Bruenburg File

Case: 61CI1:19-cv-00284-a Document #: 8-1 Filed: 12/18/2019 Page 1 of 2

Case: 61CI1:19-cv-00284-a Document #: 8 Filed: 12/18/2019 Page 1 of 11
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
BRUENBURG PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 19-284
RIDGWAY, LANE & ASSOCIATES, INC.;

DAVID L. LANE; DAVID W. LANE;
AND DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 DEFENDANTS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Bruenburg Property Owners Association (hereafter “BPOA” or

“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel and pursuant to the laws of the State of Mississippi and the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and files this First Amended Complaint against the
Defendants Ridgway, Lane & Associates, Inc.; David L. Lane; David W. Lane; and Doe
Defendants 1-10 (hereafter collectively “Defendants”). In support thereof, Plaintiff would
respectfully show unto this Honorable Court the following, to-wit:
A. Parties
1. Plaintiff BPOA is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Mississippi. Members are property owners in the Bruenburg residential
community located in Clinton, Mississippi and may be contacted through the
undersigned attorney of record.
2. Defendant Ridgway, Lane & Associates, Inc., upon information and belief is a
corporation existing under the laws of the state of Mississippi, with its principal place
of business at 632 Lakeland East Drive, Suite B, Flowood, MS 39232. This Defendant
may be served with process upon its registered agent, David L. Lane, at 632 Lakeland
East Drive, Suite B, Flowood, MS 39232.
3. Defendant David L. Lane is an adult resident citizen of Madison County, Mississippi,

residing at 106 Alicetown Cove, Ridgeland, MS 39157 and who may be served with
process where found.
4. Defendant David W. Lane is an adult resident citizen of Madison County, Mississippi,

