January 14, 2026
🚨 HOA Double Standard: Utility Vehicle Edition
This week’s example of selective enforcement comes straight from Autumn Shores Dr.
📌 My Letter to the Board:
I cited our governing documents and asked the Board to address a 4-wheel utility vehicle parked in plain view at 3043 Autumn Shores Dr. The indentures prohibit exterior storage of recreational vehicles without written approval and proper screening. I also referenced the nuisance clause, which the Board routinely weaponizes against other owners.
📌 Board’s Response:
They claimed:
- The vehicle is not permanently stored
- It’s used intermittently for community cleanup
- The owners submitted a written request, and the Board approved it
- Therefore, it’s not a nuisance or annoyance
- And the “Special Parking” clause doesn’t apply to houses, only condos
🧠 Translation:
When the Board likes you—or you’re a former Board member—you get a pass.
When they don’t, your yard sign becomes a “nuisance.”
Your parked car becomes “improper storage.”
Your mailbox becomes “non-compliant.”
This is selective enforcement, plain and simple.
They apply the rules differently depending on who you are.
⚖️ Legal Reality:
- “Nuisance or annoyance” must be applied consistently, not arbitrarily
- Board decisions that contradict the governing documents are ultra vires—invalid and void
- Our governing documents run with the land, not with any particular Board
- No “grandfathering” or personal exceptions are permitted
💸 The Cost of Hypocrisy:
- Legal fees to defend the flagpole
- Legal fees to justify business activity
- Legal fees to defend the Board’s inaction
- Higher dues for all of us
January 13, 2026
Here is a summary and breakdown of my defense against Psycho Shah and John Smith's defamation lawsuit against me. There will absolutely be no settlement. The case continues....
I. Problem Statement
The Plaintiffs (Shah/John), acting as an HOA Board Member/President and both being realtors, are seeking damages for Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) against the Defendant (Mark). The lawsuit arises from Mark’s publication of information regarding the President’s alleged cognitive impairments and their ongoing violations of the HOA’s governing documents.
The core of the dispute is whether a homeowner and former Trustee can be held liable for exposing the misconduct and fitness-for-duty issues of a community leader when those statements are backed by evidence and made in the interest of the association.
II. Statement of Facts & Assumptions
For the purpose of evaluating the legal merits of this defense, the following are taken as true or substantiated:
- Whistleblower Status: The Defendant (Mark) is a former Board Trustee acting in a "whistleblower" capacity to alert the community to breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the Indentures.
- Public Persona: The Plaintiff (Shah), by virtue of her role as HOA President and her visible real estate business within the community (and illegal mugshot signage), is a Limited-Purpose Public Figure.
- Documented Violations: The HOA governing documents strictly prohibit conducting business from residences and displaying business signage. The Plaintiff is actively transacting real estate and displaying magnetic/yard signs in direct violation of these rules.
- Evidentiary Basis: The Defendant’s (Mark) statements regarding the Plaintiff’s (Shah) cognitive condition are not "made up" but are based on firsthand observations and written testimony from other neighbors and her own admission of needing to hang post-it notes all around her house to remember the simplest of tasks. Who was President and forgot to file a claim for roofing storm damage; who was President who forgot to file federal housing forms/renewals; who was President who forgot to follow-up on insurance policy fraud causing a freeze of home sales and loss of member amenity usage? Where were those sticky-notes?
- Lack of Malice: The Defendant’s (Mark) primary motive is the protection of the HOA’s finances and governance, not a "reckless disregard" for the truth. What was said that was incorrect; what lies?
III. Applicable Legal Principles
1. Truth as an Absolute Defense
Under Missouri law, truth is a complete defense to defamation.
2. The "Actual Malice" Standard
Because the Plaintiff is a public figure in the context of the HOA, she must prove Actual Malice. This requires her to show that I knew the information was false or acted with a "reckless disregard" for the truth. My reliance on eyewitness accounts and written testimony serves as a strong shield against this claim. All information was believed to be true and is supported by evidence and other neighbor/member accounts.
3. Fiduciary Duty & Selective Enforcement
An HOA President has a fiduciary duty to the community. Using that position to enforce rules against others while personally violating them (Selective Enforcement) is a breach of that duty. This provides a "Fair Comment" justification for my speech, as it concerns a matter of legitimate public interest for the homeowners. An HOA President is presumed to understand and adhere to the HOA governing documents. A President cannot break the rules and expect other members not to speak of the violation or attempt to enforce the violation. Putting their clients to the front of the line for home repairs is a violation of governing documents, ethics agreements, and likely caused by some cognitive condition (or possibly plain old malice and with complete disregard for neighbors/members).
4. The Bar for IIED
To win an IIED claim in Missouri, the Plaintiff (Shah/John) must prove my conduct was "extreme and outrageous"—exceeding all bounds of decency.
5. Missouri Anti-SLAPP (RSMo § 537.528)
This statute is designed to prevent "baseless" lawsuits—meaning cases that lack a foundation in truth or law.
The Truth Requirement: For this protection to apply, the court must find that my statements are factually accurate or constitute protected opinion. This protects whistleblowers who speak the truth in public settings (like HOA meetings) from being "bled dry" by expensive legal fees. If my statements are true, this law allows for an expedited dismissal and requires the Plaintiff to pay my attorney’s fees, effectively penalizing them for filing a meritless suit.
January 10, 2026
January 8, 2026
The Paper Trail: Subpoenas Being Issued as Smith Affidavits Come Under Fire
The effort to uncover the truth behind the Smiths' actions and behavior has entered a new, more aggressive phase. I have begun preparing the first wave of subpoenas aimed directly at the credibility of Charlotte Shah Smith and John Smith. Additional waves of subpoenas are in the pipeline.
The move comes in response to a pair of filed affidavits—documents that appear more concerned with self-preservation than the facts.
The Evidence in Question: Below, you will find the affidavits in their entirety. As you read through them, look closely at the claims being made. Are these sworn statements an honest accounting of events, or a calculated attempt to control the narrative? In the end, the documentation will provide the one thing these affidavits cannot: the truth.
January 6, 2026
Sunshine Request, signage:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1prMYCW7UtAifPQBRYVzsEnNBMG8Sb4GY/view?usp=sharing
December 31, 2025
Now claiming Punitive Damages for their egregious conduct. Click the buttons below for supporting documentation filed with the courts.
December 29, 2025
Why your monthly dues have increased 35% for 2026
December 26, 2025
In the spirit of the holiday season I thought I'd share some things that anger me about Autumn Lakes:
- Illegal flagpole in violation of our HOA governing documents
- Illegal realty condo selling by residents/owner, vehicle marketing signage, lawn signage, marketing literature distribution, door-knocking
- 50% dues increase the past 2 years with little to show for it. Buildings and amenities falling apart
- Illegal chemical application to lakes
- Wasteful spending (e.g. lawncare, snow removal)
- No Board Member term limits
- Illegal 3-year Board terms in violation of HOA governing documents (i.e. only 1 and 2 year terms)
Supposedly, Psycho and John Smith provided a settlement agreement for their defamation case against me. I instructed my attorney to ignore without discussing. I have no idea what was offered but we will proceed forward in shutting-down their illegal activities in our community. SHUT THEM DOWN!
December 25, 2025
What will our Board spend our $2.1 million dues on in the new year? Piss it all away, again.
December 21, 2025
Pertaining to Psycho & John Smith's legal "stuff"
Counsel,
This email is to provide notice that I will be filing two motions with the Court this week relating to Defendants’ prior responsive pleading.
At the last hearing, the Court asked whether I had received a response from Defendants to the original Petition, and I acknowledged receipt of their filing titled “Affirmative Defenses.” That acknowledgment was limited solely to confirming physical receipt of the document and should not be construed as agreement that the filing constituted a proper Answer, nor as acceptance of its sufficiency, nor as a waiver of any procedural rights.
The first motion is a motion to clarify the record to ensure that this limited acknowledgment is accurately reflected. The second is a motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses pursuant to Rule 55.27(f). Both motions will be submitted to the Court later this week. The previously filed TRO also remains pending and will be addressed in conjunction with these filings as the case proceeds.
Additionally, I believe it is important to reiterate that any legal claims or allegations directed at me that arise from, relate to, or depend upon Defendants’ real estate business activities within Autumn Lakes are invalid on their face. As set forth in the governing documents and in my pleadings, those business activities are prohibited under the Indenture and the ALA/ALC Declarations. This includes any defamation allegations premised on my objections to those prohibited business practices, as well as any interpretation of my expressive conduct or gestures as actionable for those prohibited business practices. To avoid unnecessary motion practice, unnecessary hearings, and continuation of the criminal proceedings for the Maryland Heights municipal citation, I encourage counsel to ensure that any future filings or claims are aligned with the governing documents and Missouri law, especially as they relate to the prohibited business activities your clients continue to conduct within Autumn Lakes.
Regards,
Mark Gavan
Plaintiff, pro se
December 18, 2025
Community Update: Upholding Our Governing Documents
Dear Autumn Lakes Neighbors, I am writing to bring forward two pressing issues that directly affect our community and to highlight the broader lesson about the importance of adhering to our governing documents—our “community laws.”
Issue 1: Unauthorized Flagpole Construction
Butch/Melvin has constructed a flagpole on HOA common ground, claiming prior Board approval. However, no Board has the authority to approve actions that contradict our governing documents. Any such approval is ultra vires—beyond the Board’s legal power—and therefore invalid and void.
This flagpole:
- - Obstructs vision between two condo driveways
- - Creates an eyesore that diminishes property values
- - Blocks drainage to the nearby storm sewer
- - Impacts our insurance premiums and adds liability to the HOA and all owners
Because our governing documents explicitly prohibit waivers or grandfathering of ultra vires approvals, this violation must be addressed. The Board should order removal of the flagpole to protect our community.
Issue 2: Conducting Business Within Autumn Lakes
Psycho/Shaw and John Smith have been conducting realty sales, advertising, and soliciting clients through mailers and door‑knocking. This activity violates our governing documents.
As with Issue 1, no Board can approve such conduct. Any approval is ultra vires and void, with no grandfathering permitted. I have filed a court motion to halt this business activity immediately, as it continues to harm our community and contradict our governing documents.
The Moral of the Story
Our governing documents exist to preserve the value of our community. When they are ignored, the consequences ripple outward: property neglect, financial waste, legal fees, and ultimately higher monthly dues for all owners.
The legal principle of ultra vires makes clear that any Board decision contradicting our governing documents is invalid and void. Our documents explicitly state that no waivers or grandfathering of prior approvals are valid. These provisions run with the land, not with any particular Board.
When Boards fail to enforce these rules, the entire community suffers—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.
2024 Board Actions and Misuse of Funds
In 2024, the Board budgeted funds and communicated to all owners that they would initiate an effort to redraft our 45‑year‑old governing documents by hiring an attorney.
At the same time, Jerris and I were both running for two open Board seats. The Board feared that our election together would shift the majority toward meaningful HOA change.
