Marcarian responds to Attorney Letter: Proof that Four board members wasted your money on unqualified attorney. They play games. You pay for it.
- David Marcarian
- Jul 4
- 9 min read
Updated: 13 hours ago
When an attorney writes a "Cease and Desist" letter, it is usually a serious matter. At first glance, it was clear that he never reviewed the five pages of the Board meeting minutes. If he had, he would realize his letter to me was inappropriate and technically libelous. As his allegations were unsupported by fact, I had no reason to respond. thus saving the homeowners a lot of money.
His letterhead is shown below. You may look him up yourself.
The attorney in question is Edward (Ted) Boyack. Based on the information presented below, it is evident that he lacks the necessary qualifications to represent this board.
Although I was legally entitled to retain independent counsel and pass the costs to homeowners—as this board has done—I chose not to, given how effortlessly this letter could be refuted.
I consistently verify the background and credentials of any attorney before issuing a formal response. Mr. Boyack is not suited to serve as general counsel for the homeowners. The board members responsible for his retention—Sherae Mims, Brian Stires, Alyssa Carillo, and Sherman Yeung—should be held ethically accountable and expected to reimburse the HOA for all related expenses.
To date, they have refused to release the complete billing records associated with Mr. Boyack. The sole invoice disclosed, in the amount of $1,932.00, appears to pertain to this letter yet was entirely redacted.
For the sake of transparency and in the best interest of the homeowners, I present my formal response to Mr. Boyack below.
Proof Attorney Is Unqualified
Below you can see the CC&Rs 5.3 (b)(1)(i) that establish Mr. Boyack as unqualified.
Example of a rated attorney with the proper requirements: Note the "AV" Logo.
Mr. Boyack's rating. He is not qualified to represent the Homeowners Association.
Marcarian Response to Attorney
Dear Mr. Boyack:
I have received your letter dated April 15, 2025. As shown below, you claim to be the general counsel for the Jade HOA. The board approving you as general counsel violates their requirements of due diligence as explained above.
Although the four board members who retained your services—Sherae Mims, Brian Stires, Alyssa Carillo, and Sherman Yeung—appear unaware of your lack of qualification to serve as legal counsel to the Jade HOA, you must immediately cease and desist from using that title or communicating under the pretense of representing the association.
Per CC&R Section 5.3(b)(1)(i), you are not authorized to represent this Board in any official capacity. While I am under no obligation to respond to correspondence from unqualified representatives, I do so out of an ethical responsibility to the homeowners. You may offer personal legal counsel to the Board members, but such services must be billed directly to them—not to the HOA.
It is imperative that the HOA be reimbursed for any fees incurred to date and that the Board pursue damages for retaining legal representation outside their scope of authority. To date, only one invoice has been provided, which was entirely redacted. This further substantiates the claim that the entirety of your April 2025 billing was for non-HOA matters.
Attorney Makes Claims Without Evidence?
Your letter was particularly troubling given the expectation that attorneys adhere to a standard of precision and evidentiary support. A review of the HOA Board minutes would have immediately revealed the factual inaccuracies in your claims. It is clear that your actions reflect the personal interests of those who engaged you rather than the collective interests of the Jade HOA. Moreover, your failure to conduct basic due diligence prior to submitting unfounded assertions raises serious ethical concerns..
Look Mom, No House!
Your first claim is shown below:
It is troubling that you and this board did not realize my house was not even built in October of 2022. Furthermore, this claim of "unapproved cameras" is patently false.
The cameras were INDEED approved at the board meeting of July 18th, 2024 as you can see below. What really happened?
Cameragate? Seabreeze Failed To Inform Homeowners. The board is not allowed to communicate with homeowners. Blame Seabreeze not my board.
Seabreeze, responsible for all homeowner communications, never informed the homeowners that "test cameras" would be installed. Homeowners who attended the HOA meeting on 7/18/2024 were informed. As you know, the Board does not legally have access to the addresses or email addresses of homeowners and relies upon Seabreeze for all HOA communications.
