PJ,
I feel it is my place to respond to your questions, since I initiated the "Community Development" article.
We solicit donations for community development projects every year, as required by our bylaws. The article was simply this year's solicitation. Whether these donations, or the MRMAs for that matter, are tax deductible is an issue for your accountant/taxman, not us.
The real point of the article was that we can still contribute to the paving or any other fund and keep the progress going, even though we are too busy to show up at a meeting. I think you misunderstand the quorum requirement. What you are suggesting, electing members to Board positions to make a quorum, will work for Board meetings. We have done this se
veral times recently. But a MEMBERSHIP MEETING requires 4 Directors AND 15 MEMBERS to make a quorum. We had 6 Directors at this membership meeting, but we fell below the required 15 members about halfway through. This is why the business was not completed, it was not due to a lack of Directors this time.
We are considering the option of having a Special Membership Meeting to complete the business. The risk in this is that we have no assurance that enough members will show up to meet the quorum requirement. If this meeting fails, it will all just be a big waste of time and money. I know how much you all hate it when your road money is wasted. If 20 or so members would contact us with a commitment to attend, I think the Board would have more confidence in moving forward with this. At least it would help.
Insurance…don' t get me started, I could rant on this for hours.
Aloha,
Roger
--- In
OrchidlandEstatesOn lineCommunity@ yahoogroups. com, PJ Worley <PJWorleyCo@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> Yen, I do not think any monies which are not formally billed will be considered mandatory by the IRS, particularly when there is the statement that one can voluntarily designate more $ and state it is for side roads, community center, etc.? My billing statements were for $85 each and the newsletter requested we voluntarily add
to the amounts because there was no quorum to vote for additional or increased fees.? I believe the mandatory feature needs to be stated in order for there to be a legitimate tax deduction for investor owners.? If there is no quorum, is there any other way this could be done?? Could the members in attendance be appointed temporary Board members, at least enough to constitute a quorum for that meeting, in order to facilitate the voting needed to conduct and maintain the business of the Association? ? Would that be legal??
>
> Your description of the exclusions for a liability policy for Board members reminds me of all the other "insurance" policies written today.? For example, my Zephyr Hurricane policies all exclude damage from wind and water...what else could be the definition of a hurricane?? Sometimes I think the insurance companies are ripe for class action litigation because they seem to exclude the purpose of the policy and you nearly have to be a lawyer to understand the wording and the extent of the exclusions, particularly when they are added a paragraph or page at a time over the years AND they reference by Section #, etc.? If one is a cautious business person, just reading the all policies could take a week...homeowners, earthquake, liability, umbrella, hurricane, auto, errors and omissions, medical HMO policy, etc.? I actually think the homeowner policy providers shouldn't be allowed to take our money unless they send a rep to photo the property every year
and the conten
ts.? They expect a person who has lost everything to be able to find that kind of data?? Sorry I got off track.? Just venting a little.?
>
>
>
>
>
> ?PJ Worley
> For information about respecting the Planet:
http://www.sundance channel.com/ thegreen/ #/homePage
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kipp <ThinkDifferent25@ ...>
> To:
OrchidlandEstatesOn lineCommunity@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 1:32 pm
> Subject: [OrchidlandEstatesO nlineCommunity] Re: $50 Payment Legal Fees
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> Seriously! It is a $50 charge. I am an out of state owner as well. I appreciate what the board does and have seen significan
t improvements to Orchidland over the past years.
>
>
>
> If you didn't vote, then you agreed to go with the people who did vote. If you didn't want the fee, you should have voted.
>
>
>
> Kipp
>
>
>
> --- In
OrchidlandEstatesOn lineCommunity@ yahoogroups. com, Yen Chin <yenchin@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi Jim,
>
> >
>
> > Nobody on the current Board took part in the decision to aggressively
>
> > pursue collections and to use foreclosure as a weapon in that
>
> > pursuit. I doubt that anybody on the current Board would have
>
> > supported such actions.
>
> >
>
> > The $50 special assessment to create a legal defense fund pertains to
>
> > the future NOT the past. It was proposed and approved specifically to
>
> > defend against any future lawsuits because one of the products of this
>
> > whole fiasco is that the Association cannot buy insurance for
>
> > Directors and Officers that does not contain some very significant
>
> > exclu
sions. These exclusions open the possibility that someone
>
> > serving on the Board would jeopardize their own assets for acting
>
> > conscientiously in the best interest of the community. Given that
>
> > possibility nobody in their right mind would agree to serve on the
>
> > Board unless there were some assurance that the Association could make
>
> > good its promise to protect Directors against liability that results
>
> > from their good-faith service. The legal defense fund is suppose to
>
> > provide this assurance.
>
> >
>
> > It is my belief (which most current Board members share) that all fees
>
> > (road maintenance, paving, and other special assessments that the
>
> > membership approves like the $50 in question) are mandatory and thus
>
> > subject to any collection procedure that the Board in consultation
>
> > with the community deems warranted.
>
> >
>
> > Currently OLCA has no formal collections policy. This Board has long
>
> > wanted to put one in place, but the need to deal with the ongoing
>
> > legal situation has prevented that from happening. We d
o know that we
>
> > may not use foreclosure as a means of enforcement. If there were any
>
> > doubt, the decision in the Murakami case settled any arguments. That
>
> > judgment also codified the concept of implied obligation, which I
>
> > believe extends to everyone who owns a lot in Orchidland. We also
>
> > know that we will need to get a legal judgment before we can place any
>
> > liens. This will be an expensive proposition, so I don't envision it
>
> > being actually being used for small balances due, but that remains to
>
> > be determined.
>
> >
>
> > The membership had the opportunity to vote on the special assessment.
>
> > Much to my surprise a majority of those who cast ballots approved the
>
> > measure. In my mind, your declining to participate in the vote does
>
> > not exempt you from the responsibility to abide by the decision of
>
> > those who did vote.
>
> >
>
> > The membership has also decided that paving will be restricted to the
>
> > main roads. Consequently, if your property abuts a side road, it will
>
> > not get paved until such time as the membership decides to change its
>
> > earlier decision. The paving fees that you have paid go to paving the
>
> > main roads, and that project is more than half completed.
>
> > Unfortunately, the cost of paving has risen dramatically in the past
>
> > few years.
>
> >
>
> > Aloha,
>
> > Yen
>
> >
>
> > On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:21 AM, ravey1 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I just got my notice that I am now supposed to pay $50 to a legal
>
> > > fees fund. I never voted on this. When the paper came to vote, I
>
> > > abstained feeling that I did not want to be a part of this. I also
>
> > > did not agree with liening people for back road fees which got the
>
> > > Board in trouble and sued.
>
> > >
>
> > > I feel that if I pay this $50 to the fund - I am condoning what the
>
> > > Board did by helping them pay for legal fees. That's usually how it
>
> > > goes. If you agree with what someone did - you donate to their legal
>
> > > fund. I totally disagree with their actions - always did.
>
> > >
>
> > > I am an out of state owner since 1987 - waiting to retire. Ever
>
> > > since this board and/or association was formed, there has been
>
> > > nothing but problems. AND ... I've never had my road paved in 22
>
> > > years!!!!! but continue to pay my road fees.
>
> > >
>
> > > So, if I do not pay this $50 - will the Board/Association lien my
>
> > > property illegally??? When I bought my property there was no legal
>
> > > association in my deed nor did I ever approve of such an association
>
> > > to be formed.
>
> > >
>
> > > Jim
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
Having problems with message search?
PJ Worley
Offline 
Send Email