OrchidLand going into receivership

[justthefacts]

receivership is a good thing for the community all to often a group of people embed themselves on subdivision boards and loose sight of the community. transparency is brushed aside , bylaws cease to exist and be followed and the board behaves as though they "own it". receivership will clear up the mess.

[Orchidlandowner]

The problem with receivership is that in orchid land there are fewer lots Then Paradise park and orchid Land has no hired on road maintenance people at all so it would cost them much more to operate I believe our road maintenance fees would go up considerably . It is the crazies that are suing that are the problem as I see it .but all I have is one vote hopefully I will vote the correct way. but you must vote or you should not complain .

[terracore]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orchidlandowner

The problem with receivership is that in orchid land there are fewer lots Then Paradise park and orchid Land has no hired on road maintenance people at all so it would cost them much more to operate I believe our road maintenance fees would go up considerably . It is the crazies that are suing that are the problem as I see it .but all I have is one vote hopefully I will vote the correct way. but you must vote or you should not complain .

---

Almost half the lot owners can't vote because the by-laws require all road fees to be paid up in order to vote. This has been skewing the votes towards higher fees because the people who can't afford higher fees aren't allowed to have a voice. In theory receivership will have to consider what's best for all lot owners not just the ones that can afford to pay the most.

[Obie]

Do you understand that receivership would mean that all of those back road fees would be collected.At the very least there would be liens placed against those who are delinquent.

Are you sure this is what you want ?

Maybe paying road fess and being part of the process might be the best thing !

[terracore]

There should be liens placed against those who are delinquent. That is inevitable. That is why it's strange to me that these people don't have a voice.

[KeaauRich]

The problem with liens (as I understand it from past meetings) is that it costs big bucks to file them, they have to be filed individually (there's no group rate for filing liens against numerous owners simultaneously) and the liens have an expiration date (often before the properties would be sold) which means new liens must then be filed, meaning more cash... Bottom line, it would cost more to file the liens than the organization would collect. Then there's the question of which owners to file against first - because you know that there will be another lawsuit if one delinquent owner gets served while others don't.

I also have mixed feelings about the "only paid up folks can vote" policy but I disagree that it is the cause of higher road fees. If everyone paid their fair share, road fees might stabilize or go down. Right now, a subset of owners are paying the roadwork tab for everyone's benefit. I'm all for helping local residents who need a hand, but at the risk of sounding insensitive, off-island owners who can't manage to scrape up the $100 mandatory assessment (everything else is "voluntary, according to the Board), ought sell their properties and investigate other investment options.

Finally, I'm also not a big fan of lawsuits against the association, but when the Board engages in the types of activity this Board's members have done over the past year or so (shouting down members who oppose them, hiring unlicensed contractors, changing voting procedures to enable their cronies to eject membership-elected Board members, waiving Bylaws at whim, allowing members to sign a paper stating that they wish to be counted as part of a meeting's quorum makeup even though they're not planning to attend a meeting, etc.), then perhaps adult supervision/legal oversight is called for. And remember, those filing legal actions are doing so out of their own pockets; the Board's expenses are covered by insurance and/or the associations legal fund. So filing a lawsuit isn't a frivolous activity for those who initiated the actions.

[Orchidlandowner]

The law suits still cost the community and that could be going towards the roads. Personally I would rather have nice roads then to have to pay for a lawsuit at any rate vote on Sunday and we'll see what happens

[msky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeaauRich

The problem with liens (as I understand it from past meetings) is that it costs big bucks to file them, they have to be filed individually (there's no group rate for filing liens against numerous owners simultaneously) and the liens have an expiration date (often before the properties would be sold) which means new liens must then be filed, meaning more cash... Bottom line, it would cost more to file the liens than the organization would collect. Then there's the question of which owners to file against first - because you know that there will be another lawsuit if one delinquent owner gets served while others don't.

MORGAN: Actually, unless Bureau of Conveyances changed their fees since April, it costs $26 for the first 2 TCT#s and $1 per TCT after those first 4. I normally filed 10 liens on a page since that's about as many as the BOC agents would allow. So it cost $32 to file 10 liens. If 2 of the lots had the same TCT# (rarely, but not unusual) those two counted as one TCT. There would also be a notary fee for the page of 10 liens....usually $10 if only one Board officer signature is required. We (HPP) found out that one signature is sufficient instead of the two we used to require.

