Response to articles and letters in The Cabinet about Great Brook

To the Editor:

This is a response to comments Made by Walter Swanbon referenced in the article of Nov. 28 by Kathy Cleveland.

Contrary to claims by Mr. Swanbon, we do not think we own Great Brook. We are, however, obligated to address violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules adopted and published by the board of directors.

Just as is the case with claims by Ms. Limor, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Swanbon and his followers, they can’t take back what they’ve never had. Cardiff has no fining processes. Rather, there are late charges and charge backs for costs per the bylaws and New Hampshire Condo Act and a fine schedule as adopted and published by the board.

Many at the Nov. 18 meeting came away angry at the behavior of Mr. Swanbon, his attorney and their followers. They did not speak up, however, due to the behavior that night by those in support of Mr. Swanbon and his attorney and fear of reprisals, such as the relentless appearance at the doors of owners over and over by Mr. Swanbon, his tenant and their group trying to sway people to their side.

Mr. Swanbon did not purchase his unit with “a friend,” as he is now claiming. Rather, the unit deed and the Census forms completed and forwarded by him all show he is and has been the sole owner of the unit. We continually try to help owners but there is just so much we can do when an owner refuses to accept the legal standing of the declaration and bylaws and instead insists on acting to the contrary.

This is a response to Letter to the Editor from Richard MacDonald on Nov. 28.

As a member of the board for two years, Richard MacDonald is well aware that the board, never me, appoints people to the board when there is a vacancy during a term, per the bylaws.

There was such an appointment when he was on the board. He was very much in favor of the trailer towing, as it was at the pool parking lot in violation of three parts of the published rule that that owner had approved when he was on the board, that a reminder of the requirements for the privilege of overnight parking at the pool had been posted on the mail box banks prior to the towing, and that I had no knowledge of who belonged to.

He claims there is a majority that want Cardiff removed and yet, we’ve not only seen no evidence of that, but to the contrary, there appears to be a strong majority that want nothing of the sort. There were no trailers at the pool parking lot in conflict with the published rules for over three months as he claims.


Cardiff Management