|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2015 21:48:23 GMT -5
The Judge did not rule in my favor in the case the Amendments. The written decision was just a simple "deny" and there was no discussion of the reasoning for the decision. Though it is always disappointing to be on the losing end of an issue, I am otherwise happy with the outcome of the overall dispute which overwhelmingly resolved in my favor with all my litigation costs returned to me. Even though the remaining question did not go my way, I am breathing a sigh of relief to see the end of a long disagreement with this group. The decision, while inscrutable, changes nothing for me personally and has no impact on my future or happiness living in S-bag. I will continue to protect my property and welfare when I believe that an injustice has occurred. While I believe that this question could likely be litigated again in the future, today, the Judge has simply ruled that "No, you and your property have not suffered an injustice" which was the purpose of the lawsuit in the first place. Court Order on Sue Teague Case.pdf (603.79 KB) In the final analysis, I was able to prevail on the important issues and got every penny of the money I spent on legal fees returned to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 26, 2015 23:20:51 GMT -5
I guess I do not understand the present Laws of the Land. I know this country is fundamentally changing, but how can an HOA Vote on Covenants, which fail to pass in April of 1986. Then in October of 1986 the BODs approves the April 1986 Board Minutes, which states the Covenant Amendments in phase #1, #2 and #3 have Failed.
Then soon after in Nov. 1986 they are Recorded in Bartow as having Passed.
Have both the Judge & Myself missed something? Can someone please explain this to me and others?
Thanks, 16 RC
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 27, 2015 9:00:22 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
This whole thing may be thought of as a contrived "fix" of the mediation process. The ultimate goal was to stop the money bleeding of the lawsuits by Tower Hill. The goal of Tg and 66SS was to have the lawsuits dismissed and be reimbursed all costs expended in the litigation. Tower Hill did not want to spend gobs of money to prove "merit" either way, SLohA wanted to get on with revitalization of the expired covenants, and the Plaintiffs' just wanted SLohA to go away and pay them back for the misery caused. The payback desire has been partially met, but all parties achieved a common goal of ending the ongoing drama so that life could go on...
The negotiated agreement reached in mediation--in order to progress and/or end BOTH lawsuits--was to get a Declaratory Judgement on ONE remaining question of validity of the 1986 and 1989 Amendments at their face value. This is an important distinction to appreciate--because both sides agreed not to argue "issues of fact" ie the 1986 failure of the amendments on the ballots which was SLohA's false statement underlying their subsequent recordation and unlawful adoption into legitimate SLohA governing documents. If that were argued successfully, the 1989 Amendment would also be invalid because it was adopted based on the 1986 added amendment provision that was absent in the Declaration. (It is like a chain that had a broken link in 1986 and any future link added to the chain is necessarily unlawful because it was based on a lie.) But, this is not the legal path chosen by both sides; perhaps due to the uncertainties of missing records and lack of pursuit of property rights by owners--probably a LOT of consideration here that I cannot second guess nor do I want to pay for a hour of legal consultation to learn the details. My choice was to trust my attorney to represent my interests in the best way possible.
It was further agreed to "stop the train" at the decision and waive rights of appeal. In my opinion, this will have unintended consequences and long range potential for further legal cH allenge down the road since the "decision" was without legal rationale and virtually useless for anything other than to meet the agreements reached in mediation.
We don't know what was in the Judge's head but he answered his own question to SLohA in rendering this decision:
Judge asked SLohA "Should homeowners be held responsible for sloppy drafting of the declaratory document by the Developer?"
Judge's Answer: "Yes"
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 27, 2015 23:17:09 GMT -5
The Judge only stated Denied. With out writing any opinion. So, Let's Kick the Can Down The Road You can bet someone in the future will pick up this Can, along with the Attorney and run with it, if Revitalization in SLR is approved. If Revite is not approved by the State, the Covenants will go away forever. There would not be a need to go to a Higher Court. Then The Fat Lady Sings.... It is truly over at that point in time. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 28, 2015 6:07:56 GMT -5
Dick Tracy posted:
I can agree with most of what you say. If Florida denies SLohA eligibility for revitalization, that is the end of the Covenants and Amendments forever. That is one reason that this decision is not particularly important to me--it is important only to SLohA. If the Covenants cannot be revitalized, that is the end of it. If they CAN be revitalized, I am not re-encumbered because I am homesteaded and SLohA must have my written consent to encumber (the green sheets!) If revitalization is not possible and, if people want more Covenants, they can draft a new contract, at but at that point, only the willing can encumber themselves; there will be an inevitable patchwork of "encumbered and unencumbered". Chaos and divisiveness will reign.
At the risk of getting geeky, there is a scholarly book written by Evan Kenzie Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government which was a sequel to his first work, Privatopia. In it, he describes the economic forces which created this congregate form of housing, the evolution, the innate social and political problems, the failure of the operating business model and what inevitably happens in the declining cycle of HOA's..and beyond.
Mik & I sent a joint letter to this author back in 2011 describing what we observed as the state of our HOA, and he commented that we were in the mid-cycle of transition and it was likely, based upon our description of the demographics of the community, that nothing would halt the decline. Here we are--4 years later--and we are at a tipping point on several fronts in SLR. I wonder what the book scholar would say now. These two books would be good additions to the library for those who are confounded by what they are experiencing in S-bag. We are not unique.
I don't think the "Fat Lady will ever sing" or that change will ever be truly over; we are adapting creatures and change is inevitable. Instead, the Fat Lady is going to endlessly HUM, giggle and tease her stunned audience by changing the tune mid-hum until people get sick of the fat sweathog and oust her from the playing field and start the whole miserable process again from scratch.
If you can emotionally divorce yourself from the disappointment of this horribly failed experiment in "self-governance by clueless volunteers", insulate yourself from abuse by greedy business interests and so-called professional "managers"--- and protect your personal assets from the dangers presented by the above-described agents-- you just might enjoy the show!
|
|