Instead of engaging the attorney to redraft governing documents, the Board directed him to concoct a mis‑interpretation of the existing indentures. This maneuver prevented both Jerris and me from serving simultaneously. The reinterpretation mandated that two of the five Board seats be filled by “house” owners, even though houses represent only 5% of our homes. This effectively reserved 40% of Board seats for a small minority of owners.
The budgeted funds were spent on this improper legal switcheroo. Meanwhile, the community remains bound to outdated indentures, while current and former Board members continue to disregard and fail to enforce them—harming us all.
Closing: Consequences and Karma
There is something to be said for karma. In both situations referenced above, the perpetrators are former Board members now being shielded by the current Board’s refusal to enforce governing document violations. Yet all parties are facing financial repercussions:
- - Butch/Melvin – legal fees to keep his flagpole
- - Psycho & John Smith – legal fees to conduct business in Autumn Lakes
- - HOA – legal fees to defend lawsuits, pay insurance deductibles
- - Owners – exorbitant monthly dues increases
When governing documents are ignored, everyone pays the price. Let us recommit to enforcing our community laws, protecting property values, and ensuring fairness for all.
December 17, 2025
Over half of our next year’s dues increase comes from the Board overspending this year’s budget. Each condo will pay about $99 a month ($1,190 a year) just to cover that spending spree. Of each condo's $165 monthly increase, 60% is due to poor budget management.
If this continues, dues will keep rising year after year. We need a Board that manages our money responsibly. It’s time for a new Board!
December 17, 2025
Legal Update
Dear Neighbors,
I want to clear up some recent confusion and provide a clear update on the ongoing legal matters affecting Autumn Lakes.
1. Me vs. Butch/Melvin
There has been talk that Butch/Melvin “won” the flagpole lawsuit yesterday. In reality, I voluntarily dismissed the case, which means I retain the right to refile it if/when I so choose. The same applies to the HOA lawsuit. These issues are not frivolous—our governing documents exist to be followed, and knowingly disregarding them undermines the integrity of our community. Butch’s conduct in ignoring these rules has been disruptive to all of us, and his flagpole stands as a visible reminder of that disregard. Whenever you see that illegal flagpole, consider it his placing his middle-finger in your face. An expensive plastic flagpole....cronies are untouchable (?).
2. Psycho and John Smith vs. Me
Psycho and John Smith filed suit against me, claiming defamation and even alleging I caused John’s widow‑maker heart attack (when in fact I saved his life). Because their claims about me stem directly from their prohibited business activities, their claims are legally defective and will be dismissed by the court. Under our governing documents, these criminals cannot legally conduct their real estate business within Autumn Lakes. They are aware of this weakness in their case and have already hired an additional lawyer to craft some more lies about me. We'll leave this one to my attorney and the judge to sort out.
3. Me vs. Psycho and John Smith
I have filed suit against Psycho and John Smith for defamation, abuse of process, and related claims. Their repeated false police reports and prohibited business practices have caused harm not only to me but to the integrity of our neighborhood. This case will ensure accountability for their actions, reinforce the standards set forth in our governing documents, and halt the ongoing harassment.
4. Me vs. Maryland Heights
I have filed suit against the City of Maryland Heights because of their misconduct and the unlawful actions they took against me. The Police Department and Prosecuting Attorney, knowingly acting on repeated false reports from Psycho and John Smith, carried out arrests that were unconstitutional, failed to act upon reports submitted by me, failed to provide me a Jury Trial despite Judge-certification per my constitutional rights, etc. The City chose not to pursue Order of Protection violations towards me, which highlights the irregularity of their conduct. Instead, they attempted to handle each unconstitutional matter “internally” rather than through the State Circuit Court who issued the Order—an approach that appears designed to conceal their unconstitutional actions. The City has now engaged multiple attorneys to investigate and respond to my claims. My suit against them, and their municipal citation against me, remain in-progress with the courts.
These are the legalities currently in progress. If you have questions or doubts, I encourage you to speak directly with the parties involved for their perspective. Certainly do not believe everything you hear, especially from those knowingly and continually violating our governing documents on a daily basis. A slap to all of our faces.
Thank you for your attention, for your commitment to maintaining the integrity of Autumn Lakes, and for supporting me in my attempts to improve our community.
Sincerely,
Mark
December 16, 2025
I dismissed the flagpole lawsuit against Butch/Melvin today. He can enjoy his flagpole for the duration, or until I decide whether to pursue the legal matter further. I reserve that right.
December 16, 2025
Butch/Melvin's illegal flagpole -- court hearing
Mr. DeVoto,
My summary for the hearing this afternoon that addresses each of your claims point‑by‑point.
I. Standing
Defendants argue I lack standing.
Missouri law is clear: §448.3‑116(1) RSMo authorizes any unit owner to enforce covenants, bylaws, and rules.
The Autumn Lakes Indenture and Declaration are recorded instruments running with the land, binding every owner as a matter of contract and property law.
I am asserting my own rights as a co‑owner of the common elements, not representing the Association.
Standing is firmly established.
II. Unauthorized Practice of Law
Defendants allege I am engaging in unauthorized practice of law.
That is incorrect. I am not representing the Association.
I am enforcing my own rights as a unit owner under Missouri law.
This is not the practice of law on behalf of another entity.
III. Attorney Fees
Defendants claim I improperly seek attorney’s fees.
My request is based on Article XI of the Autumn Lakes Declaration and Missouri law, which authorize recovery of enforcement costs.
I am not seeking fees in the capacity of an attorney.
If the case proceeds to trial, I will retain counsel, and those legal fees will be claimed as recoverable enforcement costs under the governing documents and applicable statutes.
IV. Trespass and Covenant Violation
Defendants argue no trespass or violation is stated.
My Petition alleges Defendants placed a permanent fixture on land they do not own.
Common ground is owned collectively by all unit owners.
Their installation constitutes a continuing trespass under Missouri law, supported by the Autumn Lakes Indentures, Covenants, and Bylaws.
Defendants rely on alleged Board approval, but any such approval is ultra vires and void because the Board cannot authorize acts expressly forbidden by the covenants (Davis v. Lakewood POA).
In addition, the governing documents contain a non‑waiver clause, which bars any claim of waiver or “grandfathering” (Looney v. Hindman).
Enforcement rights cannot be lost through inaction.
This violation is ongoing, not a one‑time event, and the Petition properly pleads enforceable claims.
V. Improper Purpose Allegation
Defendants allege I filed this petition in bad faith.
I deny that. The Petition was filed in good faith to enforce recorded covenants, protect common property, and seek lawful remedies.
Ensuring compliance with covenants is not harassment; it is the exercise of statutory and contractual rights.
Moreover, Defendants’ flagpole sits on common ground near the street, visible to every resident and visitor.
Its continued display sends a message to the community that Defendant, as former Board of Trustee member, is entitled to disregard the covenants through cronyism, while other owners are expected to comply.
This undermines homeowner morale at a time when the community is actively working to improve.
Addressing such visible violations promotes fairness, transparency, and equal enforcement of the governing documents.
VI. Prior Litigation Reference
Defendants reference other cases involving me.
Each case must be judged on its own merits.
The only prior litigation regarding this flagpole was a lawsuit I filed against the HOA for failing to enforce the governing documents.
That case was dismissed without prejudice, which preserved my right to bring future enforcement actions.
Prior litigation does not negate the validity of the present claims.
This Petition is based on the continuing violation of Defendants’ flagpole.
Closing
My Verified Petition sets forth valid claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of covenants, trespass, and recovery of enforcement costs.
Declaratory judgment is proper when parties dispute rights under covenants, and this Petition squarely presents that dispute.
The facts are straightforward: Defendants constructed and continue to maintain a flagpole on common ground.
Any claimed permission is invalid because the governing documents categorically prohibit structures on common property.
The covenants run with the land, bind every owner equally, and must be enforced consistently.
The relief sought is narrow and specific: removal of one unlawful fixture.
The Petition is procedurally sufficient under Missouri pleading standards, supported by verified factual allegations and controlling case law.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and allow this matter to proceed on the merits.
I also note for the Court’s awareness that Plaintiff has prepared imminent filings — a Temporary Restraining Order, a Permanent Injunction, a Motion for Summary Judgment, and a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts — which will further demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Settlement Agreement attached for your clients' consideration.
Regards,
Mark Gavan
December 13, 2025
Dear Neighbors,
For those of you accumulating evidence on Psycho Charlotte "Shah" Smith and her lack of credibility <you know who you are--wink>. I thought I'd share these 2 documents that she provided me. Sworn statements. I particularly like document #7a, #71. There's some other good ones too.
My apologies if I ruined your day. I had to share these, I just had to.
1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pEJqkc0kU68Ntvkyp8MUCQpWwM4lhX-R/view?usp=sharing
2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szcMsWI56GLVFkkskvx9tEB-qsI9ZQXC/view?usp=sharing
December 12, 2025
From "Mark Gavan" <Mark@AutumnLakesUncensored.com>
To "Vince Taormina" <vince@thetaorminafirm.com>
Date 12/12/2025 6:58:58 AM
Subject Smith Legalities at Autumn Lakes - Invalidity of Your Clients’ Claims
Vince,
I am writing regarding your clients’ lawsuit against me alleging defamation and related claims tied to their real estate activities within Autumn Lakes. These claims are invalid under the controlling Governing Documents.
Your clients have claimed that I “stole” their realty signage. In fact, I seized that signage pursuant to my rights as a unit owner under the Autumn Lakes Association and Condominium Declarations, which expressly authorize owners to enforce restrictions.
The Autumn Lakes Indenture is clear: Article VII §8 provides “No signs shall be erected or displayed in public view on any property.” Enforcement is authorized under Article VII §16, which permits proceedings at law or equity to restrain violations and recover damages. Likewise, ALA Declaration Article XI §1 grants each owner standing to prosecute proceedings in law or equity to enforce restrictions.
Because your clients’ magnetic placards and “for sale” signs were prohibited under these provisions, and are specifically addressed in the Amended Verified Petition I filed (refer to attachment), my seizure of such signage was a lawful exercise of enforcement rights under the Indenture and Declarations, not theft. Their claim is therefore invalid, as it arises from conduct that is itself barred by the governing documents and already pled as covenant violations in the pending lawsuit.
A related and complicating factor is that your clients are not only defendants but also prominent complainants and witnesses in this matter. Their dual role as violators of the covenants and as complainants attempting to criminalize lawful enforcement underscores the improper purpose of their claims and magnifies the relevance of their conduct to the Court’s review.
Moreover, since their realty business activity is itself barred by ALA Declaration Article 9.7 (absolute prohibition on business activity and “for sale” signs), any defamation claims premised on those transactions are legally defective. Statements concerning prohibited conduct cannot form the basis of a valid defamation claim.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that your clients’ claims are unfounded and should be withdrawn. I reserve all rights to pursue appropriate remedies, including sanctions, should this matter proceed.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Gavan
December 11, 2025
Dear Autumn Lakes Board of Trustees,
I am writing to formally advise the Board that I have filed an Amended Verified Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Damages, Sanctions, Costs, and Attorney’s Fees, together with a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County (Case No. 25SL‑CC01233).
