Key Takeaways
- We are the ones who will pay.
- The allegations stem from routine Board approvals and issues that should never have escalated into a lawsuit.
- This board uses security to illegally enter apartments to look for violations.
- This appears to be another example of avoidable conflict created by poor board decision-making, inconsistent processes, and unnecessary escalation.
- Increasing use of legal counsel to escalate and fight needless battles.
The headline alone should concern every owner.
An owner has filed a lawsuit seeking $150,000 against our Board President Olena Biletska and Vice President Julius Barbat. Regardless of how anyone feels about the individuals involved, one fact is unavoidable:
We all pay for this
Why This Affects Every Owner
When board members are sued for actions taken in their official roles:
- We pay the deductible under the Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy
- We pay legal fees that exceed policy limits, we see future insurance increases
- We pay any settlement or judgment
- Lenders fear, affecting mortgages
- Real Estate Brokers will avoid this building based on this lawsuit
Even if the association “Wins,” the legal costs are real. The financial and bad press exposure belongs to all of us.
The following summarizes allegations contained in a filed lawsuit. These claims have not been proven and remain subject to judicial review.
What Is Alleged in the Lawsuit
The owner of PH03 (next door to board president’s unit: PH01) outlines several claims in the filing. These are allegations that will be addressed in court, but they raise serious questions.
The core issues include:
- Extended Approval Delays
Two architectural modification applications (2024 and 2025) allegedly took more than three months each to process. The second involved a contractor who had replaced windows in 24 BK1 units with approvals in days. - Rescinded Window Approval
That window approval granted in July 2025 was allegedly withdrawn days later due to a claimed signature issue.
The suit points out that our board president has illegal non-conforming windows herself
- Selective Enforcement
The suit alleges inconsistent policies contrary to our Bylaws. - Unreturned Deposit
The owner claims a modification deposit was not returned despite repeated requests. - Renter Approval Delays
- A completed renter application was submitted January 7, 2026.
- Approval was allegedly withheld based on a claim that an odor coming from the uninhabited unit.
- A “smoke test” was later requested by our counsel as a condition of approval. No one knows what this is?
- Approval was granted January 29 without the test.
- The prospective tenant cancelled the lease due to delays.
- Unapproved entry to apartment by security
- Security without permission entered the unit, found no smells. Against the law, the association is not permitted to enter units unless there is an emergency. They cannot go in for a “Fishing Expedition” to find violations.
If even part of this is accurate, it suggests process failures that should never have escalated to litigation.
How Does Something Like This Happen?
Lawsuits do not emerge in a vacuum. They are often the final step after breakdowns in communication and procedure.
Consider the broader environment:
- High staff turnover and management instability over the past two years leaving zero institutional knowledge of our building and it’s residents.
- The third manager in two years dismissed in January, leaving the building without leadership for over a month now. How much is not being achieved because of this?
- Delays in approvals and inconsistent follow-through.
- Increased reliance on legal escalation rather than operational resolution.
- Board that follows it’s president decisions.
When processes are unclear or inconsistently applied, disputes grow. When disputes grow, attorneys get involved. When attorneys get involved, costs rise.
The Financial Pattern
► The Board increased the 2026 legal budget from $60,000 to $100,000 — a 66.67% increase.
► Now we are facing a $150,000 lawsuit.
► We are seeing more outreach to counsel for these and other matters.
► Is that coincidence? Or is it a symptom of how decisions are being made?
Could This Have Been Avoided?
Architectural approvals and renter screenings are routine association board functions. Clear standards, timely responses, and consistent enforcement typically prevent conflict.
Instead, this situation escalated into litigation.
Litigation damages more than budgets:
It harms community cohesion.
- It affects property values.
- It creates reputational risk for the building.
While not a lawyer, one has to wonder if our association attorney can defend this case as he is listed in the lawsuit having participated with Olena and Julius in these actions.
The big question is not whether an owner had the right to sue.
The question is: Why did board processes fail to the point where suing became the only perceived option?
A Broader Concern
Over the past two years, residents have experienced:
- Inability to contact the board in meetings or email
- Very High staff turnover
- A fiasco in receiving that took 3 months to return to normalcy
- Increasing legal exposure
- Reduction in services while implementation of rules that do not benefit the owners
When governance creates risk instead of reducing it, owners must ask hard questions.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Every board member has a fiduciary duty to protect the association from unnecessary liability.
If policies are clear and applied consistently, lawsuits are rare.
If they are not: we all pay.
Owners deserve:
- Predictable processes
- Professional administration
- Reduced legal exposure
- Leadership that protects the community financially
- Leadership that benefits residents increasing quality of life, not reductions in service and access
There comes a point when we must examine whether current leadership is minimizing risk — or creating it.
That conversation should begin now.
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH OTHER OWNERS.
There is so much more to know; the full lawsuit can be Downloaded Here.
No spam. Just important BK1 News updates.