Issues documented in the record
The arguments below are drawn from association documents, the March 23, 2026 demand letter from Cornerstone Law Group (counsel for the homeowners), and the follow-up records request to the Board and MJF Associates. They are presented as documented facts, counsel's arguments, and opinion-based issues for review — not legal conclusions.
March 23, 2026 demand letter — Cornerstone Law Group, on behalf of the homeowners (full PDF). The letter demands removal of all fines associated with violation #123723 and argues the fines are not supported by the HOA declarations for four reasons:
- The Board has not identified a Declaration provision or homeowner duty that is the basis for this violation.
- The scope of the ARB is limited to approval and inspection of non-conforming structures resulting from the acts of owners — not storm damage.
- The fines were issued after the shutter had already been repaired (October 20, 2025).
- Counsel argues that the Declaration, Bylaws, and Articles of Association do not support assessments acting as fines.
Counsel information is available in the source PDF.
Part 1 — Authority to cite and fine
1. Storm damage, no cited Declaration basis, and limited ARB scope
According to the demand letter, the open violation resulted from a storm that hit the homeowners' house — a shutter blew off during a routine neighborhood inspection. The October 14, 2025 hearing (without the homeowners present) decided to fine them $10/day until the shutter was repaired. No Declaration or Bylaw was cited as the basis for treating "missing front shutter(s)" as a violation.
Counsel argues this enforcement effectively requires homeowners to prevent acts of God from damaging their property. The word "shutter" does not appear in the recorded Declaration, Articles of Incorporation, or Bylaws; it appears only in the ARB Criteria & Standards, which describe themselves as "a guide."
"No building, fence, wall or other structure shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon the Property, nor shall any exterior addition to or change or alternation therein be made … until the plans and specifications … shall have been submitted to and approved in writing."
— Declaration Article V, Section 1 (quoted in demand letter)
The demand letter argues this ARB scope is limited to preventing violating structures from being "commenced, erected or maintained" — and does not authorize enforcement for damage to property outside of the owner's acts. Article VII addresses owner maintenance separately, without involving the ARB and without authorizing fines, according to counsel.
Demand letter (Mar 23, 2026)
2. "Trash and Exterior Maintenance Policy" does not appear to cover shutters
The policy posted on the Association website (Resolution #2016-01, adopted October 11, 2016) addresses trash storage, vehicles, unattended items, and similar lot conditions. Despite its title, it contains no rule about shutters, siding, paint, trim, or building-component upkeep.
In our opinion, based on the evidence reviewed, the policy does not appear to supply a published rule imposing a shutter obligation backed by fines — even though the ARB Standards reference a separate "Covenant and Rule Enforcement Policy" for fine authority.
Trash & Exterior Maintenance Policy (#2016-01)
3. Covenant & Rule Enforcement Policy missing and unpublished
The ARB Criteria & Standards state that the "Covenant and Rule Enforcement Policy" gives the Board "the authority and procedures for enforcing the covenants and rules of the Association." That document is not listed on the HOA's public Documents page and has not been provided to the homeowner.
Virginia POAA § 55.1-1819(A) requires that rules "shall be reasonably published or distributed throughout the development." § 55.1-1819(B) allows violation charges only "to the extent the declaration or rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant to such declaration expressly so provide."
The records request asks for this policy, the Board resolution adopting it, its adoption date, and proof of publication to members within ten business days under Va. Code § 55.1-1815.
Virginia Code § 55.1-1819 · § 55.1-1815 (records access)
4. Fines and "daily assessments" — authority issue for review
The demand letter states plainly: "In fact, the declarations or bylaws do not authorize fines or 'daily assessments' at all." In counsel's view, the $10/day charges imposed after the October 14, 2025 hearing are assessments acting as fines without express authorization in the Declaration, Bylaws, or Articles of Association.
The follow-up records request asks the Association to identify the specific recorded Declaration provision or duly adopted, published rule it relies on to (i) treat a missing shutter as a violation, and (ii) continue assessing charges after the condition was cured. Based on documents reviewed, the homeowners have not located such a provision in writing.