The Petition and Motion address ongoing covenant violations and retaliatory conduct by neighboring unit owners. While the pleadings are directed against specific Defendants, they also reference provisions of the Autumn Lakes Indenture and ALA/ALC Declarations that govern all unit owners. As such, the litigation may indirectly impact or have implications for the Association’s governance, enforcement practices, and future compliance obligations.
Key points raised in the filings include:
- - Enforcement of restrictive covenants prohibiting signage, realtor advertising, and business activity within Autumn Lakes.
- - Allegations of retaliatory conduct, including defamatory statements, false police reports, and exclusionary actions, which are pled as tort claims.
- - Requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, sanctions, and attorney’s fees.
- Specific emphasis on continuing jurisdiction and enforcement mechanisms, including the Court’s contempt powers and potential appointment of a special master or receiver, to ensure accountability where the Board does not act.
The TRO seeks immediate relief to restrain ongoing violations, with a request for a preliminary injunction hearing to follow.
For the Board’s awareness, copies of the filed Amended Petition and Motion for TRO are attached. These filings supersede prior versions and represent the operative pleadings now before the Court.
Respectfully,
Mark E. Gavan
3131 Autumn Trace Drive
Maryland Heights, MO 63043
December 11., 2025
To the Autumn Lakes Board of Trustees,
I am writing to formally advise the Board of Trustees regarding a separate legal action I have initiated against Association members, which although directed at individual neighbors, carries direct implications for the Association and its governance responsibilities. On December 7, 2025, I filed a Verified Petition and supporting pleadings in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County (Case No. 25SL-AC23510-01, Division 43), seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and ultimately a Permanent Injunction concerning the illegal erection of a PVC flagpole on Association common ground, deemed trespassing under the governing documents and an ultra vires act beyond the Board’s lawful authority.
The pleadings include:
- - Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- - Memorandum of Law citing Missouri statutes and condominium law on covenant enforcement
- - Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction
- - Notice of Hearing scheduled
This lawsuit was deemed necessary because of the Board’s failure to enforce the governing documents. The Autumn Lakes Indenture and Declaration expressly prohibit above-ground structures on common ground, yet no enforcement action was taken. The flagpole installation obstructs sightlines, interferes with landscaping, and increases insurance exposure. Missouri law provides ample precedent and statutory authority confirming that restrictive covenants must be enforced as written, that injunctive relief is proper for continuing violations, and that associations may impose fines and recover costs for enforcement.
Importantly, the Court’s consideration of this matter may result in orders authorizing the Association to impose fines of $100 per day and assess removal costs against the members’ unit until compliance is achieved. These findings, if adopted, will directly impact the Association’s governance authority and enforcement responsibilities.
I also wish to note that I attempted to resolve this matter amicably with the members on at least three separate occasions, but they have not responded to any settlement efforts and have instead engaged legal counsel.
Given the potential implications for the Association’s enforcement powers and responsibilities, I believe it is important that the Board be fully informed of these proceedings.
Respectfully,
Mark Gavan
3131 Autumn Trace Drive
Maryland Heights, MO 63043
Board Accountability Addendum
This lawsuit represents a separate legal action against different Association members and was deemed necessary due to the Board’s failure to enforce the governing documents. The Autumn Lakes Indenture and Declaration expressly prohibit above-ground structures on common ground, yet no enforcement action was taken by the Board despite clear violations.
By not acting, the Board left me with no choice but to pursue judicial enforcement to protect the Association’s property, safety, and governance integrity. Missouri law and condominium statutes provide ample authority confirming that restrictive covenants must be enforced as written, that injunctive relief is proper for continuing violations, and that associations may impose fines and recover costs for enforcement.
I also attempted to resolve this matter amicably with the neighbors on at least three separate occasions, but they failed to respond and instead engaged legal counsel. The Board’s inaction has therefore directly necessitated this litigation.
This case highlights the importance of the Board fulfilling its fiduciary duty to enforce the governing documents consistently and transparently, so that individual members are not forced to bear the burden of enforcement alone.
Filings:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OjzDNHWhG6egiLEwZzsE9dHF4ICCAwdf/view?usp=drive_link
December 7, 2025
Latest filings on Butch/Melvin's illegal flagpole installed on HOA common ground....trespassing!
Dear Counsel,
Attached please find the TRO packet of filings. For clarity, I am providing below a brief summary of the arguments presented in support of my Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, followed by a summary of my opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and request for attorney’s fees. My opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and request for attorney’s fees has already been filed with the Court, and the summary below reflects the arguments contained in those filings.
1. Summary of TRO Arguments
- Facts: Defendants erected and continue to maintain a PVC flagpole on common ground in violation of the Autumn Lakes Indenture and Declaration. The flagpole obstructs motorists’ line of sight, interferes with landscaping, increases insurance exposure, and diminishes property values.
- Legal Standard: Missouri law requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
- Likelihood of Success: Restrictive covenants prohibit above-ground structures on common ground. Any claimed Board approval is ultra vires and void. Missouri precedent enforces covenants according to their plain meaning.
- Irreparable Harm: The continuing violation causes harms not compensable by money damages, including safety risks, diminished aesthetics, and erosion of community trust.
- Balance of Equities: Defendants have no legal right to maintain the flagpole. Equity favors uniform enforcement of covenants.
- Public Interest: Enforcement promotes uniformity, safety, and property values. Missouri’s Condominium Act authorizes enforcement and fines for continuing violations.
- Relief Requested: Immediate removal of the flagpole from common ground and restraint against reinstallation pending further proceedings.
2. Summary of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss / Attorney’s Fees
- Standing: I am suing in my own capacity as a unit owner, not representing the Association. Missouri law and the governing documents expressly authorize individual owners to enforce covenants.
- Attorney’s Fees: I am not seeking fees as an attorney. The governing documents provide for recovery of enforcement costs and attorney’s fees if outside counsel is retained. My request preserves that right.
- Unauthorized Practice of Law: I am enforcing my own rights as a property owner, not representing a corporation or another party.
- Rule 55 Compliance: My petition contains specific factual allegations regarding the flagpole’s installation, repair, and resulting harms. Legal citations are permitted to establish the basis for relief.
- Citation Clarification: The Riverview Estates case cited in my petition is valid Missouri precedent; the year was mistyped as 1977 instead of 1997. I have corrected the citation and demonstrated candor to the Court.
- Trespass Claim: Defendants’ installation of a permanent fixture on common ground constitutes a continuing trespass under Missouri law and violates the governing documents.
- Relief Involving Association: I am not seeking to compel the Association, only declaratory judgment confirming Defendants’ violation of covenants.
- Improper Purpose Allegation: The petition was filed in good faith to enforce covenants and protect common property. Visible violations undermine confidence in governance and fairness.
- Prior Litigation: The only prior case I filed concerning this flagpole was against the HOA, which was dismissed without prejudice. That dismissal preserved my right to bring future enforcement actions. This petition is based on the continuing violation by Defendants.
Respectfully,
Mark Gavan
Court filings:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OjzDNHWhG6egiLEwZzsE9dHF4ICCAwdf/view?usp=sharing
December 4, 2025
New Lawsuit vs Psycho & John Smith
Prohibition on Realty Signage on Vehicles
Defendants may not affix, display, or maintain magnetic placards, decals, or other realty marketing signs on vehicles where they are visible from property or common areas.Prohibition on Realty “For Sale” Signs in Yards or Common Grounds
Defendants may not place, erect, or display realty “for sale” signs or similar advertising devices in unit yards, lawns, or any portion of the common areas within Autumn Lakes.Prohibition on Conducting Realty Business on the Premises
Defendants may not conduct, perform, or solicit realty services or any other business activity from their residence or within Autumn Lakes, in accordance with the Governing Documents.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eHizvEPu1b0iqNzIWy-fcsOCE5exGhht/view?usp=sharing
December 1, 2025
November 29, 2025
By Laura Fisher
Ok — I took my own “deeper dive” into these numbers. IMO some are reasonable as expected and others raise questions of whether there is a BETTER WAY TO MANAGE AL financials.
Let’s breakdown a few of the highest costs for condo owners — some don’t seem too bad, while others seem high — so is there a way to lower these costs?
Would owners buy these services on their own if the service was not included in hoa fees? Would owners like to keep hoa fees LOWER by “opting out” of some expenses if that were possible? (Snow removal comes to mind & might be only “optional” expense, although there might be different way to structure swimming pool expenses to only those who use them — idk.) While not “condo owners” only, pool & clubhouse run about $100 per owner, houses & condos — I know communities that pay $300-800 per year for summer-only pool use….so could cost be shifted to users only via subscription? Just an idea.
Insurance @ $415,000 = ~ $1390 per condo per year (seems a tad high for outside of building when much of outside is owners responsibility now & owners need to pay $25,000 deductible with disastrous event). When AL lost condo insurance & Smith advised condo owners all to take out additional insurance to cover exteriors & higher deductibles, we did so & increase was $14/month or $168 annually. Even if not “apples to apples” comparison, IMO this cost bears closer scrutiny & research into lowering cost.
Administration @ $343,510 = ~$1150 per condo, basically for tracking our HOA fees and coordinating owner requests for repairs. This is our 2nd highest expense, significantly higher than both AMC and SMG. Is it time to put this service out to fair bidding process involving owner oversight Team as CPM contract expires? If I were trustee, I would readily accept volunteer involvement as means to engage community & overcome residual distrust from Board’s disregard of owner input. When Board disallowed petition of half the condo owners who wanted SMG to be replaced when their 1-yr contract ended, Board ignored owners, renewing SMG for 2nd year at higher fees!! Imagine — half your constituents wanted a change, offered to do the work in time required, and Board ignored them, claiming process wasn’t correct. Who does that?? Clearly large number of owners were sending message to Board in best way they knew how. (And BTW for record, I was not involved / nor leader of this effort.)
Snow Removal @ $250,000 = ~$500 per condo annually (average for season? Idk) Nice to have done; is it worth $500 to you? Some wound say yes & some no — so is there a better way to handle this item?
Water & Sewer @ $260,000 = -$870 annually or $72 per condo monthly (seems fairly normal IMO)
Building Maintenance @ $182,000 = ~ $610 per condo
PLUS
Building Maintenance from Reserves @ $469,000 = - $1565 per condo (presumably to make up for building maintenance NOT DONE since 2019, previously done annually on rotating basis.
