Draft Lawsuit Discovered Regarding Gorman/Beaumont Issues

If this were filed in Court, what would your Board do…sweep it under the rug? Here is a draft lawsuit as drafted by a North Carolina lawyer:

1. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Avery County, North Carolina and has been so for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

2. Defendant Sugar Top Resort Condominium Association, Inc. (herein Sugar Top) is a non-profit corporation that operates as a homeowners’ association in Avery County North Carolina at 303 Sugar Top Dr. Sugar Mountain, NC 28604.

3. Further, Defendant Sugar Top is domiciled in North Carolina with its principal place of business in Avery County North Carolina.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dave Deisler is a citizen and resident of Avery County and has been so for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

5. Further, Defendant Dave Geisler is the President of Sugar Top.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Richard Haake is a citizen and resident of Avery County and has been so for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

7. Further, Defendant Richard Haake is the Vice-President of SugarTop.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jody Mohle Corr is a citizen and resident of Avery County and has been so for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

9. Further, Defendant Jody Mohle Corr is the Treasurer of Sugar Top.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Martin Plaisted is a citizen and resident of Avery County and has been so for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

11. Further, Defendant Martin Plaisted is the Secretary of Sugar Top.

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Chris Hise is a citizen and resident of Avery County and has been for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

13. Further, Defendant Chris Hise is the Assistant Secretary of SugarTop.

14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shannon Beaumont, aka Shannon Rae Gorman, aka Shannon Rae Berger, is a citizen and resident of Avery County and has been for more than six (6) months prior to the institution of this action.

15. Further, Defendant Shannon Beaumont is the general manager of Sugar Top.

16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sean P. Fryou, is a citizen and resident of Avery County North Carolina and has been so for more than six

(6) months prior to the institution of this action.

17. Further, Defendant Sean P. Fryou is the Assistant General Manager of Sugar Top.

18. Plaintiff is a Board Member of Sugar Top and has been since June

2024.

Facts Below: Any other Jurisdictional issue? Anything else

19. For the 2021, 2022 and 2024 fiscal years, Sugar Top has not had an audit.

20. On or about, (DATE) Mr. Brown was concerned about the status of the federal and state tax returns and asked to see the financial records of Sugar Top.

21. Defendant, Sugar Top is a large organization with over two million dollars in dues paid to it annually.

22. On or about (DATE) the Defendant Directors denied Mr. Brown access to the financial records of the company.

23. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55A-16-02, Mr. Brown as a director has inspection rights of corporate records, including financial records.

24. Mr. Brown gave a written demand on to see the financial statements of the corporation, to which Mr. Brown was again denied access and clear answers as to why the records are not available to him, or filed properly for a financial audit on Jan 10, 2025.

25. Mr. Brown learned that the general manager of Sugar Top, Defendant Shannon Beaumont, is a Florida felon whose previous crimes include: Two counts of Grand Theft over $300 less than $5000; Grand Theft over 10,000 less than $20,000; Sixteen counts of Forgery; Sixteen counts of Utter Forged Instrument; Fraud of less than $10,000 or more than 10 individuals; and Three counts of Fraudulent Use of Personal Identification Information.

26. Upon information and belief, Ms. Beaumont is on probation in Florida until 2029.

27. After learning the above information about Ms. Beaumont, Mr. Brown became concerned about the finances even further as Ms. Beaumont, as the General Manager, has access to Sugar Top finances and other sensitive information, including the power to sign checks for Sugar Top.

28. Upon information and belief, Ms. Beaumont was not properly vetted before being hired to be the General Manager of Sugar Top.

29. On or about July 10, 2024, Ms. Beaumont signed a check from Sugar Top to herself in the amount of $200.00.

30. On or about July 18, 2024, Ms. Beaumont signed a check from Sugar Top to herself in the amount of $400.00.

31. On or about July 7, 2024, the Assistant General Manager of Sugar Top, Mr. Fryou, was given a direct payment in the amount of $1502.00.

32. On or about there were multiple payments from various Sugar Top accounts to Karen Kraft, Ms. Beaumont’s roommate.

33. Upon information and belief, there are multiple checks written and signed by Ms. Beaumont with no description in the memo line.

34. Upon information and belief, there were over two hundred separate payments to local restaurants dollar stores, Walgreens, supermarkets, and large stores such as Sam’s Club with no description of why there was a purchase.

35. Upon information and belief there were over eighty payments from a Sugar Top account to Amazon and PayPal as well as Amazon video rentals with no description of why there was a purchase.

36. Mr. Brown was instructed by the other members of the Board that he could not contact Sugar Top’s attorney, Mark Pinkston or Sugar Top’s Accountant.

