|
Post by Justme on Jun 2, 2014 19:46:04 GMT -5
Just talking to different folks about starting up the voluntary association{VASS}
This is for non members, whose covenants have expired. It can also apply to members as the covenants and rules are no longer enforceable as the majority of them have expired The numbers will be Sm all to start off with,but as we go along more and more will come to realize VASS is the best solution.
1 All lawsuits will be sorted out.
2 We will have a more open community ,without controls and permission slips from the manager
3The community will be brought together again through mutual agreement, rather then being controlled as it is now.
The first steps are being taken ,and as we see things like forcing this internet in against the vote,people will switch over and give us the support needed to move on into a better future for S-bag.
It has been agreed that many want to join anonymously to avoid persecution from board members and manager that have intimidated and threatened in the past to anyone who speaks out against them.
|
|
|
Post by Back on Jun 2, 2014 21:49:21 GMT -5
Just talking to different folks about starting up the voluntary association{VASS} This is for non members, whose covenants have expired. It can also apply to members as the covenants and rules are no longer enforceable as the majority of them have expired The numbers will be Sm all to start off with,but as we go along more and more will come to realize VASS is the best solution. 1 All lawsuits will be sorted out. 2 We will have a more open community ,without controls and permission slips from the manager 3The community will be brought together again through mutual agreement, rather then being controlled as it is now. The first steps are being taken ,and as we see things like forcing this internet in against the vote,people will switch over and give us the support needed to move on into a better future for S-bag. It has been agreed that many want to join anonymously to avoid persecution from board members and manager that have intimidated and threatened in the past to anyone who speaks out against them. What court was this decided in? I don't recall reading about it. Who was the judge that made that decision?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jun 3, 2014 9:15:41 GMT -5
This is an assertion, at this point. My or others' assertion that covenants are expired is no more or less valid than others' assertion that they are not.
Most legitimate leaders would have looked at the big picture a year ago and sought a second legal opinion and initiated a revitalization on the basis of reason. It t is QUITE likely--based on the facts known at this time--that SLohA will not prevail in this litigation. The 30 year MRTA law began to expire covenants in 2002--these properties expired because there was no preservation per FS712. The Declaration of Covenants cannot be amended. Notwithstanding that, amendments are not conveyances, occur outside the chain of title and are therefore insufficient to preserve property restrictions. That has already been adjudicated by Florida appellate court decision. Additionally, SLohA legal records are either missing or a mess and weaken SLohA's assertion.
Those are facts underlying the reasonable assertion that most properties in SLohA are expired.
To explain its assertion, SLohA got one very fuzzy opinion from management company attorney who gave an inscrutable and very convoluted presentation of the issue in May 2013 to Members.
A member got a focused scrutiny of the matter from an attorney specializing in the covenants expiration issue and is paying thousands of dollars to support her assertion.
Because SLohA has decided to spend thousands of dollars on this loser lawsuit, Members not only lose whatever respect that may have remained toward directors, they will experience prolonged decay of SLohA cohesiveness, mounting disdain for leadership, dismissal of MANBOD attempts to control, and lose additional dollars that will have to be spent on eventual revitalization. The 50% agreement to revitalize diminishes over time by dragging out a scenario that supports the perception of MANBOD incompetence, greed and desperation. By engaging in an expensive loser lawsuit, SLohA neglects an opportunity for rapid reconstruction of covenants which no longer serve the community or its owners and will possibly lead SLohA toward more lawsuits in the future.
If the covenants are ADJUDICATED expired, it will be due to the refusal of SLohA to have a minimum of intellectual insight, a moment of courage- and their butt-dum stubborness. A Voluntary Association will eventually emerge.