Together, this is $182,000 + $469,000 =$651,000 in 2026 for building upkeep & overcoming defeated maintenance of MANY years. That’s $2170 for EACH CONDO in 2026 even though every condo is NOT GETTING repairs, painting, new roofs, et al. I’m sure many owners would see this as a high priority. However, an explanation would be helpful as to why $2170 for EVERY condo when only some are getting maintenance, and as to why we are drawing down Reserves this way when we are trying to build them up. It’s all about DIALOGUE between owners & trustees so all are on the “same page” and looks for better ways — not simply more one-way communication that ignores owners’ suggestions.
Finally, the biggest item: $549,340 for Unallocated Reserves = ~ $1800 per condo. Yes, most can agree we must build our Reserves. But spending reserves (above) for years of neglect and then refilling coffers at higher rate than Reserve Study recommended feels a bit like a “shell game” IMO. Will condo owners demand accountability?
Mark's Response to Laura:
Thanks for taking the time to dig into these numbers so thoroughly. You’ve raised some important points about insurance, administration, and reserve spending that definitely deserve closer review. I agree that more transparency and owner input would help build trust, especially around high-cost items like building maintenance and administration. Exploring options like competitive bidding, user-based fees for amenities, or clearer explanations of reserve allocations could be worthwhile. I think the next step is to bring these questions into a structured dialogue with trustees so owners feel heard and we can evaluate practical alternatives together.
November 29, 2025
Here’s a clear breakdown of the 2026 Budgets for each legal entity (Autumn Lakes Association – ALA, and Autumn Lakes Condominium – ALC), organized by major sections. *** Condo dues increase ~35% increase, averaging $572/month per unit.
____________________
🏡 Autumn Lakes Association (ALA) – 2026 Budget
Income
- Assessments (Condos + Homes): $275,184 (main source of revenue)
- Clubhouse Income: $3,000
- Interest Income: $140
- Total Income: $278,324
Expenses
- Administrative: $14,198
- Management fees $6,900, accounting $2,998, newsletter $900, etc.
- Utilities: $32,075
- Electric $12,000, gas $2,900, water $7,000, trash $7,000, internet $2,600.
- Building Maintenance: $31,500
- Monitored work orders $26,000, repairs $5,000.
- Grounds: $116,174
- Lawn care $72,000, tree trimming $10,000, fountains/lake $16,500, snow removal $10,000.
- Amenities: $33,013
- Pool operations $11,505, repairs $10,000, cleaning $2,500, clubhouse repairs $4,000.
- Insurance & Taxes: $9,100
- Insurance $6,700, D&O $1,700.
- Reserves: $42,264
- Unallocated reserves.
- Reserve Expenses: $29,350
- Clubhouse flooring $20,000, security system reserve $9,350.
Total Expenses: $278,324
➡️ Balanced budget (Net Income $0).
Assets (Oct 2025): $69,265 (Operating + Money Market).
____________________
🏢 Autumn Lakes Condominium (ALC) – 2026 Budget
Income
- Assessments (294 homes): $1,760,681
- ALA Allocation (Master Fees): $259,308
- Ownership Adjustment: -$2,597
- Interest Income: $1,000
- Total Income: $2,018,392
Expenses
- Administrative: $343,510
- ALA allocation $259,308, management $64,680, accounting $5,000, legal collections $10,000.
- Utilities: $265,000
- Water $135,000, sewer $125,000, trash $5,000.
- Building Maintenance: $182,100
- Siding $60,000, general maintenance $35,000, roof $7,500, repairs $7,500, retaining walls $14,000.
- Grounds: $273,292
- Lawn care $75,602, snow removal $150,000, tree trimming $20,000.
- Insurance & Taxes: $415,150
- Property insurance $400,000, D&O $14,000.
- Reserves: $539,340
- Unallocated reserves.
- Reserve Expenses: $469,000
- New roofs $210,000, siding $105,000, painting $75,000, foundation $49,000, asphalt $30,000.
Total Expenses: $2,018,392
➡️ Balanced budget (Net Income $0).
Assets (Oct 2025): $347,754 (Operating + Money Market + CD + Receivables).
____________________
📊 Key Takeaways
- ALA (Master Association): Smaller budget ($278K), focused on shared amenities, grounds, and clubhouse. Balanced with modest reserves.
- ALC (Condominium Association): Much larger budget ($2.0M), driven by building maintenance, insurance, and reserves. Heavy reserve allocations for major capital projects (roofs, siding, painting).
- Fee Impact:
- ALA fees: $73.50/month per unit.
- ALC fees: ~35% increase, averaging $572/month per unit (includes ALA portion).
November 20, 2025
2026 Dues (approximate) - this was based on 34% estimate; increase was actually 35% so slightly higher.
Based upon unofficial information received from a source outside of the Board/CPM, here is an approximation of your 2026 dues based upon approx 34% increase year over year. Yikes!
November 17, 2025
Hi neighbors,
I want to keep you informed about the ongoing flagpole dispute with Butch/Melvin.
- I filed a response opposing the Rhombergs’ motion to dismiss my case.
- In my filing, I explained that as a unit owner I have the right under Missouri law to enforce our covenants and protect common property.
- The petition includes claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of covenants, and trespass — all supported by specific facts (like the flagpole’s location on common ground) and citations to our governing documents.
- I clarified that I am not representing the Association, but asserting my own rights as a co‑owner of the common elements.
- I also addressed their arguments point‑by‑point, including issues of standing, attorney fees, and factual allegations. See below.
- Importantly, I have already provided the Rhombergs with three separate settlement agreements to resolve this matter without further litigation.
In short: the case is moving forward, my filing lays out why the claims are valid, and I’ve made multiple good‑faith attempts to settle. Follow the Indentures/Bylaws that the HOA has filed at the courthouse--it is the law, not optional.
Next, we proceed to trial.
Thanks for staying engaged.
APPENDIX A – POINT-BY-POINT
REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
1.
Standing and Proper Party
Defendants
argue Plaintiff cannot represent the Association. Plaintiff responds that he
sues in his own capacity under §448.3-116(1) RSMo, which expressly authorizes
any unit owner to enforce the covenants, bylaws, and rules. Plaintiff is not
representing the Association but asserting his own rights as a co-owner of the
common elements.
2.
Attorney Fees Request
Defendants
claim Plaintiff seeks fees improperly. Plaintiff clarifies that he is not
seeking fees as an attorney, but rather requesting enforcement costs and
attorney fees authorized by the governing documents (e.g., ALA Declaration Art.
XI) and Missouri law. These may be awarded to the prevailing party or the
Association in covenant enforcement actions.
3.
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Defendants
allege Plaintiff is improperly representing a corporation. Plaintiff reiterates
that he is not representing the Association or any corporation. He is asserting
his own legal rights as a unit owner under Missouri law and requesting the
Court to compel the Association to act in accordance with its duties—not acting
on its behalf.
4.
Factual Allegations and Rule 55 Compliance
Defendants
claim the Petition is argumentative and lacks factual clarity. Plaintiff
responds that the Petition contains specific factual allegations: the location
of the flagpole, its reinstallation date, its placement on common ground, and
its interference with maintenance and safety. Legal citations are permitted in
pleadings and help establish the legal basis for relief.
5.
Legal Citations and Alleged Fabrication
Defendants
allege Plaintiff cited a non-existent case. Plaintiff acknowledges that one
citation may have contained a typographical or sourcing error and withdraws any
reliance on that specific reference. However, the legal principles at
issue—namely, that Missouri courts enforce restrictive covenants and prohibit
ultra vires HOA actions—are firmly supported by correctly cited and controlling
cases, including Looney v. Hindman, Weiss v. Carriage House Estates HOA, and
Davis v. Lakewood POA. These decisions validate Plaintiff’s claims for
injunctive relief and covenant enforcement under Missouri law.
6.
Trespass Claim
Defendants
argue no valid trespass claim is stated. Plaintiff responds that the Petition
alleges Defendants placed a permanent fixture on land they do not own. This
constitutes a continuing trespass under Missouri law and supports a claim for
nominal damages and injunctive relief.
7.
Relief Involving the Association
Defendants
assert that the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel the Association to act.
Plaintiff responds that the requested relief is consistent with §448.3-102(11)
RSMo, which authorizes the Association to impose fines and enforce rules.
Plaintiff is not asking the Court to compel a non-party, but rather to issue a
declaratory judgment confirming that a violation has occurred and that the
Association is authorized—under Missouri law and the governing documents—to
impose and collect fines accordingly.
8.
Improper Purpose Allegation
Defendants
allege Plaintiff filed the Petition in bad faith. Plaintiff denies this and
affirms that the Petition was filed to enforce recorded covenants, protect
common property, and seek lawful remedies. The claims are supported by factual
allegations and governing documents, and the filing is neither frivolous nor
vexatious.
9.
Use of Legal Language in Pleading
Defendants
object to Plaintiff’s use of legal principles in the Petition. Plaintiff
responds that legal citations and references to governing documents are
appropriate in pleadings, especially when seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief. The Petition combines factual allegations with legal support, as
required under Missouri pleading standards.
10.
Prior Litigation Reference
Defendants
reference other cases involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff responds that each case
must be judged on its own merits. Prior litigation does not negate the validity
of the present claims, which are based on new facts and distinct legal
violations.
November 16, 2025
This Board Must Go!
A police officer confirmed that I am legally permitted to park my vehicle here for up to 48 hours. That means I can continue parking here each weekend until our HOA Board steps down.
The flag displayed is protected under the First Amendment—my right to free speech as a citizen of this fine country.
Tomorrow’s HOA Meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7:00 PM. Let’s stand together and make our voices heard.
🙏 Fingers crossed, prayers lifted.
This Board Must Go!
November 15, 2025
Psycho and John seem to like my flag, taking photos of it and me.
November 14, 2024
I spent another couple hours picketing on McKelvey. What are you doing to protest this corrupt Board's behavior and your upcoming 2026 monthly dues increase of $70 to $100? Corruption, spending waste, building neglect, sad sad sad behavior over many many years. Pathetic Board behavior. This Board MUST resign.
November 13, 2025
by Laura Fisher
If you’re attending HOA meeting, be sure to ask what budget cutting / cost saving actions will be implemented for 2026.
There are some easy cost savings:
1 - Lawncare): reduce lawn mowing to bi-weekly in Summer; skip a year or two of lawn aeration & overseeding; stop lawn fertilizers and weed killers;
2 - insurance): split 52 buildings into smaller groups / multiple policies so more insurers can and will bid to cover condos; only small number of companies will underwrite large number of condos, but splitting up policies will open up market to additional companies;
3 - Snow Removal): stick to rules! Last year we paid for snow removal two days in a row and only one of those met the trigger criteria of minimum snowfall as measured at STL airport;
4 - Groundskeeping): reduce amount of lawn mowing and damaging erosion on slopes to save soil, trees planted there and cost of mowing and cost to repair damage done by mowers following same paths on slopes;
5 — Water & Sewer cost reductions): look for ways to save $$ ( do sprinklers near clubhouse need to be used ??) and consider cost shifting back to condo owners (modest one time cost to convert, some already have own meters, and then owners will pay what they use, not others paying for wastefulness)
6 — analyze costs vs use of clubhouse, pool and sport courts; then see if there are better ways to maintain and better manage costs.
