🔒 Total Billed thru June 2025: $14,985.35
July 1-16, 2025 Rolling Total: $2,316.90
Combined spent to Sarah Webner by Directors subject to RECALL: $17,302.25
Original:
"Review Order Requiring Answer filed by Arbitrator Keith Hope - calendar deadline."
Rewritten:
Reviewed arbitrator's order requiring response to the recall challenge and calendared deadline for continued opposition to homeowner democratic rights.
Critique:
Another $97.50 charge for reading a single document and making a calendar entry - a pattern of inflated billing for minimal work.
Original:
"Draft meeting minutes from recall July 1, 2025 meeting; review ballots and compare with Bylaws for provisions and failure to state for cause reasons on the Ballot; draft Petition for Arbitration based on rejection of recall; review emails sent to community with defamatory statements with the intent to mislead the residents into believing the Directors had committed crimes and print all emails as an exhibit to the petition along with police report providing that no investigation or further action taken after police report filed by Scott Davis; finalize petition for DBPR; fax and fed-ex copy of petition to DBPR and to Owners representative."
Rewritten:
Forged meeting minutes from recall certification meeting on July 1st where she ignored directors not subject to recall emails attempting to plan a neutral chair, while preparing a written statement for Darwin Johnson to fumble through not understanding what he was even reading as he did not write it. This "meeting" violated Article IV, Section 6 of our bylaws by Sarah Webner commandeering the director's meeting in which our bylaws specifically state are to be presided over by President or Vice President. Meeting minutes sent to DBPR were NOT drafted by the HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia (not subject to recall) and were misrepresented to DBPR as legitimate. This meeting was invalid.
Critique:
This $975 charge represents billing for creating fraudulent meeting minutes that violated the association's bylaws. Webner commandeered a directors' meeting that should have been presided over by the President or Vice President per Article IV, Section 6, then misrepresented these invalid minutes to DBPR as legitimate association business. The meeting and billing for such are invalid.
Webner's fabricated meeting minutes submitted to DBPR without authorization from HOA Secretary
Genuine meeting minutes from HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia showing the actual proceedings
Original:
"Receive and review Summary Final Order finding in favor of the Association and confirming the Board was right in rejecting the recall that was done incorrectly by Scott Davis. Advise Board President of outcome."
Rewritten:
Mischaracterized arbitrator's technical ruling as vindication of recalled directors' position, when the order actually authorized a written recall process using DBPR official sample ballots as shown here in the order.
Critique:
This billing description deliberately misrepresents the arbitrator's ruling to create a false narrative. The Board was never "right" to not act in the best interest of the association and instead decide to reject dual recalls, using both statutory methods, both receiving majority consent and voting to spend homeowner funds serving no community purpose. The order found a Kaufman language and pre-post Statutes 720 applicability arguement but explicitly authorized the homeowners to proceed with a written recall using DBPR sample ballots.
June 27th Final Order explicitly authorizing homeowners to attempt another recall effort using written agreement with DBPR sample ballots
Original:
"Prepare for and attend BOD meeting to reject second recall attempt by Scott Davis."
Rewritten:
Attended board meeting specifically to facilitate rejection of the community-supported recall effort, continuing to mischaracterize it as an individual action by Scott Davis rather than a democratic process which the Senior Arbitrator ruled on May 9th was "HOMEOWNERS VOTING FOR RECALL."
Critique:
The billing description reveals the predetermined intent to reject the recall regardless of its merits. Framing it as "Scott Davis'" recall directly contradicts the arbitrator's May 9th ruling that properly identified the respondent as "HOMEOWNERS VOTING FOR RECALL," and not the VP. This shows a pattern of Webner and the Board ignoring the broad community support and democratic nature of the process.
May 9th order informing Webner that "HOMEOWNERS VOTING FOR RECALL" is the proper party, not Scott Davis individually
Original:
"TCW with Board President regarding recall meeting and preparation of the same including review of reasons for denial [research dbpr orders regarding the same]; further review and preparations for meeting."
Rewritten:
Coordinated with recalled Board President to develop strategies for denying the second recall attempt, researching DBPR orders to find technical grounds for rejection rather than addressing the substantive will of the homeowners.
Critique:
This entry explicitly acknowledges working with recalled directors to develop "reasons for denial" of a lawful recall process. This is partisan political work, not neutral legal counsel for the association.
Original:
"Pull all cases cited in Arbitration Order and review the same... research all relevant case law on retroactive application of 720... draft reply brief..."