residing at 408 Meadowgreen Lane, Canton, MS 39046 and who may be served with
process where found.
5. Doe Defendants 1-10 are other currently unknown individuals, persons, corporate
persons or entities who may be liable for all or part of the negligible acts or omissions
1
committed, whose identities are currently unknown to BPOA, but who BPOA believes
may be liable in whole or in part for the damages sought by BPOA in this action.
BPOA believes Doe Defendants 1-10 participated in, committed, or aided and abetted
the negligence, fraud, and other misconduct described below. BPOA believes that one
of the John Doe Defendants is a surety or insurance company that provided fidelity
bonds to Ridgway Lane. BPOA believes such surety or insurance company is liable
for the damages sought by BPOA in this Complaint. Doe Defendants 1-10 are hereby
named as fictitious parties pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 9(h) until such time as their
true names are discovered and can be substituted in place of the Doe Defendants.
B. Jurisdiction
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated §
9-7-81 any and all other statutes or Mississippi Constitutional provisions that vest
authority and jurisdiction in circuit courts. This Court has jurisdiction over both the
parties and the subject matter of this suit as the actions described in the complaint
occurred in Rankin County.
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all the Defendants in the instant suit who
reside or may be found in the State of Mississippi, or who have qualified to do business
in the State of Mississippi and have appointed a registered agent to accept service of
process. Additionally, the allegations which caused or contributed to the subject
accident occurred within the confines of Rankin County, Mississippi.
C. Venue
8. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3, venue is proper because the present action has
been instituted where the acts and omissions complained of occurred.
D. Facts
9. On or about May 1, 2014, BPOA contracted with Ridgway Lane to manage Bruenburg,
a residential neighborhood located in Clinton, Mississippi. A true and correct copy of
the Management Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated
herein by reference. Defendants had been previously managing the property without a
formal contract since at least 2005. BPOA acts by and through its Board of Directors.
10. David L. Lane was Ridgway Lane’s primary contact for BPOA. David L. Lane
regularly provided BPOA with financial and other reports related to management of
the Association. David W. Lane also worked at Ridgway Lane and was involved in
management of BPOA.
11. Ridgway Lane’s duties specifically included but were not limited to maintenance of an
operating cash account and a reserve account and payment of operating expenses
incurred by BPOA.
2
12. BPOA met on November 7, 2019 and at the conclusion of that meeting, David L. Lane
said that due to current health issues and with his son David W. Lane leaving the
business, that effective December 31, 2019 Ridgway Lane would close down.
13. On November 8, 2019, BPOA was made aware of financial discrepancies found at other
POA’s managed by Defendants.
14. Subsequently, BPOA obtained bank account records and performed an audit as to their
primary accounts. BPOA conducted an internal review of its banking information and
the financial reports provided by Defendants. BPOA noticed significant discrepancies
between BPOA’s banking information and the financial reports provided by
Defendants. A true and correct copy of the updated reconciliation is attached hereto as
Exhibit “C” and is incorporated herein by reference.
15. It has been made clear that instead of utilizing the accounts as intended, Defendants
transferred without authority, knowledge or consent at least $191,106.37 out of BPOA
accounts. BPOA has enlisted accountants who have prepared a summary schedule of
improper transfers and payments, as well as a compilation of the actual bank
statements, improper transfer slips and checks written, monthly financial reports
prepared by Defendants and scheduled comparing the bank account balances per the
bank with the balances per the financial reports prepared by the Defendants at various
times. Upon information and belief, the monies have been transferred to non-BPOA
accounts or expensed for non-BPOA use.
16. To date, Defendants have failed or refused to return BPOA’s money. The Community
Bank statements for BPOA’s operating and reserve accounts reflect significantly
lower balances than the balances reflected on Ridgway Lane’s financial reports to
BPOA for the same accounts. BPOA’s investigation of the exact amounts
misappropriated by Defendants is ongoing and will be shown through discovery and
at trial.
17. Defendants removed at least $191,106.37 from BPOA’s bank accounts. Defendants
concealed from BPOA and its representatives the true status of BPOA’s accounts and
financial condition by affirmatively representing through financial reports account
balances that did not exist or were significantly overstated.
18. The evidence in this matter will show Defendants failed or refused to provide accurate
account balance information for accounts owned by BPOA and maintained at
Community Bank. The evidence in this matter will show Defendants removed and
converted funds from BPOA’s accounts that were held in trust by Defendants for
BPOA’s benefit. The evidence in this matter will show Defendants provided false and
misleading financial reports to BPOA that concealed the removal and conversion of
funds from BPOA’s accounts, all without BPOA’s knowledge or consent.
19. Defendants in this matter breached the contract at issue, failing to perform its
obligations under the Agreement.
3
20. The acts and omissions described herein are the direct, proximate cause of damages
exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court, in addition to the attorneys’ fees, costs
and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter. Due to the extensive fraud and
bad faith perpetrated by the Defendants, an award of punitive damages is necessary
and proper.
21. BPOA and its representatives were at all times diligent in discovering Defendants’
fraudulent activity, and they discovered the same as soon as they were reasonably able
to do so. BPOA’s investigation is ongoing as to additional losses arising from
Defendants’ conduct. Prior to filing suit, BPOA through its agents communicated with
Defendants via email and telephone, requesting payment of the monies owed. As of
today’s date, no agreement has been reached and no monies have been returned.
