|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2014 17:07:31 GMT -5
Someone said "Hey S ue, how can you tell lots are about to expire?" S u e say "Easy Peasy" with Advanced Search function (S-bag-Deed-April-1984) on the Polk County Website and a few minutes free of the influence of merlot. I thought why not start a new thread with all the lots which are expired by MRTA each month--newly free of Covenants & Rules after 30 years-- and wish them a Happy 30th Birthday! Attachment DeletedHere are the Happy Birthday Lots for April 2014. 27 Blue Quill 36 Queen of Waters 7 Silversides 9 Silver Doctor There is one more "probably expired" but that search has a probate deed in the chain and it cannot be viewed online, so there cannot be 100% certainty. There was one more that would have expired had the Covenants not been reimposed by personal deed. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or a professional title searcher; the interpretations of MRTA expiration on titles above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Apr 20, 2014 3:56:54 GMT -5
Great addition to the forum. Hope people get informed about their properties. It certainly helped me to know that 66 Silversides had the Covenants expire 25 days before I bought the property back on March 27, 2012.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2014 5:39:50 GMT -5
Hmmmm...that's an interesting thought! How many properties have been newly-titled in SLR without covenants? Maybe I'll do belated birthday post! Perhaps a "Born Again Board"?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2014 9:35:23 GMT -5
Here's the tally for new buyers of lots with NO covenants, rules or restrictions in SLR in 2014: of the 15 new titles, 13 had already expired.
REMINDER: Buying an expired lot does not relieve the owner of the obligation to pay their fair share of the costs of operating the common properties!
1 28-30-01-939030-056030 3/24/2014 $33,000 90 SILVERSIDES NOT EXPIRING UNTIL 2015 2 28-30-01-939010-008200 3/14/2014 $100 47 BEAVERKILL EXPIRED 2006 3 28-30-01-939010-012130 3/10/2014 $40,000 3 GRAYHACKLE EXPIRED 2002 4 28-30-01-939010-015100 3/8/2014 $20,000 77 SILVERSIDES EXPIRED 2008 5 28-30-01-939020-039180 3/6/2014 $100 30 S-bag TRL N EXPIRED 2006 6 28-30-01-939010-025140 3/6/2014 $100 69 BEAVERKILL EXPIRED 2004 7 28-30-01-939010-021051 2/27/2014 $26,000 27 STONEFLY EXPIRED 2004 8 28-30-01-939020-046070 2/21/2014 $22,000 12 Gngr QUILL EXPIRED 2006 9 28-30-01-939010-004120 2/7/2014 $100 44 S-bag TR EXPIRED 2007 10 28-30-01-939010-006070 2/3/2014 $56,000 49 S-bag TR EXPIRED 2005 11 28-30-01-939010-006020 2/3/2014 $75,000 39 S-bag TR EXPIRED 2003 12 28-30-01-939020-052120 1/22/2014 $20,000 121 S-bag TR NOT EXPIRING UNTIL 2016 13 28-30-01-939010-006100 1/17/2014 $77,000 55 S-bag TR EXPIRED 2005 14 28-30-01-939010-008140 1/16/2014 $91,500 35 BEAVERKILL EXPIRED 2003 15 28-30-01-939010-018050 1/10/2014 $18,000 13 STONEFLY EXPIRED 2008
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or a professional title searcher; the interpretations of MRTA expiration on titles above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Apr 23, 2014 21:18:48 GMT -5
And do any of our Board live on a lot that has expired? Wouldn't it be interesting if they had to be disqualified from servering on the board?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 24, 2014 7:03:41 GMT -5
Gosh! I know that some of the Directors lots have expired--but I wonder EXACTLY how many! Interesting question. At the very least, expiration of membership in SLohA would affect the insurance on Directors and Officers actions. Will followup.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 24, 2014 22:57:39 GMT -5
And the answer is....7 of the 9 directors have no covenants on their lots. The only directors with unexpired covenants are Stv Suthrd and Frns Sm all.
Now for the second part of the question i.e. eligibility to serve. Bottom line is that they are all eligible to serve and status of the covenants is not a factor. Florida puts very few limits on director eligibility. The only absolute is to be a member of the association and, to be a member of the association, one must be an owner. Florida only forbids felons to serve and also those who are more than 90 days delinquent in paying assessments.