37. Mr. Brown, as a Director on the Board of Sugar Top, has a right to speak with any professionals that the corporation hires.

38. On March 30, 2025, Mr. Brown contacted Sugar Top’s accountant via email to inquire about the 2023-2024 Sugar Top financial audit.

39. On April 29, 2025, Mr. Brown contacted Sugar Top’s attorney Mr. Pinkston, via email and CCing other Board Members, asking for information about financial statements or drafts of the fiscal years 2021-2024. Mr. Brown also asked about why there were filing delays for the 2023 and 2024 audited financial statements. Mr. Brown also asked about the tax returns for 2021-2024 as well as the collection activity of the corporation from homeowners. Mr. Brown received no response from Mr. Pinkston about these issues.

40. Mr. Brown was also told by other Board members that he was not allowed to ask questions of the General Manager, Ms. Beaumont, or staff of Sugar Top.

41. A member of the Board contacted Sugar Top’s attorney and instructed him not to answer Mr. Brown.

42. Mr. Brown was also told by the other Board Members that he could not communicate any information to members of Sugar Top about the finances of the corporation.

43. Upon information and belief, the other Board Members told Mr. Brown that the reason he may not contact, share information, or have access to financial records, is to hide information from members of Sugar Top for fear that it would “expose the HOA to potential liability, and confusion in representation.”

44. On May 28, 2025, the other Board Members gave Mr. Brown a formal reprimand for “inappropriate conduct and breach of board mission.”

45. The reprimand was likely from Mr. Brown attempting to bring transparency to the Board action. (Conclusory)

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: CONVERSION/EMBEZZLEMENT

(As to Defendants BEAUMONT and FRYOU)

46. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as is set forth fully herein.

47. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § , conversion/embezzlement of funds is prohibited.

48. Defendants, Ms. Beaumont and Mr. Fryou, have used Sugar Top funds for personal interest.

49. By doing so, Defendants Ms. Beaumont and Mr. Fryou have committed conversion/embezzlement of funds from Sugar Top that they were not entitled to have.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: UNLAWFUL LOANS OF ENTRUSTED PROPERTY UNDER 55-8-33

(As to all Defendants)

50. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

51. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-8-33, unlawful loans of entrusted property is prohibited.

52. Defendant, Ms. Beaumont unlawfully took a loan from Sugar Top out of Sugar Top funds. Those loans were never paid back and were unauthorized.

53. In the alternative, Sugar Top unlawfully authorized a loan to Defendant, Ms. Beaumont, out of Sugar Top funds. Those loans were never paid back.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(As to all Defendants)

54. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

55. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 55A-8-30, 41, and 42, the Board of Directors and its Officers owe fiduciary duties to the corporation.

56. The fiduciary duties of the Board of Directors and its officers include but are not limited to, the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.

57. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of care by not properly vetting Ms. Beaumont before hiring her.

58. If the Defendants had vetted Ms. Beaumont, her criminal history would have become known to the Director Defendants and funds from Sugar Top would not have been embezzled.

59. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by allowing information to be hidden from the plaintiff and the homeowners about the financial situation of Sugar Top.

60. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by not acting in good faith in denying the Plaintiff, Mr. Brown, his inspection rights of corporate records.

61. Because of the breach of fiduciary duties, Sugar Top has been damaged financially and put at risk for legal liability.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FAILURE TO DISCHARGE DUTIES AS DIRECTOR 55A-8-30

(As to Director Defendants)

62. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

63. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 55A-8-30 the Director Defendants must discharge the duties they owe to the corporation.

64. The Director Defendants failed to discharge those duties as directors by not properly vetting Ms. Beaumont before hiring her.

65. The Director Defendants also failed to discharge their duties as Directors by not making sure the 2021, 2022, and 2024 audits were properly completed and filed with the state.

66. The Director Defendants also failed to discharge their duties as Directors by not allowing the Plaintiff, Mr. Brown to inspect corporate records.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: ACCOUNTING

(As to all Defendants)

67. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

68. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § , the Defendants should produce accounting of the 2021, 2022, and 2024 fiscal years in order to maintain compliance with North Carolina Law.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD

(As to Defendants BEAUMONT and FRYOU)

69. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

70. Throughout her employment, Defendant, Ms. Beaumont, with the intent to defraud Sugar Top, represented herself as an agent of Sugar Top for certain financial purchases for varies things not related to Sugar Top interest.

71. Said representations were known by Defendant, Beaumont to be and were false. In truth Beaumont was using Sugar Top funds for personal interests instead of the interest of Sugar Top.