|
|
|
Post by Back on Jun 5, 2014 7:23:48 GMT -5
This is an assertion, at this point. My or others' assertion that covenants are expired is no more or less valid than others' assertion that they are not. Most legitimate leaders would have looked at the big picture a year ago and sought a second legal opinion and initiated a revitalization on the basis of reason. It t is QUITE likely--based on the facts known at this time--that SLohA will not prevail in this litigation. The 30 year MRTA law began to expire covenants in 2002--these properties expired because there was no preservation per FS712. The Declaration of Covenants cannot be amended. Notwithstanding that, amendments are not conveyances, occur outside the chain of title and are therefore insufficient to preserve property restrictions. That has already been adjudicated by Florida appellate court decision. Additionally, SLohA legal records are either missing or a mess and weaken SLohA's assertion. Those are facts underlying the reasonable assertion that most properties in SLohA are expired. To explain its assertion, SLohA got one very fuzzy opinion from management company attorney who gave an inscrutable and very convoluted presentation of the issue in May 2013 to Members. A member got a focused scrutiny of the matter from an attorney specializing in the covenants expiration issue and is paying thousands of dollars to support her assertion. Because SLohA has decided to spend thousands of dollars on this loser lawsuit, Members not only lose whatever respect that may have remained toward directors, they will experience prolonged decay of SLohA cohesiveness, mounting disdain for leadership, dismissal of MANBOD attempts to control, and lose additional dollars that will have to be spent on eventual revitalization. The 50% agreement to revitalize diminishes over time by dragging out a scenario that supports the perception of MANBOD incompetence, greed and desperation. By engaging in an expensive loser lawsuit, SLohA neglects an opportunity for rapid reconstruction of covenants which no longer serve the community or its owners and will possibly lead SLohA toward more lawsuits in the future. If the covenants are ADJUDICATED expired, it will be due to the refusal of SLohA to have a minimum of intellectual insight, a moment of courage- and their butt-dum stubborness. A Voluntary Association will eventually emerge. You will write anything that you think will impress your cronies. Your logic gets convoluted because of the bag over your head. If the first and second opinions were the same, why would a revitalization need to be initiated? We would be at the exact same place we are now if a revitalization were done and was successful. A couple of other questions come to mind. How did this beautiful resort survive 38 years without you and began to decay when you arrived? Can you give us one example of a MRTA case in Florida that parallels the exact situation we have in SLR and what the outcome is/was? When your attorney bleeds all the money from you that he can, we hope the gate don't hit you in the butt on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jun 5, 2014 8:23:10 GMT -5
This is an assertion, at this point. My or others' assertion that covenants are expired is no more or less valid than others' assertion that they are not. Most legitimate leaders would have looked at the big picture a year ago and sought a second legal opinion and initiated a revitalization on the basis of reason. It t is QUITE likely--based on the facts known at this time--that SLohA will not prevail in this litigation. The 30 year MRTA law began to expire covenants in 2002--these properties expired because there was no preservation per FS712. The Declaration of Covenants cannot be amended. Notwithstanding that, amendments are not conveyances, occur outside the chain of title and are therefore insufficient to preserve property restrictions. That has already been adjudicated by Florida appellate court decision. Additionally, SLohA legal records are either missing or a mess and weaken SLohA's assertion. Those are facts underlying the reasonable assertion that most properties in SLohA are expired. To explain its assertion, SLohA got one very fuzzy opinion from management company attorney who gave an inscrutable and very convoluted presentation of the issue in May 2013 to Members. A member got a focused scrutiny of the matter from an attorney specializing in the covenants expiration issue and is paying thousands of dollars to support her assertion. Because SLohA has decided to spend thousands of dollars on this loser lawsuit, Members not only lose whatever respect that may have remained toward directors, they will experience prolonged decay of SLohA cohesiveness, mounting disdain for leadership, dismissal of MANBOD attempts to control, and lose additional dollars that will have to be spent on eventual revitalization. The 50% agreement to revitalize diminishes over time by dragging out a scenario that supports the perception of MANBOD incompetence, greed and desperation. By engaging in an expensive loser lawsuit, SLohA neglects an opportunity for rapid reconstruction of covenants which no longer serve the community or its owners and will possibly lead SLohA toward more lawsuits in the future. If the covenants are ADJUDICATED expired, it will be due to the refusal of SLohA to have a minimum of intellectual insight, a moment of courage- and their butt-dum stubborness. A Voluntary Association will eventually emerge. You will write anything that you think will impress your cronies. Your logic gets convoluted because of the bag over your head. If the first and second opinions were the same, why would a revitalization need to be initiated? We would be at the exact same place we are now if a revitalization were done and was successful. A couple of other questions come to mind. How did this beautiful resort survive 38 years without you and began to decay when you arrived? Can you give us one example of a MRTA case in Florida that parallels the exact situation we have in SLR and what the outcome is/was? When your attorney bleeds all the money from you that he can, we hope the gate don't hit you in the butt on the way out. Obsess much? How pathetic!
