Take me to your leader . . .
the Flunker lawsuit legacy . . .
Neighbors were friends and worked together . . . then something changed in 2016. Danny Flunker instigated the first lawsuit, of what would turn out to be SIX (6) LAWSUITS the Flunkers, would champion over 7 years between 2016-2023.
#1 FLUNKER LAWSUIT: In 2014, Danny Flunker was not a property owner (his ex-wife, Patricia, owned property in Windermere but Mr. Flunker did not). Mr. Flunker was however, unbeknownst to other property owners, voted as a non-property owner to the Windermere Oaks Property Owners Assn. (WOPOA) Board of Directors where he later served as President.
In 2016 Mr. Flunker served as President of the WOPOA during which time he acted to harass the marinas by demanding they abide by certain WOPOA ACC Guidelines, issuing a 10 specific "demands" of the marina, and misrepresenting facts to property owners. The marinas, however are private property (neighbors on the lake) and not under the jurisdiction of the WOPOA, although their bylaws do stipulate that slip owners must be property owners in WOPOA since access is through WOPOA is via common roads.
Mr. Flunker, among other fabricated allegations, accused the marinas of being dangerous. Mr. Flunker's tampering with the power actually created more danger for Windermere neighbors as well as public boaters. Joe Gimenez (a fellow WOPOA Board Member at the time) investigated and stood up to Flunker on this issue, as well as calling him out on other WOPOA matters. Then President of the smaller marina, Dana Martin, also stood ground against her then good friend, Mr. Flunker, and his bullying tactics. Both marinas fought the ridiculous take-over "terms" Mr. Flunker put forward.
After Mr. Flunker who was not a property owner at the time, was “disagreed with" by many in the neighborhood, friendships dissolved, a vendetta was borne, and a tornado force of destruction swept through the lovely community of Windermere.
A $285,000 lawsuit to DEFEND the marinas culminated in an injunction against WOPOA for the "interference" to private property and ultimately established in perpetuity the marina easement rights for their access, power and usage, etc. 24 owners each paid out-of-pocket. $4,000, and the WOPOA Insurer paid the rest of the legal fees for this attack. Mr. Flunker resigned from his position as WOPOA President, just prior to being required to officially authorize the insurer to pay. [See Marina Lawsuit].
COST: $285,000
Five more lawsuits would occur with a Flunker at the helm and at a cost to friends & neighbors.
In 2016 Mr. Flunker served as President of the WOPOA during which time he acted to harass the marinas by demanding they abide by certain WOPOA ACC Guidelines, issuing a 10 specific "demands" of the marina, and misrepresenting facts to property owners. The marinas, however are private property (neighbors on the lake) and not under the jurisdiction of the WOPOA, although their bylaws do stipulate that slip owners must be property owners in WOPOA since access is through WOPOA is via common roads.
Mr. Flunker, among other fabricated allegations, accused the marinas of being dangerous. Mr. Flunker's tampering with the power actually created more danger for Windermere neighbors as well as public boaters. Joe Gimenez (a fellow WOPOA Board Member at the time) investigated and stood up to Flunker on this issue, as well as calling him out on other WOPOA matters. Then President of the smaller marina, Dana Martin, also stood ground against her then good friend, Mr. Flunker, and his bullying tactics. Both marinas fought the ridiculous take-over "terms" Mr. Flunker put forward.
After Mr. Flunker who was not a property owner at the time, was “disagreed with" by many in the neighborhood, friendships dissolved, a vendetta was borne, and a tornado force of destruction swept through the lovely community of Windermere.
A $285,000 lawsuit to DEFEND the marinas culminated in an injunction against WOPOA for the "interference" to private property and ultimately established in perpetuity the marina easement rights for their access, power and usage, etc. 24 owners each paid out-of-pocket. $4,000, and the WOPOA Insurer paid the rest of the legal fees for this attack. Mr. Flunker resigned from his position as WOPOA President, just prior to being required to officially authorize the insurer to pay. [See Marina Lawsuit].
