I am the VP of the Board of Shadowood Homeowners Association (SHA) Shelton, WA, and so am a client of Robert D. Wilson-Hoss (Shelton, WA - WSBA #8620) who provided a service to SHA.
In a fact-finding meeting with only the President and Treasurer, Wilson-Hoss pressured them into agreeing to immediately contract for a service that Shadowood in my opinion simply did not need. The President and Treasurer, who have no legal training, were so convinced by his pressuring that they contracted for his services without prior Board approval. I have had a year of law school and recognized instantly that the service he said was so critical was simply not needed in my opinion. Furthermore, there was a simple option available to us to delay the lawsuit so the President and Treasurer could have gotten proper Board approval. I requested twice that Wilson-Hoss return his fee to Shadowood, but he refused. So the bottom line is that in my opinion Wilson-Hoss (1) pressured unknowledgeable people to violate their duty to get Board approval for a purchase; and (2) charged us for something we did not need.
Wilson-Hoss responded by letter to the Board, but that response was totally unconvincing and his key statements, in my opinion, were absolutely and totally false.
For complete details Google this: Robert Wilson-Hoss saveshadowood lawyerresponse
Case law such as Lake Limerick v. Hunt Homes 120 Wn. App. 246 (2004) (where Hunt claimed he did not have to pay dues) says "Hunt would be unjustly enriched if it could retain that benefit without paying for it, and THUS THE LAW WILL IMPLY A CONTRACT TO PAY DUES." What is exceptionally noteworthy about this case is that LAKE LIMERICK WAS REPRESENTED BY NONE OTHER THAN WILSON-HOSS HIMSELF.
The Board Members of Shadowood are responding to the review written by a VP of the board. He did not attend the meeting with the lawyer even though he knew about it and he could have been there. It was not a secret. Three SHA homeowners were there - 2 directors and one homeowner. SHA directors are very satisfied with the outcome of the legal services provided by Robert Wilson-Hoss and we did not feel pressured to ask him to represent us. Here are the facts: In January we were sued by Homestreet Bank. Had they been successful, we would have lost all rights in perpetuity over the property. Mr. Wilson-Hoss's efforts were successful and we were dropped from the suit. The treasurer offered to pay the legal fee from personal funds but the Board chose to pay it by a vote of 4 yeses and 1 no (vote by VP). This complainant clearly states in a previous e-mail to homeowners that what he writes are his opinions and unproven facts. Attorney Robert Wilson-Hoss did a great service for us and we unequivocally, highly and without reservations recommend him to others.
Opinion: The complaint was directed to lawyer Robert Wilson-Hoss, not to the Shadowood Board. Other consumers reading this will not find anything useful about Wilson-Hoss in the Board's response.
The issue in question was whether a bank foreclosing on one of our lots could extinguish our lien rights forever. Wilson-Hoss claimed in his 10/14/14 letter to the Board that if we ignored the suit "... the bank would have taken a judgment extinguishing all of Shadowood's rights in the lot. Including its covenant rights." In my opinion this is blatantly false for the following reasons:
1. The allegation in the lawsuit simply said no such thing.
2. The prayer for relief in the lawsuit simply said no such thing.
3. We already had the protection we needed in our 1980 CC&R 22, which explicitly prohibits foreclosures from extinguishing lien rights.
4. Case law such as Lake Limerick v. Hunt Homes 120 Wn. App. 246 (2004) (where Hunt claimed he did not have to pay dues) says "Hunt would be unjustly enriched if it could retain that benefit without paying for it, and THUS THE LAW WILL IMPLY A CONTRACT TO PAY DUES." What is exceptionally noteworthy about this case is that LAKE LIMERICK WAS REPRESENTED BY NONE OTHER THAN WILSON-HOSS HIMSELF.
Hunt wound up paying Wilson-Hoss's fees, and Lake Limerick got their back dues with interest. Obviously Wilson-Hoss knew how false his 10/14/14 claim about our case was. I will leave it to the reader to figure out if the facts here support a charge of fraud against Wilson-Hoss, given that his very own case conclusively proves how wrong he was, in my opinion.
For more details Google this: Robert Wilson-Hoss saveshadowood lawyerresponse
or else see saveshadowood.org/lawyerresponse/
Note: Although I am the VP of the Shadowood Board, my complaint is submitted by me only.
Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP Reviews
I am the VP of the Board of Shadowood Homeowners Association (SHA) Shelton, WA, and so am a client of Robert D. Wilson-Hoss (Shelton, WA - WSBA #8620) who provided a service to SHA.
In a fact-finding meeting with only the President and Treasurer, Wilson-Hoss pressured them into agreeing to immediately contract for a service that Shadowood in my opinion simply did not need. The President and Treasurer, who have no legal training, were so convinced by his pressuring that they contracted for his services without prior Board approval. I have had a year of law school and recognized instantly that the service he said was so critical was simply not needed in my opinion. Furthermore, there was a simple option available to us to delay the lawsuit so the President and Treasurer could have gotten proper Board approval. I requested twice that Wilson-Hoss return his fee to Shadowood, but he refused. So the bottom line is that in my opinion Wilson-Hoss (1) pressured unknowledgeable people to violate their duty to get Board approval for a purchase; and (2) charged us for something we did not need.
Wilson-Hoss responded by letter to the Board, but that response was totally unconvincing and his key statements, in my opinion, were absolutely and totally false.
For complete details Google this: Robert Wilson-Hoss saveshadowood lawyerresponse
or else see saveshadowood.org/lawyerresponse/
Charges to do work that is not needed
i agree with association VP
Case law such as Lake Limerick v. Hunt Homes 120 Wn. App. 246 (2004) (where Hunt claimed he did not have to pay dues) says "Hunt would be unjustly enriched if it could retain that benefit without paying for it, and THUS THE LAW WILL IMPLY A CONTRACT TO PAY DUES." What is exceptionally noteworthy about this case is that LAKE LIMERICK WAS REPRESENTED BY NONE OTHER THAN WILSON-HOSS HIMSELF.
Response to VP complaint
The Board Members of Shadowood are responding to the review written by a VP of the board. He did not attend the meeting with the lawyer even though he knew about it and he could have been there. It was not a secret. Three SHA homeowners were there - 2 directors and one homeowner. SHA directors are very satisfied with the outcome of the legal services provided by Robert Wilson-Hoss and we did not feel pressured to ask him to represent us. Here are the facts: In January we were sued by Homestreet Bank. Had they been successful, we would have lost all rights in perpetuity over the property. Mr. Wilson-Hoss's efforts were successful and we were dropped from the suit. The treasurer offered to pay the legal fee from personal funds but the Board chose to pay it by a vote of 4 yeses and 1 no (vote by VP). This complainant clearly states in a previous e-mail to homeowners that what he writes are his opinions and unproven facts. Attorney Robert Wilson-Hoss did a great service for us and we unequivocally, highly and without reservations recommend him to others.
Why doesn't Robert Wilson-Hoss defend himself?
Opinion: The complaint was directed to lawyer Robert Wilson-Hoss, not to the Shadowood Board. Other consumers reading this will not find anything useful about Wilson-Hoss in the Board's response.
The issue in question was whether a bank foreclosing on one of our lots could extinguish our lien rights forever. Wilson-Hoss claimed in his 10/14/14 letter to the Board that if we ignored the suit "... the bank would have taken a judgment extinguishing all of Shadowood's rights in the lot. Including its covenant rights." In my opinion this is blatantly false for the following reasons:
1. The allegation in the lawsuit simply said no such thing.
2. The prayer for relief in the lawsuit simply said no such thing.
3. We already had the protection we needed in our 1980 CC&R 22, which explicitly prohibits foreclosures from extinguishing lien rights.
4. Case law such as Lake Limerick v. Hunt Homes 120 Wn. App. 246 (2004) (where Hunt claimed he did not have to pay dues) says "Hunt would be unjustly enriched if it could retain that benefit without paying for it, and THUS THE LAW WILL IMPLY A CONTRACT TO PAY DUES." What is exceptionally noteworthy about this case is that LAKE LIMERICK WAS REPRESENTED BY NONE OTHER THAN WILSON-HOSS HIMSELF.
Hunt wound up paying Wilson-Hoss's fees, and Lake Limerick got their back dues with interest. Obviously Wilson-Hoss knew how false his 10/14/14 claim about our case was. I will leave it to the reader to figure out if the facts here support a charge of fraud against Wilson-Hoss, given that his very own case conclusively proves how wrong he was, in my opinion.
For more details Google this: Robert Wilson-Hoss saveshadowood lawyerresponse
or else see saveshadowood.org/lawyerresponse/
Note: Although I am the VP of the Shadowood Board, my complaint is submitted by me only.