proxy vote

You must be the only person that did not receive the vote by proxy vote paper in the mailing for the first meeting. Everyone I know got theirs! You seem to just like to cause trouble!

I see what you mean

A developer not fulfilling its obligations to the Association probably was not anticipated when the covenants were drafted. The lawsuit was necessary because our developer tried to ''pull a fast one'', so we had to hire an attorney. If the attorney were to be paid from operating funds then there might be a short-fall that would necessitate raising our annual dues. That is why I voted for the special assessment.

again, the docs are specific

I can appreciate that the ''documents'' did not ''foresee'' the current scenario, but, strictly speaking, they still ONLY allow for a special assessment as stated.

If a member wanted to challenge, or not pay, it would be very difficult for the association to ''defend'' based on what the ''documents could not foresee.''

If you want it to be legal, then you MUST amend the governing documents to reflect OTHER instances under which the board can levy ''special assessments.''

If you had to outlay the COST OF THE REPAIR, then THAT amount could be levied, but because the assessment is going for ''legal fees,'' well ''legal fees'' are NOT capital expenditures.

Your CC&Rs and your By-laws SHOULD specify ways that you can amend your documents. It would probably be in your best interest to follow that amendment prescribed procedure and go ahead and amend the restriction regarding special assessments. You will probably only need to make a slight revision, but it still must be made or residents could LEGALLY decide NOT to participate in the ''special assessment'' since it was not created according to the governing documents. Those residents who wanted to do so voluntarily could, but you wouldn't be able to force ones who do not, under your current documents.

Vote/Proxy/Quorum Issues

I just read some of the questions and comments today. I have the files that Kim was referring to June 8th in my possession. I was the secretary during the planning and implementation of both of the meetings in 2006. I recently resigned from the board and still have the records.

There are 269 lots in Brunswick Place, therefore 269 votes are available (One per lot).

During the first meeting, I think you would agree with the math that 60% of 269 equals 161.4 or 162 votes required by proxy or attendance.

I do have the minutes in the HOA files that reflect that we did not have a quorum for the Oct. 10, 2006 meeting. The minutes read as follows:
3. Certification of Quorum:
''Registration was held open a few minutes late to determine if quorum could be obtained. Quorum of 162 homeowners present or by proxy was not met as only 115 households were represented.'' I announced that there would be another meeting planned within 60 days and the notice would be mailed within 30 days. The quorum of the second meeting will be decreased by 1/2.

I also have all of the signed proxies, sign in sheets, and ballots from each of the two meetings in my files. That would demonstrate to Ms. Free that proxies were indeed mailed out with the meeting announcement letters 30 days prior to each of the meetings as required with instructions for completion of the proxies and a self addressed stamped envelope to return the proxies.

In the minutes for the meeting held Nov. 28, 2006, there was a quorum as recorded: ''There are 130 homeowners represented either by proxy or by attendance.

The results of the ballots were as follows:
Special Assessment for Stormwater Detention Facility: For: 104
Against: 26

Special Assessment for Litigation:
For: 93
Against: 37

Laura Rives and Clifton Tate were elected for 3 year terms as Directors.

Both assessments passed as you can see by a good margin.


Just a few comments from the inside-out!!! Hope they answer some of the questions. Donna