With regard to which lots to file liens on first, that was a Board decision. It could be which lots were in arrears the longest which meant which lots owed the most in road fees. We could only base that amount on delinquent ROAD FEES.....not legal fees or interest charged or any other fee. I don't know what, if anything, the Orchidland Bylaws state about liens, but it should be mentioned that liens are a possible solution to collection. If someone tries to re-finance or sell their lot using a Title Company, the lien will be found and they would have to pay the debt in order to pass clear title. Now if it's a "handshake sale" that's a whole other can of worms.

************************

I also have mixed feelings about the "only paid up folks can vote" policy but I disagree that it is the cause of higher road fees. If everyone paid their fair share, road fees might stabilize or go down. Right now, a subset of owners are paying the roadwork tab for everyone's benefit. I'm all for helping local residents who need a hand, but at the risk of sounding insensitive, off-island owners who can't manage to scrape up the $100 mandatory assessment (everything else is "voluntary, according to the Board), ought sell their properties and investigate other investment options.

MORGAN: $100 per year is what.....27 cents per day? HPP is .76 per day. Even if you could get together with the owner across the street and pool your $, you still couldn't buy material and labor to maintain just the road feet in front of your lots. If people aren't that invested in their property maintenance, why would they make good decisions with their vote at a meeting?

*************

fFinally, I'm also not a big fan of lawsuits against the association, but when the Board engages in the types of activity this Board's members have done over the past year or so (shouting down members who oppose them, hiring unlicensed contractors, changing voting procedures to enable their cronies to eject membership-elected Board members, waiving Bylaws at whim, allowing members to sign a paper stating that they wish to be counted as part of a meeting's quorum makeup even though they're not planning to attend a meeting, etc.), then perhaps adult supervision/legal oversight is called for. And remember, those filing legal actions are doing so out of their own pockets; the Board's expenses are covered by insurance and/or the associations legal fund. So filing a lawsuit isn't a frivolous activity for those who initiated the actions.

---

MORGAN: I'm a firm believer that the Board of Directors of a subdivision shouldn't be lot owners or have any connection to that subdivision at all. That seems to be the only way to minimize or eliminate any "personal agendas". And keep the number of Directors at 5 people. I was always amazed at the lack of the Nominating Committee to really study up on the Board nominees. I think the problem started when HPP was divided into Districts....9 Districts, 9 Board members. It is so difficult to find willing candidates in the District with an opening that the Nom Com was grateful for any warm body willing to serve. Anybody can write down what they think are their qualifications to be on the Board and it might sound like that person is just PERFECT and they wind up being.......well NOT! When there were no districts it was easier (maybe not perfect) to find candidates. I do understand that there was a concern that all the Board members might wind up living in the same area.....hence my idea of a non-lot owner Board.

About Receivership......it's a short term solution. Once it's over there's no stopping things from going back to what put the organization into Receivership. REALLY tight Bylaws help. Like the Bible, people tend to interpret Bylaws whatever way suits them. A Board oversight Committee would likely be made up of friends or neighbors of the Board and not be much help except in theory. When HPP was in Receivership, the entire road crew was laid off and 2 private companies were hired to maintain the roads and do the mowing. $$$$$$$$ There was another guy who helped with the signs and the removal of dead animals and trash dumped along the roadsides. Maintaining a subdivision is pricey, no matter how you look at it. I wish Orchidland all the best.

[terracore]

When you buy a property the title company researches the road fees and deducts the amount past due from the seller's proceeds or credits the seller for any part of the calendar year that has been pre-paid. No lien is required for this, it's just a normal part of the service to protect the buyer. I guess its possible to transfer property ownership without using a title company and their insurance if you are paying cash, but it's a really really bad idea.

[msky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by terracore

When you buy a property the title company researches the road fees and deducts the amount past due from the seller's proceeds or credits the seller for any part of the calendar year that has been pre-paid. No lien is required for this, it's just a normal part of the service to protect the buyer. I guess its possible to transfer property ownership without using a title company and their insurance if you are paying cash, but it's a really really bad idea.

---

MORGAN: Right, but IF there is a lien on the property, the Title Company will require the lien to be satisfied before transfer can take place. Normally it is the seller, however a deal could be made between the buyer and seller as to who will pay the debt, but somebody has to in order for there to be clear title.