A PLACE TO BE
Thursday, September 23, 2010
A TidbitI feel our current Board did a great job on the Arroyo Cable lawsuit settlement and deserves a tremendous amount of credit. For years many knew upon its cancelation that the Arroyo Cable’s contract was a lawsuit waiting to happen. It became a reality when a bare majority on the 2008 Board finally voted to cancel Arroyo Cable and replaced them with Time Warner. That Board brokered a 10 year contract with a max price increase of 5% per year. The deal provided twice as many better quality channels for $50,000 less annually. As I see it the savings has paid for this lawsuit. Great job!
Read more...
Why was this not
Ratified ?
When one looks at this year’s Budget, they will find a $21,000 Major Improvement item described as the “Maintenance Bldg. Repair”. This was no repair, it is an addition to the maintenance building.
Why is that?
Owners would have easily ratified this addition if given the chance. Describing this construction as a repair when it's clearly a substantial addition suggests that those in charge don’t want to be bothered with the ratification process.
Why is that?
One wonders why every Board opts to disobey Article X in the Declaration of Covenants and Article VII of the Bylaws. These Articles are the only checks and balance tools the concerned owners who care about the appearance of our Village have. Our Village has had major changes in appearance and substantial additions in the past eight years during which our membership has never been asked to ratified a single one.
Why is that?
I’ve heard the excuse that you need 75% of the Association membership to say yes in order to ratify. As I read it, all you need is to call for a ratification meeting and have 75% who show up to vote say “yes”. It is that simple as the condensed Covenants and Bylaws confirm below.Declaration Article X: Although the Association may construct additional facilities, there shall be no material alterations or substantial additions to the Common Elements except as authorized by the Board of Directors and ratified by the affirmative vote of Voting Members casting not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the total votes of the members present at any regular/special meeting called for that purpose.
Bylaws Article VII: There shall be no substantial additions/alterations to the Common Elements unless authorized by the Board of Directors and ratified by the affirmative vote of the Voting members casting not less than 75% of the total votes of the owners present at any regular/special meeting called for that purpose.
These are the only Articles that specifically require the affirmative percentage of the voters present at a meeting while all the others specifically require an affirmative percentage of total membership (1024 owners) as these additional condensed Articles below will confirm.
Covenant Article IV. Amending the Declaration: the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the vote of the members of the Association.
Bylaw Article III. The Calling for Special Meetings: Members representing a majority of the Unit Owners' total votes
Bylaw Article IV. The Removal of Directors: by the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting not less than a majority of the total of members in the Association.
Bylaw Article X. Amendments to the Bylaws: If the amendment has received the unanimous approval of the full Board of Directors, then it shall be approved upon the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting a majority of the total votes of the Unit Owners.
If the amendment has not been approved by the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, then the amendment shall be approved by the affirmative vote of the Voting Members casting not less than three-fourths (3/ 4ths) of the total votes of the Unit Owners.
In closing, concerned members of the Association who care about the appearance of our Village should not be denied their lawful right to ratify the decisions made by these elected few. So far what’s done is done, but from this moment forward, let us have a concerted effort with understanding and following the Declaration of Covenants and Village Bylaws.
Read more...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Board Meeting 9/22/10
Pledge of Allegiance
Owners Speaking
Lot 744 spoke about the issue of our Board wanting to make it mandatory for small children to wear life jackets. His position was that there are already too many rules, they couldn’t be enforced properly, this would increase our liability, that it would upset those youngsters who swim like a fish, and most of all, it is the parent’s responsibility to care for their own children.
SC 120 agreed with Lot 744 and added that parent awareness is the answer. She also said the rules are a blur. She said the noodle size that is used in the Activity Center as an example did not make sense.
Lot ? said he had managed motels and hotels for many years and has yet to see a life jacket rule.
President’s Remarks-Halbach
Here is the update on the dredging questionnaire.
There were 490 lots that responded, 190 of them (43%) owned boats, 34 have on-off boat lift problems in which dredging will not address, and there are only 3 owners who have trouble navigating one or more canals. Their boats, a 32ft. cabin cruiser w/4ft draft, 24ft sailboat with 5ft draft, 30 ft tug with 3.5ft draft.
Pledge of Allegiance
Owners Speaking
Lot 744 spoke about the issue of our Board wanting to make it mandatory for small children to wear life jackets. His position was that there are already too many rules, they couldn’t be enforced properly, this would increase our liability, that it would upset those youngsters who swim like a fish, and most of all, it is the parent’s responsibility to care for their own children.
SC 120 agreed with Lot 744 and added that parent awareness is the answer. She also said the rules are a blur. She said the noodle size that is used in the Activity Center as an example did not make sense.
Lot ? said he had managed motels and hotels for many years and has yet to see a life jacket rule.
President’s Remarks-Halbach
Here is the update on the dredging questionnaire.
There were 490 lots that responded, 190 of them (43%) owned boats, 34 have on-off boat lift problems in which dredging will not address, and there are only 3 owners who have trouble navigating one or more canals. Their boats, a 32ft. cabin cruiser w/4ft draft, 24ft sailboat with 5ft draft, 30 ft tug with 3.5ft draft.
The questionnaire showed 52% have docks and half of those use boat lifts.
Over 43% did not want to dredge, 39% limited, and 17% wanted full dredging.
Over 63% of the responders prefer the stick method over the $25,000 survey.
There were 48% of the responses saying any assessment would be a hardship while 25% said hardship for them started after $500.
More than 67% wanted dredging money to be spent on Village infrastructure or roads.
SC120 asked about dredging near the sea walls.
Lot 870 said it should be up to eacg owner to dredge near their sea walls.
This ended with Pres. Halbach saying it looks like partial dredging of bad areas is where things are at now. The Board talked about starting a contingency fund for the dredging expenses.
The Arroyo Cable lawsuit had been settled.
SC120 asked about dredging near the sea walls.
Lot 870 said it should be up to eacg owner to dredge near their sea walls.
This ended with Pres. Halbach saying it looks like partial dredging of bad areas is where things are at now. The Board talked about starting a contingency fund for the dredging expenses.
The Arroyo Cable lawsuit had been settled.
LIV's insurance did not cover this lawsuit. Arroyo Cable originally wanted $300,000 from LIV. The settlement was that LIV will give Arroyo Cable $25,000. The attorney fees at the time of settlement were near $45,000 and the continuing of Village Attorney fees would have exceeded $25,000 if this case went to trial, so the Board decided this settlement was finacially the best route for LIV.
Lot 591 asked why the insurance didn’t cover this. Treas. Steffensen said the insurance does not cover any contracts that the HOA makes outside the Association.
SC120 asked what our attorney had recommended. Pres. Halbach said that it was to settle with giving them the $25K.
Lot 744 asked if Arroyo still had equipment here. Pres. Halbach said whatever's left is ours and as we'll disposed the stuff as we find it.
Update of the Bridge Board Meeting.
Lot 591 asked why the insurance didn’t cover this. Treas. Steffensen said the insurance does not cover any contracts that the HOA makes outside the Association.
SC120 asked what our attorney had recommended. Pres. Halbach said that it was to settle with giving them the $25K.
Lot 744 asked if Arroyo still had equipment here. Pres. Halbach said whatever's left is ours and as we'll disposed the stuff as we find it.
Update of the Bridge Board Meeting.
Pres. Halbach said Mr. Freeland was in attendance and wanted LIV to pay half of the $10,875 bill he received from the firm he asked to file a protest towards the Corp of Engineers conclusions over realigning the intercoastal. Decisions about this were tabled.
There is a letter going around for owners to sign and send individually to Congressman Ortiz to protest this conclusion of the study by the Corp of Engineers. That study said a realingnment of the intercoastal waterways around Long Island would not result in having a good benefit to cost ratio. Villagers know better having had to live with the results of barges damaging the swing bridge and also know that sooner or later some major accident will occur.
Selba Campbell talked at length about her progress in trying to negotiate a new bridge. Go Selba! She also said it was very important that everyone votes this year.
Manager’s Report-Horner/Zamora
Rick Horner said he had 94 work orders with 77 of them completed, 5 building permits, condo fee arrears were $23,703, down $13169 from the previous month. Violation letters were basically replaced with courtesy letters because of the recent but light storm damage. Aramark is now drug testing everyone. Armando was recognized by Aramark for lasting 25 years and was awarded a watch. Time Warner tried to increase their rates 15% but Horner reminded them because of the contract, they can only increase them a max of 5% annually.
Director’s Comments
Dir. Martin said the gazebo's tile is extremely slippery when wet. Armando said it will be replaced.
Approval of August Minutes
August minutes were approved
Treasurer’s Report-Steffensen
Nothing stood out. Every revenue center except the newsletter were losers and the Rental rhetoric stayed the same. Dir. Montalvo voiced his concerns about the extremely high ratios of cost of goods to revenues.
Manager’s Report-Horner/Zamora
Rick Horner said he had 94 work orders with 77 of them completed, 5 building permits, condo fee arrears were $23,703, down $13169 from the previous month. Violation letters were basically replaced with courtesy letters because of the recent but light storm damage. Aramark is now drug testing everyone. Armando was recognized by Aramark for lasting 25 years and was awarded a watch. Time Warner tried to increase their rates 15% but Horner reminded them because of the contract, they can only increase them a max of 5% annually.
Director’s Comments
Dir. Martin said the gazebo's tile is extremely slippery when wet. Armando said it will be replaced.
Approval of August Minutes
August minutes were approved
Treasurer’s Report-Steffensen
Nothing stood out. Every revenue center except the newsletter were losers and the Rental rhetoric stayed the same. Dir. Montalvo voiced his concerns about the extremely high ratios of cost of goods to revenues.
Pat Burke politely pointed out that the $38,714 insurance check added to 2009 revenues effects the comparisons.
Committee Reports
D&E Committee-White
Oct. 30th Halloween cocktail party
Committee Reports
D&E Committee-White
Oct. 30th Halloween cocktail party
Trash &Treasures on Nov.13th
Nov.15th a cocktail party with Mike the Piano Man.
Golf Committee-Pelletier
N/A
Pool Committee-Steffensen
N/A
Hurricane Committee-White
Hurricane manual is in the Library.
Other
Unfinished Business
Owner’s Lounge Policy/Second reading of policy changes-Pelletier
Motion was passed to rescind the current $50 fee and return to the original lounge policy of having a $50 refundable deposit. A period of time to reflect and then conduct a second reading of a new policy change will go into practice.
Road Paving-Pelletier
There were discussions about not being able to find pavement contractors and Treas. Steffensen said the Board has $34,000 left this year to spend on road improvements.
Pool Rules and Monitors-White
Dir. White handed out 10 easy to understand rules to replace the current "NO" wording type rules. It was emphasized that owners should leave all problems in the pool area to Security.
.
Golf Committee-Pelletier
N/A
Pool Committee-Steffensen
N/A
Hurricane Committee-White
Hurricane manual is in the Library.
Other
Unfinished Business
Owner’s Lounge Policy/Second reading of policy changes-Pelletier
Motion was passed to rescind the current $50 fee and return to the original lounge policy of having a $50 refundable deposit. A period of time to reflect and then conduct a second reading of a new policy change will go into practice.
Road Paving-Pelletier
There were discussions about not being able to find pavement contractors and Treas. Steffensen said the Board has $34,000 left this year to spend on road improvements.
Pool Rules and Monitors-White
Dir. White handed out 10 easy to understand rules to replace the current "NO" wording type rules. It was emphasized that owners should leave all problems in the pool area to Security.
.
New Business
Child Life Vest Requirement-Gagan
Dir. Gagan said last week everyone thought this was a good idea and now it is not. This was dropped from going forward.
Director Absentee Policy-Guerra
Dir. Guerra wanted to change the current three in a row absent rule to a so many within a year rule. In order to do that, a resolution to amend the Bylaws is needed abd that is now in the works. The Board will be discussing this further at the next meeting.
Board use of SKYPE-Guerra
Dir. Guerra said he feels Board members should be physically at the Board meetings. Treas. Steffensen agreed and said signatures are necessary from every Director almost every month. Dir. Bergsma who is the only Director using the internet teleconferencing called SKYPE, said the Board originally didn’t approve this, it was our attorney who said it was legitimate communications for Board Meetings. He asked the Board to address this next month when he will be physically back. Different Board members gave their thoughts and a motion was approved by every Director except Bergsma that using SKYPE will not count as being present at a Board Meeting.
Lot 288 said if you say a Director is not viewed as present at a meeting using SKYPE, you would find it difficult to say this Director would be able to cast a valid vote at that meeting. That sent the waves rolling.
Adjournment
Child Life Vest Requirement-Gagan
Dir. Gagan said last week everyone thought this was a good idea and now it is not. This was dropped from going forward.
Director Absentee Policy-Guerra
Dir. Guerra wanted to change the current three in a row absent rule to a so many within a year rule. In order to do that, a resolution to amend the Bylaws is needed abd that is now in the works. The Board will be discussing this further at the next meeting.
Board use of SKYPE-Guerra
Dir. Guerra said he feels Board members should be physically at the Board meetings. Treas. Steffensen agreed and said signatures are necessary from every Director almost every month. Dir. Bergsma who is the only Director using the internet teleconferencing called SKYPE, said the Board originally didn’t approve this, it was our attorney who said it was legitimate communications for Board Meetings. He asked the Board to address this next month when he will be physically back. Different Board members gave their thoughts and a motion was approved by every Director except Bergsma that using SKYPE will not count as being present at a Board Meeting.
Lot 288 said if you say a Director is not viewed as present at a meeting using SKYPE, you would find it difficult to say this Director would be able to cast a valid vote at that meeting. That sent the waves rolling.
Adjournment
Read more...
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Coffee with the Directors
Pledge of Allegiance
Comment Box
Lot 463 was upset over the newly passed $50 fee to use the Owners Lounge. VP Pelletier said this was passed due to the volume and constant non cleanup of the lounge during the summer and will put it on the next week’s board meeting agenda.
Lot (no number given) wrote that the large windows by the ping pong table in the Activity Center leak bad. Armando said it’s the frame and hopes that it can be put in next year’s budget.
Comments from the Board
Dir. White said she has updated the activity schedule for D&E.
Dir. Martin asked about this activity going on south of our island. VP Pelletier said the Port Authority are building a road to their newly donated 35 acres from Mr. Freeland that will be made into wetlands.
Pres. Halbach gave the latest rundown of responses from the Board dredging mailer. He said out of 431 lots, 182 own a boat and 244 don’t. He said that “no” dredging so far has the majority over the other two categories individually but not combined. Limited dredging and total dredging are these categories. The stick method is preferred over the Dredge Survey. There are 152 owners who want to see the money spent on infrastructure and 164 on paving. Out of 431 owners, only 33 had problems and 30 of those problems were with their boat lift areas which would not be dredged. This means only three boat owners so far have said they had problems navigating the canals and these three have boar with over 4 foot drafts. He said they were still waiting for more responses to arrive and this weekend he will provide a report.
Dir. Gagan described an incident where a 3 year old girl nearly drowned in the outdoor pool. He wanted to see if the Board would entertain a new rule where if you are under a certain height you will be required to wear a Coast Guard approved life jacket. He brought up his dissatisfaction with Security’s response time to this incident. Discussions took place and went on at length, ending with this will be on the agenda next week.
Comments from the Audience
Lot 145 had problems with maintenance cutting the grass too low and butchering the grass instead of trimming it correctly. He said the Village Grill, Golf Course, and Rental Office losses are due to mismanagement. He brought up that Port Mansfield bought their own dredger and we might consider doing the same.
Lot 744 said if the Board could give a breakdown of salaries and all other expenses, owners may better understand the true costs of the golf course.
VP Pelletier said the Rental Office is a required by our Declaration of Covenants. Lot S said the Rental Office made a profit during its first years, but owners have since been allowed to rent their property without going through the Rental Office. Dir. Gagan said he at times does not rent his propertys through the Rental Office because his yearly renter couldn’t afford it. Lot 145 said once again that it’s a management problem.
Lot 329 said that this heavy equipment crossing our swing bridge should have more oversight. He was disturbed when the tractor towing two pieces of equipment (see photo below the polls) got hung up. He was told to go to the Bridge Board Meeting on Monday.
Coffee ended
Comments from the Board
Dir. White said she has updated the activity schedule for D&E.
Dir. Martin asked about this activity going on south of our island. VP Pelletier said the Port Authority are building a road to their newly donated 35 acres from Mr. Freeland that will be made into wetlands.
Pres. Halbach gave the latest rundown of responses from the Board dredging mailer. He said out of 431 lots, 182 own a boat and 244 don’t. He said that “no” dredging so far has the majority over the other two categories individually but not combined. Limited dredging and total dredging are these categories. The stick method is preferred over the Dredge Survey. There are 152 owners who want to see the money spent on infrastructure and 164 on paving. Out of 431 owners, only 33 had problems and 30 of those problems were with their boat lift areas which would not be dredged. This means only three boat owners so far have said they had problems navigating the canals and these three have boar with over 4 foot drafts. He said they were still waiting for more responses to arrive and this weekend he will provide a report.
Dir. Gagan described an incident where a 3 year old girl nearly drowned in the outdoor pool. He wanted to see if the Board would entertain a new rule where if you are under a certain height you will be required to wear a Coast Guard approved life jacket. He brought up his dissatisfaction with Security’s response time to this incident. Discussions took place and went on at length, ending with this will be on the agenda next week.
Comments from the Audience
Lot 145 had problems with maintenance cutting the grass too low and butchering the grass instead of trimming it correctly. He said the Village Grill, Golf Course, and Rental Office losses are due to mismanagement. He brought up that Port Mansfield bought their own dredger and we might consider doing the same.
Lot 744 said if the Board could give a breakdown of salaries and all other expenses, owners may better understand the true costs of the golf course.
VP Pelletier said the Rental Office is a required by our Declaration of Covenants. Lot S said the Rental Office made a profit during its first years, but owners have since been allowed to rent their property without going through the Rental Office. Dir. Gagan said he at times does not rent his propertys through the Rental Office because his yearly renter couldn’t afford it. Lot 145 said once again that it’s a management problem.
Lot 329 said that this heavy equipment crossing our swing bridge should have more oversight. He was disturbed when the tractor towing two pieces of equipment (see photo below the polls) got hung up. He was told to go to the Bridge Board Meeting on Monday.
Coffee ended
Regular Board Meeting was called into session.
Pertaining to the Arroyo Cablevision lawsuit, the Board voted on their executive session mediation decision from the previous week. No information other than that was disclosed. The votes were Directors Gagan,Pelletier, Guerra, Martin “yes” and Dir. White “no”. Motion passed.
Adjourned
Workshop
Dir. White wanted a Security Committee formed plus clarification on pool policies. Pres. Halbach said there was no need for a Security Committee because its managements job to oversee but will have on the agenda the pool policies.
Dir. Guerra wants to bring up the use of Skye, which is the internet conferencing that Dir. Bergsma has been using. He wants to talk about the need of Directors being physically at Board Meetings.
Pres. Halbach said he will discuss the results of the questionnaire.
VP Pelletier wants on the agenda the $50 fee policy for the Owner’s Lounge. He asked about road repair bids and Armando said nothing new yet. He also wishes to discuss second Regular Board Meetings when necessary, to keep from rushing a vote on important issues.
Dir. Gagan said he wanted this life vest issue on the agenda.
Armando asked if the Park can have directional signs for new people pointing towards where the amentias are.
Lot ? was confused on the rental form and asked for clarification.
Lot 744 asked the Board why the Rental Office won’t block off the time periods when owners want to use their own home unexpectedly and no renters are scheduled. The GM said that so many double bookings resulted when owners failed to notify the office of their unexpected arrival that we instituted that policy. If you sign it up in the rental pool for 3 months, it’s available to rent for 3 months, no exceptions. Owner from lot 744 thought this may be another reason why many owners don’t go through the Rental Office and continued to express other ideas when Pat Burke interrupted and gave a lengthy speech as to why do we have rules if you want to change them. Burke was asked to give her name and lot number and she said I’ll give it later. More owners said for her to do like everyone else does and give her lot number. She reluctantly gave her lot number.
VP Pelletier made a comment on the palm tree issue brought up by Lot 145 earlier and basically said we will not go on personal property to cut owner’s palms but instead possibly fine owners who display slipshod care.
Adjourned
Pertaining to the Arroyo Cablevision lawsuit, the Board voted on their executive session mediation decision from the previous week. No information other than that was disclosed. The votes were Directors Gagan,Pelletier, Guerra, Martin “yes” and Dir. White “no”. Motion passed.
Adjourned
Workshop
Dir. White wanted a Security Committee formed plus clarification on pool policies. Pres. Halbach said there was no need for a Security Committee because its managements job to oversee but will have on the agenda the pool policies.
Dir. Guerra wants to bring up the use of Skye, which is the internet conferencing that Dir. Bergsma has been using. He wants to talk about the need of Directors being physically at Board Meetings.
Pres. Halbach said he will discuss the results of the questionnaire.
VP Pelletier wants on the agenda the $50 fee policy for the Owner’s Lounge. He asked about road repair bids and Armando said nothing new yet. He also wishes to discuss second Regular Board Meetings when necessary, to keep from rushing a vote on important issues.
Dir. Gagan said he wanted this life vest issue on the agenda.
Armando asked if the Park can have directional signs for new people pointing towards where the amentias are.
Lot ? was confused on the rental form and asked for clarification.
Lot 744 asked the Board why the Rental Office won’t block off the time periods when owners want to use their own home unexpectedly and no renters are scheduled. The GM said that so many double bookings resulted when owners failed to notify the office of their unexpected arrival that we instituted that policy. If you sign it up in the rental pool for 3 months, it’s available to rent for 3 months, no exceptions. Owner from lot 744 thought this may be another reason why many owners don’t go through the Rental Office and continued to express other ideas when Pat Burke interrupted and gave a lengthy speech as to why do we have rules if you want to change them. Burke was asked to give her name and lot number and she said I’ll give it later. More owners said for her to do like everyone else does and give her lot number. She reluctantly gave her lot number.
VP Pelletier made a comment on the palm tree issue brought up by Lot 145 earlier and basically said we will not go on personal property to cut owner’s palms but instead possibly fine owners who display slipshod care.
Adjourned
Read more...
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A SHOW OF HANDS
Tom Bergsma and M.O. Berry appear to be the only owners spearheading this dredging issue.
Mr. Bergsma has tried various ways to sell his dredging agenda. Things like, we use to see porpoise in the canal and caught a lot more fish. This dredging will improve property values. Dredging will remove all that nasty construction material from the canal water. Dredge now, Mr. Freeland will only give us a certain window of opportunity to save millions. This $25,000 hydrographic survey will pay for itself. Our Park has a legal and moral responsibility to dredge.
Nearly every owner showed an opposing hand and they left our March Annual Meeting thinking the dredging issue was on hold until the next Annual Meeting. Mr. Bergsma’s persistence and Mr. Berry’s threat of possible legal action somehow convinced our Board to change that perspective. They approved the spending of $15,000 to obtain survey results to back up any dredging decision before the 2011 Annual Meeting.
After the Village Voice alerted its mailer list on this decision, the Board was overwhelmed with emails that prompted a Board decision to send an owner opinion mailer on dredging before going any further with this dredging survey.
A provocative email from Mr. Bergsma described the Board’s action as being “totally chickenshit”. He conveyed the “lawsuit card” throughout this rejoinder with the use of a M.O. Berry correspondence to the Board last March. In Canal “A”, Mr. Berry claims to have problems navigating his custom made twenty-four foot sailboat with nearly a six foot fixed keel and did mention that unfulfilled dredging matters may require legal attention.
Tom Bergsma and M.O. Berry appear to be the only owners spearheading this dredging issue.
Mr. Bergsma has tried various ways to sell his dredging agenda. Things like, we use to see porpoise in the canal and caught a lot more fish. This dredging will improve property values. Dredging will remove all that nasty construction material from the canal water. Dredge now, Mr. Freeland will only give us a certain window of opportunity to save millions. This $25,000 hydrographic survey will pay for itself. Our Park has a legal and moral responsibility to dredge.
Nearly every owner showed an opposing hand and they left our March Annual Meeting thinking the dredging issue was on hold until the next Annual Meeting. Mr. Bergsma’s persistence and Mr. Berry’s threat of possible legal action somehow convinced our Board to change that perspective. They approved the spending of $15,000 to obtain survey results to back up any dredging decision before the 2011 Annual Meeting.
After the Village Voice alerted its mailer list on this decision, the Board was overwhelmed with emails that prompted a Board decision to send an owner opinion mailer on dredging before going any further with this dredging survey.
A provocative email from Mr. Bergsma described the Board’s action as being “totally chickenshit”. He conveyed the “lawsuit card” throughout this rejoinder with the use of a M.O. Berry correspondence to the Board last March. In Canal “A”, Mr. Berry claims to have problems navigating his custom made twenty-four foot sailboat with nearly a six foot fixed keel and did mention that unfulfilled dredging matters may require legal attention.
This daughting email reminded our Board that Mr. Berry filed a “no contact” court order against Pat Burke for harassment which caused Mr. Bergsma to query; do you think Mr. Berry is looking to sue LIV for harassment or for punitive damages due to negligence? How do you think a law suit for LIV's failure to maintain our canals will play in the press and do you think that might hurt our image as well as property values?
He expressed that sending out a questionnaire to the membership regarding the issue of should we dredge or not is totally chickenshit, especially when asking the question "would the assessment be a financial hardship on you?" Why don't you ask if paying dues to LIV is a hardship too? Give me a break. It is time for the Board to stand up and do the job we were elected to do instead of trying to pass our responsibilities on the membership. It is time to pass on doing the survey and quit stalling before we get sued.
We don’t know if Mr. Berry will sue LIV if our Board decides not to dredge canal "A". He might even sue for the damages to his boat. Who knows?
We don’t know if our Village will be handed a class action lawsuit if our Board decides to do major dredging. It’s been mentioned.
Here are the things we do know.
We do know the last Annual Meeting had an overwhelming show of owner's hands who opposed dredging.
We do know the Board thought that spending $15,000 for a dredging survey would help to back their decision.
We do know the Board President said on April 28th during our Regular Board Meeting that Mr. Berry’s claim of entitlement isn’t correct.
We do know Mr. Bergsma is correct when saying Directors on the Board are elected to do a job, but fails to understand that this job is one of being a representative who speaks, acts, or votes on behalf of the very membership that elects you. With that said, didn't our Membership make one of their wishes very clear last March?
We do know if the Board uses this mailer to truly validate that owners have changed their minds, it should require an affirmative 75% of a total that’s equal to the quorum total we had at the last Annual Meeting.
We do know silt problems expressed by both spearheads were on property not owned by our Association.
We do know Mr. Bergsma has expressed that it is not right to pay and get nothing out of a dredging assessment, then turn around and pay extra to dredge canal H. Could that be one reason why he has mentioned that owners shouldn’t have a problem with Canal H and the Intercoastal being part of the dredging assessments.
We do know a show of hands from owners is currently being considered meaningless by our Board.
We definitely know Mr. Bergsma owes his friends on the Board an apology.
Care to share a comment?
Read more...
Friday, August 27, 2010
August 26, 2010 Board Meeting
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance
Directors Bergsma, Montalvo, and Pres. Halbach were absent.
Owners from the Audience
Lot 288 spoke about the Village’s reasons and history in acquiring our current security company. She said the old security committee found that out of eight security company bids, Securitas fit the Village criteria the best. She asked that certain members of the Board to reconsider the notion in looking at other companies and try to work out the problems with our present one.
Lot 145 gave his background and then spoke at length with the way the grass is being cut and edged incorrectly. He had issues with the Village roads and how they were repaired. After hearing twenty minutes of this, VP Pelletier asked him to wrap it up. he concluded with some thoughts on how to handle the dredging.
Lot 665 had concerns about Aramark workers cutting the common ground palms. He said there is liability issues here not to mention OSHA having a major problem with it. He explained that he would like to do more than just cutting palms around the pool area, is insured, and can do this work cheaper. He asked that the Board consider this.
Lot 288 spoke about the Village’s reasons and history in acquiring our current security company. She said the old security committee found that out of eight security company bids, Securitas fit the Village criteria the best. She asked that certain members of the Board to reconsider the notion in looking at other companies and try to work out the problems with our present one.
Lot 145 gave his background and then spoke at length with the way the grass is being cut and edged incorrectly. He had issues with the Village roads and how they were repaired. After hearing twenty minutes of this, VP Pelletier asked him to wrap it up. he concluded with some thoughts on how to handle the dredging.
Lot 665 had concerns about Aramark workers cutting the common ground palms. He said there is liability issues here not to mention OSHA having a major problem with it. He explained that he would like to do more than just cutting palms around the pool area, is insured, and can do this work cheaper. He asked that the Board consider this.
Presidents Remarks
VP Pelletier, sitting in for Pres. Halbach, said yesterday his email was flooded with owners expressing their thoughts on the dredging issue. He said other Board members experienced the same. He said that someone sent dredging information out via emails to owners and gave them the Board members email addresses. He asked why none of us, the Board members never received one of these emails so we could have a chance to get some answers together to give to these owners? We are owners just like you and are here to represent you.
VP Pelletier, sitting in for Pres. Halbach, said yesterday his email was flooded with owners expressing their thoughts on the dredging issue. He said other Board members experienced the same. He said that someone sent dredging information out via emails to owners and gave them the Board members email addresses. He asked why none of us, the Board members never received one of these emails so we could have a chance to get some answers together to give to these owners? We are owners just like you and are here to represent you.
Manager’s Report
GM said he had 60 work orders; fifty six were completed, 5 building permits, 4 violation letters, and condo fee arrears totaling $36,872. This was $35802 lower than the previous month. Armando gave the updates on several current projects.
GM said he had 60 work orders; fifty six were completed, 5 building permits, 4 violation letters, and condo fee arrears totaling $36,872. This was $35802 lower than the previous month. Armando gave the updates on several current projects.
Tony Mendoila , an employee that does most of the Village plumbing, was honored for his twenty-fifth year of service at LIV.
Director Comments
Dir. Martin thought the court mediation on Wednesday was exciting.
Dir. Guerra said the Marquee was looking good.
Dir. Martin thought the court mediation on Wednesday was exciting.
Dir. Guerra said the Marquee was looking good.
Approval of June’s Minutes
Motion was approved.
Treasurer Report
Treas. Steffensen went through the August Treasurer Report and nothing stood out. In the P&L, the Restaurant is doing $13,986 better than last year, the Golf Course is doing $13,915 better than last year, the news letter is doing $2,023 better than last year, and the laundry is doing $1,352 better than last year. The Rental Dept. was doing $35,206 worse than in 2009. Treas. Steffensen was quick to point out that the large disparity in Rental Revenues was due to the $38,712.23 insurance settlement check and said that less people are renting through the Rental Dept.
Lot 288 asked if the Rental Office through the Village website is any further along. Treas. Steffensen said not at this time because of the changes being done in the office.
Pat Burke asked for the audience to give a big hand to Treas. Steffensen for her work towards the newsletter.
Committee Reports
D&E-Dir. White said she has received all of the entertainment contracts. She thanked the summer people for their support.
Golf -N/A
Pool -Treas. Steffensen said since things have slowed they are going to start on the pool statues.
Hurricane -N/A
Unfinished Business
Treasurer Steffensen made a motion to update policy 3.5, so that boat trailer three day parking passes may be renew one time if the renter is staying a maximum of one week. Motion was approved.
Treas. Steffensen said that Hurricane Alex's final cost to the Village was $2,789.
Dir. White asked VP Pelletier where are we going with this dredging issue. VP Pelletier said the Board had talked originally about doing some type of action in September, but I now recommend that the Board mail each owner a letter or post card, asking for a yes or no answer on dredging instead of the Board asking for a show of hands. He said this way we have documentation to prove that our actions are in line with what the majority want. Dir. Gagan wanted to owners to provide input on trouble areas . VP Pelletier also wanted to make it clear that only the middle of the canals would be dredge and not under the boat lifts. VP Pelletier wanted owners to know that at mean (medium) tide Dir. Gagan’s 24’ boat traveled through all the canals and got mudded up in only three locations. VP Pelletier said that we all know the need to maintain our canals but with this economy, do owners want to do it now? Motion was approved to send letters or post card to owners.
VP Pelletier talked a little about the recent road repairs and wanted to make sure a letter is sent to the patch work contractor, telling him that the Village will not pay him his final one third of the money unless he finishes the work properly.
New Business
Dir. White brought up the parking violations on Lot 70. The decision was that his will be addressed by sending them a letter from the Board.
Lot 714 motion for a variance was turned down.
Dir. Guerra thanked Liz Deitrick for her earlier comments and said he was going to change his mind about looking for new bids. He did want to establish a new Security Committee that would work with management. Motion for a new security committee was approved.
Other
Treas. Steffensen made it clear that the 11pm quiet time in our Park is everywhere except for activities in the Rec. Hall. This became an issue after an owner complained about karaoke noise at the Pavilion. There was some discussion on how quiet does quiet time have to be and ended up being left open for later discussions.
Dir. Guerra said there is still this problem about canopies that has not yet been addressed. This ended up with the Board needing further time to rethink and discuss in the Sept. meeting.
VP Pelletier said the parking lot lines need painted and Armando said he has already bought the paint.
The Securitas Manager said he has made a working document that will be reviewed each month by his staff .
VP Pelletier said there will be a Saturday evening buffet and Sunday omelet breakfast at the Rec. Hall for Labor Day weekend.
VP Pelletier said the Board is going into an executive session for information gathering.
Adjourn
Motion was approved.
Treasurer Report
Treas. Steffensen went through the August Treasurer Report and nothing stood out. In the P&L, the Restaurant is doing $13,986 better than last year, the Golf Course is doing $13,915 better than last year, the news letter is doing $2,023 better than last year, and the laundry is doing $1,352 better than last year. The Rental Dept. was doing $35,206 worse than in 2009. Treas. Steffensen was quick to point out that the large disparity in Rental Revenues was due to the $38,712.23 insurance settlement check and said that less people are renting through the Rental Dept.
Lot 288 asked if the Rental Office through the Village website is any further along. Treas. Steffensen said not at this time because of the changes being done in the office.
Pat Burke asked for the audience to give a big hand to Treas. Steffensen for her work towards the newsletter.
Committee Reports
D&E-Dir. White said she has received all of the entertainment contracts. She thanked the summer people for their support.
Golf -N/A
Pool -Treas. Steffensen said since things have slowed they are going to start on the pool statues.
Hurricane -N/A
Unfinished Business
Treasurer Steffensen made a motion to update policy 3.5, so that boat trailer three day parking passes may be renew one time if the renter is staying a maximum of one week. Motion was approved.
Treas. Steffensen said that Hurricane Alex's final cost to the Village was $2,789.
Dir. White asked VP Pelletier where are we going with this dredging issue. VP Pelletier said the Board had talked originally about doing some type of action in September, but I now recommend that the Board mail each owner a letter or post card, asking for a yes or no answer on dredging instead of the Board asking for a show of hands. He said this way we have documentation to prove that our actions are in line with what the majority want. Dir. Gagan wanted to owners to provide input on trouble areas . VP Pelletier also wanted to make it clear that only the middle of the canals would be dredge and not under the boat lifts. VP Pelletier wanted owners to know that at mean (medium) tide Dir. Gagan’s 24’ boat traveled through all the canals and got mudded up in only three locations. VP Pelletier said that we all know the need to maintain our canals but with this economy, do owners want to do it now? Motion was approved to send letters or post card to owners.
VP Pelletier talked a little about the recent road repairs and wanted to make sure a letter is sent to the patch work contractor, telling him that the Village will not pay him his final one third of the money unless he finishes the work properly.
New Business
Dir. White brought up the parking violations on Lot 70. The decision was that his will be addressed by sending them a letter from the Board.
Lot 714 motion for a variance was turned down.
Dir. Guerra thanked Liz Deitrick for her earlier comments and said he was going to change his mind about looking for new bids. He did want to establish a new Security Committee that would work with management. Motion for a new security committee was approved.
Other
Treas. Steffensen made it clear that the 11pm quiet time in our Park is everywhere except for activities in the Rec. Hall. This became an issue after an owner complained about karaoke noise at the Pavilion. There was some discussion on how quiet does quiet time have to be and ended up being left open for later discussions.
Dir. Guerra said there is still this problem about canopies that has not yet been addressed. This ended up with the Board needing further time to rethink and discuss in the Sept. meeting.
VP Pelletier said the parking lot lines need painted and Armando said he has already bought the paint.
The Securitas Manager said he has made a working document that will be reviewed each month by his staff .
VP Pelletier said there will be a Saturday evening buffet and Sunday omelet breakfast at the Rec. Hall for Labor Day weekend.
VP Pelletier said the Board is going into an executive session for information gathering.
Adjourn
Read more...
Thursday, August 19, 2010
August Coffee with the Directors
Pledge of Allegiance
Comments from the Box – Dir. Pelletier
The Fishers (no lot#) said the Fri. Night Chicken sign on the main drag is beyond trashy.
The Fishers (no lot#) said the Fri. Night Chicken sign on the main drag is beyond trashy.
Director Comments
Treasurer Steffensen had a problem about the June’s minutes not being approved yet.
Treasurer Steffensen had a problem about the June’s minutes not being approved yet.
Audience Comments
Lot 828 thought the fountain looked really good in the miniature golf area. The comments, minutes, and financials were being taken from the Village library.
No name or Lot # Owner suggested the Board ask at the beginning of each meeting if there are any newcomers in the audience and if so, introduce themselves to the newcomers along with their positions.
SC120 said there are still problems with the pool on Monday and Tuesday. Dir. Pelletier said it was due to volume, but the lot owner was adamant that it's the pool. She also said that no one seems to be attending to the pool on those days. The GM said this had been brought to his attention and he will take care of it.
Lot 834 asked if the tent structure in her neighbor’s yard is going to be taken care of as promised. Evidently the frame to a canopy has been left standing for years.
No name or lot # said no one is attending to the pools on Monday and thinks it’s better to not change another employee’s schedule to solve the problem but instead make the employee scheduled for that day do his job.
Director Guerra chastised at length the security manager. This is the same person who has attended both the Coffee and Regular Meetings since taking over that position. He did this to make sure to address instantly any security problems. Director Guerra and Director Gagan after the censure talked about looking at other Security Companies for our Village.
Lot 828 wished the Board would entertain the thought in moving the guard house to the north side of the swing bridge. Pat Burke yelled you can’t do that because it is against the law to stop Sun Harbor people. The owner then asked the Board to please look at what he said and not listen to what is not true. Burke yelled that is what the Village attorney said. VP Pelletier said the Board will review it.
Lot 834 complained about a lot having too many people staying overnight.
Lot S asked when quiet time in the Park started because she had a problem with the last Karaoke party at the Pavilion. When finding out quiet hour was at midnight during the summer, the owner asked if quiet hour could be changed to an earlier time or possibly move Karaoke indoors.
SC 57 complimented our GM on this year's Village Grill and chicken nights.
President Halback asked if anyone in the audience knows someone named Jack Collins. Pat Burke said she did and gave her pointed view. The President said he received an email from the Village attorney that this man supposedly is entering a federal lawsuit against the Village or the swing bridge, or both, along with Port Isabel, the Laguna Water District and whoever else there is out there. Pat Burke yelled, and a prostitute to which no one seemed to know exactly what she meant.
VP Pelletier said there will be an executive meeting at 11:30 today in preparation for next Wednesday's litigation with Arroyo Cable .
Lot 828 thought the fountain looked really good in the miniature golf area. The comments, minutes, and financials were being taken from the Village library.
No name or Lot # Owner suggested the Board ask at the beginning of each meeting if there are any newcomers in the audience and if so, introduce themselves to the newcomers along with their positions.
SC120 said there are still problems with the pool on Monday and Tuesday. Dir. Pelletier said it was due to volume, but the lot owner was adamant that it's the pool. She also said that no one seems to be attending to the pool on those days. The GM said this had been brought to his attention and he will take care of it.
Lot 834 asked if the tent structure in her neighbor’s yard is going to be taken care of as promised. Evidently the frame to a canopy has been left standing for years.
No name or lot # said no one is attending to the pools on Monday and thinks it’s better to not change another employee’s schedule to solve the problem but instead make the employee scheduled for that day do his job.
Director Guerra chastised at length the security manager. This is the same person who has attended both the Coffee and Regular Meetings since taking over that position. He did this to make sure to address instantly any security problems. Director Guerra and Director Gagan after the censure talked about looking at other Security Companies for our Village.
Lot 828 wished the Board would entertain the thought in moving the guard house to the north side of the swing bridge. Pat Burke yelled you can’t do that because it is against the law to stop Sun Harbor people. The owner then asked the Board to please look at what he said and not listen to what is not true. Burke yelled that is what the Village attorney said. VP Pelletier said the Board will review it.
Lot 834 complained about a lot having too many people staying overnight.
Lot S asked when quiet time in the Park started because she had a problem with the last Karaoke party at the Pavilion. When finding out quiet hour was at midnight during the summer, the owner asked if quiet hour could be changed to an earlier time or possibly move Karaoke indoors.
SC 57 complimented our GM on this year's Village Grill and chicken nights.
President Halback asked if anyone in the audience knows someone named Jack Collins. Pat Burke said she did and gave her pointed view. The President said he received an email from the Village attorney that this man supposedly is entering a federal lawsuit against the Village or the swing bridge, or both, along with Port Isabel, the Laguna Water District and whoever else there is out there. Pat Burke yelled, and a prostitute to which no one seemed to know exactly what she meant.
VP Pelletier said there will be an executive meeting at 11:30 today in preparation for next Wednesday's litigation with Arroyo Cable .
Workshop
VP Pelletier started the workshop conversing with Dir. Gagan and Guerra, saying that it always seems that security last about two or three years and then you have to make a change. It’s been that way all these years I’ve been here said VP Pelletier. Dir. Gagan said sad, sad and Dir. Guerra said I just want them to do their job. Pres. Halbach said if you want to bring it up at the meeting next week, do so.
VP Pelletier said Lot 714 is requesting a variance and gave the info to the Board members.
Treas. Steffensen said the approval for the Hurricane changes will need to be on the agenda. She brought up an article found in USA that Texas passed a law this year that people who violate mandatory evacuations can now be arrested.
Dir. White said our Board has sent Lot 70 letters that they were parking too many vehicles on their lot and wondered if this needs to be put on the agenda. A letter from the lawyer was decided upon followed by long discussions of vehicles parking illegally in our Village.
Dir. White asked if there was any progress on the dredging bids. Pres. Halbach mentioned he was trying to talk to Port Isabel to use the dredging rig they supposely purchased. The answer was not much progress.
Treas. Steffensen brought up the problem in having three day boat trailers parking passes for five day fishing tournaments. The GM said there’s the same problem weekly renters. This may be on the agenda.
VP Pelletier made the suggestion to have a certified letter be sent by the Sect. to notify the asphalt contractor that he has 30 days to finish his work correctly or not be paid the last one third of the money.
VP Pelletier started the workshop conversing with Dir. Gagan and Guerra, saying that it always seems that security last about two or three years and then you have to make a change. It’s been that way all these years I’ve been here said VP Pelletier. Dir. Gagan said sad, sad and Dir. Guerra said I just want them to do their job. Pres. Halbach said if you want to bring it up at the meeting next week, do so.
VP Pelletier said Lot 714 is requesting a variance and gave the info to the Board members.
Treas. Steffensen said the approval for the Hurricane changes will need to be on the agenda. She brought up an article found in USA that Texas passed a law this year that people who violate mandatory evacuations can now be arrested.
Dir. White said our Board has sent Lot 70 letters that they were parking too many vehicles on their lot and wondered if this needs to be put on the agenda. A letter from the lawyer was decided upon followed by long discussions of vehicles parking illegally in our Village.
Dir. White asked if there was any progress on the dredging bids. Pres. Halbach mentioned he was trying to talk to Port Isabel to use the dredging rig they supposely purchased. The answer was not much progress.
Treas. Steffensen brought up the problem in having three day boat trailers parking passes for five day fishing tournaments. The GM said there’s the same problem weekly renters. This may be on the agenda.
VP Pelletier made the suggestion to have a certified letter be sent by the Sect. to notify the asphalt contractor that he has 30 days to finish his work correctly or not be paid the last one third of the money.
Adjourned
Read more...
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
OWNERSHIP
At the August 2009 Coffee Meeting the Board admitted confusion on Village ownership while revising the Rec. Hall rules and rates. The meeting ended with the Board saying that they would work to clarify this. Now after a year, many feel it’s time.
Dealing with an owner eligibility situation months prior to this August confusion, the 2009 Election Committee exclusively used the Village Attorney's opinion saying that our Village Bylaws describe a Life Estate remainderman as being a current owner who’s eligible for a director’s position.
Does one have to be a current Village owner in order to be a director? The Declaration of Covenants and Bylaws are vague, but first sentence we see on a director’s application is pretty clear when saying “I, AS LIVOA OWNER, WOULD LIKE TO….”
This opinion by this attorney was not supported by a salvo of pages containing irrefutable facts surrounded by plain examples. There were no legal like paradigms articulated within neither a one page dossier nor even a middling paragraph. Her undemanding view was supported by the single word “Vested" from Article II Section 2 of our Village Bylaws. Since “vested” has so many senses, we contend it was used catachrestically to form the view she expressed.
Article II Section 2 reads; “Transfer of Unit ownership, either voluntary or by operation of law, shall terminate membership in the Corporation, said membership is to become vested in the transferee. If Unit ownership is vested in more than one person, then all of the persons so owning said Unit shall be members eligible to hold office, attend meetings, etc., but as hereinafter indicated, the vote of a unit shall be cast by the “Voting Member." If Unit ownership is vested in a corporation, etc.
Each sentence clearly uses “Vested” as a verb (verb sense ="changing hands"). Since Vested does not modify any noun in these sentences, it seems odd that Counsel thinks "vested" is an adjective (adjective sense ="without contingency") and somehow surmises it reads that if a Life Estate remainderman's remainder interest is vested, then that person is eligible to run for director. The sentence in Article II Section 2 does not read “If Unit ownership has vested interest in more than one person" (vested interest=no contingency of a legal right to claim property). It reads “If Unit ownership is vested in more than one person" (vested=changing hands).
Reference
The three “Vested “words used in Article II Section 2 are verbs that mean; “To transfer, change of hands, or change owners” (e.g. the property vests in the trustees)
See sites:
Does one have to be a current Village owner in order to be a director? The Declaration of Covenants and Bylaws are vague, but first sentence we see on a director’s application is pretty clear when saying “I, AS LIVOA OWNER, WOULD LIKE TO….”
This opinion by this attorney was not supported by a salvo of pages containing irrefutable facts surrounded by plain examples. There were no legal like paradigms articulated within neither a one page dossier nor even a middling paragraph. Her undemanding view was supported by the single word “Vested" from Article II Section 2 of our Village Bylaws. Since “vested” has so many senses, we contend it was used catachrestically to form the view she expressed.
Article II Section 2 reads; “Transfer of Unit ownership, either voluntary or by operation of law, shall terminate membership in the Corporation, said membership is to become vested in the transferee. If Unit ownership is vested in more than one person, then all of the persons so owning said Unit shall be members eligible to hold office, attend meetings, etc., but as hereinafter indicated, the vote of a unit shall be cast by the “Voting Member." If Unit ownership is vested in a corporation, etc.
Each sentence clearly uses “Vested” as a verb (verb sense ="changing hands"). Since Vested does not modify any noun in these sentences, it seems odd that Counsel thinks "vested" is an adjective (adjective sense ="without contingency") and somehow surmises it reads that if a Life Estate remainderman's remainder interest is vested, then that person is eligible to run for director. The sentence in Article II Section 2 does not read “If Unit ownership has vested interest in more than one person" (vested interest=no contingency of a legal right to claim property). It reads “If Unit ownership is vested in more than one person" (vested=changing hands).
Reference
The three “Vested “words used in Article II Section 2 are verbs that mean; “To transfer, change of hands, or change owners” (e.g. the property vests in the trustees)
See sites:
Reference
The word “Vested” used in the attorney’s opinion is an adjective meaning; “Fixed, absolute, or without contingency, e.g. A vested right."
See site:
The word “Vested” used in the attorney’s opinion is an adjective meaning; “Fixed, absolute, or without contingency, e.g. A vested right."
See site:
Below is overwhelming information that proves a Life Estate remainderman owns only an undeniable inheriting right to property in the yet unfulfilled future.
You will find that there are always two distinct and separate property possessions in a life estate (present & future), with future ownerships staying vested with the remainderman until a certain event happens, usually the death of the present property possessor called the Life Tenant. Every reference has their web site for its authenticity.
Aged exemption (ownership requirement) (remainderman) — Real Property Tax Law, § 467:
Since the holder of a life estate is deemed the owner of real property for purposes of taxation, and the remainderman has only a future interest in the property, which will ripen into ownership only on the death of the life tenant,
You will find that there are always two distinct and separate property possessions in a life estate (present & future), with future ownerships staying vested with the remainderman until a certain event happens, usually the death of the present property possessor called the Life Tenant. Every reference has their web site for its authenticity.
Aged exemption (ownership requirement) (remainderman) — Real Property Tax Law, § 467:
Since the holder of a life estate is deemed the owner of real property for purposes of taxation, and the remainderman has only a future interest in the property, which will ripen into ownership only on the death of the life tenant,
We have previously stated that a life tenant should be considered the title owner for purposes of determining eligibility for this exemption (1 Op.Counsel SBEA Nos. 34 and 59); these opinions are in keeping with a series of judicial determinations that a life tenant is deemed the owner of the property so held by him for taxation purposes.
One such judicial decision is found in the case of In re McCarty's Estate, 158 Misc. 287, 285 N.Y.S. 641. There the court stated (at p. 642):
It is familiar law that during his life the life tenant is the exclusive owner of the land so held by him, with the exclusive right to its possession, control, and enjoyment, subject only to certain well-defined limitations or duties; the owner of the reversion or remainder in fee has no present right of enjoyment, no tangible and physical ownership of the land, but has a future incorporeal interest or estate in the land which will ripen into ownership of the land itself on the death of the life tenant. By statute it is provided that a life estate shall continue to be termed an estate freehold. Real Property Law, § 33. (emphasis supplied)
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/legal/opinions/v4/57.htm
North Carolina Bar Association
Elder Law Section
Remainder interests
If you own a remainder interest, you are called the "remainderman." A remainder interest is a future interest. For example, the person who inherits a remainder interest does not have a right to possess or use the property until the life estate ends, usually upon the death of the life tenant.
http://www.ncbar.org/download/planningYourEstate/property_ownership.html#Life%20estates
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jack M Payne, director, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Life Estate is created when a property owner deeds property to an heir but first reserves a life es¬tate for a third party. The recipient of the life estate owns the property for the duration of his/her life but cannot transfer the property upon death because it has already been deeded to an heir. Property owned in life estate will avoid probate because the owner has no right to transfer the property on death; however, because the owner had full use and enjoyment of the property during life, it will be included in his/her taxable estate. The heir ac¬quires legal interest in the property after the death of the owner of the life estate. The heir is called a “remainderman” and his/her remainder interest can be pledged, transferred, or attached. Also, the remainderman acquires a stepped-up basis on the death of the life tenant.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/bfc/pubs/BFC8RealProperty.pdf
By Law Offices of Linnea J. Levine, P.C.
A remainderman is a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit property upon the termination of the estate of the former owner.
A legal life estate in real property can be created by conveying the property by a deed which carves out the life estate for the grantor and creates a "remainder interest" (Def. commercial law interest in somebody else's estate: an interest in an estate that passes to somebody only after a prior interest terminates, e.g. when the current holder of the estate dies) by which the "remaindermen" receive full ownership (fee simple) immediately upon the death of the life tenant (grantor).
The life tenant remains the owner for purposes of real property tax administration, and therefore continues to qualify for the STAR exemption, veteran's benefits, and any other property tax reduction available to the "owner" of the property.
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Sep/1/130818.html
Life Estate is created when a property owner deeds property to an heir but first reserves a life estate for a third party. The recipient of the life estate owns the property for the duration of his/her life but cannot transfer the property upon death because it has already been deeded to an heir. Property owned in life estate will avoid probate because the owner has no right to transfer the property on death; however, because the owner had full use and enjoyment of the property during life, it will be included in his/her taxable estate. The heir acquires legal interest in the property after the death of the owner of the life estate. The heir is called a “remainderman” and his/her remainder interest can be pledged, transferred, or attached. Also, the remainderman acquires a stepped-up basis on the death of the life tenant.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/bfc/pubs/BFC8RealProperty.pdf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A life estate is a concept used in common law and statutory law to designate the ownership of land for the duration of a person's life. In legal terms it is an estate in real property that ends at death. The owner of a life estate is called a "life tenant". At death, the property involved in a life estate typically falls into the ownership of the remainderman named in the life estate agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_estate
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group
A vested remainder is a future interest to an ascertained person, with the certainty or possibility of becoming a present interest subject only to the expiration of the preceding property interests. For a remainder to be effective, it must be contained in the same instrument of conveyance (document, such as a deed) that grants the present interest to another person.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Remainder
The Life Estate Deed Elder Law & Estate Planning Law Offices of Brian T. Treacy, LLC by Brian Treacy - Posted on 15 February 2009
A typical Life Estate deed legally transfers the future ownership in real estate, and reserves rights of current ownership in the person making the conveyance. This is different than an outright transfer where no strings attach to the person making the conveyance. A “life estate” is similar to the concept to a timeshare. With a timeshare, a person owns the right to use property during a designated period of ownership. An owner of a life estate has the right to live in the property for a lifetime. The lifetime right automatically terminates upon death when persons designated in the deed become outright owners.
A Life Estate Deed used for basic Estate Planning is a way to transfer ownership of property at death in the same way one might want to in a Will. The benefit of this transfer is that the Life Estate deed AVOIDS PROBATE. Thus, it is a simple, and inexpensive, way to transfer ownership of the home at death.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A remainderman is a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit property upon the termination of the estate of the former owner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remainderman
Life Estate Ownership of Real Estate
Law Offices of Susan M. Mooney, P.C. By Attorney Susan M. Mooney
With a Life Estate form of ownership of real estate there are two separate categories of owners of the property:
Life Tenant Owner:
The Lifetime Owner of the property with absolute and exclusive right to use of the property during their lifetime, which expires automatically upon the death of the last to die of the Life Tenant(s). The Life Tenant can be one individual or there can be joint Life Tenants. The Life Tenant remains responsible for real estate taxes, insurance, and ordinary maintenance costs related to the property. The Life Tenant is entitled to all income from the property in the event that the property is rented. In the event the Life Tenant no longer wishes to reside at the property, or if they are unable to reside there, the property can be rented and the rental income is the rightful property of the Life Tenant. If the property is a multifamily dwelling, all rental income is payable to the Life Tenant Owner.
Remainder Owner:
The Remainder Owner(s) automatically become owner(s) of the subject real estate immediately upon the death of the last to die of the Life Tenant Owner(s). The Remainder Owner has no right to use of the property or income from the property during the Life Tenant’s lifetime. The Remainder Owner is not responsible for payment of taxes, insurance, or maintenance of the property during the Life Tenant’s lifetime. The Remainder Owner may be one individual, or more than one person.
http://www.susanmooney.com/estate-link5.htm
Encyclopedia Britannica –subject Remainder property law
In Anglo-American law, a future interest held by one person in the property of another, which, upon the happening of a certain event, will become his own? The holder of this interest is known in legal terms as a remainderman.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497527/remainder
From “All Business” a D&B company By Kosty, Lauren Publication: The Tax Adviser Date: Thursday, November 1 2007
Gifting a remainder interest requires the property ownership to be divided into two separate interests: a life estate and a remainder interest. A life estate gives the holder the power to retain ownership until death. If the taxpayer is married, the life estate can be structured to last until the second spouse’s death. A remainder interest gives the holder the right to take ownership when the life estate has ended.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/tax-law-income-tax/5524079-1.html
American Commercial Law Series, by Alfred W. Bays
Sec. 77 The Vested Remainder
A vested remainder is one, the right to enjoy which (after the termination of the particular estate) has already become certain.
http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/American-Commercial-Law-Series/Chapter-12-Estates-In-Remainder-And-Reversion-And-Executor.html
Lawyers.com
A life estate can help to avoid probate and ensure that the intended heir gets the property. It also has certain tax benefits, such as reducing estate tax and other taxes.
A life estate gives you the right to live in, use and enjoy property during your lifetime. The person granted the life estate is called a life tenant. The person granting the life estate and the actual owner is called the grantor. For the tenant, the ownership in this type of property is temporary and ends upon death. Therefore, the property can't be left to the life tenant's heirs. Where does the property go? It goes back to the grantor or someone else that the grantor designates.
Remainder interests are future interests in property. For example, Victor decides to give Bob a life estate, and Carolyn a remainder interest in his property. What will happen? Bob will get to use the property for life and when he dies Carolyn gets ownership of the property.
http://wills-probate.lawyers.com/Life-Estates.html
US LEGAL.com
"Remainder interest” In general terms, a remainder interest refers to someone with a future interest in an asset, a vested interest that becomes effective at a specified future date.
"Remainder interest" (Def. commercial law) interest in somebody else's estate: an interest in an estate that passes to somebody only after a prior interest terminates.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/remainder-interest/
Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professors in Agricultural Law, (515) 294-4076.
A common estate planning technique involves the use of a life estate coupled with a remainder. Under this arrangement, a person leaves property to someone else for life (known as the life estate holder) with the property passing to another person (known as the remainder holder) at the death of the holder of the life estate.
A remainder interest is a future interest. That means the remainder interest holder has an interest in the property, but does not yet have possession of the property.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/mceowen/McEowOpinionsOct06b.html
Texas Administrative Code- Title 1 ADMINISTRATION- Part 15 TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION- Chapter 358 MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY- Subchapter D RESOURCES- Rule 358.441 Real Property
(1) Life estates. A life estate provides a person, for the person's lifetime, certain rights in a property, while transferring ownership of the property to another person. The duration of a life estate is measured by the lifetime of the owner of the life estate, or by the occurrence of some event. The contract establishing a life estate, however, may restrict one or more rights of the owner of the life estate. The owner of a life estate does not have fee simple title to the property nor the right to sell the entire property. In most situations, the owner of a life estate has the right to:
(A) Possess the property;
(B) Use the property;
(C) Get profits from the property; and
(D) Sell his or her life estate interest.
(2) Remainder interest. A remainder interest, which is created when a life estate is established, gives a person owning a remainder interest the right to ownership of the property upon the death of the owner of the life estate.
http://secure.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=15&ch=358&rl=441
(2/18/99); 1-26 Matthew Bender & Co., California Wills & Trusts § 26.07.)
In general, the creation, transfer or termination of a life estate is a change in ownership. (Rule 462.060, subdivision (a).) Any vesting or right to possession or enjoyment of a remainder interest, which occurs upon the termination of a life estate or other similar precedent property interest (except as provided in subdivision (d) of section 62 and section 63) is a change in ownership unless an exclusion applies. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 61, subd. (g).)
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/220_0457.pdf
Published in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, June 23, 2003.
Perhaps there is one thing that is simple about a life estate – the life tenant’s “estate” (the right of possession, rents, or “profits” from the property) lasts for the duration of the measuring life, but that is about the extent of its simplicity.
Remaindermen generally do not have the right to partition since they do not have a possessory interest.
http://www.bovelanga.com/publications/news_briefs/trusts_and_estates_forum/Trusts%20and%20Estates%20The%20Meaning%20of%20Life.pdf
Principle of Property Law by Samantha J. Hepburn-The Doctrine of Tenure and Estates
A remainder interest could not take effect prior to the natural determination of the prior freehold estate. A remainder interest is a successive rather than a primary interest. It can only take effect in the future when the prior limited estate has been extinguished naturally. The justification for this is that a reminder interest cannot interfere with or interrupt the ownership of the prior estate.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DK-UtVNRfO8C&pg =PA59&lpg=PA59&ots=uIv2QZIUDs&dq=remainder+interest+law&output=html
Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: American Law Encyclopedia Vol. 8
A vested remainder is a future interest to an ascertained person, with the certainty or possibility of becoming a present interest subject only to the expiration of the preceding property interests. http://law.jrank.org/pages/9756/Remainder.html
The Supreme Court of Colorado recently reached the same conclusion in Beach v. Beach, 74 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003), holding that partition could not lie by a life tenant against the remaindermen:
Partition applies only to concurrent interests, meaning interests that are held simultaneously in time. Thus, a present life estate cannot be partitioned from a future remainder interest because the holders of the two interests possess the property successively, rather than concurrently.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1031224.pdf
Official Portal for North Dakota State Government state.nd.us/human services/policy manuals/Medicaid Forms of Asset Ownership 510-05-70-20(Revised 2/04 ML #2900) (N.D.A.C. Section 75-02-02.1-29 and 75-02-02.1-32)
Life estate and remainder interests.
Real property interests may be divided in terms of the time when the owner of the interest is entitled to possession of the property. The owner of a life estate (life tenant) is entitled to possession of the real property for a period measured by the lifetime of a specific person or persons. A life tenant has the right to use the property and is entitled to any rents or profits from the property. A life tenant may sell the life estate, but such a sale does not change the identity of the person or persons whose lifetimes measure the duration of the life estate. A life estate may be referred to as a "life lease".
When a life estate is created, a right to possess the property, after the death of the life tenant, must also be created. That right is called a "remainder interest," and the owner of that right is called a "remainderman." Upon the death of the life tenant, the remainderman owns the property. The remainderman is not entitled to possess or use the property until the death of the life tenant. The remainderman does have the right to sell the remainder interest.
http://www.state.nd.us/humanservices/policymanuals/medicaid-508/510_05_70_20.htm
Thinking of proper protocol, I had the 2010 Election Committee review this and made clear that my intention was not to attack or change Pat Burke’s tenure, but to keep this from being used as a precedent by all future Life Estate remaindermen who will instantly receive ownership status and enjoy all the Association membership privileges while they wait to take possession of their future LIV property, which by the way could take decades. The Committee’s response was that they had no authority to neither overrule the previous committee’s decision nor make new Village policy.
Our Bylaws say current owners only qualified for Association Membership privileges. Those privileges include speaking at our board meetings, accessing LIV records, the right to vote, holding office, using an owner’s car pass, the use of the owner’s lounge, having discounted golf green fees/Rec. hall rates, free swim bands, sponsoring non owners, and etc.
It should be noted that there was an owner in 2008 denied the opportunity to speak at a meeting because he had recently sold his property. The Board declared at this meeting, once you sell your property you lose your Owner Association rights, including the privilege to speak on issues. That leads me to this question. Shouldn’t FUTURE owners be treated the same as PAST owners since neither are PRESENT owners?
In closing, one must ask if Article II Section 2 of the By-Laws supports the attorney’s opinion. It is the sincere hope that the information above will help to erase what we feel is a wrongful precedent brought about by the ruling of the 2009 Election Committee and make it known to the Board that a clearer definition is needed to describe what constitutes the privilege of being a “current” Village owner.
Any Comments?
A remainderman is a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit property upon the termination of the estate of the former owner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remainderman
Life Estate Ownership of Real Estate
Law Offices of Susan M. Mooney, P.C. By Attorney Susan M. Mooney
With a Life Estate form of ownership of real estate there are two separate categories of owners of the property:
Life Tenant Owner:
The Lifetime Owner of the property with absolute and exclusive right to use of the property during their lifetime, which expires automatically upon the death of the last to die of the Life Tenant(s). The Life Tenant can be one individual or there can be joint Life Tenants. The Life Tenant remains responsible for real estate taxes, insurance, and ordinary maintenance costs related to the property. The Life Tenant is entitled to all income from the property in the event that the property is rented. In the event the Life Tenant no longer wishes to reside at the property, or if they are unable to reside there, the property can be rented and the rental income is the rightful property of the Life Tenant. If the property is a multifamily dwelling, all rental income is payable to the Life Tenant Owner.
Remainder Owner:
The Remainder Owner(s) automatically become owner(s) of the subject real estate immediately upon the death of the last to die of the Life Tenant Owner(s). The Remainder Owner has no right to use of the property or income from the property during the Life Tenant’s lifetime. The Remainder Owner is not responsible for payment of taxes, insurance, or maintenance of the property during the Life Tenant’s lifetime. The Remainder Owner may be one individual, or more than one person.
http://www.susanmooney.com/estate-link5.htm
Encyclopedia Britannica –subject Remainder property law
In Anglo-American law, a future interest held by one person in the property of another, which, upon the happening of a certain event, will become his own? The holder of this interest is known in legal terms as a remainderman.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497527/remainder
From “All Business” a D&B company By Kosty, Lauren Publication: The Tax Adviser Date: Thursday, November 1 2007
Gifting a remainder interest requires the property ownership to be divided into two separate interests: a life estate and a remainder interest. A life estate gives the holder the power to retain ownership until death. If the taxpayer is married, the life estate can be structured to last until the second spouse’s death. A remainder interest gives the holder the right to take ownership when the life estate has ended.
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/tax-law-income-tax/5524079-1.html
American Commercial Law Series, by Alfred W. Bays
Sec. 77 The Vested Remainder
A vested remainder is one, the right to enjoy which (after the termination of the particular estate) has already become certain.
http://chestofbooks.com/business/law/American-Commercial-Law-Series/Chapter-12-Estates-In-Remainder-And-Reversion-And-Executor.html
Lawyers.com
A life estate can help to avoid probate and ensure that the intended heir gets the property. It also has certain tax benefits, such as reducing estate tax and other taxes.
A life estate gives you the right to live in, use and enjoy property during your lifetime. The person granted the life estate is called a life tenant. The person granting the life estate and the actual owner is called the grantor. For the tenant, the ownership in this type of property is temporary and ends upon death. Therefore, the property can't be left to the life tenant's heirs. Where does the property go? It goes back to the grantor or someone else that the grantor designates.
Remainder interests are future interests in property. For example, Victor decides to give Bob a life estate, and Carolyn a remainder interest in his property. What will happen? Bob will get to use the property for life and when he dies Carolyn gets ownership of the property.
http://wills-probate.lawyers.com/Life-Estates.html
US LEGAL.com
"Remainder interest” In general terms, a remainder interest refers to someone with a future interest in an asset, a vested interest that becomes effective at a specified future date.
"Remainder interest" (Def. commercial law) interest in somebody else's estate: an interest in an estate that passes to somebody only after a prior interest terminates.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/remainder-interest/
Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professors in Agricultural Law, (515) 294-4076.
A common estate planning technique involves the use of a life estate coupled with a remainder. Under this arrangement, a person leaves property to someone else for life (known as the life estate holder) with the property passing to another person (known as the remainder holder) at the death of the holder of the life estate.
A remainder interest is a future interest. That means the remainder interest holder has an interest in the property, but does not yet have possession of the property.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/mceowen/McEowOpinionsOct06b.html
Texas Administrative Code- Title 1 ADMINISTRATION- Part 15 TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION- Chapter 358 MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY- Subchapter D RESOURCES- Rule 358.441 Real Property
(1) Life estates. A life estate provides a person, for the person's lifetime, certain rights in a property, while transferring ownership of the property to another person. The duration of a life estate is measured by the lifetime of the owner of the life estate, or by the occurrence of some event. The contract establishing a life estate, however, may restrict one or more rights of the owner of the life estate. The owner of a life estate does not have fee simple title to the property nor the right to sell the entire property. In most situations, the owner of a life estate has the right to:
(A) Possess the property;
(B) Use the property;
(C) Get profits from the property; and
(D) Sell his or her life estate interest.
(2) Remainder interest. A remainder interest, which is created when a life estate is established, gives a person owning a remainder interest the right to ownership of the property upon the death of the owner of the life estate.
http://secure.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=15&ch=358&rl=441
(2/18/99); 1-26 Matthew Bender & Co., California Wills & Trusts § 26.07.)
In general, the creation, transfer or termination of a life estate is a change in ownership. (Rule 462.060, subdivision (a).) Any vesting or right to possession or enjoyment of a remainder interest, which occurs upon the termination of a life estate or other similar precedent property interest (except as provided in subdivision (d) of section 62 and section 63) is a change in ownership unless an exclusion applies. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 61, subd. (g).)
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/220_0457.pdf
Published in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, June 23, 2003.
Perhaps there is one thing that is simple about a life estate – the life tenant’s “estate” (the right of possession, rents, or “profits” from the property) lasts for the duration of the measuring life, but that is about the extent of its simplicity.
Remaindermen generally do not have the right to partition since they do not have a possessory interest.
http://www.bovelanga.com/publications/news_briefs/trusts_and_estates_forum/Trusts%20and%20Estates%20The%20Meaning%20of%20Life.pdf
Principle of Property Law by Samantha J. Hepburn-The Doctrine of Tenure and Estates
A remainder interest could not take effect prior to the natural determination of the prior freehold estate. A remainder interest is a successive rather than a primary interest. It can only take effect in the future when the prior limited estate has been extinguished naturally. The justification for this is that a reminder interest cannot interfere with or interrupt the ownership of the prior estate.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DK-UtVNRfO8C&pg =PA59&lpg=PA59&ots=uIv2QZIUDs&dq=remainder+interest+law&output=html
Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: American Law Encyclopedia Vol. 8
A vested remainder is a future interest to an ascertained person, with the certainty or possibility of becoming a present interest subject only to the expiration of the preceding property interests. http://law.jrank.org/pages/9756/Remainder.html
The Supreme Court of Colorado recently reached the same conclusion in Beach v. Beach, 74 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003), holding that partition could not lie by a life tenant against the remaindermen:
Partition applies only to concurrent interests, meaning interests that are held simultaneously in time. Thus, a present life estate cannot be partitioned from a future remainder interest because the holders of the two interests possess the property successively, rather than concurrently.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1031224.pdf
Official Portal for North Dakota State Government state.nd.us/human services/policy manuals/Medicaid Forms of Asset Ownership 510-05-70-20(Revised 2/04 ML #2900) (N.D.A.C. Section 75-02-02.1-29 and 75-02-02.1-32)
Life estate and remainder interests.
Real property interests may be divided in terms of the time when the owner of the interest is entitled to possession of the property. The owner of a life estate (life tenant) is entitled to possession of the real property for a period measured by the lifetime of a specific person or persons. A life tenant has the right to use the property and is entitled to any rents or profits from the property. A life tenant may sell the life estate, but such a sale does not change the identity of the person or persons whose lifetimes measure the duration of the life estate. A life estate may be referred to as a "life lease".
When a life estate is created, a right to possess the property, after the death of the life tenant, must also be created. That right is called a "remainder interest," and the owner of that right is called a "remainderman." Upon the death of the life tenant, the remainderman owns the property. The remainderman is not entitled to possess or use the property until the death of the life tenant. The remainderman does have the right to sell the remainder interest.
http://www.state.nd.us/humanservices/policymanuals/medicaid-508/510_05_70_20.htm
Thinking of proper protocol, I had the 2010 Election Committee review this and made clear that my intention was not to attack or change Pat Burke’s tenure, but to keep this from being used as a precedent by all future Life Estate remaindermen who will instantly receive ownership status and enjoy all the Association membership privileges while they wait to take possession of their future LIV property, which by the way could take decades. The Committee’s response was that they had no authority to neither overrule the previous committee’s decision nor make new Village policy.
Our Bylaws say current owners only qualified for Association Membership privileges. Those privileges include speaking at our board meetings, accessing LIV records, the right to vote, holding office, using an owner’s car pass, the use of the owner’s lounge, having discounted golf green fees/Rec. hall rates, free swim bands, sponsoring non owners, and etc.
It should be noted that there was an owner in 2008 denied the opportunity to speak at a meeting because he had recently sold his property. The Board declared at this meeting, once you sell your property you lose your Owner Association rights, including the privilege to speak on issues. That leads me to this question. Shouldn’t FUTURE owners be treated the same as PAST owners since neither are PRESENT owners?
In closing, one must ask if Article II Section 2 of the By-Laws supports the attorney’s opinion. It is the sincere hope that the information above will help to erase what we feel is a wrongful precedent brought about by the ruling of the 2009 Election Committee and make it known to the Board that a clearer definition is needed to describe what constitutes the privilege of being a “current” Village owner.
Any Comments?
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)