u/Ok_Relationship_1874

Has anyone done business with or considering doing business with CAM Collective?

I reviewed a contract our HOA signed with a company that purported to be in business since 2005 but was acquired by the The CAM Collective in 2024. There's nothing wrong with this. This group specializes in acquiring management companies where owners are ready to retire. The management group itself has nearly 1000 communities in the Southeast and Ohio.

There are two potential non fatal problems with the contract for the HOA but sill brings up the questions:

1. Who are you dealing with?

2. Who do you sue if something goes wrong?

The company name for their website, marketing and contracts is not a formed company in North Carolina though they claim their offices are here, and is not a registered foreign company either. They are also not not operating under a filed Assumed Name (known elsewhere as a d/b/a or fictitious name) so we end up with:

1. A purported 21 year old company based in North Carolina that is actually a Delaware company with principal offices in Chicago formed less than two years ago. There's nothing wrong with this either except if you were a buying based on wanting a local company AND how much work you have to do if you need to sue someone and who you sue.

(In North Carolina, a company cannot operate without a valid Assumed Name certificate unless operating under the actual name and therefore any contracts are clouded. The CAM that signs the contract could end up be actual party to the contract and not the management company if it's not authorized to do business in NC.)

2. Their corporate structure claim is invalid. They claim to be a Limited Liability Corporation which isn't a thing in North Carolina.

I asked about this before but am rounding the bases after they admitted some of these facts but they show no sign of willingness to fix it.

The contract itself is probably valid. Both parties knew what they were contracting for. However, "LLC" (the real one not the fake one they are using) signals the type of liability if there is a lawsuit and I think it's deceptive. It's certainly IS otherwise deceptive.

The bottom line is the HOA could be taking on a massive headache signing a contract for an entity that isn't properly registered in North Carolina (I don't know the status of the other states). You'd probably pay a few thousand to nail down the summons properly. My other question is, would you want to do business with someone who is this sloppy?

It is good advice to do a corporate lookup on anyone you are going to sign a contract with whether it's a management company or a new car. Know who you are doing business with.

But for North Carolina in particular, until this is fixed (and it will be one way or the other), here are the two places to check:

North Carolina Secretary of State:

1. Check assumed names first. This may seem backwards but will help not go in circles:

Search Assumed Business Names

2. Search corporate names:

Search Business Registration

This way if you get a hit on an Assumed Name you can look up the owner next. If you don't get a hit on the owner in Business Registration or Assumed name, you've got a phantom and should not sign a contract with them until it's figured out.

Vantaca Home has a really cool feature where you can let a member know exactly how you have them categorized them internally. If you categorize them as a threat, that will surface and even on a portal message you think they can't see, they can.

Members tend not to appreciate these labels and I suggest CAMs not use them.

Discovery is slated to last to March. They'll come up for air in November for alternate resolution options.

Gluck's Michigan team brought on a newly graduated lawyer according to newest filings.

I was reviewing our already signed HOA contract with our management company and fir the past couple of days have tried to trace who they actually are. I know in the sense that they are real but I can't draw a direct line between the name they use and any legal name. Usually I'd chick this up to an assumed name (dba) but there's no exact match there either.

My concern is everytime they screw up, we have to pay their legal bills unless it's gross negligence. Im wondering if there's any help if the contract didn't properly identify them.

But, the first paragraph opens up weird.

"This Association Management Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between Named Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “Association”), and Named Management Group a limited liability corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the State of North Carolina, its successors, and assigns (the “Agent”)."

Issues:

"Named Management Group" is not a registered company, assumed name, or foreign company in NC.

Limited Liability Corporation is not a legal business category in the state of North Carolina.

"Organized pursuant to the laws of the State of North Carolina" cannot be true because the closest match of Named Management Group, LLC is foreign company formed in DE.

Edit: the operational name and name on contract is not registered with the Secretary of State.

If someone slipped you this accusation and you were able to verify it, what would your reaction be?

Everyone makes mistakes.