Demand letter (Mar 23, 2026) · Hearing response ($10/day schedule)
Part 2 — Cure, reinspection, and continued charges
5. Repair completed before fines started
The homeowners contacted a contractor on April 21, 2025 to schedule shutter repair after storm damage. Scheduling was delayed repeatedly — the contractor was booked (April 30), then further delayed into the fall (including surgery reported September 9) — through no fault of the homeowners. The shutter was repaired and paid on October 20, 2025; the contractor invoice is dated October 23, 2025.
The stated correction deadline was November 4, 2025, and $10/day assessments were scheduled to begin November 5, 2025. The condition was cured before the first per-day charge date on the hearing record. The demand letter states the fines began anyway on November 5, 2025 and continued even after the repair — until the homeowners scheduled a reinspection to confirm the violation had been removed.
Contractor invoice (Oct 23, 2025) · Hearing response with deadlines
6. HTTP-only reinspection portal
The only self-service reinspection channel advertised in the hearing response and account statements is an HTTP-only (non-secure) website: http://mjfarb.com/reinspect/. The homeowner states he could not reasonably or securely use this system to request reinspection.
The repeated reinspection instructions point to that same portal. A phone number (703-369-6535) is listed as an alternative, but the reviewed notices provide no MJF email address through which the homeowner could document the repair or request reinspection in writing. The reversal denial nonetheless relies on delayed contact with management.
Based on documents reviewed, the homeowners have not located a governing document stating that a violation continues after cure if reinspection was not requested, or that liability continues solely because reinspection was not requested.
See portal evidence and video · Hearing response · Reversal denial form
7. Ambiguous "assessed" language in notices
The November 2025 statement reads: "Your property is currently being assessed for an open violation." In governing documents, "assessment" typically means a monetary charge (dues or fines). This phrasing can also be read as a property inspection or review.
The homeowner understood "being assessed" to mean that the property would be reviewed again through the Association's recurring inspection cycle—not that a new monetary charge was accumulating every day. In the context of monthly account statements, the wording did not clearly distinguish a property assessment from a daily financial assessment.
Account statement (Nov 10, 2025)
8. Continuing charges after cure — reinspection not required by governing documents
The demand letter argues: "Nothing in the declarations or bylaws tie fines to re-inspection scheduling, notice of cure, or anything that is not a present physical deficiency of the property." No express language on this point was located in the Declaration, Bylaws, ARB Standards, or Assessment Collection Policy.
Counsel further states the homeowners were regularly inspected by ARB members in the same manner that initially found the missing shutter — yet those inspections failed to note that the violation had been corrected while daily fines continued to accrue.
The reversal denial cites reinspection instructions as the basis for disapproval; based on documents reviewed, it does not cite a governing-document provision stating fines continue after repair absent reinspection. The records request asks the Association to identify the specific rule relied upon to continue assessing charges after cure.
Reversal denial form · Demand letter (Mar 23, 2026)
9. Statutory charge limits — issue for review
Virginia POAA § 55.1-1819(D) limits continuing-offense charges to $10 per day and states that total charges for a continuing offense "shall not be assessed for a period exceeding 90 days." Ninety days at $10/day equals a $900 ceiling for per-day charges on a single continuing offense.
Without an itemized statement, the homeowner cannot verify whether charges exceeded this cap. Presented as an issue for review, not a legal conclusion.
Virginia Code § 55.1-1819(D) · Account statement (Jun 10, 2026)
Part 3 — Board members’ unreasonable response
10. Board unanimously voted to uphold the fines #
At the February 10, 2026 meeting, the five directors recorded as present reviewed the reversal request. The minutes state: "A motion was made to deny the reversal, was seconded, and the decision was unanimous." Because only these five directors are recorded as present, the meeting record indicates that each voted to deny reversal, leaving the fines in place.
The signed denial form gives two principal factual reasons: the homeowner did not attend the hearing, and MJF was not contacted until after assessments were underway. President Parlette's later email again emphasizes the missed hearing. Neither document says the Board rejected the repair evidence or found that the violation remained uncured.
Robert “Bud” Parlette #
President
Retired federal civil service employee who managed information-technology project teams for the Department of Defense.
Paul McCann #
Treasurer
Certified Public Accountant.
William “Bill” Reha, MD, MBA #
Secretary
Self-employed physician.
Oscar Cervantes #
ARB Chairman
No profession is identified in the reviewed Board biography.
Louis Vaughn #
Grounds Manager
Navy veteran, retired federal program manager, and home-care business owner.
