Posts: 1,064
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
I agree with all of that except that I don't believe receivership will fix it. HPP went into receivership (Nancy Cabral btw, OLCA Special Master) and look where they are now. In the midst of their own 4 year old lawsuit, not to mention everything else we see on the HPP threads.
We agree that the voting structure is discriminatory and I personally believe that it is the most alienating aspect of the association. Do you really think that receivership will fix it? Or even look at it? Neither of the boards will. Maybe the only thing they agree on.
Posts: 278
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2014
I am curious as to the inaccurate bills for road fees. Are those inaccuracies on overdue road fees or annual fees? I've always paid on receipt of annual billing. Thanks for the clarification.
Posts: 7,727
Threads: 684
Joined: Jun 2011
In my case the inaccuracy was based on them adding more years worth of road fees than I have owned the property.
Posts: 7,727
Threads: 684
Joined: Jun 2011
"Do you really think that receivership will fix it? Or even look at it?"
Unfortunately you are probably right. It's hard to imagine things getting worse than having multiple road associations suing each other like we have now instead of using our money for road fees. But here it's probably inevitable.
My biggest problem with taxation without representation is that the people who can afford higher road fees the least are the ones who aren't allowed to vote against them. So the voting pool seems to shrink to the people who don't think $200/year is a lot of money compared to $100/year. Some people own 2-3 or more lots and there are no discounts for people who use multiple AG lots for AG and the extra lots do not cause any road wear and tear, in fact they protect them from development that would increase traffic. $600/year is a lot more money than $300 year. Especially when it seems only $25 of it gets used for the roads.
Posts: 1,064
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
The discrepancy for me was a payment that was recorded improperly. The mistake was found and fixed but more importantly it happened longer ago than I thought, before the current group and before the current accounting firm. My previous statements may have been misleading so I apologize to them.
If you have multiple contiguous lots and only need one house you can consolidate the lots into one. 1 house, 1 TMK# equals 1 road fee for all the reasons you stated. At least that's how it was treated up until a few years ago when I witnessed a discussion about this at a board meeting and that board was of the opinion that consolidation didn't matter, and they would continue to send bills for the TMKs that no longer exist. Just one more example of how our association makes it up as they go. I'm not talking about any particular group. It's been this way from the beginning. It's the nature of the beast.
This lawsuit is costing an incredible amount of time and money. Fortunately the association's costs are mostly covered by insurance, but I shudder to think about what the insurance situation will be once this is over. Will they even be able to get D&O insurance, and at what cost? This damage has already been done, and it's not reversible.
I wonder if we will ever get past fighting amongst ourselves, join forces, and take the fight to where it really belongs.
Posts: 7,727
Threads: 684
Joined: Jun 2011
Not surprisingly, I received a different response to the multiple lot question:
"The current system of charging for each lot in Orchidland is based on the fact that each of the originally created lots owns 1/4280 of all of the OL roadways. Road fees are assessed based on each fraction of ownership [ie. lot owned]"
In other words I own 3/4280th of the roadway, and that doesn't change if I consolidate 3 lots into 1. At least, that is not how it was interpreted when I asked in 2014.
Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
doesn't change if I consolidate 3 lots into 1
If the fractional interest in the road-shaped lot is explicitly listed on the deed, then you would "do something" here, eg, consolidate the fractions or list all of them in the new consolidated deed. "Consult a professional."
It is possible to gain/lose things during any title change operation. I once noticed an outdated legal description during closing -- updating to the current recorded description gained me about 1000 square feet, but also made me subject to utility easements that didn't exist in the old title.
Posts: 402
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2017
This lawsuit is costing an incredible amount of time and money. Fortunately the association's costs are mostly covered by insurance, but I shudder to think about what the insurance situation will be once this is over. Will they even be able to get D&O insurance, and at what cost? This damage has already been done, and it's not reversible.
I heard HPP's E&O deductible went way up about $30,000 to $40,000 because of the wrongful terminated employees lawsuit.
Posts: 1,064
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
"If the fractional interest in the road-shaped lot is explicitly listed on the deed, then you would "do something" here, eg, consolidate the fractions or list all of them in the new consolidated deed."
Right, that would be the key. It would have to stay at the same percentage as before the consolidation, 3/2480 because to change it to 1/2478 would require changing every other deed as well. Every time it happened. Smart bugga you.
Posts: 1,064
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
Which brings up "how would it affect voting?"
The bylaws don't say "one vote per fractional interest", they say "one vote for each lot." So, does consolidation of 3 lots mean that you still pay 3 road fees (membership dues) but now only have 1 vote instead of 3?
