Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2013 6:26:29 GMT -5
Cross posted from the MRTA website slrmarta.webs.com:
The attorneys Riceman and BearIt (for HOA) and Frd O'N eel (Attny) (for Tg) met Thursday morning 8/8 to chat "off the record". Other persons were present but Frd did not recall during our phone conversation the names of MANBOD attendees. The meeting lasted about a hour.
The discussion was about three SLohA options to fixed the expired covenants issue:
1-"Let's spend all the reserve monies on lawyers for the next several years".
This track presents an extended, expensive and very chancy option for the HOA. There are two main obstacles that must be overcome for the HOA to prevail. First, the preservation notice cited an Amendment for which there was no provision in the original Declaration to amend. This has already been brought up and it is generally recognized that the Declaration has no amendatory provision for the covenants. Secondly, NO supporting ballot documents are available or recorded with the Amended documents in 1985 and there is no proof of chain of custody of ballots. These (and other) process deficiencies make it virtually impossible to defend the validity of the 75% vote--even if one were to somehow get past the absence of an amendatory provision.
It was O'N eel (Attny)'s reading of the body language of the HOA attorney that this option would present a very difficult cH allenge for the HOA to pursue.
2. "Revitalize the covenants". This has already been discussed; start over with the original Declaration and 50% vote of the membership and get the authority of the HOA reinstated. Two cH allenges here: you must go back and get the approval of all property mortgage holders and it cannot re-encumber all properties that have expired, creating a "checKirboard" of encumbered and non-encumbered properties.
3. "Start over with a new set of docs". Get as many owner signatures as possible. Subsequently, any non-signors will be have to be ordered by the court to pay legitimate expenses of the Association common properties. Two problems; first, use restrictions on property would be limited by a court decision to those that are more customary in the society at large (more like municipal and county codes/rules). Second is that a court-ordered class action order to pay fees has not been attempted in Florida but it has been done successfully in other states. (This option seems like a special taxing district tax to me.) This option would provide for a fully-funded HOA.
It was Frd's "take" that the HOA attorney wanted to solve the problem with reasonable and achievable goals and intelligence. His impression of other attendees was they were well-controlled, made few comments and seemed to be quite distressed about losing "use restriction" (Option 3) which is at the heart of HOA control. He said they expressed a great deal of animosity toward me.
(Editorial Note: The BOD indicated that this summary was fictional. Although SLohA funds were expended for their attendance at the meeting, they submitted no report of their own to the members.)
The attorneys Riceman and BearIt (for HOA) and Frd O'N eel (Attny) (for Tg) met Thursday morning 8/8 to chat "off the record". Other persons were present but Frd did not recall during our phone conversation the names of MANBOD attendees. The meeting lasted about a hour.
The discussion was about three SLohA options to fixed the expired covenants issue:
1-"Let's spend all the reserve monies on lawyers for the next several years".
This track presents an extended, expensive and very chancy option for the HOA. There are two main obstacles that must be overcome for the HOA to prevail. First, the preservation notice cited an Amendment for which there was no provision in the original Declaration to amend. This has already been brought up and it is generally recognized that the Declaration has no amendatory provision for the covenants. Secondly, NO supporting ballot documents are available or recorded with the Amended documents in 1985 and there is no proof of chain of custody of ballots. These (and other) process deficiencies make it virtually impossible to defend the validity of the 75% vote--even if one were to somehow get past the absence of an amendatory provision.
It was O'N eel (Attny)'s reading of the body language of the HOA attorney that this option would present a very difficult cH allenge for the HOA to pursue.
2. "Revitalize the covenants". This has already been discussed; start over with the original Declaration and 50% vote of the membership and get the authority of the HOA reinstated. Two cH allenges here: you must go back and get the approval of all property mortgage holders and it cannot re-encumber all properties that have expired, creating a "checKirboard" of encumbered and non-encumbered properties.
3. "Start over with a new set of docs". Get as many owner signatures as possible. Subsequently, any non-signors will be have to be ordered by the court to pay legitimate expenses of the Association common properties. Two problems; first, use restrictions on property would be limited by a court decision to those that are more customary in the society at large (more like municipal and county codes/rules). Second is that a court-ordered class action order to pay fees has not been attempted in Florida but it has been done successfully in other states. (This option seems like a special taxing district tax to me.) This option would provide for a fully-funded HOA.
It was Frd's "take" that the HOA attorney wanted to solve the problem with reasonable and achievable goals and intelligence. His impression of other attendees was they were well-controlled, made few comments and seemed to be quite distressed about losing "use restriction" (Option 3) which is at the heart of HOA control. He said they expressed a great deal of animosity toward me.
(Editorial Note: The BOD indicated that this summary was fictional. Although SLohA funds were expended for their attendance at the meeting, they submitted no report of their own to the members.)