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jun 5, 2014 8:43:02 GMT -5
You continue to flail around with pointless accusations. If you could complete one single thought from beginning to end with some objectivity and specific example, I would be shocked. However, I will attempt to help you shape your thoughts with some of my own--straight from my bagged head. BTW--the bag is preventative like a bike helmet--sorta like the BOD's martian head gear donned for when those Martian's arrive at the front gate.
No one ever said that the resort was not going to survive--that is a fabrication of your distorted thoughts. I said SLohA would experience "prolonged decay of SLohA cohesiveness". That, to most people, suggests the individuals previously acting as a 'community body', might become polarized and divided, as is now happening. SLohA cannot help but transform-it IS transforming now. This can be theorized by anyone who cares to look beyond their own nose based on current and foreseeable factors. Of course, predicting the future is an exercise based on objective and subject factors--not a fact.
Do your own research on the MRTA cases in Florida--and elsewhere. Florida law is not just based on FLORIDA case law. Google it. Some of it has already been done and posted on this forum for you to read. It is cited in my legal Complaint. It was acknowledged at the BOD special meeting by Management's attorney last May 2013. You obviously CAN read.
My attorney will charge and I will pay whatever is needed to defend my title against this unprovoked attack by SLohA. If it turns out in my favor, my expenditure is validated and the court might order SLohA to reimburse me costs. If not, I will at least know that my title is good. Either way, who the H*** are YOU to comment on what I spend my money on and how much my attorney charges for his service? And what makes you think I am going anywhere based on the outcome of litigation? This is my home--and my homestead. I will leave IF I wish, WHEN I wish and under conditions of my choosing.
Regarding revitalization, you just revealed your ignorance by asking what can be accomplished by revitalization. It is obvious that you have not educated yourself. First and most importantly, Florida GIVES revitalized Covenants an amendatory provision where one did not exist in the expired document (as is the case with SLohA). Second, Florida GIVES revitalized Covenants a 66% affirmative voting threshold for amending. In my opinion, these are HUGE benefits to revitalizing because you now have the legal means to reconstruct some of the Declaration. FS720-->Read.
Currently, SLohA Covenants have ZERO amendatory provision --and therefore NO voting threshhold and is acting illegally by asking membership to amend an UN-amendable document. It is possible, that if membership should pass an amendment in the absence of authority granted by the document, it lead SLohA into future litigation.
If you cannot see the value in revitalization, then don't vote for it when it comes around after the Declaratory Judgement is rendered. THAT is simple to understand!
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jun 5, 2014 10:12:19 GMT -5
Back's totally incorrect, insipid spew once again shot down by the superior minded Bag Lady!
Back must enjoy being proven wrong--it's been done each and every time.
He won't answer anyone's logical, well-thought out questions, but expects answers to his pointless, flailing quandaries. We will accommodate.
