OrchidLand going into receivership

[Chunkster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchidlandowner

So Chunkster how much did the road fees increase when HPP went into receivership ?

---

I had to call some friends and neighbors as I did not own property here until two years after receivership ended. The answer from all of them was that fees went up "little or none." Judge Nakamura appointed a manager, and most of the non-management employees stayed on the job. I spoke to one of those employees, BTW, and was told that efficiency among the workers went up because there was no longer any political interference. Strictly business.

[terracore]

I do not oppose receivership. I better hurry up and pay my lot fees (sans the special assessment) so that my votes count.

[Orchidlandowner]

I am concerned that it is going to cost me 800 - 1000 more a year and that's more then I can afford

[shockwave rider]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchidlandowner

I am concerned that it is going to cost me 800 - 1000 more a year and that's more then I can afford

---

Use some common sense, that is not going to happen.

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.

[Orchidlandowner]

It's good they had a surplus that's another reason why I don't understand why they would have to go into receivership I believe some of the boards in the past Were poorly run .

[KeaauRich]

I'm guessing that the "surplus" was actually the fund that was being collected through special paving assessment to amass enough funds to pave/repair pavement. My understanding is that the receivership question arose, in part, because the current Board has allegedly signed a contract with an unlicensed contractor (in violation of state law) to use these funds for purposes other than those that were stipulated when the original assessment motion was approved. I can't be more specific or definitive because I stopped attending member and Board meetings when lynch mob mentality became the rule of the day (check recent general meeting and Board minutes and notice how many times meetings had to be postponed or delayed due to disruptive behavior by members and Board members).

By my count, the the seven years I've lived in Orchidland, we've had at least 9 Board presidents - that alone says receivership might be a logical step towards getting OLCA affairs back in order. There's no question that past and present Boards have frequently been/are poorly run, and there's no surprise why. Pretty much anyone who would be a smart addition to the Board is smart enough to realize that under present conditions -- Bylaws that drastically need reform, community members who don't pay assessments that almost everyone agrees are too low to pay for necessary road repairs in the first place, mob mentality at meetings, etc. -- joining the Board would be an exercise in frustration and futility.

Before everyone gets their undies in a bunch, let's take a deep breath. This thread's topic isn't exactly accurate. Orchidland isn't going into receivership; receivership is being explored. Just because a petition for receivership has been submitted to the courts, the courts won't necessarily agree to enacting it. Both sides will present their cases and the the judge will rule. Remember, too, that the Board's legal fees will be covered by insurance and the legal defense fund (perhaps another item included in the "surplus"). Funding for the legal fees for those requesting receivership is coming out of the personal pockets of those who filed - so in effect they're paying the fees for both sides of the case.

[Orchidlandowner]

KeaauRich do You know anything about this other group that is having a tax deductible fundraiser to build on the community lot that they don't even own I can not understand how they can be tax deductible and not even own the lot that. sounds like a scam And very Illegal that whole group should be put in the Federal penitentiary

[KeaauRich]

I'm not aware of any tax deductible fundraisers to build on the community lot.

[Orchidlandowner]

General Announcement

On September 29, 2015 an OLCA Community petition was received and posted for all Board members to review. A Special Membership meeting has been scheduled for Sunday, November 1, 2015 at Ainaloa Longhouse at 2:30pm (check-in begins at 2pm) to address the issues presented in the petition:

PETITION TO REMOVE TWO OLCA BOARD MEMBERS & VOTE AGAINST RECEIVERSHIP

This petition is for the purpose of calling a Special Membership
meeting to remove Peter Houle and Barbara Arthurs from the current
OLCA Board of Directors, for the following reasons:

1. They have engaged in conduct intending to damage the Orchidland
Community Association (OLCA) by initiating a lawsuit against former
and present board members as well as the OLCA.
2. The Orchidland Voice, a dissident organization whose officers
include Peter Houle and Barbara Arthurs, filed this lawsuit. They have
a blatant conflict of interest by simultaneously holding office in
both organizations.
3. They have initiated a lawsuit against the Orchidland Community
Association, which will cost the Community $25,000 in defense costs.
4. In their lawsuit they are threatening to force OLCA into Receivership.

This petition also demands that OLCA NOT move into Receivership for
the following reasons:

1. Orchidland would lose all current protections that keep our
Community unique.
2. Outside forces will dictate how much money will be collected from
each landowner. Could be more than ten times present rates.
3. Owners would have no control on how the collected money is spent.
—————- Well we best all vote on the1st Because our votes do matter.

[mermaid53]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chunkster

Your fees might actually go down with court-appointed competent management. If only someone would do this for HPP!

---

It was stated by a few HPP members that all the mismanagement we are seeing in HPP might be the mgmt's agenda to get us into receivership.