Rewritten:
Extensive research to develop a legal theory to try and invalidate the homeowner recall by arguing that in order to have a meeting of the membership, that 36.25 homeowners would need to sign a petition to call the meeting, despite providing LEGAL ADVISE IN WRITING to VP that 10% and 15 homeowner signatures were the threshold. This alone proves without a doubt that Sarah Webner has been working to provide misinformation to the homeowners and proxyholder representative from the start.
Critique:
This work was entirely defensive in nature, serving the interest of ousted directors. It's litigation posturing — not valid general counsel work. Sarah Webner provided misinformation to the recall representative while charging the association for that time and "Legal Advise", which appeared intentionally to be weaponized later against the homeowners voting for recall. She told homeowners that 15 members was required to petition for Special Meeting of the Membership, but then once she was in court, stated that 25% was required (36.25) which was an argument designed to benefit only recalled directors.
Original:
"Review lengthy emails from Scott Davis asking Association to cease and desist distributing newsletters to the community; review newsletter."
Rewritten:
Reviewed homeowner director's cease and desist request regarding biased HOA newsletters that was intended to be used as propaganda to discredit the recall effort. Plans had leaked from Janelle and Oliver Morgan that they intended to use APPFOLIO payment reminders about the 7/1/2025 bi-annual dues to insert a PROPOGANDA NEWSLETTER in which I am currently in possession of. It was engineered by Janelle Marazon to attempt to blame the legal costs on the homeowners and be served to them with their payment reminders from Appfolio so they could reload their legal expense account.
Critique:
This acknowledges Janelle's intent to abuse power once again when a cease and desist email had to be sent to her and Oliver Morgan to prevent them from abusing corporation communication systems to inappropriately send derogatory gaslighting messaging to homeowners through the payment system reminders, this not routine counsel activity and is 100% due to Janelle's intent to continue abusing presidential power.
Original:
"Finalize brief; fax and mail brief on Kaufman issue to DBPR."
Rewritten:
Filed final legal argument attacking the recall as invalid due to lack of Kaufman language, despite it being a technicality unrelated to the will of the majority.
Critique:
More resistance to the recall — not service to the community or unbiased legal activity.
Original:
"Regular mailing fee"
Rewritten:
Mail cost to submit arguments opposing homeowner recall to DBPR.
Critique:
The mailing supports opposition to homeowners, not community operations.
Original:
"Review submission to DBPR by Scott Davis… notes for potential oral argument."
Rewritten:
Analyzed homeowner rebuttal and continued to make claims that if you showed up in person that your proxy vote was invalid. Judge ruled against this frivolous claim. Made claims that removal of a director required cause. Cause is not required by law or our bylaws for removal of a director when majority voting interests votes for removal.
Critique:
Still serving the anti-recall position — not general association legal defense, biased.
Original:
"Review and respond to actions of the board prior to revitalization. Florida case law regarding the same."
Rewritten:
Legal research to defend potentially illegal or ultra vires acts taken by recalled board prior to official revitalization. Since nothing came of this, its clear that she knows that this is a REAL ISSUE and makes no mention of it because it would draw attention to these acts that pre-date the July 25th 2025 recordation of the revitalization of the community when any HOA business could have been conducted legally.
Critique:
This could implicate conflicts of interest and violations of law, not legitimate post-recall association business.
Evidence of Webner providing contradictory legal advice to benefit recalled directors
Original:
"Review emails from DBPR regarding video of recall meeting."
Rewritten:
She opened a carbon copied email sent from DBPR secretary and read it. Then charged us $65.00 for this "service".
Critique:
I don't think this needs an explanation.
Original:
"Review video of recall membership meeting and recent board meeting."
Rewritten:
She already watched these videos before she filed the original petition to reject recall. Do we need to pay her every time she rewinds the tape?
Critique:
Recalled directors cannot ethically direct or benefit from legal reviews paid for by the community and these line items are ridiculous.
Email directive sent to Oliver Morgan requesting cessation of unauthorized disbursements
Original:
"Review email from Scott Davis demanding property manager stop paying invoices… email response to cease and desist."
Rewritten:
Defended own billing income against a sitting officer (VP) asking that recall-related legal charges not be paid without full board approval and evidenced votes on the record in meeting minutes, which we did not have. This was certified as not having the votes to proceed by HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia in a sworn statement.
Critique:
Billing the HOA for time spent defending her own legal payments is self-serving and unethical. Especially with her direct line to Oliver Morgan as if he is the client and not the association!