Full pricacy breach.

Something else?

"While logged in as an ordinary member of my HOA, I was able to access through Management Group’s portal a lease belonging to a resident of a property that is not part of my HOA. The lease included the names of minor children. I had no reason to have access to that resident’s lease.

I contacted the resident who expressed concerns about their safety. In my opinion, prospective clients should weigh this incident when evaluating Management Group’s handling of private resident documents and the potential for unintended disclosure. I am not a member of the board or any committee and have no reason to have elevated access to documents."

Not my HOA but same management company.

Looking for answers under NC Law.

§ 55A‑16‑02. Inspection of records by members states:

(a) A member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and location specified by

the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described in G.S. 55A‑16‑01(e) if the

member gives the corporation written notice of his demand at least five business days before the

date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy.

With allowed costs and scope:

§ 55A‑16‑03. Scope of inspection rights.

(a) A member's agent or attorney has the same inspection and copying rights as the

member the agent or attorney represents.

(b) The right to copy records under G.S. 55A‑16‑02 includes, if reasonable, the right to

receive copies made by photographic, xerographic, electronic, magnetic, or other means.

(c) The corporation may impose a reasonable charge, covering the costs of labor and

material, for producing for inspection or copying any records provided to the member. The charge

shall not exceed the estimated cost of production or reproduction of the records.

The board's policy includes a requirement of "assertation od policy understanding" before releasing records which is perplexing if the request comports with the law. This isn't in the formal policy so I'll move on.

Note that this policy was just written and not grouped with the governoring documents. They send it after you make the request.

The following is added which I find at least dubious if not ultra vires and this is the short version.

"This Policy establishes reasonable procedures"

"The Association will use reasonable efforts to make records available as promptly as practicable."

Prempted by statute.

"If the request is unusually broad, voluminous, archived, or requires legal review or redaction, the Association may require additional time."

You can negociate, but cannot require. This can be done as a court order per § 55A-16-04(a) with fee shifting to the association which is MANDATORY.

" Management must be available to meet with the owner during the requested inspection time frame before an inspection appointment will be confirmed."

No. The Association must follow statutory time limits regardless of agent availability. For our bylaws that's business hours. By statute the notice is minimum 5 days.

" Physical inspection of Association records is limited to a maximum of eight (8) hours per owner per calendar month, which may be scheduled in two (2) hour increments contingent on management availability. Inspection appointments shall be scheduled in increments of two (2) hours. If an owner requests inspection time in excess of eight (8) hours in any calendar month, the owner shall be charged the then-current contracted hourly rate paid by the Association for management time related to records inspection. "

They call this reasonable and the agent controls the pace of the inspection. The law does defines reasonable time and place, not blocks of time. The law does not permit charges for inspection time. Only for costs and labor to produce. Finally, there is no "then-current contracted hourly rate paid by the Association for management time" in the contract or any catch all or misc provisions.

"Any extended inspection time shall be billed to the owner in two (2) hour increments unless the applicable management contract provides otherwise."

See above. There is no such provision and I am not bound to the contract. At least those fees, if they existed would be arbitrary, charging someone to sit in a chair. The only per hour" meeting" fee is $125 per hour which is wildly beyond PRODUCTION costs. The agent can charge the board what it agrees, but the board can only charge ME what the law allows.

"The Association may, in its discretion, provide certain records electronically by email in lieu of an in-person inspection."

Disallowed by statute. Authenticity and metadata can not be determined in a PDF.

"The Association may satisfy certain requests by producing paper copies, electronic scans, or PDFs instead of scheduling an in-person inspection when that is a reasonable method of compliance and consistent with this Policy. "

"Reasonable" can not ovverride the statute.

Sigh. This is after withdrawing 14 years of rules that were void on inception. It appears there's more work to be done.

HOA management company removed requests (portal tickets) after they are closed but also causing the HOA to miss several statutory deadlines. I asked for copies and they broke out of the thread and moved it to email and used this subject line:

Legal/Social Media Threat

Potentially true but I never mentioned social media or publicity. They are tone deaf to reveal their hand and play dumb as to my request.

