|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 15, 2018 17:31:16 GMT -5
Admin has been posting since Dec 2017 about this ballot and its deficiencies. Today, Admin certified a letter to BOD with formal objections and attachments of forum posts and emails between Admin and T Roof. I am not going to re-attach the documenting forum posts which were included with the objection letter, but these posts are notated in the attachment list at the bottom of the Objection Letter. Most of the forum posts are referenced under the BOD Minutes Board and some are in this 2017-2018 Election Board. Warning: it's a long letter but the issue is multi-faceted and the narrative is comprehensive. 2018BODObjection.pdf (432.5 KB) 2018Dec21Upcoming electionemailthread.pdf (343.38 KB) 2018Feb19Rufemailthread.pdf (314.5 KB)  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 9, 2018 15:05:20 GMT -5
Certified receipt  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 10:10:45 GMT -5
Dear Administrator: Is it your intention to cH allenge the vote outcome from the past election based on your findings? And does this mean that Nunsee who is on the SLohA Board no longer owns property in S-bag?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 10, 2018 13:14:32 GMT -5
I have no idea where you are interpreting ownership of property as related to the ballot objection so please clarify the question. This has nothing to do with privately-owned properties. This has to do with common properties which Do Not have voting eligibility.
The point is NOT what my intention is aside from registering my objection to the board's actions. The point is that the board does NOT own the common parcels and they voted as if they did (among other material problems with this proposal which has been adequately described in my objection letter.)
This action may be cH allenged by any owner, current or future, who may be adversely affected by the misguided actions of the board on the covenant amendment "adopted" on this ballot. The point is that the amendment was fraudulently affirmed by a board who cast votes without an authority on those 3 common parcels. This can cause SLohA excessive legal costs down the road in a dispute. The timing, content and manner of the dispute is anyone's guess. It could be a dispute with me or anyone else in here--maybe even with YOU.
With my objection letter and accompanying documentation, there is an official record that the board was aware that its actions were without authority. This kind of behavior is seldom self-correcting.
Why are you asking about MY intention? What is your intention-- to validate or negate the invalidity of the action?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 7:58:19 GMT -5
I have no idea where you are interpreting ownership of property as related to the ballot objection so please clarify the question. This has nothing to do with privately-owned properties. This has to do with common properties which Do Not have voting eligibility. The point is NOT what my intention is aside from registering my objection to the board's actions. The point is that the board does NOT own the common parcels and they voted as if they did (among other material problems with this proposal which has been adequately described in my objection letter.) This action may be cH allenged by any owner, current or future, who may be adversely affected by the misguided actions of the board on the covenant amendment "adopted" on this ballot. The point is that the amendment was fraudulently affirmed by a board who cast votes without an authority on those 3 common parcels. This can cause SLohA excessive legal costs down the road in a dispute. The timing, content and manner of the dispute is anyone's guess. It could be a dispute with me or anyone else in here--maybe even with YOU. With my objection letter and accompanying documentation, there is an official record that the board was aware that its actions were without authority. This kind of behavior is seldom self-correcting. Why are you asking about MY intention? What is your intention-- to validate or negate the invalidity of the action? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 8:05:43 GMT -5
The point being is that hundreds of thousands of dollars of our monies are thown down the drain because of legal fees. I would hate to see SLohA embroiled in another legal fight that once again pulls this community apart. Guess the management and the Board did not heed your warnings before and won't now. Doe pride, arrogance and ego run that rampant amongst my neighbors? Where is the focus on humanity, kindness and loving thy neighbor? Did it get thrown out when some people were forced to move out because of a hostile environment? I beg the Board to take a good look at how they proceed so we can become a welcoming community, not a closed community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2018 19:23:00 GMT -5
I received the recorded "third" amendment to the revitalized Declaration and the board's certificate attesting that the members adopted the amendment by the required ballot.
The amendment clouds my title. My SLohA deed restrictions were expired by MRTA in 2010. SLohA has attempted to re-encumber my property title--first with an invalid revitalization and second with an amendment not authorized by any document or statute with authority to diminish my vested property rights.
Aside from Constitutional protection against the retroactive application of a restriction on my homesteaded property, my title is clouded because SLohA never had and does not have authority to apply the Florida statutes adopted subsequent to the original Declaration in 1972. Kaufman language prohibits SLohA from asserting authority over the Declaration for substantive statutory changes adopted after the Declaration is recorded UNLESS there is "Kaufman language". An example of inclusiveness of Kaufman language is: The SLohA Declaration is subject to Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, as it is amended from time to time.” This statement MUST be present, in its entirety, to give notice to members that they are contractually bound by later-adopted statutes. By inclusion of such language, all of the changes to the Florida Statutes, including changes to substantive rights, will apply to the declaration, without regard to whether the changes are beneficial or detrimental to the association. Without Kaufman language, the Declaration is fixed to those statutes which existed at the time the Declaration was recorded. In my case, that date is 1972. Only FS617 was in effect in 1972 and the Marketable Record Title Act FS712 did not contain preservation and revitalization clauses for associations until 2003. FS720 was not even in existence until 2000 and did not adopt a revitalization clause until 2004.
SLohA does NOT have Kaufman language in the Declaration.
So, a more focused discussion must be initiated with SLohA and hopefully, an extended discussion will not cost members another $100,000 dollars and loss of an insurance carrier. We have already been down this expensive and non-productive road. Does SLohA need an expensive refresher course?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 11, 2018 22:58:51 GMT -5
I received an email questioning this. Here is an unhappy reminder: SLohA lost its first rate insurance after the sad round of unfounded and failed lawsuits in 2015. As a result of SLohA's reckless actions and loss of the cases, the replacement second-line insurance carrier conditioned D & O insurance on a huge deductible--$75,000.
Gargleknees will be very happy to represent SLohA in any legal action where it is guaranteed the first $75,000 in legal fees and no interference by a pesky attorney for the insurance carrier wanting to settle and stop the bleeding. After the deductible is satisfied, the insurance carrier (theoretically) will swoop in, take over the case and settle any lawsuit as quickly and cheaply as possible.
That is... IF SLohA board decides to involve the insurance carrier and IF the insurance carrier cannot find a loophole to opt out of covering the claim.
|
|