7 — RV lot): if we must keep the little-used RV lot because it’s in the indentures, then raise fees and / or change rules of use. Current RV lot is obsolete and not used by many owners.
8 — shift spending to higher needs that will cost more if further delayed): Example A: deferred maintenance on condo exteriors, roofs and more is now costing more money or undone. Annual painting rotations were halted in 2019 and now it’s even more costly to catch up. This means building that should have been painted on 7-year rotation in 2020 are now 5-6 years later, so they were last painted 12-13 years ago. No wonder they are in such poor shape! Example B: beautiful old growth trees for which we are known need to be pruned, not ignored and removed. If tree maintenance is ignored, we lose 40- and 50-year old trees, incurring costs to remove them, cost of irreplaceable loss, costs to replace, loss of wildlife habitat and air purification, and so much more. We may need to shift more budget here to overcome the neglect of several years.
9 — Other ideas): pretty sure there are other ideas. What are your ideas? Let’s see if they might be helpful.
Let’s not just dismiss ideas and say they won’t work / can’t be done. Do solid analysis of current costs vs changes and make decisions based on facts not just guesses. The annual Autumn Lakes Revenue is over $1.7 Mullion dollars — demand Trustees practice due diligence in their fiscal responsibilities for which they were elected or appointed — owners deserve nothing less.
November 12, 2025
Condo Owners,
You should expect to receive about $70 monthly dues increase beginning January. This is based on the Reserve Study that the Board commissioned in 2024. Start saving for the inevitable.
There’s a Real Estate Agent on My Condo Board. Isn’t That a Bad Idea?
When brokers have access to privileged information about condo residents, it can open the door to bad behavior.
By Jill Terreri Ramos @ The New York Times
Nov. 8, 2025
Q. I am on the board of directors of an Upper West Side condominium. A member of the board is a residential real estate broker who leases and sells apartments in the building — including apartments he’s bought for himself that were substantially below market. As a board member, he has access to privileged resident information, including financials and personal circumstances, giving him an obvious personal advantage in his business deals. Is having this person on the board a breach of our ethical and legal responsibility? What is our obligation
A: Condominium board members have a legal responsibility to put the interests of the association and all unit owners first. When they use the privileged information they have as board members for their own profit if it’s to the disadvantage of other unit owners, that is a breach of their fiduciary duty.
There is a way that a broker can buy an apartment in a condominium while serving on the board without violating that fiduciary duty: If the member is not influencing how the board treats the purchase application for that unit, and does not vote on whether the board will exercise its right of first refusal when the unit goes up for sale, then there is no impropriety, said Leni Morrison Cummins, chair of the condominiums and cooperatives practice at Cozen O’Connor in New York.
But your situation sounds more egregious. Board members cannot use information they learn in the course of their work for the condominium to influence a buyer or seller, and they cannot use confidential information for their private gain if it harms the condominium or their fellow owners. If this broker is buying units at artificially low prices and then leasing them, he could be dragging down the value of other units.
“At a minimum, this broker should be reminded of his fiduciary duties as a board member, and if he cannot fulfill those duties, he should be given the opportunity to resign,” said Andrew I. Bart, senior counsel with Kagan Lubic Lepper Finkelstein & Gold, LLP.The board should send a letter to this broker citing the relevant parts of its governing documents. “He should be kept away from discussions of his own transactions and should be reminded of his fiduciary duties not to use confidential information for himself when it comes to his own transactions in the building,” Mr. Bart said. “That’s a red line.”
If your neighbor can’t agree to those demands, he should resign. If he refuses to resign, he should be removed from the board in a process that’s in line with the condo’s bylaws.
--------------------
Key Takeaways:
- Conflict of Interest Risks: Real estate agents on condo boards may have access to privileged information—such as residents’ financials, personal situations, or plans to sell—which could be used to their advantage in business dealings.
- Fiduciary Duty: Board members have a legal obligation to act in the best interest of the building and its residents. If a broker uses their position to benefit personally, it could be a breach of fiduciary duty.
- Transparency and Recusal: Experts recommend that brokers on boards should recuse themselves from discussions or votes that could present a conflict, such as unit sales, leasing policies, or renovations that affect marketability.
- Legal and Ethical Oversight: While not illegal in most jurisdictions, this dual role is ethically fraught and can erode trust among residents. Some buildings have bylaws that restrict or regulate such involvement.
- Best Practices: The article suggests that boards should adopt clear conflict-of-interest policies and ensure that all members understand their responsibilities and limitations.
November 8, 2025
I had a discussion with a prospective condo buyer in Autumn Lakes. Their primary concern was our high monthly dues. The other property in a different neighborhood that they were considering had higher monthly dues than Autumn Lakes. They were leaning towards the other property stating that at the rate of Autumn Lakes dues increases the past few years that Autumn Lakes dues would quickly bypass the other property's dues in a year or two. They decided against the Autumn Lakes property for this reason. Our dues are already way too high for our subpar amenity quality. We pay way too much for grounds/snow management. Our monthly dues should be at least $100 - $150 less than current. Our dues are about average for the area, but way overpriced for the quality of our community (amenity and building quality). Just look at our sports courts, roofs, siding, etc. Way overpriced.
THIS BOARD MUST RESIGN!
November 4, 2025
Dear Neighbors,
The Board’s recent message speaks of harmony, respect, and a welcoming environment—values we all share and aspire to. But true harmony cannot be achieved through reminders alone. It requires trust, transparency, and leadership that honors the governing documents and treats all homeowners fairly.
As many of you know, I filed a lawsuit against the current Board of Trustees. Though dismissed on procedural grounds, the issues raised remain unresolved and deeply relevant to our community’s future. These include:
- * Neglect of Common Areas: Unsafe conditions, ignored maintenance requests, and deteriorating amenities like the pool, tennis courts, and walkways.
- * Financial Mismanagement: Withheld financial records, unauthorized assessments, and improper reserve fund usage.
- * Retaliation and Harassment: Police calls, meeting exclusions, and public defamation targeting whistleblowers and dissenting voices.
- * Discriminatory Rule Enforcement: Unequal treatment of homeowners regarding repairs, fines, and access to amenities.
- * Violation of Governing Documents: Rules enforced without proper adoption, and decisions made without required member votes.
These are not abstract concerns—they affect our property values, our safety, and our peace of mind. A community cannot thrive when its leadership disregards its own bylaws and retaliates against those who speak up.
If we truly want Autumn Lakes to be a place of harmony, respect, and pride, we must elect a new Board of Trustees—one that is committed to transparency, fairness, and lawful governance. Only then can we move forward together and restore the integrity of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark
November 4, 2025
My Legal Response to the HOA Board’s Bogus Rule List
Today, the Board circulated a list of so-called “rules” that have no basis in our HOA’s governing documents—none of which are filed at the courthouse or legally enforceable. I’m not sure what makes them think they can simply invent regulations out of thin air, but let me be clear: rules not grounded in the official governing documents carry no legal weight. They are unenforceable, and I’m calling it out. Again.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wKZzQKNnLA1mkEr3KsxnPVpmMzvtQLOx/view?usp=sharing
October 25, 2025
Our shitty Board of Trustees CANNOT simply make rules on the fly, change rules, and publish their BS rules in the Gazette Newsletter expecting them to be followed. Our governing documents prevent such behavior. There is a governance process for rules, and if the process is not followed then the rule is unenforceable. Follow the Indentures and Bylaws.
October 25, 2025
Did you know that each homeowner pays between $85 and $110 each and every month for grounds maintenance such as grass, trees, bushes, leaves, sprinklers, fountains, snow removal. The amount will only grow this winter as we further exceed our 2025 budget, such as for removing 1-inch of snow several times each winter. January/February 2025 we overspent the entire year's snow removal budget by $284 per condo/home. This is the amount EXCEEDING the budgeted amount for snow removal, overspending that eats into our Reserves/savings. This money is dues you already paid for other things such as building repairs and water usage, that instead were paid to remove 1-inch of snow several times last winter. Any snow removal this November/December 2025 even further eats into your savings since that cost is also included in this year's snow removal budget for 2025. This year-after-year fiscal and property mismanagement by our HOA Board is eating our lunch (and dinner). August numbers below.
October 25, 2025
HOA MONTHLY DUES - Missouri
The average condo monthly assessments (or HOA fees) in the St. Louis metro area can vary quite a bit based on the specific property, but several sources indicate that the state of Missouri has a surprisingly high average monthly HOA fee of approximately $469.
However, it's important to consider that:
Missouri's state average of $469 is the highest reported in some national studies, which attribute this to newer master-planned communities with extensive amenities. This figure represents the whole state, not just the St. Louis metro area.
More specific anecdotal evidence from St. Louis condo owners suggests fees can range widely, with common figures falling between $300 and $600 per month or more, depending on the building. Some examples cited include:
Around $360 for a small condo with parking and most utilities included (except electricity and internet).
Around $385 - $523 for loft-style units with various inclusions.
$700+ for luxury buildings with high-end amenities like pools, gyms, 24/7 security, and valet service.
For condo owners nationally, the typical range for monthly fees is often cited between $300 and $400.
The actual fee for any specific condo will depend on factors like:
The age and condition of the building.
The square footage of the unit.
The level of amenities (pool, gym, doorman, elevators, parking, security).
What is included in the fee (utilities, insurance, external maintenance, landscaping, reserve funds).
October 24, 2025
Condo signage--what are your thoughts on these 2 images? Review the legalities below the photos. Per the law, both of these signage situations are consistently inappropriate for our community. When Psycho removes her signs then I will do the same.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1svAFLVSL83BOdkVebgQCnMeXNH3TYvn6/view?usp=sharing
October 21, 2025
October 14, 2025
Mid- to low-priced homes in St. Louis are struggling to sell because prices are still high, interest rates are expensive, and many buyers are stuck in older, cheaper mortgages they don’t want to give up.
Here’s a simple breakdown of what’s going on:
🏠 1. Homes Are Still Priced Too High
- After the pandemic, home prices shot up fast. Sellers got used to asking for top dollar.
- But now, buyers aren’t willing to pay those high prices—especially for smaller or older homes.
- Many homes are sitting on the market because they’re overpriced compared to what buyers can afford.
💸 2. Interest Rates Are Too High
- Mortgage rates are around 6.3% to 6.8% in 2025. That’s much higher than the 3%–4% rates people had a few years ago.
- Higher rates mean monthly payments are bigger, even for cheaper homes.
- Buyers are backing off because they don’t want to pay more for less.
🔒 3. Buyers Are “Locked In” to Old Mortgages
- Lots of people already own homes with super low interest rates from 2020–2022.
- If they sell and buy a new home now, they’ll lose that low rate and pay more every month.
- So they’re staying put, which means fewer buyers are out shopping.
🧾 4. Refinancing Is Risky for Some
- Some homeowners want to refinance or sell, but their home isn’t worth as much as they owe.
