www.MyRecordJournal.com - Condo buyout notice is sudden shock: "'Please be advised that I represent 665 Foxon Road, LLC, the owner of over 80 percent of the units at Parker Place Condominiums. It is probably not a secret that my client would like to and intends to acquire all of the remaining units, including the unit owned by you. ... (A)s an owner of 80 percent of the units, my client can accomplish this without your cooperation or that of any other unit owner. The Common Interest Ownership Act, as adopted by the State of Connecticut allows the condominium to be terminated and all units purchased at fair market value, by a vote of 80 percent of the unit owners, which my client already has.'"
---------------
How would you like to get that letter in the mail? It is like a sort of private eminent domain, authorized by Connecticut law.
3 comments:
This item confirms my view that condos are really more like closely held, publicly traded corporations rather than conglomerations of separately held real estate titles as they care now legally organized. If someone gets a majority or supermajority stake in the corporation like 665 Foxton Road LLC, they can essentially take over control just like any other shareholder held corporation could.
Some advocates of condo reform such as Tyler Berding in California (recently interviewed on Shu Bartholomew's On the Commons program) might well support restructuring the current condo regulatory scheme to recognize them as investment securities since it would make it easier for them disband and the underlying real property put to a better and higher use. Berding notes that it's very difficult for condo regimes to end because of CC&R provisions requiring unanimous or near unanimous approval of all unit owners.
I think in some sense these people are fortunate. Owners can easily lose their homes to a Board in a condo regime. This is a case where they will actually be compensated for it. I'm not saying that it's right, just that at least they aren't experiencing what tens of thousands if not more are experiencing from the properties they own - nonjudicial ouster from their own home.
If they wanted to oppose it and if the buyer is not controlling the Board, perhaps they should act like a typical HOA board and deny the vote of anyone that is not eligible to vote - as determined by the Board. Connecticut law is undoubtedly different from Texas law, however, boards in Texas routinely disenfranchise members in this fashion. This allows a small minority of people (the Board) to retain control over all the other member's property.
As ugly as this situation may seem, I think these residents thought they were losing an asset when in fact many may be giving up an unrecognized liability. I do appreciate the fact that this sheds light on yet another negative aspect of the UCIOA which was not written to protect the interests of the titleholders in the first place in ANY state.
I am not surprised that the CT UCIOA provides such an authorization. The UCIOA from the National Law Commissioners is basically of the CID industry, by the CID industry and for the CID industry.
Has anyone received any reply from an inquiry. I have written to the chair and to the reporter of the writing committee for the UCIOA. I didn't even receive an acknowledgment. My recommendations were not posted at the UCIOA website.
Don Nordeen
Governance of Property Owners Associations
Post a Comment