Original:
"Review email from Scott Davis to division assistant Lovely… respond seeking clarification."
Rewritten:
Misrepresented and documented alleged "lying" by a homeowner director regarding fee objections — a tactic to intimidate or discredit a statutory representative.
Critique:
No such email existed. Sarah Webner and Oliver Morgan were working together to insure she would be able to get paid for legal fees and he was unlawfully disbursing them without board approval, then trying to retroactively approve them on June 16th which failed. She was in such disarray by Oliver Morgan forwarding my cease unauthorized payment email, which was sent to her without my knowledge btw, that she immediately emailed DBPR making false accusations that communications were being had between DBPR and the owner representative without her knowledge. This was proven false, and no such communication had occurred at that time. The filing being referenced didn't happen until over 80 minutes after her alarmist email to DBPR, so this was a very unprofessional and embarrassing situation for Webner. She made false accusations about lying on this bill however, this very line item description is a lie in itself. All filings were serviced to her as required by law at the time they were filed.
Part of the filing to DBPR regarding unauthorized disbursements
Original:
"Receive and begin reviewing emergency motion… demanding the Association not be allowed to pay for legal services…"
Rewritten:
Reviewed legal challenge asking DBPR to block unauthorized payment that did not have adequate votes per sworn statement of HOA secretary.
Part of the filing to DBPR regarding unauthorized disbursements
Critique:
A self dealing line item having to do with her own income with a financial benefit to the outcome. Falsely represented again in line item descriptions that she intentionally writes in a deliberate way to bias herself and recalled directors. She tried to argue that four directors, subject to recall, could vote once to cover an unlimited amount of invoices into the future, as if she has a license to operate with a blank checkbook.
Potential Florida Bar Complaint:
What you’ll find out later is that she also demanded copies of filings, sent embarrassing emails to DBPR requesting communications and filings that did not yet exist. She was deeply enraged that an officer dare demand proper legal procedure in corporation electronic disbursements of money to her firm that she made foolish claims to DBPR in the process of having a fit.
Her assumptions were not based on any information I had provided to her, but rather was based on Oliver Morgan forwarding all of my emails directly to her as they have been working together since at least 2021 on Hacienda Del Sol condominiums as recognized in public filings contained in county clerk records. All of these director-management company-attorney relationships appear to suspicioulsly pre-date the legal revitalization of the HOA.
This makes a lot of sense now because the closed board meeting that inappropriately was hosted on February 6, 2025 where homeowners were not privy to 95% of the information that was not legally allowed to be withheld from homeowners as it was not about personnel or active litigation. At this meeting it became clear how this machine was constructed between Oliver Morgan, Sarah Webner, and Janelle Marazon.
If I didn’t know anything about any of these people prior to entering that meeting, I would’ve thought that Sarah Webner was Oliver Morgan’s personal attorney. That’s how the zoom call went with her leading directors in support of Oliver Morgan as if they were long time friends… It was a very bizarre experience almost as bizarre as having a closed door meeting that homeowners had to pay for that didn’t meet statutory guidelines for being closed door and having the majority purpose be to try to convince directors not to fire Oliver Morgan for non-performance and a laundry list of documented shortcomings.
.
Sarah Webner's inappropriate threatening response to legal directive
Sarah Webner's relations with Oliver Morgan pre-dates Surrey Ridge Revitalization and hiring
Original:
"Draft, fax and deliver by email Response to emergency motion…"
Rewritten:
Filed legal objection to motion attempting to prevent misuse of HOA funds for recall-related legal resistance.
Critique:
She billed the association to argue for her own continued payment, despite legal challenge — a direct financial conflict.
Original:
"Review response to Association's response to Scott Davis request…"
Rewritten:
Reviewed homeowner rebuttal explaining why her legal invoices should not be paid out of HOA funds during recall.
Critique:
This entire billing cycle is a circular defense of her own fees and apparently she bills $97.50 to read each email.
Original:
"Begin review of DBPR recall ballots in second round of recall attempt…"
Rewritten:
Began legal analysis of the new written recall effort—a method explicitly authorized in the June 27 final order—to look for ways to challenge it.
Critique:
Attempting to undermine the legally permitted written recall is indefensible as general association work. Despite multiple critical responses about WHO the RESPONDENT in the recall is, Sarah Webner intentionally lists Scott Davis personally after being told in her first filing petition response from the arbitrator that community members voting for recall is the proper respondent. This follows a tactical attempt by Webner and recall directors in coordination with Oliver Morgan and to try to frame and gaslight the community into believing that it's one person against the board when it's a majority voting interest of the community that has participated and showed their intent to remove these four directors.
