Wolf in Sheeps' Clothing? Liens/Foreclosure

 Admin posted:


An owner informed me there is another problem with this proposed budget--timing--and I agreed to post for him.

Above is the statement 's Accountant/Managing partner made at the Budget Forum and we already know; SLohA has NO lien or foreclosure authority without the authority of the Covenants. Not only do the Covenants NOT EXIST, but there was never a provision in the Covenants for liening and foreclosing.  That is why the Board added the Lien/Foreclosure amendment provision to the election Ballot two years ago.  They wanted to slide the missing provision through, but it was defeated.

The authority to lien and foreclose MUST be in the Covenants; it cannot stand alone in any other corporate (subservient) document.  And, it cannot be added unless all parties to the contract/covenants agree.  No less than 100% must agree; the "few" cannot impose this harsh condition of ownership on others' property without their consent. 

reasoned that funding was anticipated to be used for collections IF the Covenants are revitalized.   This process, of course, has barely begun and the DEO has 60 days to approve or deny once all the voting is over with and the package submitted.  The process will likely be extended, if approved, and an administrative cH allenge is filed.   The Board and know this.  The main budgeting problem is TIMING:  this line item should not be funded in 2016-7 Budget since 1- there are no current delinquencies and 2- voting to add a new (invalid) amendment to the Covenants cannot occur until Feb 2017!

I cannot imagine anyone voting to give this board (or any board) the power to foreclose on a person's home for a payment delinquency.  But, amazingly, many people voted yes on the 2014 ballot--believing we HAD Covenants in Feb 2014 and believing the board knew what it was doing. 

That was before it was known that we were LIED to and the Board admitted in Dec 2014 that the covenants had expired and they knew this in 2012.  And then slandered every title in SLR with an invalid Preservation in 2013.  And wasted $25K on an invalid Revitalization Ballot in 2015.  And spent $150K on legal fees to lose 2 unwinnable lawsuits based on expired Covenants in 2015, which actions caused SLohA to be nearly uninsurable and insurance premiums to be exhorbitant for the long term.  And spent thousands of SLohA assessment dollars for the benefit of KCNet in 2015.   And conspired with KCNet and Polk County to secretly modify SLR land use to take over our common property with unpermitted towers, resulting in multiple Polk County Code citations against SLohA in 2015  (still active citations which, when remedial work is done to bring the towers up to Code, (along with any fines) will undoubtedly be paid from our assessments.)  I wonder if there is as much trust in the board now compared to 2 years ago.

Even if covenants are revitalized and survive a cH allenge in 2016, SLohA will not be able to attempt to implement any new Amendments to the Covenants until Member approval on the election ballot of Feb 2017.   Funding collections would more appropriately proposed in the (next years) 2017-18 Budget.  The timing doesn't make sense, so what is the real reason Owners are being asked to fund $8K in the 2016-2017 budget?

Notwithstanding that Lien/Foreclosure provision cannot legally be added to revitalized Covenants without 100% owner approval, if SLohA attempts to "amend" the Covenants by adding this new provision and implementing an invalid Amendment, the prospect of losing a home will probably be cH allenged by a distressed owner at some point in the future.  And there we go...again..with yet another lawsuit caused by reckless Board actions.

The fallacy of "Let's Just Move Forward" is that SLohA does not correct the errors of the past; we just mindlessly "move on", increase the budget and throw more money at problems.  The issues pile up, become more complex and emerge later.   SLohA does not learn and has not shown either the courage or forward vision to understand and correct the underlying flaws in the way it does business.  This is compounded by inexperienced and inept Managers,  a profit-driven Management Company and 's greedy attorneys giving the board poor advice "Don't worry--Owners rarely S u e".