Board decision evidence
The minutes document a unanimous vote to deny reversal of the original October decision despite evidence that the violation was cured in a timely manner.
11. Why missed hearing attendance is not an identified basis for fines
The Board's written explanations repeatedly emphasize that the homeowner did not attend the October hearing. The signed February denial gives missed attendance and delayed management contact as its principal factual reasons. President Parlette's July 15 email again recounts the process by stressing that no homeowners were present and that the October hearing was one “which the homeowner did not attend.”
Neither explanation states that the Board disbelieved the contractor invoice, found that the repair occurred after the deadline, or determined that the physical condition remained uncured when fines began. The minutes likewise contain no finding on those issues. The record therefore supports concern that hearing attendance materially influenced the decision, although it does not establish any individual director's subjective motive.
Based on the documents reviewed, the Board identified no authority allowing it to impose or preserve a fine because a homeowner did not attend a hearing. Virginia Code § 55.1-1819(C) describes a hearing as an opportunity for the member to be heard if a violation remains uncorrected; it does not state that attendance is mandatory or that nonattendance is a separately fineable violation. No located Declaration, Bylaw, or published rule states that missing a hearing forfeits a later challenge or authorizes charges after timely cure.
The delayed-contact rationale is addressed separately under Cure, reinspection, and continued charges, including the inaccessible HTTP-only portal, lack of an MJF email address in the reviewed notices, and ambiguous “being assessed” language.
Signed reversal denial form · July 15 Board president email · Virginia Code § 55.1-1819(C)
12. Decision date and body mismatch
Board minutes show the reversal was decided at the February 10, 2026 board meeting. The Reversal Request Form is dated and signed "reviewed by Architectural Review Committee 02/17/26" — a different date and a different body.
Board minutes (Feb 2026) · Reversal denial form
13. Demand letter sent — no documented response
On March 23, 2026, counsel for the homeowners mailed a demand letter to the Board (c/o MJF Associates) regarding fees charged to ***** Marsh Overlook Dr. The letter demands removal of all fines associated with violation #123723.
As of the follow-up records request, no response had been received. The homeowners re-transmitted the demand letter and asked for written confirmation of receipt.
April 14 and May 21, 2026 board minutes — both after the demand letter — contain no reference to the demand letter, a refund request, or Account #18XXX. Based on the minutes reviewed, the public record does not show whether the board formally considered the demand.
Demand letter (Mar 23, 2026) · April minutes · May minutes
14. Missing association complaint procedure
The HOA's public Documents page does not list a written complaint procedure or complaint form. Virginia Code § 54.1-2354.4(A) requires associations to adopt such a procedure, including the address for complaints and notice of the right to appeal a final adverse decision to the Common Interest Community Ombudsman.
The records request asks for this procedure within ten business days. The homeowners state they intend to submit a formal complaint through the Association's procedure and, if necessary, to the Ombudsman.
Virginia Code § 54.1-2354.4 · Official complaint paths
Part 4 — Billing and account transparency
15. Commingled, unitemized balance ($960.60)
The June 2026 statement shows a balance of $960.60 as a single unitemized lump sum. It appears to combine:
- Disputed violation fines and accrued interest
- Ordinary semiannual HOA dues ($265.00 for Jul–Dec 2026)
- Monthly late interest at 10% per annum on the unpaid balance
Commingling a disputed charge with undisputed routine dues in one figure prevents verification against Va. Code § 55.1-1819(D) and could make routine dues appear delinquent because of the disputed fine.
The homeowners do not dispute ordinary HOA dues and state they intend to keep those current. The dispute is limited to the violation fine and any interest or charges arising from it.
Account statement (Jun 10, 2026) · Account statement (Nov 10, 2025)
16. Itemized account statement requested
Pursuant to Va. Code § 55.1-1815, the records request asks for a fully itemized account statement from August 1, 2025 to the present, showing each charge separately by date, type, and amount — specifically distinguishing:
- (i) The violation fine
- (ii) Any interest or late fees
- (iii) Attorney or collection costs
- (iv) Ordinary semiannual HOA dues
In our opinion, based on the evidence reviewed and the records request, homeowners should be able to see how the $960.60 balance is calculated rather than carrying it as one lump sum.
Virginia Code § 55.1-1815 · Current statement (unitemized)