COST: $285,000
Five more lawsuits would occur with a Flunker at the helm and at a cost to friends & neighbors.
#2 FLUNKER LAWSUIT: In 2017 Danny Flunker founded TOMA, initiating the "TOMA lawsuit" (Cause #47531) citing a two year earlier Water Company (WOWSC) Board agenda error, which he claimed resulted in a “secretive” land transaction between the WOWSC and his former friend: Ms. Martin. This agenda error was uncontested by the WOWSC, later proven innocent, and most all of the community knew about the impending sale. The sale had been been made VERY PUBLIC in 2014-15.
Mr. Flunker personally had knowledge of the land for sale per the fact that, in 2015 he, as WOPOA President, put in a bid for part of the land in effort to maintain a WOPOA storage lot amenity that resided on that land. Still, in 2017 he and litigants: Rene Ffrench, Bruce Sorgen, and Dick Dial would claim no one knew about the land sale.
The TOMA litigants had their uncontested agenda point confirmed by the Court but, didn’t get the “relief” of $100,000 and the land sale reversal they wanted. So, they appealed again and again. Litigants appealed to the SUPREME COURT of Texas where their case was denied. All Courts agreed with the lower court’s decision in confirming the agenda error but they all denied any relief. See Lawsuits
Mr. Flunker personally had knowledge of the land for sale per the fact that, in 2015 he, as WOPOA President, put in a bid for part of the land in effort to maintain a WOPOA storage lot amenity that resided on that land. Still, in 2017 he and litigants: Rene Ffrench, Bruce Sorgen, and Dick Dial would claim no one knew about the land sale.
The TOMA litigants had their uncontested agenda point confirmed by the Court but, didn’t get the “relief” of $100,000 and the land sale reversal they wanted. So, they appealed again and again. Litigants appealed to the SUPREME COURT of Texas where their case was denied. All Courts agreed with the lower court’s decision in confirming the agenda error but they all denied any relief. See Lawsuits
|
#3 FLUNKER LAWSUIT: In 2018, Patty Flunker initiated Cause #48292 with: Rene Ffrench and Mark McDonald to continue the pursuit of the land sale reversal . This lawsuit ultimately dragged on for 4+ years with changing Plaintiffs, all costing the end-users. At one point, it appeared that Ms. Flunker revisited her strategy deciding to run for Water Company Director (with the goal to reverse the land sale via a board vote) and she dropped out of the lawsuit.
Intervenor litigants, Rene Ffrench, Bruce Sorgen, and Dick Dial took this cause over requesting $1,000,000 (plus attorneys fees) in relief. They based their propaganda on conspiracy within the water company. They asked the Court to hold 8-10 former & then present Directors accountable for collusion. After untold numbers of boxes of evidential paperwork were processed by the WOWSC refuting ridiculous claims from the Plaintiffs, the Court determined no collusion and released all past Directors, but one (Ms. Martin), who was the purchaser of the property. |
The Plaintiffs wanted her to pay a difference of the land purchase amount: $204,000, and what they, at various times, misrepresented the land was valued at: $780,000 to $1,200,000.
They represented their efforts to be on behalf of member ratepayers, yet one of the key litigants (Bruce Sorgen) is not a member himself. Additionally, it took only 10% of the entire ratepayer membership to lodge this complaint which sadly cost 100% of the membership. Their "win" on our behalf was $70,000 not the $500,000-$800,000 they claimed was the value they sought the Court to award in their 5 years of litigating. They reportedly spent $428,000 in attorney fees (which the attorney claims is unpaid) and caused the water company over $1,5M to gain $70,000. See JURY VERDICT |
Why didn't Patty Flunker do her job in "assisting" her own rural water company
when she worked for the Texas Rural Water Association.?
Instead, she attacked her own rural water company.
when she worked for the Texas Rural Water Association.?
