Special Master recommends Orchidland receivership

[My 2 cents]

I do however, believe that OCLA’s primary purpose is to maintain the roads.

That seems to be the common belief. So why isn't it listed as such in the Charter of Incorporation? I agree that this has been the "PRIMARY PURPOSE" from the beginning and the folks that applied for and received the license to do business as a non-profit corporation had this in mind. The fact that all of the secondary purposes are listed in the charter and the primary purpose is not is cause for concern...or at least question.

So you "joined" when you closed on your property, which was a voluntary act on your part.

No, I didn't. I purchased in 1981, the written agreement at that time was voluntary membership which I declined because of the recent embezzlement. And what about the people who bought between 1959 and 1979? The association didn't even exist, so how could they have possibly joined? BTW, for 30+ years the association never provided any maintenance on my road. Not once. This was because my neighbor and I teamed up and did it ourselves, and kept it to a higher level than OLCA maintained roads. So it's not like I'm shunning my responsibilities. OLCA has a very long history of shady/illegal dealings, from the early embezzlement to the '87 and '91 class actions (seriously, the court docs show beyond a doubt that the main strategy was to keep the property owners from being properly represented or even informed that it was happening, HUGE violations of process, collusion, and deception of the court. '87 case was not successful with this strategy, '91 case was), to putting foreclosure into the bylaws to get a bank loan knowing that foreclosure was not allowed (bank fraud), to implementing foreclosure actions with this same knowledge, etc. Why would I want to be a part of this?

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.

Obviously the newsletter was printed before the recent hearing so it wouldn't contain any recent info. Currently the court is allowing the Wirick group to continue doing business and is unfreezing the bank accounts, so it appears that for now they are the legitimate board. I'm still not clear on exactly what the other claims are or what the trial a year from now is about. I wish someone who knows more about this would share.

[kalakoa]

the original subdivision approved by Planning back in 1959 was short sighted

The subdivisions were a scam, so it's only natural that they attract scammers.

It's long past time County was forced to fix the problem they created.

[DaVinci]

quote:

---

Originally posted by My 2 cents

I do however, believe that OCLA’s primary purpose is to maintain the roads.

That seems to be the common belief. So why isn't it listed as such in the Charter of Incorporation? I agree that this has been the "PRIMARY PURPOSE" from the beginning and the folks that applied for and received the license to do business as a non-profit corporation had this in mind. The fact that all of the secondary purposes are listed in the charter and the primary purpose is not is cause for concern...or at least question.

So you "joined" when you closed on your property, which was a voluntary act on your part.

No, I didn't. I purchased in 1981, the written agreement at that time was voluntary membership which I declined because of the recent embezzlement. And what about the people who bought between 1959 and 1979? The association didn't even exist, so how could they have possibly joined? BTW, for 30+ years the association never provided any maintenance on my road. Not once. This was because my neighbor and I teamed up and did it ourselves, and kept it to a higher level than OLCA maintained roads. So it's not like I'm shunning my responsibilities. OLCA has a very long history of shady/illegal dealings, from the early embezzlement to the '87 and '91 class actions (seriously, the court docs show beyond a doubt that the main strategy was to keep the property owners from being properly represented or even informed that it was happening, HUGE violations of process, collusion, and deception of the court. '87 case was not successful with this strategy, '91 case was), to putting foreclosure into the bylaws to get a bank loan knowing that foreclosure was not allowed (bank fraud), to implementing foreclosure actions with this same knowledge, etc. Why would I want to be a part of this?

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.

Obviously the newsletter was printed before the recent hearing so it wouldn't contain any recent info. Currently the court is allowing the Wirick group to continue doing business and is unfreezing the bank accounts, so it appears that for now they are the legitimate board. I'm still not clear on exactly what the other claims are or what the trial a year from now is about. I wish someone who knows more about this would share.

---

You might have an argument. I don’t, having purchased after the judgement. However, owing to your firsthand knowledge of all the shady OCLA dealings over the decades, I’m curious as to why you seem willing to give Wirick the benefit of the doubt? They seem to be as shady as many other prior boards. Proxy voting? Stonewalling at public meetings? Really? At this point, I’m not sure receivership would be such a bad deal, after all is said and done.

[My 2 cents]

I guess I'm seeing them as the lesser of 3 evils. I agree with you about proxy voting. On the surface it seems like a way to provide more voice, but in practice it has been abused. Very sneaky the way they started using it. Creative interpretation of the laws/bylaws is nothing new. Arthurs group wants to limit voting, and receivership furthers that agenda. It's a wash, and we could spend all day pointing out the bad things of all sides. For now, it is the court that is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Not with a decision, but with approval of an agreement between the 2 sides. I'm simply reporting on that, and trying to solicit more input from others who are closer to the situation.

The good things that I see:

1. They are doing a good job on the roads.

2. They are using the community lot for community activities.

3. They are recognizing the difficulty and lack of cost effectiveness of collections, and recognizing certain amounts as uncollectible. At least they were. We shall see if this holds true.

4. The recent newsletter states that they are looking into county accountability. I don't know how far they will take this, but it's a good direction that no other board has been willing to pursue. It's a bright spot, in my opinion. Getting OLCA out of the road business would clean up 99% of the fighting.

[J Abrams]

Requiring licensed contractors is another plus, from a liability standpoint. I'm not referring to the quality of the roadwork. An unlicensed contractor may be able to deliver excellent work at a reasonable price. However, there is a serious concern about insurance and liability.

If the Association has an unlicensed contractor working on the roads, and they or their worker is injured or killed on the job (car accident; falls into a lava tube; etc.), the Association would undoubtedly be named in a hefty lawsuit. Similarly, if the unlicensed contractor caused any injury or damage while on the job, possibly due to negligence (stoned worker plows into family car), the Association would be named. Imagine how much the lawsuit would be if an unlicensed contractor working for the Association caused someone to be seriously injured or killed. Probable scenario would be the unlicensed contractor declares bankruptcy or skips the state, leaving the Association holding the bag.

Licensed contractors are required, either by law or the terms of the Contractors Association, to have adequate Commercial General Liability and Accident/Injury insurance coverage for them and their employees. It may be more expensive and a hassle, but its the way to go.

[VancouverIslander]

If someone sues the association and wins a big judgement, does that mean they get all of the association's assets and is then responsible for road maintenace?

Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike

[My 2 cents]

Sounds more like a loss to me.

[KeaauRich]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VancouverIslander

If someone sues the association and wins a big judgement, does that mean they get all of the association's assets and is then responsible for road maintenace?

---

The Association doesn’t own the roads, all Orchidland property owners own a fractional share of the roads. So no...

[KeaauRich]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VancouverIslander

If someone sues the association and wins a big judgement, does that mean they get all of the association's assets and is then responsible for road maintenace?

---

The Association doesn’t own the roads, all Orchidland property owners own a fractional share of the roads. So no...

[J Abrams]

That's true. The Association doesn't own the roads. But if the Association was named in a lawsuit, lawyers would have to be hired (again), insurance rates would go up, accounts could be frozen, worst case is that it might lead to bankruptcy. People may not like the Association, but it's doing an adequate job, and what's the alternative?

Hiring licensed contractors reduces liability and may save a lot of trouble down the road.