A PLACE TO BE
Saturday, November 21, 2015
HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS COWEN LAWSUIT EASEMENT VOTE?
When Cowen couldn't get his easement through our Park nearly five years ago, he set his sights on suing the Association. The reaction?
Our Board and then new Village attorney put the individual owners into the Cowen cross-hairs because each owner has this 1/1024th undivided common ground interest.
For years owners heard doing it this way we will win the lawsuit and don't be worried about being sued because that will be too expensive for Cowen? Our Board and then new Village attorney put the individual owners into the Cowen cross-hairs because each owner has this 1/1024th undivided common ground interest.
But owners will soon receive a mailer from the Board saying the onus is now on them to vote for a negotiated Cowen easement or deal with his lawyers. What event happened to change all this?
Let the onus on owners sink in for a moment and then ask if the owners ever had a say about this at the beginning or did owners cast a vote putting themselves in this position? The answer is of course not, but owners now have to be responsible to vote their way out out of this feckless insane predicament and it doesn't end with an easy vote.
These caveats such as a short time frame, meeting quorum, and an affirmative percentage makes the owner approval nearly impossible. Should owners just put up their hands and say thank you?
These caveats such as a short time frame, meeting quorum, and an affirmative percentage makes the owner approval nearly impossible. Should owners just put up their hands and say thank you?
One should question this necessity for a quorum. If our Board says this easement falls under the Declaration of Covenants, Article X-(B), shouldn't that include that Article's ratification policy or are we using what pieces of it that may fit a narrative?
Article X-(B) does not require a quorum of owners. It says a ratification is accomplished when there’s a 75% affirmative vote from the total voting members of the Association who are present at called Ratification Meeting. That’s it, no quorum, just those interested enough to show up and vote.
Plus when one reads the context in Article X-(B), they probably will come away with thinking a substantial addition refers to a structure being built on common grounds and not a substantial use of the common grounds from an easement. Besides the Board is given the power to regulate the use of our common grounds, not the owners. (see Bylaw Article IV Sect. 10-D). But what really stands out to be amazing is that this easement has been the only substantial addition any Board has thought be relevant to Article X-(B) in the past twenty years. How on earth can that be?
Article X-(B) does not require a quorum of owners. It says a ratification is accomplished when there’s a 75% affirmative vote from the total voting members of the Association who are present at called Ratification Meeting. That’s it, no quorum, just those interested enough to show up and vote.
Plus when one reads the context in Article X-(B), they probably will come away with thinking a substantial addition refers to a structure being built on common grounds and not a substantial use of the common grounds from an easement. Besides the Board is given the power to regulate the use of our common grounds, not the owners. (see Bylaw Article IV Sect. 10-D). But what really stands out to be amazing is that this easement has been the only substantial addition any Board has thought be relevant to Article X-(B) in the past twenty years. How on earth can that be?
Finally one needs to know this. Any past or future Director who has been a part of this lawsuit appears to have protection from Bylaw Article XII that says it will indemnify a Director apparently for life against all loss, cost and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with any of their actions, suit or proceeding to which they may be a party of.
Owners heard some Directors say they weren’t protected in this case, but there it is saying otherwise.
No matter how this turns out, one thing is certain. Once again owners are being handed a total mess to pay for.Owners heard some Directors say they weren’t protected in this case, but there it is saying otherwise.
COMMENTS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Just wondering, if there's a statute of limitations for this type of litigation. For example, if the litigant had first unsuccessfully attempted a resolution over 15 years ago, do they still have a right to pursue that same oath today?
Such a beautiful location and community, yet here we are many years later, needing to take drastic action to maintain and improve our property values...
For crying out loud speak English!
Sorry, I meant to post my second comment to the article WILL DREDGING BE THE PARKING LOT FIASCO ON STEROIDS?
As for my first comment, just disregard and let me ask:
When did Cowen buy this property, and from whom? And didn't the previous owner - before Cowen - already know the circumstances about the easement issue? And if so, did they properly disclose to Cowen? And if not...wouldn't they have some, if not all, culpability?
I felt a need to address the two recent anonymous comments I did not post. As always the policy has been that a comment containing vulgarity, unsubstantiated charges, blatant attacks, or the demonizing of individuals will not be posted. These pesticides you refer to I remember were addressed at a meeting and the Board authorized their removal in a safe manner. So what you commented on was Board approved. I appreciate the comments but I can’t post those two.
as of Sept 30th 2015 the Restaurant had a LOSS of $36,025.00!
The 1st day of Operation was June 21st after the parking lot fiasco and then close 1st week of September (25 working days).
We would love for any of the Directors or Aramark new Gral Manager explain how a restaurant that was opened for only 25 days could lose $36,000?
at a rate of $1,4440 USD per DAY!
Why on earth did they open this "Losing proposition' again when the park is a Ghost Town? Who made that decision?
