HOA Shouldn't Have Started Lawsuit

The Summit's HOA shouldn't have started a lawsuit against me, according to the CC&Rs. But it did so, anyway.

The controlling section in the CC&Rs is in Article XIII, Section 13. It reads, in part,

"Section 10. Litigation. No judicial or administrative proceeding shall be commenced or prosecuted by the Association unless approved by a vote of seventy-five (75%) percent of the Voting Members. In the case of such a vote, and notwithstanding anything contained in this Declaration or the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws of the Association to the contrary, a Voting Member shall not vote in favor of bringing or prosecuting any such proceeding unless authorized to do so by a ‘vote of seventy-five (75%) percent of all Members of the Neighborhood represented by the Voting Member."

Section 10 lists four exceptions. This case is not one of them.

Upon information and belief, the Voting Members were not asked for approval.

Even if they had been, approval would not have been obtained.

Five neighborhoods, representing 530 Members (21.3% of Members), didn't even have a Voting Member before December 30, 2024, when the case was filed.

Other neighborhoods didn't have a legitimate Voting Member, because those "Voting Members" had "gotten signatures". They weren't elected by their neighbors, in compliance with the By-Laws.

Even more neighborhoods didn't have legitimate Voting Members, because they hadn't had Neighborhood Meetings for years. 

It would have been impossible to get 75% of each neighborhood's homeowners to approve a lawsuit. And it would have been impossible to get 75% of the Voting Members to approve.

The one legitimate Voting Member in the entire Association was not asked to approve the lawsuit.

Further, there is no record in the Minutes of any Board meeting that the Board ever approved the lawsuit.

So how did it happen? On what authority did Danny Trapp go to the lawyers and tell them to sue me in the name of the HOA?

This lawsuit will cost the HOA a lot of money it doesn't have. 

Maybe it's time (actually, it is past time) for the homeowners to realize they are NOT represented before the Board. Hold your Neighborhood Meetings. Elect a legitimate Voting Member.

Then legitimate Voting Members could tell the Directors to start complying with the By-Laws!

The Board should have raised the dues in November 2024. It needed to but didn't even vote on it. Will they have to do so now?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What? No trampolines?

OK, you trampoline fans. Are your rights and privileges being tramped on by your Board of Directors? The office sent out an email just before 2:00PM threatening you with a dreaded violation notice and the possibility of fines, if you dare to put a trampoline in your yard.  This is what the email from the office said,  " Please be advised that, pursuant to Section 13, Page 22, Article XII of the covenants, no structure of a temporary nature shall be placed upon any unit or any part of the properties. This includes, but is not limited to, tents, temporary gazebos, shacks, trailers, and any other structure of a temporary nature.  "Kindly note that trampolines are classified as temporary play equipment and, as such, are not permitted within the community. We ask that you ensure there is no trampoline present on your property to avoid receiving a violation notice and subsequent fines." What do the Covenants say? "Section 13. Tents. Trailers and Temporary Structures. Exce...
Read more

Open Letter to Barony Place "Voting Member"

An open letter to the "Voting Member" of Barony Place Neighborhood. Good morning, Billie, If you and/or an Alternate attended last night's board of directors meeting, will you please send out a recap of the meeting to Ann Stirlen and me (and to all the homeowners and residents in Barony Place)? About a dozen homeowners from throughout The Summit showed up for the board meeting  at the church  last night, only to learn from one person that it had been switched to Zoom, which allowed the board to meet in secret. Many of them had not received the email from the office that the board was (illegitimately) closing the meeting to homeowners. There are only about 1,800 (73%) email addresses of the 2,480 Members in the website database. I attempted to join the meeting on Zoom, as I am Attorney-in-Fact for Ann Stirlen, but I was not admitted to the meeting. The HOA's attorney has quoted a section in the By-Laws that she believes allows the Board to close the meetings. That spec...
Read more

Pet Peeve #1 - Tinted License Plate Covers

Image
  AO(Q?)H 152 My #1 pet peeve is heavily-tinted license plate covers. These are prohibited under South Carolina law (and by laws in many states), but my belief is that these drivers are seldom stopped.  These drivers can run red lights, speed, tailgate, even cause hit-and-run accidents, and witnesses can only say, "I couldn't see the license plate number." My solution? Troopers, deputies, and cops should stop these cars. Ticket the driver. Remove the license plate frame, tinted cover, and license plate as evidence. This will force the driver to have his car towed, because he cannot operate a motor vehicle on the roads without a license plate. Make it inconvenient and expensive. Drivers KNOW they are violating the law. They expect to get away with it, and they do. It's time for this to stop! Pet peeve #2: heavily-tinted front windows.
Read more