|
|
|
Post by Back on Jun 5, 2014 10:42:31 GMT -5
You continue to flail around with pointless accusations. If you could complete one single thought from beginning to end with some objectivity and specific example, I would be shocked. However, I will attempt to help you shape your thoughts with some of my own--straight from my bagged head. BTW--the bag is preventative like a bike helmet--sorta like the BOD's martian head gear donned for when those Martian's arrive at the front gate. No one ever said that the resort was not going to survive--that is a fabrication of your distorted thoughts. I said SLohA would experience "prolonged decay of SLohA cohesiveness". That, to most people, suggests the individuals previously acting as a 'community body', might become polarized and divided, as is now happening. SLohA cannot help but transform-it IS transforming now. This can be theorized by anyone who cares to look beyond their own nose based on current and foreseeable factors. Of course, predicting the future is an exercise based on objective and subject factors--not a fact. Do your own research on the MRTA cases in Florida--and elsewhere. Florida law is not just based on FLORIDA case law. Google it. Some of it has already been done and posted on this forum for you to read. It is cited in my legal Complaint. It was acknowledged at the BOD special meeting by Management's attorney last May 2013. You obviously CAN read. My attorney will charge and I will pay whatever is needed to defend my title against this unprovoked attack by SLohA. If it turns out in my favor, my expenditure is validated and the court might order SLohA to reimburse me costs. If not, I will at least know that my title is good. Either way, who the H*** are YOU to comment on what I spend my money on and how much my attorney charges for his service? And what makes you think I am going anywhere based on the outcome of litigation? This is my home--and my homestead. I will leave IF I wish, WHEN I wish and under conditions of my choosing. Regarding revitalization, you just revealed your ignorance by asking what can be accomplished by revitalization. It is obvious that you have not educated yourself. First and most importantly, Florida GIVES revitalized Covenants an amendatory provision where one did not exist in the expired document (as is the case with SLohA). Second, Florida GIVES revitalized Covenants a 66% affirmative voting threshold for amending. In my opinion, these are HUGE benefits to revitalizing because you now have the legal means to reconstruct some of the Declaration. FS720-->Read. Currently, SLohA Covenants have ZERO amendatory provision --and therefore NO voting threshhold and is acting illegally by asking membership to amend an UN-amendable document. It is possible, that if membership should pass an amendment in the absence of authority granted by the document, it lead SLohA into future litigation. If you cannot see the value in revitalization, then don't vote for it when it comes around after the Declaratory Judgement is rendered. THAT is simple to understand! Just as I expected, you don't have a case in Florida that parallels SLR situation. If you did you would present it, instead you try to make it look like you are the only one that knows what is going on. Actually the bag on your head does wonders for appearance but the eye holes are too Sm all to see anything. Plus using it as a helmet hasn't prevented you from becoming brain dead from all of your concussions.
|
|
|
Post by SLANTY on Jun 5, 2014 11:26:20 GMT -5
Why is it that both precious time and energy is being squandered on the ramblings of Back and others who are using this Forum like a dart board trying to force confrontation without them presenting legitimate or logical facts?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jun 5, 2014 17:26:39 GMT -5
Just as I expected-Back you never let us down! What is that saying? Oh yeah "Ya just can't fix stoopid".
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jun 5, 2014 18:58:55 GMT -5
Prolly cuz Baglady is an eternal optimist and hopes for coherent, substantive and appropriate participation on the forum-even by those with differing opinions! Baglady may be cured of this cockeyed view in the case of Back and the many Back incarnations. Light's are on but nobody's home.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jun 5, 2014 19:29:46 GMT -5
Why is it that both precious time and energy is being squandered on the ramblings of Back and others who are using this Forum like a dart board trying to force confrontation without them presenting legitimate or logical facts? Amongst the "...and others" were those like me, however I was defending myself (and my friend) against the constant attacking tirades of this "Back" idiot; I came with facts and if I got something wrong, accepted the correction, and moved on, but, I am NOT using this forum as any type of "dart board."
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jun 5, 2014 20:49:50 GMT -5
As I understand it,ST has checked out about 200 lots in SLR
Of these,There were at least 20, where lawyers have reinstated lots for owners that were about to expire. These are not ST findings but land transfer lawyers operating for individual clients.
If 20 lawyers are saying covenants are expiring,with Frd Oneal and Barbra Standish suggesting the same thing.Does one not think that if 22 lawyers agree over this issue and Strumbaughs lawyers saying they are still in effect, that something is wrong.
