|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2014 7:50:20 GMT -5
Here are a few examples found of someone manipulating the Rules & Regulations without due process. No one can amend, change, correct a spelling or dot an i in the documents unless and until the change has been balloted by over 50% of members at an Annual or Special Meeting. To do so is fraudulent. Many of these changes are SERIOUS omissions, deletions, modification. RulebookFeb2014Reg4ArchLand2rev 4-4B.1.pdf (18.08 KB) RulebookFeb2014Reg3Security1rev 3-8E.pdf (11.51 KB) There are more; I and others are just getting started identifying the many instances of unlawful modifications being made to rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 2, 2014 19:29:18 GMT -5
Sorry I put one up here by accident; it was the one changing the "permit" to the "permission slip". That one was a legit Rule. Go ahead-spank me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 7:30:17 GMT -5
Here are a few examples found of someone manipulating the Rules & Regulations without due process. No one can amend, change, correct a spelling or dot an i in the documents unless and until the change has been balloted by over 50% of members at an Annual or Special Meeting. To do so is fraudulent. Many of these changes are SERIOUS omissions, deletions, modification. There are more; I and others are just getting started identifying the many instances of unlawful modifications being made to rules. So the "NEW RULES" say no more than 1200 sq. ft. of living space ? Does that mean those with basements that are over the BOD allowed living space have to fill them in with sand ? Just what does the BOD think they are going to do with homes that are over the limit?
I want to see them take action on this immediately ! When they make rules and then don't take swift action to enforce rules it diminishes their credibility and no one will take any rules seriously. There is no "grandfather rule" so no one will be exempt from the rule .
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 3, 2014 9:16:02 GMT -5
That Rule was never proposed nor presented to Membership for ratification. It has been made up and entered into the public record. It is fraudulent and unenforceable and serves to further complicate an already complex situation where so many homes in SLR have no covenants and therefore no rules. BOD seems to be almost provoking owner response by unilaterally entering unratified rule changes into the mix. It would seem to be a loser strategy-I just don't get it. Here is a complete copy of the most recent revision (prior to this current one March 2014) into the public record 4/11/08: R&RAmend4112008.pdf (573.5 KB) These rules were recorded but it would require considerable research to validate that all these rules were duly adopted by vote of membership. But, it is the most recent set of Rules recorded and what is being used to compare with the current March 2014 "update". As others have already observed, anyone can record anything in the public record; just take your paper down and pay the fee. The Clerk is not responsible for verifying the truthfulness or validity of documents. |
|
|
|
Post by SLANTY on Apr 3, 2014 11:10:29 GMT -5
If left unchecked, this surge of power over SLohA residents by management and the Board will erode the kinship, kindness and the neighborly spirit that once was the H allmark of S-bag Lake Resort. How sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bowling for Fish on Apr 4, 2014 7:17:48 GMT -5
If left unchecked, this surge of power over SLohA residents by management and the Board will erode the kinship, kindness and the neighborly spirit that once was the H allmark of S-bag Lake Resort. How sad. Only if you allow it to happen. Personally, I feel it brings the Community closer together as most right minded people detest tyrants and will push back very hard. Never give an inch, if you are pushed...shove back and advance then repeat. Strength in numbers and communication is the key.
|
|
Im Trying
Addict
" Chillin-Out " One Day At A Time !
Posts: 143
|
Post by Im Trying on Apr 4, 2014 13:24:46 GMT -5
Has anyone discovered any additional illegal modifications to the Rules. Can these discovered Illegal modifications to the rules be recorded at the courthouse as an attachment?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 5, 2014 14:25:28 GMT -5
Here are the alterations to Rules I have identified after a careful inspection, but not exhaustive research. I believe, even more strongly now that ever before, that unratified, modified, customized, fantasized rules have been represented to owners and falsely recorded in the public record. While some changes might seem minor or even reasonable, that is not the point. The point is that Rules--not one letter or number- can be changed except by vote of the membership! No One is authorized to unilaterally make changes of any kind-it is unlawful and intolerable.
(Note: Strikeovers (deletions/omissions) are in RED and Additions are in GREEN.)
REGULATION 2 SOCIAL SERVICES AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
ALL provisions ADDED.
For whatever reason, the entire Regulation 2 was absent from the previous recorded R & R on 4/11/08. This is an omission that must be assumed to be purposeful, unless otherwise clarified and corrected.
From 2008 and continuing now, there is NO record of Regulation 2 being a part of SLohA Rules except its appearance in the Redbook, which is not legally sufficient notice to the public and these rules are but a "suggestion" to the owners. Rules cannot just magically reappear 6 years later without due process. This needs a legal fix.