72. The Plaintiff, Mr. Brown, believed and relied upon the false representations, and thus was induced to continue to allow Ms. Beaumont to be the General Manager of Sugar Top with access to sensitive information and finances.

73. The Defendant Beamont and Fryou have committed Fraud against Sugar Top.

74. The Damages to Sugar Top from the Fraud that both Ms. Beaumont and Mr. Fryou implemented.

75. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgement against defendant for .

OR!

76. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

77. The acts of the Defendants, Beaumont and Fryou as set forth above and as may be proved at trial of this action constitute material misrepresentations.

78. Upon information and belief, Defendants Beaumont and Fryou made the alleged material misrepresentations with knowledge of their falsity, and with the intention that the Plaintiff, Mr. Brown, and Sugar Top should rely on the false representations.

79. Plaintiff, Mr. Brown, and Sugar Top reasonably and justifiable relied on these intentionally false representations to their detriment.

80. As a direct and proximate result of this conduct by Defendants, Beaumont and Fryou, the Plaintiff, Mr. Brown and Sugar Top have suffered damages in the amount of .

81. The above described conduct by Defendants, Beaumont and Fryou also justifies the imposition of punitive damages under applicable law, due to the Defendants’ fraud.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

(As to Officer Defendants)

82. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

83. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § , ?

84. The Officer Defendants have committed constructive fraud against Sugar Top and its Board by using Sugar Top funds for personal interest.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CIVIL CONSPIRACY/REFUSAL TO ALLOW BROWN ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PROFESSIONALS TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS

(As to all Defendants)

85. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

86. The Defendants acting in agreement have committed a Civil Conspiracy in refusing to allow Mr. Brown access to information and professionals to investigate matters.

87. As a Director, Mr. Brown is entitled to inspection rights of the company records according to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55A-12-02 and §55A-16- 03.

88. Mr. Brown is also entitled to inspect the financial records of the corporation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat & 55A-16-20.

89. Mr. Brown was denied those inspection rights when he asked to see the financial records of the fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2024.

90. Mr. Brown is also entitled to access to the professionals the company hire, such as its attorney, to investigate matters involving Sugar Top.

91. Mr. Brown was denied access to Sugar Top’s attorney, Mr. Pinkerton when Board members told Mr. Brown not to contact the attorney.

92. Mr. Pinkerton never responded to Mr. Brown as a Board member for Sugar top, nor did he answer any of Mr. Brown’s questions about the liability of the corporation due to the history of the general manager and the lack of audit for the 2021, 2022, and 2024 fiscal years.

93. Mr. Brown tried repeatedly to get access to the financial records of Sugar Top as is his right as a director to inspect those financial corporate records.

APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER

94. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

95. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-507.24, an appointment of a receiver for a corporation is a proper form of relief.

96. In this case, it would be proper for this court to appoint a receiver to Sugar Top as there could be a greater injury to the Sugar Top if the current Board of Directors remains in their positions.

97. It would also be proper for this court to appoint a receiver to Sugar Top because of the fraudulent and gross misconduct in the management of Sugar Top as well as the refusal of permitting the Plaintiff, a Director on the Board with inspection rights, inspection of corporate books.

JUDICIAL REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT OFFICERS

98. The Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations heretofore alleged as if set forth fully herein.

99. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § , this Court should remove the Defendant Officers from their positions at Sugar Top as there do not act in the best interest of the corporation and in fact are harming the corporation in their current positions.

INDEMNIFICATION FOR SCOTT BROWN OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

100. The Plaintiff, Mr. Brown, asks this court to indemnify himself of costs and attorney fees for this action.

101. Pursuant to the corporations’ by-laws Article XVIII, § 1 “Each person elected and qualified as a Director . . . shall be indemnified by the Association against expenses actually and necessarily incurred by and in connection with the defense by such – person of any action, suit or proceeding in which he is made a party by reason of his being a Director

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays unto the Court as follows:

1. That this Court accepts this Verified Complaint and the attached affidavit of service;

2. That this Court enters a judgment against all Defendants in favor of the Plaintiffs;

3. That this Court Appoint a Receiver for Sugar Top.

4. That this Court remove all Defendant Officers in their position as officers at Sugar Top.

5. That this Court order an Action for Accounting for Sugar Top for the fiscal years, 2021, 2022, and 2024.

6. That this Court order Sugar Top to produce the financial information Mr. Brown requested to see within his rights as a Director Board Member of Sugar Top.

7. That this Court order any finances that were taken due to the conversion/embezzlement of Sugar Top funds be reimbursed to Sugar Top.

8. That this Court tax the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees associated with prosecuting this action against the Defendants, and

9. For any other such relief that the Court deems just, wise, and proper.

This the day of , 2025