There is seem to be more employees than Customers, and we hope and Inventory/Audit was done before it was open late June and again before it was re-open 2 days ago... this area seem to be another personal playground for some employees and a free munch for all facility... we would love to see receipts (burgers, Mexican Barbacua that nobody buys etc etc...)
This is not a service to residents is a DISSERVICE to owners that carry the loses year after year... according to a giggling waitress they had only 4 customers yesterday...
25 days open - 25 days of service at $1,4440 USD LOSES per DAY! (up to Nov 30)
Directors: Explain that! we are open ears...
Enough is Enough!
Joe: Please open a thread letters/questions/ to LIV Gral Manager...
Thank You!
$36,000? is this a fact?
Where can we see that information?
Also we didn't receive the Attorney letter on the Cowan lawsuit/proposal, where can we get a copy? this and any other pending lawsuits against LIV.
The Lost Appeal - case decision (Cowen v. LIVOA)
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/2015/13-14-00442-cv.html
copy and paste on your google.
Adieu LIV as you knew it, aggressive Real Estate brokers should be very clear to anyone buying a property in LIV on regards to the multitude of Lawsuits (Canal dredging, Main street soon becoming an avenue and all others problems inc upcoming assessments in order to prevent future lawsuits against lIVOA
Prevention.
******************
Joey agree with the person that suggested a section for letters and suggestions to General Manager, starting of:
why is the "money Pit" restaurant open again? and why do they need so many employees (looks like 5 or 6) with hardly any customers (yesterday rush hour or Noon after our round of golf there was NO customers... None)... face it people love to eat out of the Park ... and I certainly hope everybody pays for their meals and drinks that include Directors (2 frequent customers) that should giving a good example...
Questions:
If Cowen never did any maintenance/improvements nor use the road for "decades" doesn't that equates to: abandoning/forfeiting of his rights?
Cowen HAS as we speak easy access to his land via Friedman' property... How do you think birders get there? simply walking... to the exact location of the property... just look an aerial map, there is an existing old road (very fixable) there is even the rests an old building right in the middle of his property his land was accessible 50 years ago and so today...
And where is this 18,000 USD figure came from? you guys can predict the future? read the judge's mind? remember Cowen is suing LIV and Friedman... 50 - 50
IS LIV New lawyer free and clear of any 'potential' conflict of interest? Has he ever worked together with Cowen (or his partners) in any other litigations... it suspicious he (and some Directors) are pushing to hard to vote Yes.
The Swing bridge (nor LIV Small bridges ) are going to sustain 18 wheeler heavy traffic going thru 'an accident waiting to happen"
Fishy Fishy... people this is South Texas
I think we deserve another legal indepandent opinion.
Well, the special meeting was interesting. To start it off it was called to order at 12 instead of 1 ! the uh attorney made us aware that the mediation was not quite over in that cowen was trying to add in some easement provisions that were not in the packet that was sent out, of course there ensued a LOT of discussion about that! I must add that the additions were only brought to his and the boards attention very recently and after the packets were sent and the vote taken. Much discussion ensued about the opening of the ballots and counting the votes with the board members and the attorney wishing to leave them uncounted and recess the meeting to afford them some leverage in the negotiations, a vote was taken and the result was to not count and recess.
Bud:
Leverage?
Cowen adding demands...
In what Planet is that Leverage on our favor?
Now don't go and pop a vein...just explain your point of view.
Joey, I was just made aware of the changes in the meeting as well as the Cowen changes. Since there are now some changes that need to be tweeked, can you tell me if the present votes will still count. After all, if there were changes made since the packets were sent out, than it seems to me that the votes would not count. Hmm, am I not understanding this!
I’m sorry I can’t answer your questions fully because I didn’t attend this meeting. I was unaware it was even called. Speaking for myself though, unless all of the major items told to me had drastically changed, I would not changed my vote. Remember the bottom line choice here in what this vote asks of you. Do you want to allow an easement use of a road/utilities that you probably won’t see happen in your lifetime or do you want to spend unknown thousands of your own hard earned money fighting this use with little chance of winning. One has to remember what got us into this whole voting fiasco in the first place. It was the attorney and those few who have him in their hip pocket who put owners in harms way of being sued instead of the Association as the Cowen Group originally sought.
Thank You for your concern for my health, much appreciated. the use of the word leverage did not come from me, the attorney and burke used it. if you are simply looking for a definition try webster
I stay with this 'your' phrase Bud:
"I didn’t attend this meeting."
Too bad you don't attend meetings, it is a good way to keep yourself abreast of what is happening in LIV
We guess what is done is done..
Where can we read the final "Final" settlement details (In writing) to be sure there will be no add-ons/clauses or stuff under the table... in other words nothing new added aside of what exactly was accorded by owners (Saturday).
Would this information be needed to be told to potential buyers at LIV? how about other litigations and pending assessments?
Thanks.
Post a Comment