Its to the lawyers monetary advantage to take this in to court, all at our expense. I have no doubt that the management company will paid from this windfall
These lawyers arnt working for us,but we foot the bill
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jun 5, 2014 23:26:05 GMT -5
Plus our BODs refused to get a second opinion from a different Law Firm. Last years Special Meeting with SLR's Lawyers and Resident Owners, a pointed question was asked by a resident, and address to both Lawyers. The question was; on what Case Law in Florida's Court system are you using to support your view. Please just name one case. The Meeting Room went Silent.. There is not one Case that supports their view point. Believe me many residents have searched, and the Case Law that was found (do your homework), so far has ruled against SLR's Lawyers point of view. Plus the Original SLR Documents do not have a Amendatory Clause, it only has a Release Clause. So any documents filed in Bartow in the 1980s are not valid. So SLR's Owners are paying for one very big ass bluff, with many billable hours, and guess who is paying the Bill. Yes, you got it right, we the resident/owners. All because of Our BOD's Big Egos..., And That A Boys by our Manager.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jun 6, 2014 1:12:03 GMT -5
I am unaware of an SLohA lawyer point of view that has legal foundation and is based on either FS712, real estate or contract law.
There has never been a credible theory offered by SLohA lawyers for pursuing this litigation. When the lawyers were asked specifically what case law supported their contention that the Covenants had not been expired by MRTA-- they went silent, looked at each other in surprise, shuffled their papers, tap-danced, conferenced between themselves in whispers and finally apparently agreed on a response.
The answer was "they were aware of the cases in support of my position specifically Berger and Mattissek" but, "with all due respect" they did not believe it was appropriate to discuss their viewpoint in the informational meeting setting.
(BTW to those who wonder about this...the meeting was audio documented and is posted on this Forum.)
I countered... "with all due respect" that it was VERY appropriate to discuss this question so that people know the legal basis they were being asked to support because they were being asked to pay legal fees. People have a right to know the strength of both sides of the dispute and make their own decisions about the relative value of each side before paying legal fees.
Management Company's lawyers refused to communicate a reasonable "point of view" that makes any sense. This is the essence at what I have been able to piece together. Together, these points present formidable barriers to SLohA prevailing in a legal contest over covenants expiration:
1. Lawyers fail to recognize the difference between an amendment and a release clause. (A lengthy and incomprehensible "word salad" explanation ensued). 2. Lawyers ignore the fact that there is no voting threshold because an amendatory clause is absent. 3. Lawyers assert that all this does not matter because the original Declaration was magically "replaced" by two subsequent amendments in the 80's. 4. Lawyers named both amendments as the "NEW SLohA Master Covenant" despite the fact that amendments are not title documents and do not convey property rights or restrictions. 5. Lawyers ignore the fact that the 1986 Amendment--a document that was never published in the Redbook-- was a falsified document and GAVE ITSELF the missing amendatory provision. 6. Lawyers hope the courts will forget that it and anything that follows it is null and void--in law it is void in abnitio or "from the start". 7. Lawyers conveniently ignore MRTA law which is very specific that the Notice of Preservation MUST refer to the original Declaration; they are apparently rewriting the law by referring to the "Replaced Declaration/False Amendment. 8. Lawyers set aside the additional problems of the Amendment documents themselves which both ADD provisions--not amend them. 9. Lawyers forgot that the 1986 invalid amendment failed to make a Polk County reference to the specific location of the Original Covenants that the Amendment purported to modify. 10. Legal reasoning, as communicated by SLohA lawyers, is absent. Lawyers advised their MANBOD client to rely on probability. They probably advised MANBOD that I do not have the money for a lawsuit and would not S u e them.
Owners have a right to know the legal foundation SLohA is using to support an argument that makes sense and is worthy of defending. What Owners are getting is a MANBOD that is so threatened by loss of authority and control that they vow to "spend every cent in Reserves" to do "what is best for the community". (What is good for the community translates to BOD having complete control over every aspect of community life. This was reflected in the illegally-offered ballot amendment to amend(sic) the Declaration from Association (Member) control of commercial business to BOD control of commercial businesses operating within the community. This was obviously attempted to get control of presence of the internet business in SLR.)
This litigation, as well as the future litigation for Breach of Covenants (commercial business on property) will reflect whose interests are being served. If and when revitalization of Covenants is desired by 50% of members, a companion Voluntary Association will be established to represent the interests of Owners who cannot be re-encumbered against their wishes. There are many Associations in Florida that operate with BOTH mandatory and voluntary associations.
|
|
|
Post by Courious on Jun 7, 2014 4:47:26 GMT -5
Until there is a court ruling the SLohA and management attorneys are doing nothing more then M. e. l.---trying to intimidate by force.
|
|