Not One Shred of Evidence In A Smartphone-Based World
You next make a clearly false claim:
Have you, in fact, completed a law degree and possess a comprehensive understanding of defamation law—specifically libel?
As a nationally recognized expert witness, I find it astonishing that any practicing attorney would issue accusatory statements without substantiating them with factual evidence. Your comments meet the legal threshold for libel: a false and damaging statement made in written form.
I am formally requesting that you issue a written retraction of these defamatory claims. Your failure to do so will further substantiate the appearance of professional misconduct and disregard for ethical standards.
“Specifically monitor a van?” Let's clarify the facts.
The four board members were preparing to tow a vehicle solely because its registration had lapsed by four days. Evidently, none of them consulted a basic Google search before proceeding. Fortunately, I reviewed their internal emails and responded to one member's self-congratulatory “great detective work” remark by pointing out what they missed: Nevada allows a 30-day grace period following registration expiration. Moreover, since they do not have access to DMV records, they had no way of knowing whether the vehicle was, in fact, registered and simply missing the updated sticker.
To assist constructively, I offered to ask the adjacent homeowner whether they wanted me to install a camera to monitor the van’s parking activity. They declined, so no camera was placed—explaining your inability to produce any photo evidence. Yet you continue to make unfounded accusations. Your assertion is, by definition, libelous. I formally request that you issue a retraction of these false statements.
Urban Legend
This claim wins the award: You are now including slander as well as libel, as this claim has been made verbally as well. Is the Nevada Bar Exam considered less rigorous compared to those in other states?
As a certified Drone Pilot under FAA regulations, I have used my expertise to assist homeowners in our community with post-solar installation roof inspections. These inspections typically cost $500 per home, yet I provided this service entirely free of charge.
The HOA was appropriately notified of my drone usage, and all related communications are on record with Seabreeze Management.
Notably, every roof inspection conducted revealed damage that might have otherwise gone undetected. Upon sharing the aerial imagery with the installation companies, all affected areas were professionally repaired.
Example of one of the drone roof inspections leading to repair by solar installer. There was a brief incident in which the drone entered automatic landing mode due to high wind conditions, momentarily dipping below the roofline for less than 30 seconds. This event has unfortunately been distorted into an exaggerated claim. The homeowner involved was notified immediately, and transparent documentation of the drone’s actual usage is readily available.
Despite one individual positioning themselves as an authority on drone law, they continue to perpetuate common myths—particularly around altitude restrictions over private property. It is crucial that homeowners understand the facts: FAA regulations govern navigable airspace, and Nevada law outlines specific conditions under which low-altitude drone flight may be restricted. The bottom line? Look at our CC&Rs. Are drones even addressed? The answer is NO. Is there really a 250 foot minumum altitude requirement for flying drones over private property? The answer is NO. Believe it or not (you can check) the Home Inspector for my home utlilized MY drone to photograph the roof, as my drone produced a higher resolution image than his. He uses a drone for every single home inspection. Drone flight over private property is complaint driven.
As an officer of the court, you are expected to educate your clients and not have them manipulate you into making the same libelous and slanderous claims.
Considering that major retailers like Walmart will soon deploy drones for deliveries, it's imperative that our community engages with this technology responsibly and legally. Notably, one homeowner publicly declared during the June 2nd HOA meeting that they would shoot down any drone flying over their property—a threat that not only contradicts federal law but raises serious safety and legal concerns. You truly want to think twice when it comes to using a gun on ANYTHING, as you will be arrested. See the News Story below.
Your latest assertion—that I placed unapproved speed limit signs—is simply inaccurate. As an attorney, one would expect you to have reviewed the records of the previous board. These 15 MPH signs were formally approved in October 2024. Had you conducted even minimal due diligence, you would be aware that this HOA governs private property, and the installation of speed limit signage is both appropriate and necessary for safety and liability purposes.
