+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership (/showthread.php?tid=19034)
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 03-11-2018
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
From the Cabral reoprt:
By their ownership in the subdivision each individual lot owner is a member of the Association.
Not true. Membership in OLCA is based solely on the payment of the road fees, which is a legal issue in itself, but that is how the bylaws are written. She is quoting the structure of a "Planned Community Association", which OLCA is not.
I’m just having a look at my deed. It specifically states the premises of my property as consisting of the lot that I live on, as well as approx. 1/2400 of a lot that consists of every road in Orchidland. Assuming every other Orchidland owner has a similar description in the premises section of their deed. And I always thought that this ownership stake was the basis of my membership in OCLA. Since I’m legally obligated to maintain our collectively owned "lot" there is no way to bow out of said membership in the organization that was formed primarily to maintain that very lot. I may choose to forgo mandatory fees, but then the court prescribed remedies will be applied. No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA however, as far as I understand....
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - My 2 cents - 03-12-2018
No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA however, as far as I understand....
State law:
[§414D-81] Admission. (b) No person shall be admitted as a member without the person's consent.
Bylaws:
Section 1. QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS. There shall be only one class of membership in OLCA. Each person who is the owner of a lot in Orchidland Estates shall be entitled to membership upon full payment of all MRMA’s and any interest or liens due.
Using mandatory road fees as the basis for membership makes said membership mandatory, in violation of state law.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - kalakoa - 03-12-2018
approx. 1/2400 of a lot that consists of every road in Orchidland
TMK 160051650000, owned by HILO DEVELOPMENT INC, not OLCA...?
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - My 2 cents - 03-12-2018
Can I just do a quit claim on that portion of my deed?
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - kalakoa - 03-12-2018
Might be more interesting to figure out who actually owns the "roads lot" and what their obligations are.
Of course, this assumes there's any broad general interest in actually sorting out the "private subdivision" BS.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 03-12-2018
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
approx. 1/2400 of a lot that consists of every road in Orchidland
TMK 160051650000, owned by HILO DEVELOPMENT INC, not OLCA...?
Hilo Development Inc was disbanded when all the original lots were sold. They no longer own the road lot. We all collectively own it.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 03-12-2018
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
Can I just do a quit claim on that portion of my deed?
You have to quit claim it to someone else. Can’t just disavow it, AFAIK.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 03-12-2018
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA however, as far as I understand....
State law:
[§414D-81] Admission. (b) No person shall be admitted as a member without the person's consent.
Bylaws:
Section 1. QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS. There shall be only one class of membership in OLCA. Each person who is the owner of a lot in Orchidland Estates shall be entitled to membership upon full payment of all MRMA’s and any interest or liens due.
Using mandatory road fees as the basis for membership makes said membership mandatory, in violation of state law.
Yeah, except we all signed our mortgage docs and the attached deeds do spell out the road lot portion, and since a court judgement back in 1991 gave OCLA the legal authority to collect mandatory fees for upkeep of our collective property, an argument could be made that by voluntarily signing your mortgage docs (and thereby agreeing to purchase your property along with a portion of our collectively owned lot) you agreed to participate in the court ordered maintenance of the collective lot, hence you consented to OCLA membership. We all own the roads, therefore we share an obligation to maintain them. OCLA is the body duly recognized by the courts to administer that maintenance.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - My 2 cents - 03-12-2018
I was joking about the quit claim, but Kalakoa's point is valid. The county doesn't show my name or your name or anyone else's as owners of the road lot. County shows it to be owned by a company that was dissolved decades ago. To be accurate and fair, the county should be listing all 2400 property owners as road lot owners, updated each time a property changes hands. Cumbersome, yes. But they don't care that they screwed us with the sweetheart deal for the developers, why should we care if they screwed themselves in the process?
You said "No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA", I simply pointed out the law that says you can. The '92 judgment did not give OLCA the right to base membership on mandatory fees, thus making membership mandatory. This violates the statutes.
Is OLCA's primary purpose to maintain the roads? The Charter of Incorporation doesn't even mention the roads in the list of purposes, so...is this fraud against the state?
Our bylaws, in many more ways than stated here, are in conflict with state laws, our Charter of incorporation, and the '92 judgment (another can of worms). This makes collections extremely risky and it's all a product of the county violating its own laws with the sweetheart deal 59 years ago.
I got my Group W newsletter yesterday. I was happy to see that they are skeptical of Joy's bill, and are discussing the county's responsibility/liability. Quite different from previous boards, so good for them.
RE: Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership - DaVinci - 03-17-2018
quote:
Originally posted by My 2 cents
I was joking about the quit claim, but Kalakoa's point is valid. The county doesn't show my name or your name or anyone else's as owners of the road lot. County shows it to be owned by a company that was dissolved decades ago. To be accurate and fair, the county should be listing all 2400 property owners as road lot owners, updated each time a property changes hands. Cumbersome, yes. But they don't care that they screwed us with the sweetheart deal for the developers, why should we care if they screwed themselves in the process?
You said "No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA", I simply pointed out the law that says you can. The '92 judgment did not give OLCA the right to base membership on mandatory fees, thus making membership mandatory. This violates the statutes.
Is OLCA's primary purpose to maintain the roads? The Charter of Incorporation doesn't even mention the roads in the list of purposes, so...is this fraud against the state?
Our bylaws, in many more ways than stated here, are in conflict with state laws, our Charter of incorporation, and the '92 judgment (another can of worms). This makes collections extremely risky and it's all a product of the county violating its own laws with the sweetheart deal 59 years ago.
I got my Group W newsletter yesterday. I was happy to see that they are skeptical of Joy's bill, and are discussing the county's responsibility/liability. Quite different from previous boards, so good for them.
Agree that the original subdivision approved by Planning back in 1959 was short sighted, to say the least. I do however, believe that OCLA’s primary purpose is to maintain the roads. And the 92 judgement gave OCLA the right to assess fees from anyone who owned a portion of the "roads lot." So you "joined" when you closed on your property, which was a voluntary act on your part. That’s how it would be argued if you pressed the point. No statute violated on their side.
I also agree with you that Planning should be required to update their records with regard to the "roads lot" but they aren’t and that doesn’t change anything else. You still voluntarily bought your Orchidland property.
I got my Wirick newsletter too and was disappointed that they made no mention of the dispute or various means of remedy currently in the works. They seem to be claiming legitimacy prematurely. A transparent, up-front assessment would have been more welcome and would have given me more confidence that they actually have my interests at heart. As of this writing, I remain unconvinced.