handle visitor parking violations.  When a violation letter is sent, and an owner fails to attend the next meeting for a hearing to dispute it, the Board will impose the fines. As the managing agent, we are unable to reverse the fines, however the owners may dispute their use of guest parking at a hearing at the November 15th meeting at 6:30 PM, at which time the owners may directly address the decision makers, the Board of Directors, to dispute matter.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The balance was eventually dropped to 0.  I had the closing lawyer send me copies of the certified checks, from the previous owner, made out to Lieberman at the time of closing.  Lieberman, for whatever reason never cashed the checks.They then insisted that I owe this money. As for the time line and responses that Lieberman states. Complete and utter lies.   I made countless phone calls over the past 6 months trying to get this resolved.  Each time was like the first they were hearing of this. Each call I had to explain the situation like the first.   The regional director finally called me in early January and stated that I should have never been charged for previous owners unpaid dues. She then stated that she would remove the balance and mail me a letter stating such in a week.   A month later.....never received the letter and balance still there.  Called Lieberman and once again had to explain the situation like it was the first time.  Finally, when I said that I was going to take legal action.....poof.....magically they decided to do something.    These are unproffetional people at there worst.    Bill was erased, but not because of anything they did.   I provided them with copies of the checks that they never cashed.   Terrible business.
[redacted]

The Property Manager, [redacted] called this homeowner on May 24th and the phone number on file was not a working number.  She then called the work number and left a voicemail apologizing for this situation.  This owner should not have been turned over to the attorney as he was on...

an agreed upon payment plan.  The fees are being waived.  The owner did return the Property Manager's phone call and together they updated his contact information.  The owner thanked her for her assistance in resolving the issue.

While we appreciate the position of Ms. [redacted], Lieberman Management [redacted]s, as the Managing Agent, does not have the authority to authorize any additional work.  The authority is with the [redacted] Association Board of Directors and there is a legal process that needs to be followed, which includes reviewing the proposal for the driveway, at the next Board meeting in September.  To have the interior repair reviewed at the same meeting; Ms. [redacted] needs to follow her Association’s protocol of submitting the request in writing either by email at [redacted]@lmsnet.com or sent by mail to: [redacted] Association, 25 [redacted].  We encourage Ms. [redacted] to submit any and all information she would like reviewed by the Board including the request for a hearing if desired as soon as possible, so her hearing can be scheduled at the same September meeting. Ms. [redacted] is welcome and encouraged to attend that meeting to discuss the details with the Board.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the issue has not been resolved. Once the issue has been resolved to our satisfaction we will accept your response, however until that occurs consider this issue open as Lieberman has not delivered what we had paid for at this point. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

The Board of Directors of Yorkbrook Condominium Association instructed Lieberman Management Services to hold back $100 of their moving deposit for this unit due to damages caused by the owner during their move in the common area. The homeowner had a move out scheduled for Wednesday, March 29th. Mrs...

[redacted] was the only person with a move scheduled for a move in or out during that week. The damage that the board of directors found was on March 30th. Mrs [redacted] emailed her dispute to the board of Directors. Her dispute was reviewed by the board of Directors and denied, again by the Board of Directors. Lieberman Management Services acts on behalf of the Board of Directors. Mrs [redacted] has been notified that if she would like to further contest this violation she can schedule a hearing with the board of Directors for their next meeting in August. Thanks!

The Board of Directors make the decision for Yorkbrook Condominium Association. We take direction directly from the Board on how to proceed with things. Unfortunately the next Board meeting is not scheduled until August. At that time we will provide her with the Board's decision after the meeting. Mrs. [redacted] is more than welcome to attend the meeting to dispute the charge; otherwise, the Board will review her request during the executive session of the meeting. The Boards final decision will be corresponded to her via mail after the meeting, either way.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:First, I verbally discussed with the closing department at LMS regarding the types of repairs that the closing deposit would cover.  I was informed that it would cover any damage that occurred during the moving process and that I would receive written notice within 30 days of closing of any damage.  I submitted my new address to LMS and I have never received anything in writing. Second, I have told Mr. [redacted] on numerous occasions that I was never notified in writing or verbally of any damage due to the move.  The only damage noted was items that LMS concedes is outside the scope of the association (skylights) or regular maintenance of the association property (decks).  I have given LMS my updated address verbally and via email many times.  (document 2015-05-08) They are acknowledging here that the staining and repairing to the deck did not occur during the move out.  In the 10 years that I lived at [redacted] Court, the association periodically came out to stain and repair the decks.  This was a maintenance issue.  Again, has nothing to do with a move out deposit.Third, note on the document named “2015-10-27 Message” the conversation with [redacted] (look at date July 17, 2015 and follow ups on the same document) stating that the board agreed with my position that the repairs were the responsibility of the new owner.  And that once the letter was mailed, that I would receive my deposit.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

$71.49 has been removed from owner's account per their request.

LMS has handled this issue within the rules of the Community Association and legal requirements. LMS is contractually required to enforce this Association’s rules and regulations exactly as written. The Association rules and regulations note the following move-out rule: “All moves must be...

completed by the designated times. Unit owners will be charged overtime to cover the cost of maintenance to stay after hours moves that exceed the designated times.”The lease between Ms. [redacted] and the owner of the unit do not supersede the Association’s rules regarding moving.Ms. [redacted] requested a move time of 2 to 5 pm. On the move day, [redacted] wrote an incident report stating that the move was not completed until 5:55 pm. The Chief had to stay an additional hour to oversee the move. I forwarded these documents to Ms. [redacted] and filed them in LMS’s records.Regarding the statement of management’s treatment of the residents – the only other interaction anyone in the management office had with Ms. [redacted] was to help solve a cable TV and internet issue. Copies of that e-mail thread are also available for review. Cable TV and internet are not provided by the Association and the residents were having difficulty in working with the unit owner in obtaining service. Management provided contact information for suppliers of both services.Regarding the statement that management “went to the unit owner” with the information regarding the late move. As noted in the Association’s governing documents, the Declaration and By-Laws, the unit owner is responsible for the actions of their tenants, guests, etc. Management must notify the unit owner immediately, as the owner would be responsible for any charges and then could recover them from the tenant.Finally, the comment about a race/sex component of managements treatment of both residents; I met Ms. [redacted] only once during her time at the property -- the Friday before her move out to follow up on voice and e-mail messages that she had sent to me. Her roommate/fiance would regularly stop by the office with questions about the cable tv and internet issue, and, prior to the move out with questions about the policy.

Although Lieberman is no longer the managing agent for the association, all records and information obtained through the leasing program, which was approved by the Board of Directors for the association, has been submitted to the new management company as well as forwarded to the Board for review...

and follow up. This fee cannot be refunded as all documentation was already collected and reports were generated as required. The fee is an up front annual fee to process leasing documents and that is the reason we would not be able to prorate a refund. We cannot verify if the new management company will charge a fee given the fact that the information has already been forwarded to them. All questions pertaining to the tracking of the requirement leasing documentation and fees should be directed to the new management company.