- This is called being “underwater”—they’d lose money if they sold.
- That makes it hard to move or upgrade, especially for people in mid- to low-priced homes.
🏘️ 5. Too Much Competition
- There are more homes for sale now, so buyers have more choices.
- If your home isn’t updated or priced right, it gets ignored.
- Buyers are picky—they want good deals and move-in-ready homes.
📉 6. St. Louis Market Is Still Hot—But Not for Everyone
- Overall, St. Louis prices are rising and inventory is tight.
- That helps sellers in popular areas or with nicer homes.
- But mid- to low-level homes in less trendy neighborhoods aren’t getting the same attention.
🛠️ What Sellers Can Do
- Lower the price to match what buyers can afford.
- Fix up the home to make it more appealing.
- Offer help with closing costs or mortgage rate buy-downs to attract buyers.
If you’re trying to sell a home in this range, it’s not impossible—but you’ll need to be flexible and realistic.
October 11, 2025
Summary of all counts from my lawsuit petition
Includes alleged violations and descriptions of improper
actions
Count I – Failure to
Maintain Common Elements
- The HOA failed to repair roofs, amenities, lakes,
and infrastructure, leading to unsafe and deteriorated conditions and loss
of property value.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and HOA
governing documents.
Count II – Failure to
Disclose Financial Records
- The HOA denied members access to financial
statements and budgets, charged excessive “inspection fees,” and refused
to post records.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and
transparency obligations.
Count III – Retaliation
Against Whistleblower
- Plaintiff was harassed, banned from meetings, and
subjected to false police reports after raising concerns about HOA
misconduct.
- In violation of Missouri statutes, public policy,
and whistleblower protections.
Count IV – Unauthorized
Assessment Increases
- The HOA imposed large dues hikes and fees without
the required member vote and improperly used reserve funds.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and the HOA’s
governing documents.
Count V – Improper
Transfer and Use of Reserve Funds
- Reserve funds were diverted to cover unrelated
operational expenses without owner consent, depleting association
resources.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and fiduciary
duties.
Count VI – Defamation
- HOA officials publicly accused Plaintiff of
stealing association records in meetings, emails, and online posts,
harming his professional reputation.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and defamation
laws.
Count VII – Negligent
Maintenance of Common Areas
- Defendants neglected roofs, sidewalks, and
amenities, creating hazards, sinkholes, and environmental damage.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and HOA
maintenance obligations.
Count VIII – Improper
Denial of Records Access
- The HOA ignored repeated written requests for
audits, contracts, and financial statements, obstructing member oversight.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and member
access rights.
Count IX – Financial
Mismanagement and Waste
- The HOA failed to complete audits or file tax
returns and misused association funds for unauthorized expenses.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and fiduciary
duties.
Count X – Conflicts of
Interest and Self-Dealing
- Board members participated in decisions
benefiting themselves or their associates and failed to disclose
conflicts.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and ethical
standards.
Count XI – Breach of
Fiduciary Duty
- Trustees acted in bad faith, retaliated against a
whistleblower, and misused HOA funds.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and fiduciary
obligations.
Count XII – Misuse of
Association Funds
- Association money was used for unapproved
expenditures and selective legal defenses rather than authorized purposes.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and governing
documents.
Count XIII – Failure to
Maintain Adequate Insurance
- The HOA failed to renew or maintain sufficient
property and earthquake coverage and misrepresented policy details to
owners.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and insurance
obligations.
Count XIV – Improper
Vendor Management
- The HOA failed to supervise contractors, overpaid
for poor work, and neglected safety and maintenance oversight.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and fiduciary
duties.
Count XV – Failure to
Address Safety Issues
- Defendants ignored tripping hazards, mold, and
structural decay, endangering residents and damaging property.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and the HOA’s
duty of care.
Count XVI – Unauthorized
Contracts
- The HOA entered long-term service and insurance
contracts without required member approval, raising costs and reducing
transparency.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and governing
documents.
Count XVII – Enforcement
of Unapproved Rules
- HOA enforced grill bans, signage restrictions,
and fines that were never formally adopted or approved by vote.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and HOA
governing procedures.
Count XVIII – Negligent
Recordkeeping
- Election ballots and minutes were discarded or
withheld; financial and vendor records missing; no consistent record
retention.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and corporate
recordkeeping obligations.
Count XIX – Retaliatory
Fines and Enforcement
- Plaintiff was selectively threatened
for lawful conduct while others were not disciplined.
- In violation of Missouri statutes, HOA rules, and
whistleblower protections.
Count XX – Improper
Meeting Conduct
- Board held closed meetings without notice,
limited member participation, and concealed voting outcomes.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and
open-meeting requirements.
Count XXI – Discriminatory
Access Barriers
- HOA refused to install accessibility ramps and
excluded Plaintiff and others with disabilities from meetings and
amenities.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and
nondiscrimination requirements.
Count XXII – Civil
Conspiracy
- Trustees coordinated to defame, exclude, and
retaliate against Plaintiff through false reports, police involvement, and
meeting restrictions.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and public
policy.
Count XXIII – Failure to
Conduct Routine Inspections
- HOA failed to perform regular building and
property inspections, allowing deterioration of structures and amenities.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and governing
documents.
Count XXIV – Ignoring
Maintenance Requests
- Work orders from Plaintiff were closed without
completion or denied unfairly; necessary repairs neglected.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and the HOA’s
duty to maintain property.
Count XXV – Inadequate
Emergency Planning
- The HOA failed to establish an emergency or
disaster plan for storms, fires, and sinkholes.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and prudent
management standards.
Count XXVI – Privacy
Violations
- HOA disclosed Plaintiff’s name, legal matters,
and private details during meetings and online postings.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and privacy
protections.
Count XXVII –
Discriminatory and Selective Enforcement
- HOA applied rules unequally, favoring certain
members while targeting Plaintiff for enforcement.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and HOA
governing documents.
Count XXVIII – Breach of
Contract and Governing Documents
- HOA repeatedly ignored its own rules, assessment
procedures, and owner protections.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and contractual
duties.
Count XXIX – Refusal of
Indemnification
- Plaintiff was denied reimbursement for costs
incurred while defending HOA interests, though others received funding.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and the
association’s indemnification provisions.
Count XXX – Unjust
Enrichment
- HOA retained financial benefits from unauthorized
assessments and improper spending.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and equitable
principles.
Count XXXI –
Misrepresentation and Consumer Deception
- HOA misled members and potential buyers about
insurance coverage and compliance status.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and
fair-consumer standards.
Count XXXII – Improper
Amendment of Governing Documents
- HOA secretly revised its Indentures and
eligibility rules without member approval, using them to block Plaintiff’s
participation.
- In violation of Missouri statutes and HOA
amendment procedures.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eri3k4_G85Q91vvrEVoTg_MO3xz5L3B3/view?usp=sharing
October 9, 2025
Standing Up for What’s Right
Hi neighbors,
Just a quick update—I brought a lawsuit against the HOA, and while the judge dismissed it today, it was done without prejudice. That means the door remains open to revisit the issue in court if needed.
I gave it my all, navigating the legal system without an attorney and doing my best to meet the court’s requirements. It wasn’t perfect, but I stood up for what I believe in—and I’m proud of that.
Now, I pass the baton. If you feel your HOA leadership isn’t acting in your best interest or respecting how your home—likely your biggest investment—is governed, you don’t have to stay silent. Speak up. Push back. You may not win every battle, but you absolutely deserve to be treated fairly.
Let’s keep looking out for each other and standing strong.
Warmly,
Mark
Judge's Order of Dismissal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QEqyhWj3uImvh_51iPhqb9Vvgf2hO3Bw/view?usp=sharing
October 5, 2025
<<< audio recording >>>
Which Side of the Fence Are You On?
You’ll need to choose a side. That’s the reality when HOA governance is under scrutiny and accountability is on trial. Earlier this morning at 9 AM, I recorded a candid conversation with a neighbor—one who’s clearly disgruntled and not shy about expressing it.
Whether you agree with me or with him is beside the point. What matters is that you’re informed before reacting—whether that reaction comes as a street-side remark or something more. Don’t respond blindly. Understand what’s at stake.
To that end, I’m sharing the recording of our exchange in two audio formats: MP3 and MP4. Same conversation, different formats—listen in whichever works best for you.
The lawsuits I’ve filed are public record. Read them. Review the recording. Know the issues. Then decide where you stand.
* mp3 audio format:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GHkHFDe4m7t8U6A72-xT_6gOpQDPps9e/view?usp=sharing
* mp4 audio format:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rn9ZOQDbfLZQ7LV3JbFLlvtszoDh1h-k/view?usp=sharing
* youtube audio--listen below
October 3, 2025
Today I filed a lawsuit against the City of Maryland Heights, representing myself without attorney (pro se). Did you know that the Maryland Heights Court conveys that everyone has a right to a Jury Trial. They are correct, per the US Constitution and the MO Supreme Court. Anyone cited by the municipality can have their case certified to the County Circuit Court where jury trials occur. However, the County Court won’t assign a municipal case a jury trial. This poses a constitutional conflict. Hence, my lawsuit. I cannot speak on camera due to legalities but this website has everything and more, including today’s lawsuit filing. I highly recommend you get a copy of my October 1 hearing recording and/or transcript from the courthouse clerks and listen to the Prosecuting Attorney explain the problem, and that the Maryland Heights prosecuting attorneys and the courts do not communicate and that is the root cause of this civil rights conflict and the violation of my rights as a US citizen. It’s a real legal mess!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rnn1K-drPXqtRP1ZyKMY4zGqc037q9yw/view?usp=sharing
October 3, 2025
Mr. & Mrs. Price,
As the plaintiff in an active lawsuit concerning governance practices within our HOA, I am exercising my constitutionally protected right to share factual information about that litigation. The business card simply directs individuals to a public website that outlines the nature of the lawsuit, relevant filings, and broader concerns about transparency and accountability—topics that are directly relevant to current and prospective members of our community.
Your letter references the possibility of tortious interference. The Missouri Supreme Court has held that “absence of justification” means the absence of any legal right to take the complained-of actions. See Bishop & Assocs., LLC v. Ameren Corp., 520 S.W.3d 463, 472 (Mo. 2017); Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Mo. 1996). In our situation, my actions are justified by the First Amendment’s protection of speech on matters of public concern—especially when that speech relates to governance, litigation, and community transparency. Sharing factual legal information in a non-coercive manner on public property does not meet the threshold for tortious interference under Missouri law.
If you believe any specific content is inaccurate or misleading, I welcome the opportunity to review and address it. Otherwise, I trust we can agree that public discourse—especially on matters of governance—is essential to a healthy and informed community.
