Below is a timeline of facts as to the disposition of
this filing. Dates for sale of property was determined via
research of the El Paso County Records. Many of the items outlined
between the Metro District Counsel and Melody/Dr Horton are included as
exhibits in the Motions for Summary Judgment at the end.
- 2000 July El Paso County shows first sale of Filing 8 Property these were the Model Home for Melody held by One Nine Nine Four LLC.
- 2000 November Declaration of Covenants filed with El Paso County by Melody Homes
Doc ID 200136133.
- 2001 May Additional Model home held by Michael & Janice Pizzi.
- 2001 August First Melody Home sold for occupancy.
- 2003 February 18 Amendment to Declaration of Covenants filed with El Paso County by Melody Homes
Doc ID 203034235, effectively stripping the Covenants of enforcement.
- 2004 - Final Model Home Built by Melody Homes, Held in their name.
- 2004 November Last Melody Home sold to individual leaving a single model as their property.
- 2005 January Meeting held by homeowners at Woodmen Hills Elementary to discuss having covenants enforced. Result was a NO vote, issue was dropped by home owners.
- 2006 April Last Melody Model home sold to individual.
- 2007 February Metro Districts attempts to get Melody / Dr Horton to sign Covenants to them.
- 2007 February Melody / Dr Horton Attorney notifies Metro District they have NO RIGHTS to sign Covenants to them.
- 2007 March Woodmen Hills Metro District
Rescinds offer of covenant enforcement to Falcon Properties.
- 2007 May Metro District Again attempts to get Melody / Dr Horton to assign Covenants to them.
- 2007 May Melody / Dr Hortons Counsel again states they have NO RIGHTS to assign the covenants to the Metro District.
- 2007 August Letter from Woodmen Hills Metro District to Melody /DR Horton counsel demanding assignments of Covenants.
- 2007 November Assignment document from Melody Homes/DR Horton to Woodmen Hills Metro District filed with
El Paso County Doc ID 207145595.
- 2007 November Assignment document from Woodmen Hills Metro District to Woodmen Hills Covenant Management Board filed with
El Paso County Doc ID 207146008.
- 2007 December received first letter from Covenant Management Board. First indication that somehow, someone thought they had a right to enforce covenants as nothing had been communicated to the community prior to this point.
- 2007 December communication started between myself, the Metro District Board, the Covenant Enforcement Board, and the Enforcement Company.
- 2008 March Demand letter sent to Counsel for Metro District and Covenant Board to stop enforcement in the Filing as they had no right to provide enforcement.
- 2008 April 94 proxies held to modify covenants to remove power of Woodmen Hills Metro District with 8 votes against. Decision was made that there would be a court challenge no matter what, so stopped proxy effort to focus on legal recourse.
- 2008 May After a couple exchanges with Counsel, we receive notice from them that they intend to proceed with enforcement. Covenant Board sends notice they intend to file suit against us (several people involved).
- 2008 June We elected to
file suit against the Metro District and Covenant Board questioning their authority to enforce covenants. That single question is central to our argument. By the end of the month several houses had formed the suit against the District and Board (mostly the District as they are the ones who strong armed the Builders).
- 2008 July
Metro District answers our complaint files counterclaims and asks for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctions against us.
- 2008 July We
answered the Counter Claims against us another family joined our law suit.
- 2008 August We made a motion to expedite legal proceedings.
- 2008 August In an attempt to run us out of money. The
Metro District filed Motions to compel us to serve every person listed on a title in our filing. They were even so confident as to
write the order for the Judge.
- 2008 August Case Management Conference, the Judge stated he was NOT INCLINED to order us to serve all property owners of the filing. The only people who would benefit from such an order would be the Metro District. He felt it appropriate that they should bear the cost for such an exercise.
- 2008 September Judge wanted both counsel to come up with a list of stipulated (agreed) facts for use in a possible Summary Judgment.
Order was submitted to NOT Require us to serve all property owners.
- Long Pause here as the Attorneys attempted to come up with the Stipulated Facts.
- 2009 16, March The
Metro District files a Motion for Summary Judgment against us.
- 2009 7, April We filed a response to the
Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross filed for Summary Judgment in our favor.
- 2009 14, April - Metro District Files
Reply in Support of their own Motion for Summary Judgment.
- 2009 27, April Mediation was held in this case. Part of the process is to get input from the mediator. I was told that the Metro Districts counsel would not let him talk to them.
- 2009 27, April - We filed a
Motion and Reply for Motion of Summary Judgment.
- 2009 20, May
Judge Schwartz grants our cross-motion for Summary Judgment. A few items might need clarification, but nothing that changes his order in our favor.
- 2009 06, July - Attorney's for the Metro District and Covenant
Board Filed and appeal to the 20 May Ruling. They have sighted
the actions in August and September 2008 as a basis for the appeal.
- 2009 October - After the Appellate Court ordered Counsel for the
Metro District and Covenant Board to 'Show Cause' as to why the
Appeal should not be dismissed (the Counsel for the Metro District
and Covenant Board kept filing BEFORE they were legally allowed to
at @ $750 a pop) AGAIN. I had Jackie push the appeal paperwork
through so we could get moving on the appeal.
- 2010 27, January - Counsel for the Metro District filed their
- 2010 26, February - We filed our
Answer Brief for the Appeal
- 2010 12, March - Counsel for the Metro District filed their
Reply Brief to our Answer Brief
- 2010 17, June -
Appellate Court Issues a Unanimous Ruling (3 Judge Panel) to
uphold Judge Schwartz's Decision of 2009 20, May. They also
expand on the rational of why he was correct in his ruling.
This is further explained if you start reading on page 5 of the
Appellate Decision - this brings into question ALL of the
assignments being used by the Metro District in Covenant