What is the default view period on closed tickets in Vantaca Home and if you use it, what is it set to?

Making requests invisible before 180 days seems inefficient. I'd say OCD or plain coverup considering the number if apologies that our management company issues.

If I did an ARC request and details are sent in a reply, what is the value of making that thread unavailable to me in a month or two.

How does this tidy inbox benefit me, the management company or the HOA?

If you use something else, what are the settings?

I can't view closed tickets on Chome for Android after a period of time.

I'm a new Go holder closing in on 23, 000 points and want to maximize redemption value. I don't want to use them at Amazon because of 5% off Prime Visa.

Since Kroger is stealthily killing off my Harris Teeter card (no notification yet) and converting to Smartly, that should mean free checking account without $1500 balance or direct deposit.

So, hold until card is replaced, redeem points to free checking account, pay Go bill from checking account.

Does this sound logical?

Partnership with Kroger is coming to an end

​

Case 3:25-cv-00878-FDW-SCR

These things are mostly boring but the important signal is the clock starts for the initial attorney conference which should run out around July 31. The next round of filings should appear after that. Then discovery plans, disclosures, pretrial orders and case management. The dismissal stage failed so it is on course for a trial.

Some of these events run at the same time. I expect a trial, or settlement to form by the end of September. Standard game plan may include a motion for summary judgment and narrowing as Vulcan has to produce documents.

Some snippets:

22. Defendants admit that Gluck had communications with Vulcan about assembly of the TALOS product and that certain parts were initially unavailable. Except as expressly

admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 22.

23. Defendants admit that Gluck communicated with Vulcan concerning certain issues he observed with the assembly instructions and cable tautness, and that he had not yet

been able to fully test the product due to missing parts. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23.

24. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations of paragraph 24 concerning the specific materials Vulcan claims to have

sent and the contents thereof, and on that basis deny them.

25. Defendants deny that Gluck stated in any telephone call that the existing cables were “fine” and that there was no need for shorter cables as characterized by Plaintiff.

Defendants deny Plaintiff’s characterization of the communications between the parties

concerning cable tautness and, except as expressly admitted, deny the allegations of Paragraph

26. Defendants admit that Vulcan communicated about a delay in the availability of new parts and offered Defendants the option of continuing to wait or having Vulcan retrieve the TALOS equipment. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 26.

We'll likely see an answer to the complaint soon before back and forth.

This isn't on the merits but whether Charlotte was the proper venue.

From the Court:

"Plaintiff’s Compliant, Response, and affidavits show Defendants entered into the Agreement with Plaintiff; Defendants received the TALOS equipment for free for review pursuant to the Agreement; and the Agreement incorporated Plaintiff’s Terms and Conditions which designated Charlotte, North Carolina as the selected forum. (Doc. Nos. 17, p. 3–5; No. 17–

4, p. 3; 17–5, p. 2; 17–6, p. 2.) Plaintiff shows Defendants would not have received the TALOS equipment or done a review thereof but for the Agreement. (Doc. Nos. 17, p. 4; 17–5, p. 2.)

Moreover, the plain language of Agreement’s forum selection clause includes any “direct[] or indirect[]” legal proceeding “arising out of or relating to this site” and provides as an example the purchase of Plaintiff’s equipment. (Doc. No. No. 17–4, p. 3.)

Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants through a valid forum selection clause that governs this dispute. See Viper Publ’g, LLC, 2017 WL 6397544, at *2. As such, Plaintiff has met its burden of making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction as to survive a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED."

In otherwords, the review could not happen without the acquisition and the acquisition includes forum selection.

WSOC TV Reporting. Video on YouTube.

​

"SHERRILLS FORD, N.C. — Homeowners in the Magnolia Cove subdivision in Catawba County said they are facing steep HOA increases, with monthly dues jumping from $350 to $1,250, along with a $10,000 special assessment. Several residents said they were not prepared for the costs and are questioning how association funds are being used, as some say litigation is already underway."

