SB 1489: meeting minutes
This makes interesting reading. There is lots of back and forth on the effect of this proposed law on the pending Lake Holiday litigation. Here is what CAI stalwart Bob Diamond had to say in support of the bill:
"Bob Diamond, an attorney with Reed Smith, whose client is Lake Holiday, LLC, an intervener
in the pending litigation of Lake Holiday.
• Mr. Diamond wished to explain two things:
o The issue of the Lake Holiday case is whether an association can use the POAA
to collect assessments or does it have to file an action in General District Court?
o There are three to make these legislative changes.
1- As of July, 2008, HB 516 will take effect, which adds a definition of
“common interest community.” This will lead to further complications.
2- In the Lake Arrowhead and Dogwood cases, the Supreme Court
interpreted the POAA. The legislature can make its own decision on
whether or not this interpretation was correct. The result of these cases
was not good for home owners associations.
3- There is currently no method for reformation in the Commonwealth,
and there needs to be a solution for issues where one property owner
controls because he has enough votes."
------
Question: what on earth does it mean when he says, "one property owner controls because he has enough votes?" That is not one property owner controlling. That is all those who voted controlling.
1 comment:
Are you familiar with vote multipliers, class voting, or delegate voting - all of which are used to disenfranchise the vast majority of the owners?
Look at the Arizona legislation (HB2434) and read it carefully to note the difference between votes and members. Notice wording such as "members holding at least 30 percent of the votes" rather than 30 percent of the members.
Note language such as "2/3" of those voting rather than "2/3 of the members". So that would be 2/3 of a quorum as defined. And of course there is no restriction on the limitations that may be imposed.
Post a Comment