Furthermore, the notion that speed limit signs are unnecessary because the county’s default limit of 25 MPH applies is yet another misleading narrative circulated by the four board members who retained you. On private roads, the HOA sets the regulatory framework—not the county. This distinction is critical to both traffic enforcement and risk mitigation.
Again, if you were familiar with HOA law, instead of spreading misinformation, you would respond to this by highly recommending that this board apply the 15 MPH speed limit signs seen.
Reasonable in a community with no street lights and lacking proper signs is 15 MPH as determined by the last board and a survey of the homeowners. There is not a single homeowner outside of these four board members who has expressed an interest in a speed limit above 15 MPH. You appear to have handled some personal injury cases. This means you should know that without speed limit signs, this HOA would have liability in the case of a speeder injuring a person, as without speed limit signs, the speeder can claim they were not speeding making us liable by being irresponsible.
The placement of the 15 MPH speed limit signs was approved by the previous Board, yet due to Seabreeze’s documented pattern of inaction, I made the decision to install them personally. The safety of our community—particularly the children who frequently play in the street—warranted immediate intervention.
These signs serve a critical function: they help reduce speeding, mitigate liability risks, and provide a clear framework for enforcing consequences when warnings are ignored. Their presence is a proactive and necessary safety measure.
If you were truly versed in HOA governance, you would recognize that Nevada’s State-Mandated Board Training emphasizes each director’s duty to act in the best interests of the community, even when faced with a Board unwilling or unable to exercise sound judgment.
In fulfilling that duty, I acted solely to protect the welfare of the residents. I will not remove the 15 MPH signs, as doing so would compromise both safety and liability protections that responsible leadership demands.
Helping Homeowners with Remotes
You next claim I had homeowners contact me directly for remotes for the gate. Again, referring to number 4 above, after Seabreeze failed to provide remotes to many homeowners including a Board member, I indeed did what was in the best interests of the community. Only after Seabreeze failed to provide remotes did I respond to these homeowners by providing remotes at no cost.
I am responding to complaints by taking actions that solve their problems. In other words, I'm not actively circumventing Seabreeze but simply solving the problemn Seabreeze failed to handle.
Email through attorney only?
Next, you and the board require that I send ALL emails to you instead of the Board, This is a violation of the board's fiduciary duties to the homeowners. The cost per email would be around $50.00. To see your bill for one month of $1932.00 I will be ignoring this demand, as it is not reasonable.
You state that I violated Section 10.20 of the Jade Homeowners Association CC&Rs.
For reference, here is Section 10.20 as it appears in the document.
I am concerned about the use of this section in your argument. Section 10.20 serves as a disclaimer to inform homeowners that the Jade HOA, Declarant, or associated parties do not provide video recording services for common areas.
Utilizing this section as you have may extend beyond its intended purpose.
Additionally, it is my understanding that you cannot act as general counsel for the homeowners. While you may represent the four board members who engaged your services, such representation should be personal rather than as general counsel. I request a refund of your fee, as I believe the payment was made by the four board members for their own benefit rather than on behalf of all homeowners.
The redaction of your initial bill raises concerns regarding whether legal work was performed on behalf of the homeowners. The responsibility for these costs should be borne by the board members individually. I ask that you retract any statements identifying yourself as general counsel, as this may not align with the CC&Rs.
In addition, if you do not refund the HOA for your fees, you are bound ethically to inform the four board members that they are to reimburse the HOA for all of your fees. They are clearly in violation of their fiduciary duties for not doing due diligence in selecting you.
You and these four board members are collectively responsible for reimbursing the Homeowners of Jade for all of your fees.sible for refunding 100% of your fees billed to the HOA.
Please let me know in writing the estimated date when yourself and the four board members will have reimbursed the JADE HOA for your entire fees. Please include your letter of resignation as well.
-David Marcarian
Comments