Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2014 7:29:22 GMT -5
“The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”
---Winston Churchill
I think I found another puzzle piece to the evolution of the spurious 1986 "Amendment" to the covenants which no one has ever been permitted to see (along with the original Covenants).
Def of: Spurious
1. not being what it purports to be; false or fake. "separating authentic and spurious claims" synonyms: bogus, fake, false, counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, sham, artificial, imitation, simulated, feigned, deceptive, misleading, specious; informal, phony, pretend
While doing a title search for my recent "expired lot birthday" post, I happened to run across a court record involving S-bag. It was a 1984 Order by a judge involving a case brought by S-bag against a group of owners who owned duplex lots on Night Owl.
By way of background, these five(5) lots (Lots 3-7) are unique in that they were designated by the Developer to be duplex lots. Duplex casually means "duplicate" or "a second object of like kind". One would buy one of these lots from the Developer with the reasonable expectation of using it for TWO recreational vehicles. The plat shows that the lots were configured as extreme pie-shaped flares with frontages of 26 feet and rears of 100+ feet. The sides were the usual 90 feet or so of a typical lot.
Alas! The Developer placed the duplex lot exception on the recorded (corrective!) plat for Unit #2 but did not record any special use permissions in the Covenants! Mistake or intent? Who knows?
Some event or complaint in the early 80's triggered S-bag to adopt Regulations on June 10, 1983 restricting the use of a duplex lot to one Functioning (hooked up) RV and one Parking RV. (Maybe someone in here remembers why but there is no clue in the record.) Apparently, the lot owners were a bit miffed and continued to use their lots as originally represented by the Developer--as duplex lots.
So, what did S-bag do? It SUED the owners who used the lots for 2 functioning RV's!
The judge ruled--and this is an important rule about rules "Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that 1. Paragraphs 6-4 and 6-5 of ASSOCIATION'S June 10, 1983 Regulations be and the same are hereby declared invalid and void". The Judge's Order went on to say that ...the Regulations are invalid because those regulations are tantamount to a modification of the Covenants and Restrictions and Covenants may not be modified by Regulations..."
Then, the Judge ordered S-bag to attempt to modify its Covenants by a vote of the membership! S-bag put the item on the ballot and it FAILED to pass "...by even a mere majority". This was at the ANNUAL Member Meeting in February 1985. The Judge then issued a Final Judgement and affirmed S-bag's right to enforce the existing Covenant which provided for only ONE recreational vehicle per lot. The Owners had to remove excess RV equipment. The Judge declined to award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party i.e. S-bag. The Judge's preliminary Order and Final Judgements are attached.
There are several very questionable things in them but that is neither here nor there as far as this post. For instance, it referred to S-bag as being subject to FS718. That is the Condo statute and SLR is not a condo. However, FS720 did not come into being until 2000 (and this ruling was in 1984). Regardless, SLohA was incorporated under and subject to FS617 at the time so it is unknown why the judge would invoke provisions in FS718 in his ruling.
The point is that this was the reason why the 1986 "Amendment" to the Covenants was done--as a result of a legal battle and the Court Order! It explains BOTH material changes that were made to the Covenants i.e. the use permission to put TWO RV's on a duplex lot and the insertion of a new Amendatory provision. It is certain that when the Association attempted to present the change for the duplex lots to the membership, pursuant to the Judge's Order, that the attorney discovered that there was NO amendatory permission in the Covenant. So--one was added, along with the new use permission on duplex lots. These were the only two material changes on the 1986 "Amendment" (copy attached to the previous post).
Inexplicably, the membership vote which failed to pass "by a mere majority" in 1985 managed to somehow pass the pretend 75% voting threshold the very next year and was incorporated into the 1986 "Amendment". Imagine that--a controversial issue failed miserably one year in the midst of a court battle involving 5 owners and then victoriously passed ALL THREE COVENANTS the very next year!
And if you believe that, I have a nice plot of land to sell you! Show me the Beef. Show me the 1986 Official Records of the election!
