11-23-2015, 05:45 AM
This came from Orchidland Going into Receivership thread on PT:
The judge in charge of the receivership will have no interest in pushing lot owners into default on their road fees. He will want to put in a professional to oversee things while they untangle the finances and determine if there has been any prosecutable fraud or theft occurring, in which case they will hand off the findings to a prosecutor. Otherwise the court's only goal will be to get things organized enough so things can be handed back to the property owners' control. In past cases there were changes made to organizational structures and clarification of exactly what subdivision fees can be charged and spent on, based on how the organization was first set up when the subdivision was created.
_________________________________________
At the last board mtg this month, the former Pres started a discussion w/the board about receivership and how wonderful it was. The park looked wonderful blah blah blah. This is the 2nd time she's mentioned receivership.
Is this where we're headed? If the above post is accurate in how receivership is handled, is this what we need? I don't know enough to form an opinion. If you read the Orchidland thread, they've had similar issues w/their board arrogantly not following their bylaws.
Regarding the board consulting w/an atty on the "acts of the association" issues....the information received from the atty is only as good as what is submitted. Who's the point of contact? The VP?
Also, it's better that an atty's involved than them moving forward illegally. They didn't vote the other night on the removal of the 2 new finance committee members and moving ahead w/a chip seal test road which is a good thing. Some board members think once items have been voted on, even if illegal, is water under the bridge. That because the board voted for it, there's nothing to be done. Not true.
Another member pointed out to me that going the route of atty consultation isn't correct either. It's supposed to be arbitration as our bylaws point out when there's a difference of opinion on our bylaws.
The judge in charge of the receivership will have no interest in pushing lot owners into default on their road fees. He will want to put in a professional to oversee things while they untangle the finances and determine if there has been any prosecutable fraud or theft occurring, in which case they will hand off the findings to a prosecutor. Otherwise the court's only goal will be to get things organized enough so things can be handed back to the property owners' control. In past cases there were changes made to organizational structures and clarification of exactly what subdivision fees can be charged and spent on, based on how the organization was first set up when the subdivision was created.
_________________________________________
At the last board mtg this month, the former Pres started a discussion w/the board about receivership and how wonderful it was. The park looked wonderful blah blah blah. This is the 2nd time she's mentioned receivership.
Is this where we're headed? If the above post is accurate in how receivership is handled, is this what we need? I don't know enough to form an opinion. If you read the Orchidland thread, they've had similar issues w/their board arrogantly not following their bylaws.
Regarding the board consulting w/an atty on the "acts of the association" issues....the information received from the atty is only as good as what is submitted. Who's the point of contact? The VP?
Also, it's better that an atty's involved than them moving forward illegally. They didn't vote the other night on the removal of the 2 new finance committee members and moving ahead w/a chip seal test road which is a good thing. Some board members think once items have been voted on, even if illegal, is water under the bridge. That because the board voted for it, there's nothing to be done. Not true.
Another member pointed out to me that going the route of atty consultation isn't correct either. It's supposed to be arbitration as our bylaws point out when there's a difference of opinion on our bylaws.