cranneberry

There was no amendment to the bylaws only a motion. My contention is that by allowing the 2017 board members to both have a 3 year term, it is going against the motion made in 2016. When I questioned the manager, the response I got was that there had been a legal opinion offered. As that legal opinion was not in the minutes, (which I understand shouldn't have been) yet other legal opinions were, shouldn't the minutes then have included all of them? I was at the meeting in question and do not recall an opinion being given on the terms. Or am I off base on this?

In an HOA membership meeting in 2016 a motion was made for a 5 person board and another motion was made for terms for a 5 person board, one 3 year term, two 2 year terms and two 1 year terms. At the meeting in 2017, 2 seats were up for reelection, yet both people were given 3 years terms. When I questioned the HOA manager about the terms and suggested a legal opinion be sought, she stated a legal opinion was given in the 2016 meeting that going forward each person elected would receive a 3 year term. There is nothing in the minutes about a legal opinion being given nor is there anything in the minutes referring to any subsequent elections. There is mention of a legal opinion for other matters. Would I be correct in stating that if there was no mention of the legal opinion in the minutes, then it basically didn't happen?