TAMPERING WITH RESORT EQUIPMENT
3-7) Any person tampering or interfering with security equipment, first aid equipment, fire equipment, life saving equipment and any and all Association property may sH all be reported to Security for prosecution and sH all be held liable for any and all personal and/or property loss or damages of any description resulting from such tampering or interference.
(Editor: !Security does not have prosecutorial power! Stupid statements like this get judges to rule against HOA's)
TRAFFIC
3.8
E.) Non-licensed motorized vehicles, gas or Elctc, sH all be driven in a safe manner. All non-licensed motorized vehicles sH all bear identification in the manner of your block and lot stump number and street abbreviation affixed to the front and rear of said vehicle. Letters and numbers no less than 2 1/2 inches may be purchased privately or from the office for a Sml fee to cover costs. The driver of any such non licensed vehicle sH all be a licensed driver or have attained the age of 18 years or more. The operators of all vehicles MUST obey all rules of the road and the speed and traffic controls established within the Resort.
PERMANENT UNIT ARCHITECTURAL RULES
REQUIRED MEASUREMENTS
4-4B .1) All structures entering the Resort sH all be measured and approved by an authorized representative of the Board of Directors. Any plans to alter or add on to an existing structure must obtain the same approval and a building permit. The maximum length is forty-eight (48) feet with a tolerance of three (3) inches and the maximum width is twenty-four (24) feet with a tolerance of three (3) inches. No other areas beyond the aforesaid forty-eight (48) feet by twenty-four (24) feet limitation may be enclosed except for gazebos as provide in Regulation 4-4F. This is subject to meeting requirements set forth in Regulation 4-3 A and 4-3B. Bay and bow windows are included in the length and width dimensions. Any overhangs of the roof (front, rear, or sides) are not included in the length and width dimensions. The physical condition and type of structure must conform to the general appearance of the Resort. The interior floor plan of the unit is up to the owner(s) as long as the plan adheres to all State and County building codes.
A deck meeting the requirements of Regulation 4-4G2 may also be included in addition to the above measurements. The site must comply with Setback Regulations 4-3A and 4-3B. No one will be permitted to have more than 1200 square feet of living space.
(Editor: In this particular owner-hostile environment, this one really makes you go Hmmm...WHO did this and WHY? Especially NOW!)
REGULATION #5 COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES
ALL provisions ADDED (and one changed). This is the same situation as above in Regulation 2; it was probably omitted in error but that cannot be assumed. The public record says that there is no Regulation 5. It will require a legal fix to the public record; it just cannot magically reappear without due process. In any event, it was also changed:
BOATS
5-7) All boats in the Resort must be identified with the boat owner's residence location in the Resort by placing the block and lot stump number of that residence on the boat stem With numbers at least 1 inch high. Storage of boats in the Resort sH all be controlled in the following manner:
A. While its owner is in residence in the Resort, a boat may be stored in the common area along the lake between the lot line and the waters edge when the water level of the lake allows space for such storage without trespassing on a member's lot. Boats sH all not be stored in greenways.
REGULATION 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 were ADDED. These three provisions were all on the previously-recorded first page and presumably that page was omitted when the rules were recorded in 4/11/08. However, the problem is the same as with Regulations 2 and 5.
The other identified problem with the new book is the Bylaw problem already discussed separately. This is the one where the 3-year Director term was never ratified by the members but was erroneously entered into the public record. SLohA still has 2-year terms but doesn't seem to want to make a correction.
Because there are so many errors, there will be continued inspection of the documents and perhaps multiple records requests to validate that rules were ratified by a proper ballot and vote count.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 7, 2014 6:20:40 GMT -5
If push ever comes to shove, MANBOD will have to prove that this "1200 sq ft limit" was a duly-adopted rule. Failing to do that casts a shadow over ALL the rules and will always and forever come back to haunt whenever an attempt is made to enforce rules that are ALL suspect because one was found to be false. They will probably "settle" the complaint rather than be exposed by an adverse court ruling.
Whoever did this has created an enormous future problem for SLohA.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 8, 2014 7:20:15 GMT -5
This really fries my butt! As if there weren't enough problems with children driving golf carts in here, someone has just taken away an important protection from ALL owners, visitors and residents of S-bag by altering the Rules & Regulations and REMOVING the requirement for a license to drive a golfcart on SLR roads. This means that folks who cannot drive cars anymore and obtain and renew their driver's licenses because they cannot see well enough to pass a test will be permitted to take their golfcarts and drive on the road behind or beside a licensed vehicle! Your car! Your RV! Your Golfcart! All these vehicles are placed at risk when non-licensed drivers, for whatever reason, are permitted to drive golfcarts on the roads.