Sincerely,
Mark Gavan
October 1, 2025
Read this article about how Autumn Lakes got scammed by our insurance agency. And our Board chose to ignore the situation for weeks despite being informed in writing by one of our homeowners. Resulting in our losing access to our amenities due to the Board's delay--the HOA was uninsured for weeks. Realty deals could only be conducted in cash (no financing) since we had no insurance in force. We won't see a penny refunded due to this fraud. And this crime led to our Board freaking-out and hiring an insurance Broker who led us down the wrong path, contributing to our loss of our woodburning fireplaces and deck grills, while also us paying much more in annual premiums. The same government-backed policy that we previously had, could have been purchased by the Board from a different agent, allowing us to keep our fireplace and deck grill usage. To this day, I haven't seen stated in our insurance policy that we are not allowed to use our fireplaces and deck grills--appears to be a "made up" unofficial rule by our ridiculous Board. Our Board cannot take away our amenities that are allowed per our Indentures. Autumn Lakes lost, big, but not from our corrupt insurance agency but rather at the hands of our Board. Everything gets much worse by the Board's decisions. Hence, my lawsuit against the Board.
https://www.kttn.com/missouri-woman-faces-felony-charges-in-160000-insurance-scheme/
September 26, 2025
Hi Neighbors,
A few of you have asked about the current status of my legal matters related to Autumn Lakes. Here’s a quick summary:
- Flagpole Issue (Butch/Melvin): The flagpole was installed on HOA property violating our governing documents. I’ve tried to settle this twice, but the outcome remains the same—it has to come down. Legal discussions are ongoing. I am working with their attorney.
- Defamation & Harassment (Shaw & John Smith): I’ve asked the court to rule in my favor. They didn’t timely respond to my filing, so their attorney now has to address that with the court. They are at risk of the judge immediately deciding in my favor. It will happen eventually, but possibly sooner.
- Defamation Claims Against Me: Shaw and John also filed a case claiming I defamed them and caused John’s widow-maker heart attack. It’s been over a year since they requested more time, but they haven’t taken any action. My high-power legal team is handling it, and the trial is set for next year.
- HOA Lawsuit: The HOA attorneys are working to dismiss the case, but I’ve filed multiple times to keep it moving forward. Soon we’ll be addressing the actual claims. Just a reminder—this lawsuit is funded by our monthly dues. Pathetic, unethical, illegal behavior by our Board for years and years and years. Hence, the increases in our current HOA dues despite receiving very little in return.
- Police Complaint (Shaw & John Smith): They reported me to Maryland Heights Police for harassment. I’ve requested a jury trial, which was approved locally but challenged at the county level. A meeting with the judge is scheduled next week to sort it out. I am legally entitled and they know it. They need to get their ducks in a row or it gets dismissed.
Let me know if I’ve missed anything. Thanks for your continued support and interest.
Have a great weekend, Mark
September 13, 2025
Community outreach, see below.
September 12, 2025
Setting the Record Straight: My Legal Situation Involving
Psycho Charlotte “Shah” Smith
Psycho Shah Smith has been spreading falsehoods about me throughout
the community, and it’s time to clarify the facts. Here’s a breakdown of the
legal matters currently unfolding:
- 1. Citation
for Alleged Harassment
Psycho and her husband are the complaining witnesses in a municipal citation issued by Maryland Heights, accusing me of flipping them off, allegedly mooning her, and calling her husband a “pussy-man” for letting her fight his battles. These actions, however, are legally protected under “good cause” due to their ongoing lawsuit against me. I’ve declined the Prosecutor’s settlement offer and am fighting the citation on principle.
2. Defamation Lawsuit Over Realty Accusations
Psycho and her husband are suing me for allegedly making false claims that she profited from realty commissions on condo units where she approved HOA repairs ahead of others who had been waiting longer. They also blame me for her husband’s heart attack, claiming it was caused by my picketing their Open House in 100-degree heat—rather than his own exertion carrying signs up and down the street at his ripe age of 80+ and with no exercise, poor eating, vices, etc.- 3. My
Lawsuit Against Shaw and Her Husband
I am suing Psycho and her husband for publicly accusing me of lying and for abusing legal processes—specifically, filing false police reports and harassing me during community picketing and HOA meetings. Their actions are retaliatory and disruptive, illegal and unethical. - 4. HOA
Board Violations
I am suing the HOA Board, which includes Psycho, for over 30 violations of HOA Indentures and Bylaws. Many of these breaches are not just unethical—they’re illegal under Missouri law. - 5. Flagpole
Trespassing Case
I am also suing Butch/Melvin for erecting a flagpole on HOA common ground, trespassing on HOA property. The Board refuses to enforce our governing documents, so I’m exercising my right as a member to enforce them myself. He claims Psycho approved the installation, further tying her to the misconduct.
The Common Thread
Every road leads back to Shaw Smith—her unethical behavior, her disregard for
legal boundaries, and her collusion with others to retaliate and manipulate.
This isn’t just personal—it’s a pattern of abuse that affects the entire
community.
September 12, 2025
Another dumbass attorney to deal with, ugh.... Illegal flagpole of Butch/Melvin...
September 12, 2025
Here is the latest filing by the HOA attorneys in response to my lawsuit against the HOA Board. Your monthly dues at work. I am providing my response to their filing.
https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Defendants%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Plaintiffs%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20to%20File%20Second%20Amended%20Petition.PDF?courtCode=21&di=31288746
September 11, 2025
Dear Autumn Lakes Neighbors,
A big thank you to everyone who took the time to vote on the recent Indentures Amendments. Because the community voted against these proposals, our rules remain the same and the status quo is preserved. 🙌
These amendments would have taken away important homeowner rights. They would have:
-
❌ Blocked owners from contacting HOA vendors, management, or attorneys without Board approval.
-
❌ Forced owners to pay vague “administrative or professional” fees—even without a lawsuit.
-
❌ Added new reimbursement requirements that could have been applied unfairly and without due process.
To be ready, I filed for an injunction so that, if the amendments had passed, the HOA could not immediately enforce them. I stood alone in court, prepared to fight on behalf of the community, even while the HOA brought in two litigation attorneys reportedly billing about $500/hour each.
In the end, the injunction wasn’t required after all—because the members’ vote stopped these measures in their tracks. I like to think of my role as the “insurance policy” 💡—ready to ensure these rules could not be enacted, no matter what.
This was an important win for our neighborhood. Together, we prevented rules that could have silenced communication, added unfair costs, and opened the door to further overreach.
Great job, Autumn Lakes! Thank you for standing up for fairness, transparency, and our community. 💙
Warm regards,
Mark Gavan
September 10, 2025
Neighbors,
Click the button below to review the HOA attorney's response to my Injunction filing to halt the Indentures Amendments Vote. More procedural bullshit rather than addressing the HOA topic at hand. This is what happens when you hire a $500/hour litigation legal firm to address the legal matters of a non-profit entity such as ours. Typical response from them in this document. Such a waste of our HOA dues; such a sad situation for our community. I will be in court tomorrow to fight them, and as always, I will continue to fight this HOA Board of Trustees until they resign. We may lose this battle but we won't lose this war. They are wasting your money on things such as this bogus response to our concerns, and in defending my lawsuit against them that is causing the lending freeze on condo sales within our community. This Board must resign, now. So sad for our community.
September 9, 2025
September 7, 2025
Memo to the judge for Thursday's hearing on the temporary restraining order (TRO), Injunction. See below.
October 1, 2025
Read this article about how Autumn Lakes got scammed by our insurance agency. And our Board chose to ignore the situation for weeks despite being informed in writing by one of our homeowners. Resulting in our losing access to our amenities due to the Board's delay--the HOA was uninsured for weeks. Realty deals could only be conducted in cash (no financing) since we had no insurance in force. We won't see a penny refunded due to this fraud. And this crime led to our Board freaking-out and hiring an insurance Broker who led us down the wrong path, contributing to our loss of our woodburning fireplaces and deck grills, while also us paying much more in annual premiums. The same government-backed policy that we previously had, could have been purchased by the Board from a different agent, allowing us to keep our fireplace and deck grill usage. To this day, I haven't seen stated in our insurance policy that we are not allowed to use our fireplaces and deck grills--appears to be a "made up" unofficial rule by our ridiculous Board. Our Board cannot take away our amenities that are allowed per our Indentures. Autumn Lakes lost, big, but not from our corrupt insurance agency but rather at the hands of our Board. Everything gets much worse by the Board's decisions. Hence, my lawsuit against the Board.
https://www.kttn.com/missouri-woman-faces-felony-charges-in-160000-insurance-scheme/
September 26, 2025
Hi Neighbors,
A few of you have asked about the current status of my legal matters related to Autumn Lakes. Here’s a quick summary:
- Flagpole Issue (Butch/Melvin): The flagpole was installed on HOA property violating our governing documents. I’ve tried to settle this twice, but the outcome remains the same—it has to come down. Legal discussions are ongoing. I am working with their attorney.
- Defamation & Harassment (Shaw & John Smith): I’ve asked the court to rule in my favor. They didn’t timely respond to my filing, so their attorney now has to address that with the court. They are at risk of the judge immediately deciding in my favor. It will happen eventually, but possibly sooner.
- Defamation Claims Against Me: Shaw and John also filed a case claiming I defamed them and caused John’s widow-maker heart attack. It’s been over a year since they requested more time, but they haven’t taken any action. My high-power legal team is handling it, and the trial is set for next year.
- HOA Lawsuit: The HOA attorneys are working to dismiss the case, but I’ve filed multiple times to keep it moving forward. Soon we’ll be addressing the actual claims. Just a reminder—this lawsuit is funded by our monthly dues. Pathetic, unethical, illegal behavior by our Board for years and years and years. Hence, the increases in our current HOA dues despite receiving very little in return.
- Police Complaint (Shaw & John Smith): They reported me to Maryland Heights Police for harassment. I’ve requested a jury trial, which was approved locally but challenged at the county level. A meeting with the judge is scheduled next week to sort it out. I am legally entitled and they know it. They need to get their ducks in a row or it gets dismissed.
Let me know if I’ve missed anything. Thanks for your continued support and interest.
Have a great weekend, Mark
September 13, 2025
Community outreach, see below.
September 12, 2025
Setting the Record Straight: My Legal Situation Involving
Psycho Charlotte “Shah” Smith
Psycho Shah Smith has been spreading falsehoods about me throughout
the community, and it’s time to clarify the facts. Here’s a breakdown of the
legal matters currently unfolding:
- 1. Citation
for Alleged Harassment
Psycho and her husband are the complaining witnesses in a municipal citation issued by Maryland Heights, accusing me of flipping them off, allegedly mooning her, and calling her husband a “pussy-man” for letting her fight his battles. These actions, however, are legally protected under “good cause” due to their ongoing lawsuit against me. I’ve declined the Prosecutor’s settlement offer and am fighting the citation on principle.
