msmumr Posted December 16, 2019 at 05:12 PM Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 at 05:12 PM 9 hours ago, J. J. said: I think you should check the bylaws as well, because some property organization base the voting on the number of properties known. If, for example, one person owns 2 houses, he gets 2 votes. This might not apply in this case, but you should double check. Thanks J.J. and all the very insightful comments: Yes, the voting is by lot number and owner. If a non-resident investor owns several homes and rents them our (under this restricted community rules) he can vote each lot, or even if the house is vacant half the time, and he may live in a NYC condo, visiting one of his homes in the prime season. But, there is something about "painting yourself in a corner" that is easy to comprehend too when the By-laws are silent and the agreement was not submitted to a full vote of the membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmumr Posted December 16, 2019 at 11:04 PM Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 at 11:04 PM 15 hours ago, J. J. said: I think you should check the bylaws as well, because some property organization base the voting on the number of properties known. If, for example, one person owns 2 houses, he gets 2 votes. This might not apply in this case, but you should double check. Thanks J.J. (and all the other cogent and helpful comments: The governing documents (including the by-laws) allow a non-resident owner to vote, one vote per lot. A renter cannot vote. An investor could own several homes (lots are not sold alone - the developer owns bare lots and builds residences to specification) and when the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the developer he can sell it to a third party. The settlement agreement specifically references amendment of the CC&R's (one of a set of inter-related governing documents) extending the voting rights granted the developer during his control period. This is described by an algorithm ( total lots in a master plan minus lots sold to third parties lots) at the time of voting (which in the recent board election was about 80 lots). Thanks again for all the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 17, 2019 at 01:54 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2019 at 01:54 AM On 12/15/2019 at 1:24 PM, msmumr said: Query- if the 80 votes are "illegal" under RONR , can the developer walk into circuit court and get an injunction against enforcing RONA , if the by-laws are silent or don't mention the specific procedure adopted by the mediation settlement? This agreement is not a common law contract with parties alone. The court is a party inasmuch as it approved the settlement to end litigation, dismissing it with prejudice, removing it from a crowded court docket. I'm not going to answer legal questions (certainly not at this billing rate!) for the usual reasons. However, I think I can say with confidence that approving a settlement does not make a court a party to litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 17, 2019 at 02:09 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2019 at 02:09 AM Perhaps we should be keeping in mind that the original poster said, at one point, that the Mediation and the mediation agreement was the result of legal action and was to settle the lawsuit. So, there apparently was legal action concerning this matter. I’m not going to opine on whether such an agreement or court order would supersede or invalidate the bylaw provision on voting unsold lots. That’s for the attorneys who are privy to all relevant information to opine on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmumr Posted December 17, 2019 at 05:29 PM Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2019 at 05:29 PM (edited) 15 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: I'm not going to answer legal questions (certainly not at this billing rate!) for the usual reasons. However, I think I can say with confidence that approving a settlement does not make a court a party to litigation. Again, much obliged, for the help. No, the court was not a party to the settlement, that's correct, but the mediation process was "supervised" by the court under mediation procedures and local rules of court,. The same court would promptly entertain a motion to enforce the agreement, and its terms provide for any non-breaching party to have immediate access to court for an injunction and award of attorney fees. Again, many thanks. Edited December 17, 2019 at 05:30 PM by msmumr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts