|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2014 11:09:38 GMT -5
No covenants passed but members were assured that this would be attempted again next year and that a new threshold of 2/3 would be balloted. The problem will be the same as this year--getting the 75% AFFIRMATIVE vote (notwithstanding that BOD has not informed Members that the original Covenants do not contain a provision to amend. The amending provision was unlawfully "awarded to itself" without underlying authority in an Amendment. Would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.)
Member also spoke that the only way the BOD was ever going to get any covenants passed was to revitalize the covenants under the MRTA act, thereby permitting a statutory vote of 50%.
More on this later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2014 15:42:42 GMT -5
What the Member was explaining to other Members and was so rudely booed and hissed at was that the Revitalization itself only requires 50% of the members to approve and will include a more reasonable voting threshhold i.e. 66% vs 38%. Most members with any common sense would never approve 38%.
If less than 50% of Members approve, then SLohA becomes a voluntary homeowners association and all use restrictions and mandatory assessment levys are gone.
If 50+% want to revitalize, then the statute prescribes how this is to be accomplished. It is a very specific process and quite simply, "unexpires" the original Covenants for all members who must re-encumber their parcels.
All the original "amendments" remain extinguished and cannot be revitalized. SLohA must start over with Amendments after getting the statutory-permitted amendatory provision that revitalization allows. That is why the Member was talking about "the only way to get an covenant change passed" was to revitalize our expired Covenants and lower the voting threshold from 75% to 66%. Maybe if the rude Klappers would check themselves, they might learn something.
This is the provision for adding an amendment to a revitalized set of Covenants:
As you can see, the statutory voting requirement is 66%--much more credible than that proposed by the Rules Committee (38%).
This would also allow SLohA to add an amendatory provision which is absent from the Covenants. The BOD does not acknowledge that the Covenants expired and insist that an "amendment" replaced the covenants. They will likely spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting this and will lose because...the covenants are expired. Amendments that are supposedly passed without the benefit of an underlying amendatory authority of the document being amended is just screwball.
So, after spending $30K on lawyer fees on this loser lawsuit for SLohA, it will have no choice but to spend another $30K on revitalization. When the court rules in my favor, SLohA will reimburse me MY 30K in legals fees plus damages.
And everything being done now will be wiped out. And owners will have to pay for a $90-100K special assessment.
SLohA is wasting money on legal costs. The attorneys love SLohA.
|
|
