Leticia Treviño v. Robert A. Skipworth

A. January 28, 2023 — Public Questioning of Treasurer’s Nonpayment of Assessments

At an open EMHOA board meeting on January 28, 2023, Ronald Perkins publicly questioned whether long-serving Treasurer David Chavez, Jr. had failed to pay regular assessments for many years. Chavez did not deny the allegation, and the presiding officer closed the discussion without response (Ex. E-1). This constituted on-the-record notice of a potential fiduciary breach.

B. Immediate Retaliatory and Governance Actions

Within days of the meeting at which Treasurer David Chavez, Jr. was publicly questioned, a series of governance actions occurred that directly benefited Chavez and altered the Association’s enforcement posture:

• January 30, 2023: Treasurer Chavez scheduled a private meeting with DANA Properties at his residence regarding HOA management (Ex. E-2).
• February 23, 2023: EMHOA Purported to retain DANA Properties as its management company at a meeting improperly noticed to the membership (Ex. E-5).
• February 23, 2023: EMHOA recorded a bylaw amendment purporting to retroactively waive the Treasurer’s obligation to pay assessments (Ex. E-3). The recorded amendment lacked required attestation by the Association’s Secretary, cited no member vote records, and conferred a single-beneficiary private benefit on Chavez.

C. Respondent Skipworth’s Involvement in Governance Actions

On February 24, 2023, Respondent, while representing DANA Properties, endorsed the DANA management contract in an email to DANA’s owner, Sheldon Wheeler, describing the contract as necessary to “shield the board” (Ex. E-4). Respondent acted upon direction from individual officers, including David Chavez, Jr. and Richard Doyle (Ex. E-6), proceeding as though their instructions carried the force of authorized board action without documentation of a formal board vote.

D. Billing HOA Funds for “Complaints Against Perkins”

On February 28, 2023, Respondent invoiced EMHOA for work described as “Complaints Against Perkins,” reflecting legal services performed at the direction of individual officers rather than pursuant to documented board authorization (Ex. F-1). The same invoice reflects charges for personal tort research such as “defamation” and “mental anguish”; the invoice does not identify any Association-originated covenant enforcement issue corresponding to these charges.

E. Expressions of Animus and Litigation Intent

Respondent’s correspondence reflects expressions of animus toward Ronald Perkins. In communications with the management agent, Respondent wrote: “I really want to file this one,” (Ex. B-2) and subsequently asked, “When can I sue this guy?” referring to Mr. Perkins (Ex. B-3). Respondent referred to homeowners as “the Ron Perkins faction,” reflecting an adversarial characterization rather than neutral representation of the Association as a whole (Ex. A-4).

F. Notice to Subsequent Board and Failure to Cure

On August 27, 2023, Ronald Perkins provided written notice to the board identifying defects in the February 2023 bylaw amendment and requesting records (Ex. E-7). No corrective action was taken.

G. Litigation and Retaliatory Enforcement Against Ms. Treviño

EMHOA ultimately had suit filed in its name against Ms. Treviño on November 21, 2024 (Ex. C-1). On November 19, 2024—two days before the lawsuit was filed—Respondent’s office confirmed via email that the Board “only wanted to proceed with the foreclosure for Reyes” and that “Trevino and Loya’s complaints were not filed” because they did not meet that threshold (Ex. C-6). Respondent nevertheless filed both lawsuits, falsely purporting to represent the HOA’s current objectives.

A. Admission of Retaliatory Focus on Perkins

During the corporate deposition of EMHOA, when former Treasurer David Chavez, Jr. was asked about the lawsuit against Ms. Treviño, he responded by naming “Mr. Perkins.” When examining counsel asked why he was referring to Perkins in connection with the Treviño lawsuit, Chavez stated, “I misspoke.” (Ex. G-1)

B. Respondent’s On-the-Record Witness Coaching

During the June 20, 2025 deposition, Respondent interjected and stated a substantive factual explanation to a fact witness. When the corporate witness struggled to explain the association, Respondent stated under oath: “Because he has power of attorney and speaks for her.” The witness immediately repeated Respondent’s statement verbatim. When examining counsel asked if Skipworth was just telling her what to answer, the witness responded, “Yes.” (Ex. A-4.1)

C. Selective Enforcement and Policy Override

EMHOA’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness testified that EMHOA maintained a $7,500 litigation threshold. Ms. Treviño did not meet that threshold. The policy was nevertheless overridden to file the legal petition in November 2024. The witness further testified that the board which supposedly reversed this policy was not elected until March 2025 (Ex. G-2).

D. Inconsistent Sworn Statements Regarding Association Records

Respondent’s sworn testimony regarding the existence and handling of Association records is internally inconsistent. In one filing, Respondent denied the existence of shared records (Ex. B-12), while in another, Respondent acknowledged access to those same records (Ex. C-2.1).