Instead, she attacked her own rural water company.
During some of this time, Patty Flunker worked for the Texas Rural Water Assn. (TRWA), a non-profit entity with the Mission "To serve, represent, support, and strengthen member water and wastewater utilities." Evidently, at one time while actually “serving & supporting” the WOWSC (a member of TRWA) Ms. Flunker suggested that the corporation actually raise their rates.
Ms. Flunker later would sue her own water company & then protest the increased rates.
Ms. Flunker later would sue her own water company & then protest the increased rates.
#4 FLUNKER LAWSUIT: In 2020, Patty Flunker, with Josie Fuller, swayed a very small percentage of Ratepayers (water company member tap owners) to lodge protest with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) about the March 2020 rate increase. The rate increase caused by defense costs incurred to fight other Flunker Lawsuits. This is referred to as the Ratepayers Case. and is another legal attack that, instigated by a mere 10% of tap-owners, cost 100% of tap-owners!
The defense costs from the PUC case are what is “currently” reflected in Water Company Members increased rates. Briefs submitted by “STAFF” ultimately go in front of a Judge for final ruling. In the last go-round the Judges overruled the staffs’ recommendation.
The defense costs from the PUC case are what is “currently” reflected in Water Company Members increased rates. Briefs submitted by “STAFF” ultimately go in front of a Judge for final ruling. In the last go-round the Judges overruled the staffs’ recommendation.
Why do Ratepayer Reps continue to push for "Receivership" of our Water Company. Receivership most likely would lead to the sale of our "member-owned" water company to a private entity. A private utility would have much more overhead (CEO compensation, taxes, profit margin, etc.), which our not-for-profit does not have, thus does not charge members for.
Member-owners costs would increase!
Member-owners costs would increase!
|
#5 FLUNKER LAWSUIT: Danny Flunker, instigated yet another lawsuit for which he blames the water company. He claims the WOWSC spent funds on a lawsuit with the Attorney General's office. It turns out that Mr. Flunker initiated the Water Company's defensive action with his inappropriate demand for invoices from the WOWSC, claiming they were public information. These invoices contained WOWSC legal strategy data and needed to be protected, not given to the enemy who was attacking our company.
FRIEND OF FLUNKER LAWSUIT: In 2022, Jeff Walker, protested to the PUC regarding election irregularities. This protest was ultimately rejected, but the PUC demanded the water company respond which cost the WOWSC around $25,000. Alleged election irregularities were unproven. The PUC deemed this case inappropriately submitted.
Interestingly, when reporting "election irregularities" Mr. Walker didn’t report the fact that his friend, Mr. Sorgen, litigant in Flunker lawsuits #2 & #3 and supporter of #1 & #4 (and similar to Mr. Flunker: not a property owner & not a WOWSC member) fraudulently attempted to vote in numerous WOWSC elections since 2017. |
#6 FLUNKER LAWSUIT: In 2021 Danny Flunker was on the ACC Committee when the WOPOA was sued by a homebuilder due to actions/inactions of the ACC Committee. Micki Bertino & Mark Carpenter were also on that committee. The 2022 WOPOA Board was active in mediation re this lawsuit but this case did not conclude.
It will be interesting to see how our current POA Board navigates this lawsuit. Would this be considered a conflict of interest since Mark Carpenter is now a WOPOA Board member and Danny Flunker is the current ACC Contact? How much will this cost property owners? FLUNKER PIRs — FUELING the FIRE with other costly actions. Note: excessive number of Public Inquiry Requests (PIR) that the Flunkers have lodged.
Shouldn't your Water Company be allowed to spend its (your) resources of time, energy and finances on its purpose of delivering pristine water and getting rid of your waste?
|
Make informed choices when electing the leaders who will be:
. . . "in charge" of your company
. . . handling your finances
. . . the "new voice of reason"
. . . "in charge" of your company
. . . handling your finances
. . . the "new voice of reason"