July 2016, Edition 1 - page 1

ASSOCIATION OF POINCIANA VILLAGES
July 2016 Edition 1
w
4
12
20
Fourth of July Safety
Beautification Program
Construction at
Vance Harmon Park
APV Board Brief
Polk County
Court Hearing on
June 6, 2016
S
everal Association of Poinciana Villages
Board members have been approached
with questions about the lawsuit that involved
the Association of Poinciana Villages, Peter
Jolly and Victor Destremps. We hope this APV
Board Brief will provide answers on this issue.
Can you provide some background on the lawsuit?
In August 2015, Peter Jolly and Victor Destremps transferred $1.6 million
from APV bank accounts to another bank account not controlled by the
APV Master Board. This was done without the knowledge, authorization or
approval of a majority of the APV Master Board. These two board members
entered locked administrative offices after hours on Monday evening, August
17, and removed APV assets and records. They also attempted to fire the
community manager and terminate the management company’s contract.
The Association then filed a temporary injunction with the Florida 10th Judicial
Circuit, which was granted on August 31, 2015. The injunction ordered the
pair to return all the money removed from APV’s bank accounts, return all
equipment and property belonging to APV taken from the APV office, and
to provide APV with an accounting of all monies spent. They were further
restrained and restricted from acting or attempting to act on behalf of APV.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
On June 6, 2016, APV Counsel presented the Agreed Order for Permanent
Injunction to Circuit Judge Andrea Teves Smith. The judge accepted the Order
and the Court now has prohibited Peter Jolly and Victor Destremps from
taking action without expressed and written approval of the majority of the
APV Master Board.
What does an Agreed Final Order for Permanent Injunction
mean for this case?
A Final Order for Permanent Injunction resolves the case in APV’s favor.
The Order has permanently barred Peter Jolly and Victor Destremps from
transferring money on behalf of APV, taking assets and records without APV’s
permission and bars attempts to fire the management company, as they did in
August 2015. Mr. Jolly and Mr. Destremps are not authorized to do anything
on behalf of APV unless the majority of the APV Master Board (five out of nine
members) signs off on it in writing. The Order confirms control of APV rests
with the majority of the APV Board of Directors.
V I L L A G E S
A S S OC I AT I ON O F
I N C I A N A
V I L L A G E S
A S S OC I AT I ON O F
P O I N C I A N A
V I L L A G E S
A S S OC I AT I ON O F
P O I N C I A N A
V I L L A G E S
A S S OC I AT I ON O F
P O I N C I A N A
V I L L A G E S
A S S OC I AT I ON O F
P O I N C I A N A
What does this mean for Mr. Jolly and for Mr. Destremps?
As a result of the ruling, Mr. Jolly and Mr. Destremps cannot do anything
unless “authorized specifically in writing, signed by a majority of the APV
Board of Directors.” Funds transfers, removal of assets and records, and
making decisions regarding the management company are prohibited by any
one APV Board member without approval of the majority of the APV Master
Board.
Can Mr. Jolly and Mr. Destremps be part of the APV Master
Board and the APV Village Boards?
Mr. Jolly and Mr. Destremps may serve on the APV Master Board and the APV
Village Board if elected. The only circumstance that precludes an APV resident
from serving in a board position is if they are 90 days delinquent in their
assessment payment or have been convicted of a felony.
Why was John Perez removed from the lawsuit?
While Mr. Perez was initially named in the lawsuit, he was removed from
the lawsuit because he was not part of the APV Executive Committee when
the series of events occurred. While he may have supported Mr. Jolly’s and
Mr. Destremps’ actions, he was not part of the Executive Committee that
transferred the $1.6 million, took APV property and records, and signed
resolutions without APV approval.
Why didn’t the Board pursue further legal action?
The APV Master Board did not pursue any further legal action as this lawsuit
accomplished everything APV needed to achieve. As a result of this lawsuit,
the Association retrieved the records that were removed as well as the
$1.6 million Mr. Jolly and Mr. Destremps took from the Association without
permission. APV was also reimbursed for the fees and costs incurred.
Did Mr. Jolly return the money?
Peter and Victor returned nearly $1.56 million of the $1.6 million they
transferred out of APV bank accounts; the defendants used nearly $40,000
of that $1.6 million of APV funds for their own defense without the consent or
approval of APV. This was repaid to the Association as part of the settlement.
Will Mr. Jolly be responsible for repaying APV the nearly
$40,000 used for their defense?
APV has a Directors & Officers liability insurance policy. Under this insurance
coverage, APV was able to receive the money Peter and Victor used for their
defense. APV received compensation for the money expended in Mr. Jolly and
Mr. Destremps’ defense, but paid $10,000 as a deductible to the insurance
company.
How much money did Peter and Victor’s actions cost APV?
Peter and Victor’s actions cost APV over $100,000. We were able to recover
some of that through the settlement.
What steps has APV taken to prevent this in the future?
The APV Board of Directors has also amended its financial procedures to
include additional checks and balances to prevent an instance like this from
occurring again.
1 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,...24
Powered by FlippingBook