1984_PrelimOrder.pdf (244.82 KB)
1985FinalOrderduplex.pdf (71.5 KB)
---Winston Churchill
I think I found another puzzle piece to the evolution of the spurious 1986 "Amendment" to the covenants which no one has ever been permitted to see (along with the original Covenants).
Def of: Spurious
1. not being what it purports to be; false or fake. "separating authentic and spurious claims" synonyms: bogus, fake, false, counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, sham, artificial, imitation, simulated, feigned, deceptive, misleading, specious; informal, phony, pretend
While doing a title search for my recent "expired lot birthday" post, I happened to run across a court record involving S-bag. It was a 1984 Order by a judge involving a case brought by S-bag against a group of owners who owned duplex lots on Night Owl.
By way of background, these five(5) lots (Lots 3-7) are unique in that they were designated by the Developer to be duplex lots. Duplex casually means "duplicate" or "a second object of like kind". One would buy one of these lots from the Developer with the reasonable expectation of using it for TWO recreational vehicles. The plat shows that the lots were configured as extreme pie-shaped flares with frontages of 26 feet and rears of 100+ feet. The sides were the usual 90 feet or so of a typical lot.
Alas! The Developer placed the duplex lot exception on the recorded (corrective!) plat for Unit #2 but did not record any special use permissions in the Covenants! Mistake or intent? Who knows?
Some event or complaint in the early 80's triggered S-bag to adopt Regulations on June 10, 1983 restricting the use of a duplex lot to one Functioning (hooked up) RV and one Parking RV. (Maybe someone in here remembers why but there is no clue in the record.) Apparently, the lot owners were a bit miffed and continued to use their lots as originally represented by the Developer--as duplex lots.
So, what did S-bag do? It SUED the owners who used the lots for 2 functioning RV's!
The judge ruled--and this is an important rule about rules "Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that 1. Paragraphs 6-4 and 6-5 of ASSOCIATION'S June 10, 1983 Regulations be and the same are hereby declared invalid and void". The Judge's Order went on to say that ...the Regulations are invalid because those regulations are tantamount to a modification of the Covenants and Restrictions and Covenants may not be modified by Regulations..."
Then, the Judge ordered S-bag to attempt to modify its Covenants by a vote of the membership! S-bag put the item on the ballot and it FAILED to pass "...by even a mere majority". This was at the ANNUAL Member Meeting in February 1985. The Judge then issued a Final Judgement and affirmed S-bag's right to enforce the existing Covenant which provided for only ONE recreational vehicle per lot. The Owners had to remove excess RV equipment. The Judge declined to award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party i.e. S-bag. The Judge's preliminary Order and Final Judgements are attached.
There are several very questionable things in them but that is neither here nor there as far as this post. For instance, it referred to S-bag as being subject to FS718. That is the Condo statute and SLR is not a condo. However, FS720 did not come into being until 2000 (and this ruling was in 1984). Regardless, SLohA was incorporated under and subject to FS617 at the time so it is unknown why the judge would invoke provisions in FS718 in his ruling.
The point is that this was the reason why the 1986 "Amendment" to the Covenants was done--as a result of a legal battle and the Court Order! It explains BOTH material changes that were made to the Covenants i.e. the use permission to put TWO RV's on a duplex lot and the insertion of a new Amendatory provision. It is certain that when the Association attempted to present the change for the duplex lots to the membership, pursuant to the Judge's Order, that the attorney discovered that there was NO amendatory permission in the Covenant. So--one was added, along with the new use permission on duplex lots. These were the only two material changes on the 1986 "Amendment" (copy attached to the previous post).
Inexplicably, the membership vote which failed to pass "by a mere majority" in 1985 managed to somehow pass the pretend 75% voting threshold the very next year and was incorporated into the 1986 "Amendment". Imagine that--a controversial issue failed miserably one year in the midst of a court battle involving 5 owners and then victoriously passed ALL THREE COVENANTS the very next year!
And if you believe that, I have a nice plot of land to sell you! Show me the Beef. Show me the 1986 Official Records of the election!
1984_PrelimOrder.pdf (244.82 KB)
1985FinalOrderduplex.pdf (71.5 KB)
