Circle C Neighbors

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION Part I

Apr 28, 2003

Circle C Homeowners Association Case.

Here will you find the documents (Adobe Acrobat & Microsoft Word) pertaining to Gammon v CCHOA.

http://www.williamgammon.com/CCHOA/index.html
--------------------------
NO. GN 300,975

WILLIAM B. GAMMON, individually and ?§ IN THE 200th JUDICIALas Representative of the Members of Circle C Homeowners Association, Inc. Plaintiff

vs. DISTRICT COURT OFCIRCLE C HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., STEVEN P. BARTLETT, KEN
RIGSBEE and JIM O?’REILLY Defendants TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF?’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE JEANNE MEURER:

COMES NOW WILLIAM B. GAMMON, Plaintiff, complaining of CIRCLE C HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CCHOA or the Association), STEVEN P. BARTLETT (Bartlett), KEN RIGSBEE (Rigsbee) and JIM O?’REILLY (O?’Reilly), Defendants, and files this, his first supplemental petition for declaratory judgment and motion for a temporary injunction and would respectfully show:

1. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 78 and 80, Plaintiff says that this first supplemental petition does not supercede his Original Petition, but augments and extends his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief contained in his Original Petition on file in this case.

2. All parties have appeared in this case and no further service of process is necessary.

3. Plaintiff, pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act as set forth in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, ?§37.001 et seq., seeks additional declarations of rights, status, and legal relations of Defendants to each other and to the members of the association. The Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Circle C Ranch Subdivision (the Declaration) set forth specific rights and duties of the officers, members of the board of directors, and individual members of the Association and are attached to Plaintiff?’s Original Petition as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These documents together are sometimes referred to herein as the Governing Documents.

4. Plaintiff says that since the filing of his Original Petition in this case additional information has become available about the actions of the Defendants, including new matters requiring resolution by the Court in order to affect a comprehensive settlement of the numerous disputes that have previously arisen. He also says that certain allegations in his Original Petition have since been established as undisputed facts. These facts now require the additional relief sought herein. Plaintiff asks the Court to determine the additional questions of rights and duties as set forth below and seeks this relief so that all controversies will be resolved by the declarations sought.

5. BACKGROUND FACTS ?– PREVIOUS ELECTIONS FOR DIRECTOR
a. Pursuant to the Governing Documents, management of the affairs of the CCHOA shall be by the Board of Directors, which initial directors were set out in the Articles of Incorporation in Article VII. Pursuant to Article VII, ?“the directors shall continue to serve until their successors are selected in the manner provided in the bylaws of the corporation.?” Article V, Section 2 of the bylaws sets forth the manner in which directors shall be elected: ?“Election to the board of directors shall be by secret, written ballot.?” There has never been a valid election of a director by the members.
b. Defendant Bartlett, one of the original Board members, is the sole director with a legitimate claim to his office. As a single director, however, he does not constitute a quorum and therefore cannot act alone to conduct any of the affairs of the CCHOA. The actions of the current ?“Board,?” therefore are not binding on the CCHOA, having been conducted in illegal meetings consisting of less than a quorum of directors. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art. 1396-2.17 establishes the statutory limitations on a quorum of directors which, pursuant to the bylaws, shall not be less than two. Any action taken without the presence of a quorum of directors is not deemed to be an act of the Board (1396-2.17 C).
c. Plaintiff thus seeks a declaration that Rigsbee and O?’Reilly are not legally elected members of the Board and are not able to bind the Board or the CCHOA with their actions. He seeks a declaration that the upcoming election for the seat on the Board now held by Bartlett shall be an election for all three seats on the Board.
d. He further seeks a declaration that actions undertaken by the Defendants are not legal Board actions and not binding on the CCHOA. He seeks a declaration that contracts and other agreements entered into by the Defendants, allegedly on behalf of the CCHOA, are voidable, if