Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2016 18:50:11 GMT -5
1. S-bag doesn’t need Covenants. It has been operating just fine without covenants for years.
TRUE. Covenants are a H allmark of HOA’s but they are not necessary. That is because there are TWO entities which make up SLohA’s governing documents: the HOA restrictions embodied in the Covenants and Rules and the Corporation’s Articles and Bylaws. The corporation (SLohA) is not extinguished by MRTA. Without Covenants, SLohA will be governed entirely by FS617, the corporation statute and, of course, common law. With few exceptions, business has gone on as a quasi contract, without Covenants, for several years.
2. S-bag’s covenants are obsolete and irrelevant to the S-bag of 2016.
TRUE. The covenants were written by the Developer of a campground over 40 years ago and its restrictions relate only to recreational vehicles. It specifically excludes tents and homes. Restoring outdated covenants will not serve owners well in modern-day S-bag.
3. Even with an amendatory provision, the Covenants will remain obsolete. Why bother?
TRUE. If S-bag wants to amend an existing provision, it will be able to do that. For example, it can “amend” the pet rule by agreeing to allow more pets, or pets weighing under a certain amount, or even certain breeds. But it cannot create a new provision that bans pets under the guise of amending. A ban on pets would be a new provision which owners never agreed to when they accepted the deed restrictions. Many of the changes that S-bag needs to make for relevant covenants are not possible via amendment. (However, it can amend “camping facilities” and can even amend the amendatory provision!)
4.Covenants give the board the legal authority to S u e owners for infractions of rules.
TRUE but remember that S-bag sued owners WITHOUT Covenants! If the board wants to S u e owners for any reason—covenants or not-- it has an unlimited piggy bank to do so. The presence of covenants and rules does (potentially) give the board a stronger case against owners who agree to be bound by revitalized CC&R’s.
5. Covenants, Rules & Regulations and Bylaws have been tampered with by boards in the past and restoring these falsified changes will subject SLohA to greater legal exposure and liability in the future.
TRUE. Falsification of governing documents has already been demonstrated in many instances-- for example the 1986 Amendment which never passed a ballot vote. The 1989 Amendment was supposedly legitimized by the 1986 amendatory provision, which never passed. These Amendments are being included in the revitalization package as "valid". (One may or may not agree with the court decision--that keep lawyers busy!) Other falsifications in the revite package are in the amended bylaws, which presents us with a "new incorporation" statute of 720 (originally 617 and STILL 617), has mysteriously deleted election district provisions without a vote, incorporated a failed ballot vote on term limits (three year term was defeated but recorded anyway), added verbiage to the Amendment provision "..2/3 of valid votes cast" (originally and still is "2/3 of entire membership") and an unknown number of alterations of rules. (Note that the Rules and Regulations are NOT INCLUDED in the revite package). This is a “house of cards” and it is quite likely adopting falsified documents will come back to hurt SLohA when it is required to prove the changes were duly adopted.
6. Owners who agree to revitalize are giving boards a powerful tool use to the possible suffering and financial detriment of the homeowner.
TRUE. SLohA has not demonstrated good judgement and restraint in the recent past and has sued owners even WITHOUT Covenants and Rules! What do you imagine future behavior will be WITH Covenants?