"Dear Sir: As a result of a lawsuit of which you and your family were not party to, nor found personally liable for, you must pay the sum of $25,000 toward the payment of a $6.6 million judgment. Additionally, once your payment is received, your debt is not satisfied. We retain the legal right to demand and collect from you up to the full amount of the $6.6 million, including 10 percent interest on that debt, which is currently $55,000 a month.

"Furthermore, if you do not satisfy your obligation, we reserve the right to foreclose on your home and possibly seize all of your personal assets. We regret that you and your family had little, if any, knowledge regarding this lawsuit, and clearly had no say or control over the litigating parties. But in an attempt to be fair with you, if you are unable to pay the amount of $25,000 immediately, we would be willing to provide you financing, which would include a pay back of principal and interest of about $78,800.

"This arrangement does not limit your liability to us, however. We, of course, retain the right to charge you additional assessments at our discretion. And we must warn you that if you do not perform in the payment of this debt, your utilities may be shut off and we will immediately lien your home and start foreclosure."

This brief synopsis, as unbelievable as it may sound, is precisely what is happening to the sleepy little community of Le Parc in the city of Simi Valley. In July 1998, after a lengthy arbitration, a Santa Barbara contractor was awarded an amount in the sum of $6.6 million plus 10 percent annual interest against the Simi Valley Le Parc Homeowners Association, a California corporation.

Because the original contract that was signed between the association and the contractor included a "binding arbitration" clause, the homeowners association was given no choice but to pay. One month later, this award was then turned into a judgment.

As a result, the contractor then demanded that the homeowners association pony up the money, but the homeowners association only had about $100,000 in its accounts.

In an attempt to collect the money, the contractors' attorneys convinced the courts to allow them to force the association to levy an "emergency assessment" on its individual members.

Civil Code 1350-1376, commonly known as the Davis-Sterling Act, is the main body of law governing planned communities such as these. It clearly states that any emergency assessment must be an assessment in which the members receive direct benefit.

It was specifically intended to allow a governing board of an association to temporarily levy its members under a true emergency, such as an earthquake, flood or fire.

The association members would have the right to vote on it and the assessment would have reasonable money and time limitations. If a member did not pay, then the board would have the right to lien their home in the collection of that debt.

This way, the entire community does not suffer simply because a few of its members decide that they do not wish to contribute.

The problem here is that the judgment is made up of $5.1 million in tort damages and attorneys fees. The individual homeowners were never found guilty of any slander or libel against the contractor. These kinds of damages do not constitute a debt in which the homeowners received any benefit. Therefore, they should not be forced to levy an emergency assessment on themselves.

I'm sure that the contractor views this as an emergency, but it clearly is not, and it cannot be compared to a true emergency such as an earthquake or flood.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. I believe that if an individual harms someone else, he should take responsibility for his actions. That is how I was raised. But I do not believe that my family and I, or anyone else for that matter, should be held responsible for such astronomical amounts of money, arising out of something that we had no control over, nor were responsible for, and, in fact, according to the court, were not even a party to.

The Le Parc Homeowners Association was a corporation, and corporate law clearly states that no member, or shareholder of a corporation can ever be held liable for the debts or obligations of a corporation, particularly when no crime was committed by that member.

These corporate laws were specifically created to protect members and shareholders from the unintentional or intentional acts of the corporation, which they have absolutely no control of.

Several years ago, a woman was awarded millions of dollars in damages for spilling on her lap a hot cup of coffee from McDonald's. Can you imagine this woman's attorneys finding a loophole in the law and going through the corporation, then coming after the individual shareholders who own stock in the company and demanding full payment or they lose their homes and personal property to pay the debt?

This would never be allowed legally, because it is simply outrageous. But this is exactly what is happening to the 264 families at Le Parc in Simi Valley.

These families are now facing three choices. The first is, they come up with $6.6 million plus 10 percent interest. The second is they agree to pay back $21 million over 30 years and forever give up their right to appeal the judgment. And the third is, if they do not agree to either the first or second choice, they face imminent foreclosure on their homes and seizure of their personal assets, and possible loss of their basic utilities.

In a desperate attempt to protect themselves, these families as a group under the association filed for bankruptcy. But, tragically, they failed, because under bankruptcy law, you must have approval from at least half of your creditors.

Since there was only one creditor involved, they were denied. The families then turned to their insurance company, which they paid tens of thousands of dollars a year for liability protection.

To this date, only anemic sums of money have been offered to assist these families in their plight.

Finally, they tried to dissolve the corporation, then again tried to fire it in an attempt to stop a court-appointed receiver from scooping up all the money from the monthly association dues. More than $35,000 a month is desperately needed to pay just for the water, gas, electricity and trash.

In just the last two months, two people have had heart attacks, one person had a breakdown and slashed 36 tires on cars within the complex, the county health inspector closed down the swimming pools for health and safety violations and the entire community faced an across-the-board shutdown of utilities due to lack of money.

Finally, in an act of desperation, more than 500 members of our community took to the streets of Simi Valley in a protest march. The event drew the attention of all the major and local television networks, and radio and newspapers.

Simi Valley Le Parc is indeed a community in crisis.

In conclusion, if this contractor and his attorneys are successful in extracting these enormous sums of money from these innocent people, it will create a legal precedent that will forever haunt hundreds of thousands of homeowners associations across this country. It will open Pandora's box and it will become open hunting season on homeowners associations and their members.

We desperately need your help and support. For more information, feel free to log on to www.members.tripod.com/leparc or write to me at P.O. Box 116 Simi Valley, CA 93062.

-- Ference Gutai is president of Le Parc Community Association.