22. Upon information and belief, a surety provided to Ridgway Lane as principal a fidelity
bond in connection with Ridgway Lane’s operation and maintenance of BPOA’s
accounts. Upon information and belief Doe Defendant surety or insurance company is
liable to BPOA for the full amount of the fidelity bonds that it provided to Ridgway
Lane in connection with BPOA’s accounts.
E. Breach of Contract
23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein the foregoing allegations of this Complaint
as if set forth herein in their entirety.
24. Plaintiff and Defendants signed a written contract for homeowner’s association
management. Plaintiff made an offer, Defendants accepted, and consideration was
had by all. Subsequent thereto, Defendants breached the written contract with the
Plaintiff. Defendants have been notified of its breach and have not remedied its breach
of contract.
25. Defendants breached said contract by failing to fulfill its obligations. Defendants failed
to ensure control over BPOA’s receipts and disbursements to protect BPOA’s assets
from theft, error or fraudulent activities on the part of Defendants and their employees,
agents or managers. Defendants breached said contract by failing to maintain accurate
financial reports relating to BPOA’s accounts and BPOA’s financial condition
generally. Defendants breached said contract by failing to pay to BPOA or account for
any money in bank accounts established under contractual authority. Defendants
breached said contract by commingling funds.
26. Defendants’ breach of the subject contract was intentional, and their subsequent
attempts at cover-up are clear evidence of bad faith. Defendants acted in bad faith to
intentionally convert, steal, misappropriate, or otherwise remove funds from BPOA’s
accounts. The removal of the monies was done for personal gain, without BPOA’s
authorization and in direct violation of the Contract.
4
27. Upon information and belief, discovery will unveil additional actions and inactions
constituting breach of contract by the Defendants.
28. BPOA in no way breached the contract at issue. It appears Defendants unilaterally
removed money from BPOA accounts for its own financial gain. Nothing gave
Defendant the right to convert BPOA funds to its own use or to breach the contract at
issue.
29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of its obligations under the
Agreement, BPOA has been damaged financially in excess of $188,000.00, plus
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred to prosecute this action. BPOA’s
investigation as to potential additional damages is ongoing.
F. Breach of a Non-Delegable Fiduciary Duty
31. As managing agent, Defendants occupied a relationship of trust with BPOA, its Board,
and its membership that was fiduciary in nature. As such, Defendants owed BPOA
fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and care.
32. Defendants were vested with Plaintiff’s trust to put their interests over and above their
own interests in the handling of BPOA financial affairs.
33. Defendants’ acts, omissions, and misconduct breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty,
good faith, and care to BPOA, its Board, and its membership.
34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of its obligations under the
Agreement, BPOA has been damaged financially in the minimum amount of
$191,106.37, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred to prosecute this
action.
G. Conversion
36. Evidence shows proof of a Defendants’ wrongful possession of BPOA funds, the
exercise of a dominion by Defendants in exclusion or defiance of BPOA’s rights,
Defendants’ unauthorized and injurious use, and Defendants’ wrongful detention after
demand.
37. Conversion exists in this matter, as Defendants’ actions express an intent to exercise
dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with BPOA’s rights as the true
owner.
5
38. Title to the converted funds has been made known to Defendants, to which they have
resisted.
39. Defendants’ tortious act of the unauthorized taking of BPOA’s funds constitutes a
conversion.
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ tortious conversion, BPOA has been
damaged financially in the minimum amount of $191,106.37, plus attorneys’ fees,
costs, and expenses incurred to prosecute this action.
H. Fraud
42. Defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct by their knowing and intentional efforts to
conceal the taking and conversion of BPOA funds. Defendants’ statements to the
Plaintiff, when Defendants knew in fact that same was untrue, were fraudulent
misrepresentations and deliberate, material omissions.
43. Defendants possessed knowledge, including special knowledge, of the nature of their
intentions, which was unavailable to the Plaintiff and, in fact, was deliberately
concealed from the Plaintiff. The representations made by Defendants to BPOA
regarding the status and condition of BPOA’s accounts were false, and such
representations were material and significant to the relationship between BPOA and
Ridgway Lane and to the ongoing operation and financial condition of BPOA.
44. Plaintiffs are prepared to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants
made false, material representations, the Defendants’ knowledge of its
falsity/ignorance of the truth, the Defendants’ intent that it be acted upon by the
Plaintiff in the manner reasonably contemplated, the Plaintiff’s ignorance of the
falsity, the Plaintiff’s reliance upon the truth, the Plaintiff’s right to rely thereon, and
the Plaintiff’s consequent and proximate injury.
45. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual, consequential, and other special damages and
punitive damages for the harm and injuries they have suffered as a result of
Defendants’ fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentations which were
relied upon by Plaintiff.
I. Negligent Misrepresentation
47. Based upon the facts as previously pled herein, Plaintiff will prove (1)
a misrepresentation or omission of a fact; (2) that the representation or omission is
material or significant; (3) that the Defendants failed to exercise that degree of
6
diligence and expertise the public is entitled to expect of it; (4) that the Plaintiff
reasonably relied on the Defendants’ representations; and (5) that the Plaintiff suffered
damages as a direct and proximate result of their reasonable reliance.
48. As the actual and proximate result of these aforesaid acts, Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer severe, irreparable injuries.
J. Negligence
50. Defendants possessed a duty of reasonable care to act as a prudent management

