Daniel Loya v. Robert A. Skipworth

Filed an unauthorized lien on October 22, 2020, purportedly on behalf of EMHOA, without Board authorization and without verifying the underlying accounting. See Exhibit 5. No minutes, resolutions, or Board votes authorize this lien; the Association produced no record showing any decision to refer the matter to counsel or approve lien filing. EMHOA’s official transaction record (Exhibit 27) shows that from 2013 through 2021 Loya owed nothing—every assessment was paid and the balance remained $0.00, directly contradicting EMHOA’s delinquency publications for 2019–2022 (Exhibits 3–7) and making the lien filed in 2020 facially impossible. The first unpaid assessments do not appear until 2022, when five quarterly charges of $198 each went unpaid for a total of $990.00. The remaining portion of EMHOA’s claimed balance—$1,451.00—is unexplained, unauthorized, and mathematically impossible under the Declaration. Collectively, these exhibits demonstrate that the October 22, 2020 lien was filed without client authorization and without verifying either the accuracy or the legality of the underlying accounting, in violation of Rule 16-102(A) and Rule 16-113. Exhibits 16 and 17 show the lien form Skipworth drafted contained unauthorized charges—including 10% annual interest and recurring $10 penalties—that are not permitted under Declaration §5.8. Exhibit 18 shows Skipworth acknowledging these defects and agreeing to “change the form used for the lien,” confirming that the unlawful penalty language originated with him, not the Board. Exhibit 41 further shows that HOA leadership did not understand their own late-fee calculations, demonstrating that any attorney exercising reasonable diligence would have recognized the problems.

Relied for years on fabricated and internally contradictory accounting, culminating in a claimed balance of $2,441 that appears in EMHOA’s ledger only because of one unexplained $1,451 charge added to five unpaid quarterly assessments totaling $990.00. See Exhibits 20, 26, 27. EMHOA’s official transaction record shows that from 2013 through 2021, Loya owed nothing, contradicting publications for 2019-2022. The $1,451 charge does not appear in prior ledgers, is not authorized under Declaration §5.8, and is mathematically impossible to derive from any permissible combination of assessments. This confirms that EMHOA’s ledger was actively fabricated, and that Skipworth filed and relied upon liens without performing even minimal verification.

Used late fees and interest EMHOA was not legally allowed to charge, including 10% “monthly” late charges admitted by Treasurer David Chávez Jr. See Exhibit 16. EMHOA’s Treasurer confirmed that the Association had never charged interest or $10 quarterly late fees. The lien form Skipworth used claimed 10% annual interest, $10 late fees, and recurring quarterly penalties, all of which are expressly unauthorized under §5.8. These unauthorized charges were subsequently acknowledged by homeowner Ronald Perkins and brought to the Board’s attention (Exhibit 17), with Skipworth later admitting he would “change the form” (Exhibit 18).

Ignored explicit written warnings from homeowner Ronald Perkins that the lien language and accounting practices were unlawful and mathematically impossible, despite receiving actual notice both directly and through the Treasurer. See Exhibit 17. Perkins provided a detailed written analysis showing that the lien form Skipworth drafted contained penalty terms not authorized by Declaration §5.8. Treasurer Chávez later forwarded the same concerns (Exhibit 16). Despite receiving these warnings, Skipworth continued to rely on the same flawed formula until at least August 2023.

Ignored a formal representation letter from Davis Miles McGuire Gardner concerning the Treviño matter, withheld it from EMHOA for five days, and later falsely claimed he had never received it—despite having forwarded it himself. See Exhibits 24, 25, 35. Five days after receiving the letter in October 2023, Skipworth forwarded it to the President. Ten months later, when leadership inquired whether he had received it, Skipworth responded: “No, I did not.” This conduct implicates Rule 16-804(C), Rule 16-101, and Rule 16-102(A).

Treated DANA Properties—not EMHOA—as his client, repeatedly taking direction from DANA and acting on DANA’s instructions, including asking DANA: “When can I sue this guy?” See Exhibits 11, 36, 37. Skipworth consistently treated DANA’s manager, Sema Gonzalez, and owner, Sheldon Wheeler, as his de facto clients. EMHOA President Raúl Chacón stated in writing on July 29, 2024, that the Association did not have an attorney on retainer (Exhibit 33a). DANA’s own manager testified that EMHOA did not have an attorney-client relationship with Skipworth.

Disparaged and undermined the actual governing Board, referred to them as the “Ron Perkins faction,” and pursued lawsuits contrary to the Board’s explicit written instructions, including their $7,500 litigation threshold. See Exhibits 31, 40. Skipworth pushed DANA to file lawsuits even while acknowledging the Board’s $7,500 threshold. He drafted multiple lawsuits because DANA asked him to—but did not file them initially because the Board voted against foreclosure—demonstrating a pattern of treating DANA’s instructions as primary.

Filed two unauthorized foreclosure lawsuits on November 21, 2024, despite knowing that neither case met the Association’s legal, factual, or procedural requirements. See Exhibits 43, 44. Treviño was never reported delinquent by EMHOA (Exhibit 41), and the Loya debt was based on manufactured charges. Both suits violated the $7,500 threshold. Skipworth relied exclusively on DANA’s accounting assertions despite knowing DANA was not licensed as a debt collector in New Mexico.

Repeatedly misrepresented his authority by acting on emails from DANA manager Sema Gonzalez rather than lawful Board resolutions, and deposition testimony confirms that EMHOA did not have an attorney-client relationship with him. Sema Gonzalez confirmed DANA—not EMHOA—used Skipworth and that El Mirador had no attorney-client relationship with him. Skipworth acted on directives from a non-client, violating Rule 16-102(A) and Rule 16-113.