But, here's a sobering question "Under the conditions of MRTA-extinguished covenants, what is the relationship between the board directors and those represented by the board?" Since the board's legitimate conduct requires underlying authority of the Covenants-and the Covenants are expired on owners' and common properties- the legal contract to represent other members is absent (or currently illusory until a declaratory judgement is rendered by the courts). When the CC&R's ceased to exist -so did the powers and duties of the Association and its board which derives it authority from the CC&R's. And since the Association is no longer mandatory, it is no longer governed by Florida Statute 720 and what little protection consumers have disappears.
Without statutory "protection" and corporation governing laws, homeowners "go bare" and tolerate a no-contract, handshake relationship to continue operating the common property. However, if I were insuring the corporation, I would be quite nervous about its status. I suppose Tower Hill is learning about that now since their lawyers are representing SLohA in the covenants expiration litigation. SLohA has been operating like this for many years, unbeknownst to everyone. But, the reality is dawning that SLohA governance is an illusion--a risky one.
Notwithstanding that the expert practitioners in MRTA litigation are quite certain that S-bag's covenants are expired, SLohA does not want to acknowledge this. I am offended that SLohA did not even seek a second legal opinion when the situation was first brought to its attention; instead, it chose to rely entirely on management's attorney recommendation. But, it is not surprising that MANBOD is defensive. It is an egregious act of negligence to allow a deed-restricted community's CC&R's to extinguish for lack of accurately filling out a few sheets of paper in a timely manner. As a result, owners will suffer a protracted and expensive legal process.
So, this is how I would answer my question about the relationship dynamic now: the relationship is one that must be entirely based on trust...a commodity that is in short supply in S-bag.
Fortunately, this will not remain a question for long--covenants expiration will be objectively decided by the courts. In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed that SLohA stays out of trouble.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney or a professional title searcher; the interpretations of MRTA expiration on titles above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Apr 25, 2014 0:22:19 GMT -5
Would the Original 1976 (I believe) Covenants and Regulations still be in place, on expired lots?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 25, 2014 7:13:51 GMT -5
Not sure what you are asking but if you mean are they still "in effect"-the answer is NO for most lots and Yes for a few. The 1976 lots began expiring in 2006 on their 30th birthdays. Each lot expires on its own "birthday"--30 years from the root of title-unless preserved specifically in accordance with the requirements of FS712 (Marketable Records Title Act). For most, the root of title is the date that the lot was first sold by S-bag Lake Resorts Inc. For the common properties, MRTA-extinguishment was a single date in 2007 because all properties were conveyed at the same time from the Developer to the owners in 1977.
So, in a sense, "S-bag" is an expired community insofar as the common properties are concerned and is a continually expiring community as each individual lot expires on its 30th birthday. The Covenants are kaput with regard to the common properties and SLohA's right to enforce against expired owners; however, many owners still have the right to S u e SLohA to enforce Covenants.
From SLohA's point of view, such an idea is nonsense until a court orders otherwise and it will fight for its right to enforce the unenforceable--notwithstanding the fact that SLohA governing documents provide NO vehicle or means of enforcement. (Owners who are subjected to maltreatment might have to buy a title search and attorney opinion if SLohA decides to S u e... say..to try to defend its restrictive architectural rules for housing not permitted by Covenant against lots that are free and clear of any SLohA restrictions.)
You just asked specifically about the 1976 Covenants and your question serves as a reminder to all that there are THREE subdivisions (plats) in S-bag with THREE completely separate sets of Covenants. All elections that are properly conducted require separate accounting for each of the three subdivisions. At this juncture in our history, this is a moot point but bears repeating so that when revitalization time comes, owners will expect to revitalize THREE separate documents--one for each of the THREE plats. It is possible that not every Plat/Covenant will receive the 50% owner approval required to revitalize, resulting in the dreaded "swiss cheese" effect. (It is a self-inflicted wound and MANBOD will just have to deal with it.)
For the expired lots, the Covenants are currently null and void and something that may or may not come back as one or more revitalized documents in the future.
|
|