Opinion on previous vote

[Guest Sam Smith]

501c3

In meeting motion was made to buy property. Passed with paper ballot by 8-3.

Realtor was their and board made resolution for president to sign contract once both parties agreed on contract terms

Contract drawn up and brought to annual meeting only the president didn't sign the contract.

Now some of the ones that voted to sell are having second thoughts though the realtor was there and they said yes.

Are they still obligated or can they amend or recall the vote and vote again

[Guest Edgar]

The "vote" can't be recalled or amended but, from a purely parliamentary perspective, it should still be possible to adopt a motion to rescind the previously adopted motion. Whether or not there are legal (e.g. contractual) considerations is beyond the scope of this forum.

[Chris Harrison]

Since the motion hasn't been fully executed yet (the contract being signed) it can be Rescinded or Amended (RONR pp. 305-310).  However, you all might want to check with a lawyer just to make sure there isn't/won't be any legal consequences for changing your minds.

[Gary c Tesser]

Guest Edgar, it looks to me as if your post tells Original Poster Guest Sam Smith that he can't do what he wants, but can maybe do something else; but that really he can do what he asks, only, as a technical but significant point, he's doing it differently from the way he put it.  That is, he erroneously asks whether "they amend or recall the vote" (and the answer is no, but only because that's technically not what he wants to do -- and maybe that's because that vote itself is an immutable historical fact; but maybe this distinction is purely  theoretical), when what he wants to do is to change the action that the vote ordered (RONR, 11th Ed, Reg US Pat Off, Reg Penna Dept Agr, p. 305, lines 28 - 31, S.P.Q.R.), which is the decision about making a transaction about property.

 

Do I have this correct?

 

O, Guest Smith, a clarification, please:  first, you say, "motion was made to buy property," but a few sentences later, you're concerned with "that voted to sell."  I'm not an expert on real estate but I find this confusing, and maybe it's what distracted Guest Edgar on account of its inconsistency from a purely parliamentary perspective.