2. Defamation Lawsuit Over Realty Accusations
Psycho and her husband are suing me for allegedly making false claims that she profited from realty commissions on condo units where she approved HOA repairs ahead of others who had been waiting longer. They also blame me for her husband’s heart attack, claiming it was caused by my picketing their Open House in 100-degree heat—rather than his own exertion carrying signs up and down the street at his ripe age of 80+ and with no exercise, poor eating, vices, etc.- 3. My
Lawsuit Against Shaw and Her Husband
I am suing Psycho and her husband for publicly accusing me of lying and for abusing legal processes—specifically, filing false police reports and harassing me during community picketing and HOA meetings. Their actions are retaliatory and disruptive, illegal and unethical. - 4. HOA
Board Violations
I am suing the HOA Board, which includes Psycho, for over 30 violations of HOA Indentures and Bylaws. Many of these breaches are not just unethical—they’re illegal under Missouri law. - 5. Flagpole
Trespassing Case
I am also suing Butch/Melvin for erecting a flagpole on HOA common ground, trespassing on HOA property. The Board refuses to enforce our governing documents, so I’m exercising my right as a member to enforce them myself. He claims Psycho approved the installation, further tying her to the misconduct.
The Common Thread
Every road leads back to Shaw Smith—her unethical behavior, her disregard for
legal boundaries, and her collusion with others to retaliate and manipulate.
This isn’t just personal—it’s a pattern of abuse that affects the entire
community.
September 12, 2025
Another dumbass attorney to deal with, ugh.... Illegal flagpole of Butch/Melvin...
September 12, 2025
Here is the latest filing by the HOA attorneys in response to my lawsuit against the HOA Board. Your monthly dues at work. I am providing my response to their filing.
https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Defendants%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Plaintiffs%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20to%20File%20Second%20Amended%20Petition.PDF?courtCode=21&di=31288746
September 11, 2025
Dear Autumn Lakes Neighbors,
A big thank you to everyone who took the time to vote on the recent Indentures Amendments. Because the community voted against these proposals, our rules remain the same and the status quo is preserved. 🙌
These amendments would have taken away important homeowner rights. They would have:
-
❌ Blocked owners from contacting HOA vendors, management, or attorneys without Board approval.
-
❌ Forced owners to pay vague “administrative or professional” fees—even without a lawsuit.
-
❌ Added new reimbursement requirements that could have been applied unfairly and without due process.
To be ready, I filed for an injunction so that, if the amendments had passed, the HOA could not immediately enforce them. I stood alone in court, prepared to fight on behalf of the community, even while the HOA brought in two litigation attorneys reportedly billing about $500/hour each.
In the end, the injunction wasn’t required after all—because the members’ vote stopped these measures in their tracks. I like to think of my role as the “insurance policy” 💡—ready to ensure these rules could not be enacted, no matter what.
This was an important win for our neighborhood. Together, we prevented rules that could have silenced communication, added unfair costs, and opened the door to further overreach.
Great job, Autumn Lakes! Thank you for standing up for fairness, transparency, and our community. 💙
Warm regards,
Mark Gavan
September 10, 2025
Neighbors,
Click the button below to review the HOA attorney's response to my Injunction filing to halt the Indentures Amendments Vote. More procedural bullshit rather than addressing the HOA topic at hand. This is what happens when you hire a $500/hour litigation legal firm to address the legal matters of a non-profit entity such as ours. Typical response from them in this document. Such a waste of our HOA dues; such a sad situation for our community. I will be in court tomorrow to fight them, and as always, I will continue to fight this HOA Board of Trustees until they resign. We may lose this battle but we won't lose this war. They are wasting your money on things such as this bogus response to our concerns, and in defending my lawsuit against them that is causing the lending freeze on condo sales within our community. This Board must resign, now. So sad for our community.
September 9, 2025
September 7, 2025
Memo to the judge for Thursday's hearing on the temporary restraining order (TRO), Injunction. See below.
October 1, 2025
Read this article about how Autumn Lakes got scammed by our insurance agency. And our Board chose to ignore the situation for weeks despite being informed in writing by one of our homeowners. Resulting in our losing access to our amenities due to the Board's delay--the HOA was uninsured for weeks. Realty deals could only be conducted in cash (no financing) since we had no insurance in force. We won't see a penny refunded due to this fraud. And this crime led to our Board freaking-out and hiring an insurance Broker who led us down the wrong path, contributing to our loss of our woodburning fireplaces and deck grills, while also us paying much more in annual premiums. The same government-backed policy that we previously had, could have been purchased by the Board from a different agent, allowing us to keep our fireplace and deck grill usage. To this day, I haven't seen stated in our insurance policy that we are not allowed to use our fireplaces and deck grills--appears to be a "made up" unofficial rule by our ridiculous Board. Our Board cannot take away our amenities that are allowed per our Indentures. Autumn Lakes lost, big, but not from our corrupt insurance agency but rather at the hands of our Board. Everything gets much worse by the Board's decisions. Hence, my lawsuit against the Board.
https://www.kttn.com/missouri-woman-faces-felony-charges-in-160000-insurance-scheme/
September 26, 2025
Hi Neighbors,
A few of you have asked about the current status of my legal matters related to Autumn Lakes. Here’s a quick summary:
- Flagpole Issue (Butch/Melvin): The flagpole was installed on HOA property violating our governing documents. I’ve tried to settle this twice, but the outcome remains the same—it has to come down. Legal discussions are ongoing. I am working with their attorney.
- Defamation & Harassment (Shaw & John Smith): I’ve asked the court to rule in my favor. They didn’t timely respond to my filing, so their attorney now has to address that with the court. They are at risk of the judge immediately deciding in my favor. It will happen eventually, but possibly sooner.
- Defamation Claims Against Me: Shaw and John also filed a case claiming I defamed them and caused John’s widow-maker heart attack. It’s been over a year since they requested more time, but they haven’t taken any action. My high-power legal team is handling it, and the trial is set for next year.
- HOA Lawsuit: The HOA attorneys are working to dismiss the case, but I’ve filed multiple times to keep it moving forward. Soon we’ll be addressing the actual claims. Just a reminder—this lawsuit is funded by our monthly dues. Pathetic, unethical, illegal behavior by our Board for years and years and years. Hence, the increases in our current HOA dues despite receiving very little in return.
- Police Complaint (Shaw & John Smith): They reported me to Maryland Heights Police for harassment. I’ve requested a jury trial, which was approved locally but challenged at the county level. A meeting with the judge is scheduled next week to sort it out. I am legally entitled and they know it. They need to get their ducks in a row or it gets dismissed.
Let me know if I’ve missed anything. Thanks for your continued support and interest.
Have a great weekend, Mark
September 13, 2025
Community outreach, see below.
September 12, 2025
Setting the Record Straight: My Legal Situation Involving
Psycho Charlotte “Shah” Smith
Psycho Shah Smith has been spreading falsehoods about me throughout
the community, and it’s time to clarify the facts. Here’s a breakdown of the
legal matters currently unfolding:
- 1. Citation
for Alleged Harassment
Psycho and her husband are the complaining witnesses in a municipal citation issued by Maryland Heights, accusing me of flipping them off, allegedly mooning her, and calling her husband a “pussy-man” for letting her fight his battles. These actions, however, are legally protected under “good cause” due to their ongoing lawsuit against me. I’ve declined the Prosecutor’s settlement offer and am fighting the citation on principle.
2. Defamation Lawsuit Over Realty Accusations
Psycho and her husband are suing me for allegedly making false claims that she profited from realty commissions on condo units where she approved HOA repairs ahead of others who had been waiting longer. They also blame me for her husband’s heart attack, claiming it was caused by my picketing their Open House in 100-degree heat—rather than his own exertion carrying signs up and down the street at his ripe age of 80+ and with no exercise, poor eating, vices, etc.- 3. My
Lawsuit Against Shaw and Her Husband
I am suing Psycho and her husband for publicly accusing me of lying and for abusing legal processes—specifically, filing false police reports and harassing me during community picketing and HOA meetings. Their actions are retaliatory and disruptive, illegal and unethical. - 4. HOA
Board Violations
I am suing the HOA Board, which includes Psycho, for over 30 violations of HOA Indentures and Bylaws. Many of these breaches are not just unethical—they’re illegal under Missouri law. - 5. Flagpole
Trespassing Case
I am also suing Butch/Melvin for erecting a flagpole on HOA common ground, trespassing on HOA property. The Board refuses to enforce our governing documents, so I’m exercising my right as a member to enforce them myself. He claims Psycho approved the installation, further tying her to the misconduct.
The Common Thread
Every road leads back to Shaw Smith—her unethical behavior, her disregard for
legal boundaries, and her collusion with others to retaliate and manipulate.
This isn’t just personal—it’s a pattern of abuse that affects the entire
community.
September 12, 2025
Another dumbass attorney to deal with, ugh.... Illegal flagpole of Butch/Melvin...
September 12, 2025
Here is the latest filing by the HOA attorneys in response to my lawsuit against the HOA Board. Your monthly dues at work. I am providing my response to their filing.
https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/Defendants%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Plaintiffs%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20to%20File%20Second%20Amended%20Petition.PDF?courtCode=21&di=31288746
September 11, 2025
Dear Autumn Lakes Neighbors,
A big thank you to everyone who took the time to vote on the recent Indentures Amendments. Because the community voted against these proposals, our rules remain the same and the status quo is preserved. 🙌
These amendments would have taken away important homeowner rights. They would have:
-
❌ Blocked owners from contacting HOA vendors, management, or attorneys without Board approval.
-
❌ Forced owners to pay vague “administrative or professional” fees—even without a lawsuit.
-
❌ Added new reimbursement requirements that could have been applied unfairly and without due process.
To be ready, I filed for an injunction so that, if the amendments had passed, the HOA could not immediately enforce them. I stood alone in court, prepared to fight on behalf of the community, even while the HOA brought in two litigation attorneys reportedly billing about $500/hour each.
In the end, the injunction wasn’t required after all—because the members’ vote stopped these measures in their tracks. I like to think of my role as the “insurance policy” 💡—ready to ensure these rules could not be enacted, no matter what.
This was an important win for our neighborhood. Together, we prevented rules that could have silenced communication, added unfair costs, and opened the door to further overreach.
Great job, Autumn Lakes! Thank you for standing up for fairness, transparency, and our community. 💙
Warm regards,
Mark Gavan
September 10, 2025
Neighbors,
Click the button below to review the HOA attorney's response to my Injunction filing to halt the Indentures Amendments Vote. More procedural bullshit rather than addressing the HOA topic at hand. This is what happens when you hire a $500/hour litigation legal firm to address the legal matters of a non-profit entity such as ours. Typical response from them in this document. Such a waste of our HOA dues; such a sad situation for our community. I will be in court tomorrow to fight them, and as always, I will continue to fight this HOA Board of Trustees until they resign. We may lose this battle but we won't lose this war. They are wasting your money on things such as this bogus response to our concerns, and in defending my lawsuit against them that is causing the lending freeze on condo sales within our community. This Board must resign, now. So sad for our community.
September 9, 2025
September 7, 2025
Memo to the judge for Thursday's hearing on the temporary restraining order (TRO), Injunction. See below.