​

Cursory check shows about 80 homes platted by an LLC, not a large builder which may be a good warning sign that other properties may not be able to float financial trouble. At least 10 liens filed, idk how many resolved but the statement is the declarant is trying to recoup losses due to assessments not being paid. A foreclosure would create a superior foreclosure which will hurt tax values. Publicizing the event probably sealed the doom. If declarant is willing to do this with no vote, even if he back peddled, no one besides investors will look at it.

​

The education that could happen is know your builder. The education that won't happen is find out who is in charge of the HOA and if you have any power as a member.

​

Predictions? What would your advice be for the homeowners?

A mess of a Facebook group which disallows QUESTIONS about governing documents but a member might not know the answer is a disallowed on said documents. This is more complicated then it needs to be and I am a strong proponent of "one to many" answers. If the board shews the member to contact them privately, 500 other members will have to do the same.

​

The question:

​

"Can someone please tell me the rules on fencing the yard in or who to contact?"

​

The rule:

​

"Any questions the community documents, should be emailed to the Board, not posted on the group. The Group is intended to be a place where neighbors exchange advice and help each other. Failure to abide by the rules will lead to being banned from the group."

​

​

​

The day the HOA attorney admitted that all rules governing lots never actually existed, the board changed the Facebook rules to not allow discussions of the governing documents or face a mandatory ban. I'm thinking of testing it considering I have enough exampled of unique announcements a member would be excluded from.

I'm not asking what they are allowed to do, I'm interested to know if anyone has seen something so draconian.

​

Standard Declaration forbidding livestock but allowing "other household pets" but doesn't define "livestock". So, I sent a message to the management company. These are the exact words.

SUBJECT: Pet Goat

TEXT: I'm thinking of getting a pet goat. Dehorned and fixed.

ANSWER: “Please direct all communications through the association attorney.”

I won't but before you compute the cost in legal fees, know that not only has this been enshrined in case law, our HOA firm was the loser in that case. Sounds expensive and this case, ironic.

Steiner v. Windrow Estates

Just reporting a boring experience. First, be careful between "appky" and check for offers. I hit apply on the heels of a hard pull last month. Also, right before making big payments. I applied because I'm looking at car repairs and an international plane ticket. I got the dreaded "we'll get back to you" message at the end. This had always been a kiss of death for an application. My low score is 792, 3% utilization but I also had a big balance on Cash+.

Today, without being told I was approved, I got email to set it up. $16,200 line @ 20.99% APR compared to 22.99% on Cash+.

Apparently it really was looked at without reconsideration. 21 months for a $3500 spend with $20 per month statement credit for 11 months. I wouldn't do it without consolidation or big purchase but this gives capacity and breathing room.

New management company received a ticket that threatened a lawsuit over ARC. Happens from time to time. Usually, best too try to diffuse or send that SINGLE ISSUE to the attorney for review. Instead, without direction from our attorney, the company closed all tickets including statutory required requests and referred member to attorney. Except, there was no assigned attorney. They just gave him the number to the firm making member further unhappy.

We are a large (500+ SFH) with low friction and low fines. In other words, enforcement pays for legal fees for violations. But this isn't a violation. It's a disagreement of what can be done versus what has been done.

The general legal budget is $5,000 and we've already blown past general reserves. We have no special assessments for legal issues. There's no lawsuit to shift fees or use insurance.

We are now doing clean-up. We are paying a lawyer to review statutory requests that don't require justification after we paid management company to do so as part of the contract.

This may look like we picked a bad management company.

It may look like the attorney is padding billables but we found out the ARC was not legally implemented so lawyer thinks there's a case against us.

All he has to do is make one request per week to cost us $15K in attorney fees a year until we figure out how to end the stand off.

Bottom line: Do not direct every action through councel unless counsel directs to do so. This is not a hole you want to be in.