The person who took it upon themself to unilaterally change this rule should pay for any bodily injury or fatality as a result of an encounter between a licensed vehicle/driver and an unlicensed vehicle/driver. This person should also pay for the lawsuit that follows. This person should also pay for vehicle damage. This person should also pay for the increase in the unlucky owners' vehicle insurance policy. This person should also pay for the increase in premises liability policy for SLR if there is a lawsuit.
This person should also be stripped of all involvement in any future activities involving access to document creation or governance in SLohA. If there is State licensing involved in this fraudulent act, that license needs to go as well!
SLR is piling on liabilities at breakneck speed and I fear something is going to catch us one day!
|
|
Im Trying
Addict
" Chillin-Out " One Day At A Time !
Posts: 143
|
Post by Im Trying on Apr 8, 2014 12:40:15 GMT -5
It Just Never ENDS !!! A documented notice needs to be filed in the official records at Bartow's Court House. Signed by SLR members. By what authority do they have to just change Rules. This is what SLR residents have allowed our Leaders to get away with through intimidation.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2014 17:45:15 GMT -5
That is being looked into.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 27, 2014 17:08:50 GMT -5
Reposted from Thread "The Pinkbook" on Redbook Board:
You may recall that correspondence was sent to the Board in May 2014 detailing the discrepancies between the previously-recorded rules and the ones recorded in 2014. This correspondence was never answered by the Board. The author of the correspondence received a lengthy reply signed by the Rulebook Committee Chairman, Mik Lanoose on plain paper (Not on SLohA letterhead). There was not even a copy marked to the Board of Directors.
This detailed response asserted "multiple inputs" and acknowledged that many rules were never balloted and went on to muse:
All I know for sure is the the Board is on formal notice of the many errors and omissions, has never assumed accountability for the errors and the errors have simply been kicked down the road for another Board or a court of law to sort out someday.
On the other hand, the adjudication of expiration of SLohA covenants may make the whole thing moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by slanty on Jun 28, 2014 6:21:13 GMT -5
And this is why we simply have a 1,200 sq. ft. Of living space rule. RIGHT. Clerical error.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jun 28, 2014 8:51:12 GMT -5
Another manipulation is to the PETS RULE. Security Force is now also Animal Control. They have no formal training in either field.
The change is also a modification and such things are not permitted in our original declaration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 28, 2014 11:55:34 GMT -5
Here is the evolution of the PET Rule in the various recordings of Rules & Regulations over SLohA history.
It should be kept in mind that, just because something is recorded in Polk County, it does not give validity to the recorded documents. Polk County Recorder performs a ministerial function only; clerks do not examine documents for truthfulness. The only way to determine validity is by verifying the language presented to Members on the Ballot and the Certified Ballot results and to make sure that the due process of rule adoption was followed from the beginning with proper notice to members--to the end--with proper communication of the changes. If there is any litigation involving a rule, the attorney will request the underlying documents from the Association to assure that the rule was properly adopted.
Original On Declarations 1972, 1974 and 1975:
The Initial Rules & Regulations were adopted in 1977 after turnover to SLohA by the Developer. However, these were not recorded until 1983. Below was the first change.
Changed in 1992 @ a "special meeting"
Note that the Rule refers to Sec 5 of the Covenants; Sec 5 does not relate to Pets. Section 4 does.
Changed in 1995
Same Except sentence was put in ALL CAPS and underlined it:
And, provision appended to sentence:
2003
Pets provision was expanded-a second paragraph was added about dog breeds, weight limitations and liability insurance:
Same comment as above about reference in error to Sec 5 of the Covenants. Section 4 of the Covenants is the one about pets. There does not appear to be much attention to detail by the authors of these rules changes.
4/11/2008 No Regulation #5 was recorded.
The latest Rules were recorded on 3/26/14 and have many unexplained alterations which BOD has refused to deal with. Additionally, many provisions which were absent in 2008 were recorded, without explanation, in 2014.
In a rules dispute, attorney may argue that since Regulation 5 was not recorded in 2008, that it extinguished and must be brought back formally, by some amendatory lawyerly actions, but this cannot be retroactively applied. It would ultimately be up to the judge to decide how to deal with that.
Additionally, Rules cannot be legally adopted that are materially different or more or less restrictive than the original covenants. They must speak to the original covenant and qualify, clarify or "flesh out" the covenants. I believe that this rule would invalidate many of the provisions about breed, weight and # of pets as well as the "rounding up of unattended pets by security personnel" provision (untrained persons handling unknown animals!). This provision would represent a liability to SLohA and does not represent a clarification of Covenants. But, again, up to the Judge.
|
|