Arbitrator's ruling clearly identifying the respondent as "HOMEOWNERS VOTING FOR RECALL" not an individual
Original:
"TCW with Board President regarding recall meeting and preparation of the same including review of reasons for denial [research dbpr orders regarding the same]; further review and preparations for meeting."
Rewritten:
Coordinated with recalled Board President to develop strategies for denying the second recall attempt, researching DBPR orders to find technical grounds for rejection rather than addressing the substantive will of the homeowners.
Critique:
This entry explicitly acknowledges working with recalled directors to develop "reasons for denial" of a lawful recall process. This is partisan political work, not neutral legal counsel for the association.
Original:
"Prepare for and attend BOD meeting to reject second recall attempt by Scott Davis."
Rewritten:
Attended board meeting specifically to facilitate rejection of the community-supported recall effort, continuing to mischaracterize it as an individual action by Scott Davis rather than a democratic process which the Senior Arbitrator ruled on May 9th was "HOMEOWNERS VOTING FOR RECALL."
Critique:
The billing description reveals the predetermined intent to reject the recall regardless of its merits. Framing it as "Scott Davis's" recall directly contradicts the arbitrator's May 9th ruling that properly identified the respondent as "HOMEOWNERS VOTING FOR RECALL," ignoring the broad community support and democratic nature of the process.
Original:
"Receive and review Summary Final Order finding in favor of the Association and confirming the Board was right in rejecting the recall that was done incorrectly by Scott Davis. Advise Board President of outcome."
Rewritten:
Mischaracterized arbitrator's technical ruling as vindication of recalled directors' position, when the order actually authorized a written recall process using DBPR official sample ballots as shown here in the order.
Critique:
This billing description deliberately misrepresents the arbitrator's ruling to create a false narrative. The Board was never "right" to not act in the best interest of the association and instead decide to reject dual recalls, using both statutory methods, both receiving majority consent and voting to spend homeowner funds serving no community purpose. The order found technical deficiencies but explicitly authorized the homeowners to proceed with a written recall using DBPR sample ballots.
June 27th Final Order explicitly authorizing homeowners to attempt another recall effort using written agreement with DBPR sample ballots
Original:
"Draft meeting minutes from recall July 1, 2025 meeting; review ballots and compare with Bylaws for provisions and failure to state for cause reasons on the Ballot; draft Petition for Arbitration based on rejection of recall; review emails sent to community with defamatory statements with the intent to mislead the residents into believing the Directors had committed crimes and print all emails as an exhibit to the petition along with police report providing that no investigation or further action taken after police report filed by Scott Davis; finalize petition for DBPR; fax and fed-ex copy of petition to DBPR and to Owners representative."
Rewritten:
Forged meeting minutes from recall certification meeting on July 1st where she ignored directors not subject to recall emails attempting to plan a neutral chair, while preparing a written statement for Darwin Johnson to fumble through not understanding what he was even reading as he did not write it. This "meeting" violated Article IV, Section 6 of our bylaws by Sarah Webner commandeering the director's meeting in which our bylaws specifically state are to be presided over by President or Vice President. Meeting minutes sent to DBPR were NOT drafted by the HOA Secretary Carlos Garcia (not subject to recall) and were misrepresented to DBPR as legitimate. This meeting was invalid.
Critique:
This $975 charge represents billing for creating fraudulent meeting minutes that violated the association's bylaws. Webner commandeered a directors' meeting that should have been presided over by the President or Vice President per Article IV, Section 6, then misrepresented these invalid minutes to DBPR as legitimate association business. The meeting and billing for such are invalid.
Original:
"Review Order Requiring Answer filed by Arbitrator Keith Hope - calendar deadline."
Rewritten:
Reviewed arbitrator's order requiring response to the recall challenge and calendared deadline for continued opposition to homeowner democratic rights.
Critique:
Another $97.50 charge for reading a single document and making a calendar entry - a pattern of inflated billing for minimal work.
🧾 Summary of Legal Billing
Purpose: ~98% of time was spent actively opposing the lawful recall, defending the old regime, and trying to prevent the HOA from realigning under its writen recall elected replacement directors.
This analysis demonstrates systematic billing description manipulation designed to re-frame the blame on homeowners and self-dealing by Sarah Webner,
using HOA funds to defend her own payments while assisting directors subject to recall oppose homeowner democratic processes.
← Back to Home
