Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2014 17:45:21 GMT -5
Although the covenant proposals all failed, BOD attempted to take away owners' rights to oppose the establishment of commercial activity on common areas. BOD attempted to get owners to vote to allow 5 people on the board--a quorum--to decide if, what, how and where commercial activities would be permitted on SLR common areas.
A second proposal by BOD asked owners to reduce the voting threshold for amending covenants to a laughable 38% of members--way below that required to pass a rule (50%). Covenants are the superior governing document--yet BOD wanted to allow changes to it requiring a vote less than our least superior document--which is the Rules. This Board wanted 50% of 75%--which is 38%. And, this was misleading on the materials provided to owners as the numerical example provided was false.
These proposed Covenant changes are obviously related to K C N. BOD will attempt this again next year. K C N has been trespassing on common property since 2010. BOD has allowed this breach of covenants to continue into YEAR 4! There is a 5 yr statute of limitations on a breach of covenant suit against BOD. Failure to enforce our rights may result in the loss of rights due to the legal doctrine of Waiver of Rights. By validating K C N's business on SLR property and agreeing to let MANBOD/K C to assess parcels, owners are closing a door.
Waiver of Rights aka "laches" means:
The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost by waiver or acquiescence. By failing to act, one leads another to believe that he or she is not going to insist on the covenant. It is contrary to equity and good conscience to enforce rights under restrictive building covenants where the defendant has been led to suppose by word, conduct or silence of the plaintiff that there were no objections to his or her operations.
K C has reason to believe that there is no objection to it occupying our common property--because BOD is not enforcing our covenants--and because owners agreed to be assessed for its service. Possibly, K C is aware that the covenants on common property expired in 2007 and believes that it is not in violation of SLohA covenants.
This door has just shut a little more. Soon, owners will have no more control over the misuse of common property because of silently allowing the abuse to continue.
The door will be closed tight, locked and the key thrown away.
A second proposal by BOD asked owners to reduce the voting threshold for amending covenants to a laughable 38% of members--way below that required to pass a rule (50%). Covenants are the superior governing document--yet BOD wanted to allow changes to it requiring a vote less than our least superior document--which is the Rules. This Board wanted 50% of 75%--which is 38%. And, this was misleading on the materials provided to owners as the numerical example provided was false.
These proposed Covenant changes are obviously related to K C N. BOD will attempt this again next year. K C N has been trespassing on common property since 2010. BOD has allowed this breach of covenants to continue into YEAR 4! There is a 5 yr statute of limitations on a breach of covenant suit against BOD. Failure to enforce our rights may result in the loss of rights due to the legal doctrine of Waiver of Rights. By validating K C N's business on SLR property and agreeing to let MANBOD/K C to assess parcels, owners are closing a door.
Waiver of Rights aka "laches" means:
The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost by waiver or acquiescence. By failing to act, one leads another to believe that he or she is not going to insist on the covenant. It is contrary to equity and good conscience to enforce rights under restrictive building covenants where the defendant has been led to suppose by word, conduct or silence of the plaintiff that there were no objections to his or her operations.
K C has reason to believe that there is no objection to it occupying our common property--because BOD is not enforcing our covenants--and because owners agreed to be assessed for its service. Possibly, K C is aware that the covenants on common property expired in 2007 and believes that it is not in violation of SLohA covenants.
This door has just shut a little more. Soon, owners will have no more control over the misuse of common property because of silently allowing the abuse to continue.
The door will be closed tight, locked and the key thrown away.