company. Defendants’ duty of reasonable care extended to their custody and control
of BPOA funds behind held and managed by Defendants.
51. Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the accounts,
failing to detect account activity that was harmful to the interests of BPOA, its Board,
and its members, and failing to appropriate funds in a way that benefitted BPOA.
52. Defendants were negligent in their maintenance and oversight responsibilities

regarding BPOA’s bank accounts.
53. As the actual and proximate result of these aforesaid acts, Plaintiff suffered and
continues to suffer severe, irreparable injuries.
K. Gross Negligence
55. When viewed objectively, the Defendants’ act(s) or omission(s) involved an extreme
degree of risk and constituted willful, wanton and reckless conduct under these
circumstances. To this end, Defendants’ act(s) or omission(s) constitute gross
negligence under Mississippi law.
56. The act(s) or omission(s) of the Defendants constitute gross negligence and were each
a proximate cause of the occurrence in question. Further, the act(s) or omission(s) of
the Defendants resulted in the Plaintiff’s losses and damages.
L. Unjust Enrichment
58. As a result of their willful acts, Defendants have been unjustly enriched to the detriment
of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks any and all equitable relief necessary to recover all
7
missing funds, not limited to imposition of a constructive trust and seizure of

Defendants’ bank accounts and assets.
M. Piercing the Corporate Veil
60. Defendant Ridgway, Lane & Associates, Inc. is merely the corporate shell or alter ego
of Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane. Upon information and belief, David
L. Lane and David W. Lane maintains, holds or controls the majority of assets for the
company and are the sole members. Further, the company is merely a veil to prevent
liability from attaching to David L. Lane and David W. Lane. Upon information and
belief Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane has disregarded corporate
formalities or used the corporate forms to commit misfeasance. Upon information and
belief Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane are the sole principals in the
company. Upon information and belief Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane
are the sole members, shareholders and officers in the company. Upon information
and belief only Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane are authorized to make
withdrawals from the company’s corporate accounts. Upon information and belief
Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane are the sole, actual and legal owners of
Ridgway, Lane, & Associates, Inc.. Upon information and belief Defendants David L.
Lane and David W. Lane are the sole, actual and legal owners of all equipment and
assets of Ridgway, Lane & Associates, Inc.
61. Upon information and belief, all or some of the corporate formalities of Ridgway, Lane
& Associates, Inc. have been blatantly disregarded by Defendants David L. Lane and
David W. Lane, including but not limited to the commingling of funds amongst
personal bank accounts, failure to maintain separate addresses/bank accounts/phone
numbers/contact information/insurance policies, fraud or other equivalent
misfeasance, and the frustration of contractual expectations regarding the party being
looked to for performance.
62. Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane has exhibited a demonstration of fraud
or other equivalent misfeasance and has committed some frustration of contractual
expectations regarding parties to whom they looked for performance.
63. The corporate veil of Ridgway, Lane & Associates, Inc. should be pierced, to allow for
the attachment of personal liability to Defendants David L. Lane and David W. Lane
for the actions, inactions and conduct of Ridgway, Lane & Associates, Inc.
N. Claim Against Fidelity Bond
8
65. Upon information and belief, Doe Defendant herein, as surety or insurance company,
provided to Defendants, as principal, a fidelity bond in connection with Defendants’
management and oversight of BPOA’s accounts. BPOA does not yet possess a copy
of the Bond. As soon as BPOA obtains a copy of the Bond, BPOA will seek leave of
Court to amend this Complaint to substitute the name of the surety that provided the
Bond as a Defendant and to include a copy of the Bond as an Exhibit to this Complaint.
66. Upon information and belief, the Bond provides for the protection of BPOA against
Ridgway Lane’s misuse, misappropriation, or loss of BPOA’s funds from its accounts.
67. As stated above, Ridgway Lane, the principal on the Bond, has misappropriated, lost,
converted, stolen, or otherwise wrongfully distributed funds from BPOA’s accounts.
68. Doe Defendant as surety or insurance company is liable to BPOA for the damages
sustained in this matter and proven at trial, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses
incurred to prosecute this action.
O. Civil Conspiracy
70. Defendants (including other unknown individuals, entities, businesses, parent

companies, corporations, and etc.) took the above-described actions in concert and in
furtherance of a conspiracy to commit and cover up the wrongs complained of herein.
71. As a proximate result of the acts in concert by Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged.
P. Damages
72. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of all Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
and will continue to suffer damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of the Court as set forth herein, directly attributable to the
occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit and directly attributable to the damages and
the harm they have sustained.
73. Plaintiff requests an award of all kinds of economic, non-economic, actual,

compensatory, special, incidental and consequential damages available to them under
the law.
74. Plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket expenses which include attorneys’ fees, costs of
court and other expenses. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks all general, special, incidental
and consequential damages as shall be proven at the time of trial, including exemplary,
enhanced and trebled damages. Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interest at a rate
commensurate with the actual rate of interest in the marketplace or, alternatively, a
statutory rate of interest because of the delay in receiving the damages and also to
9
avoid unjust enrichment to Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks post-judgment interest at

the maximum rate allowed by law.
75. The amount of total damages suffered by the Plaintiff is significant and continuing in
nature.
Q. Punitive Damages
77. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65, inasmuch as the conduct of these Defendants,
constitutes a willful, wanton, egregious and reckless disregard for the rights and safety
of the Plaintiffs, an award of punitive damages is appropriate and necessary under
these facts.
R. Right to Amend Pursuant to Miss.R.Civ.P. 15
78. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs reserve the
right to name additional defendants should later facts establish that others are liable
herein.
S. Jury Trial Demanded
79. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
T. Prayer for Relief
80. For these reasons, Plaintiff asks for judgment against all Defendants, joint and several,
for the following:
a. All kinds of economic and non-economic damages, including compensation for

all damages complained of herein;
b. Punitive damages against all Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish said

Defendants for their egregious conduct and to deter Defendants and others
similarly situated from engaging in such conduct in the future;
c. Reasonable attorneys’ fees;
d. Costs of suit;
e. Pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate for all damages suffered;
f. Post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate for all damage suffered; and
g. For such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show
themselves justly entitled.
10
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that upon final trial hereof
they be entitled to take, have and recover, of and from said Defendants the above damages,
including actual, compensatory, economic, non-economic, exemplary, pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest, costs of Court, and for such other and further relief to which they may show
themselves to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted this the 18th day of December, 2019.
BRUENBURG PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Counsel for Plaintiff:
__ /s/ Thomas J. Bellinder, Esq. ________

Thomas J. Bellinder (MSB # 103115)
BELLINDER LAW FIRM
Pinnacle at Jackson Place
190 E. Capitol Street, Suite 460
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 487-9340
Fax: (601) 265-1795
Email: Thomas.Bellinder@BellinderLawFirm.com
11

Bruenburg File

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bruenburg File

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case: 61CI1:19-cv-00284-a Document #: 8-1 Filed: 12/18/2019 Page 1 of 2

Case: 61CI1:19-cv-00284-a Document #: 8-1 Filed: 12/18/2019 Page 2 of 2

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

BRUENBURG PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 19-284

RIDGWAY, LANE & ASSOCIATES, INC.;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Bruenburg Property Owners Association (hereafter “BPOA” or

3. Defendant David L. Lane is an adult resident citizen of Madison County, Mississippi,

4. Defendant David W. Lane is an adult resident citizen of Madison County, Mississippi,

F. Breach of a Non-Delegable Fiduciary Duty

50. Defendants possessed a duty of reasonable care to act as a prudent management

52. Defendants were negligent in their maintenance and oversight responsibilities

missing funds, not limited to imposition of a constructive trust and seizure of

M. Piercing the Corporate Veil

N. Claim Against Fidelity Bond

70. Defendants (including other unknown individuals, entities, businesses, parent

73. Plaintiff requests an award of all kinds of economic, non-economic, actual,

avoid unjust enrichment to Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks post-judgment interest at

R. Right to Amend Pursuant to Miss.R.Civ.P. 15

S. Jury Trial Demanded

79. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

T. Prayer for Relief

a. All kinds of economic and non-economic damages, including compensation for

b. Punitive damages against all Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish said

c. Reasonable attorneys’ fees;

BRUENBURG PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Counsel for Plaintiff:

__ /s/ Thomas J. Bellinder, Esq. ________

S-ar putea să vă placă și

/s/ Thomas J. Bellinder, Esq. ______