Conflicting Covenants

How do you resolve covenants and structures that contradict.

1) the builders intent is to have 7 sub associations. (guideline allows from 3 to 7 in the master association)

The builder 3/4 of the way through decided 24 sub-associations would be better.

2) Changes to the Master Association Covenant must be approved by
66 2/3% of the members

3) Any changes during the Development Period must also be approved of by the dedlarant.

In our case, the builder is planning on a Zoning reclasification for a few buildings from residential to commercial.

The creation of multiple sub-associationd diluting the powers granted to a sub-association.

and the last twist the sub (homeoeners covenants were recorded over 6 months prior to the master and are somewhat inferior to them.

In case 1 the builder has the intent, to make the change must have community sign off, and then self approve. (community is not approving)

Second case

The community want to use it's voting rights to limit and remove the conflict of the builder also being the community management of the master and hiring itself and paying itself as such in a no bid/review process.

We can force a meeting and have the percentage to change the rules but in the end have to once again get the builders aproval to remove himself and the conflict of interest.

Is there a resolutin or is this a deadlock until 90% sold or 10 years (the latter) A.K.A 2012?

We are already protesing the change. due to this it has stalled for the moment in the zoning approval process and we have a meeting with our councilman this week. ( Any appeals fo before the Council )

We recieved Legal oppinion and because the conflicts and what the
members rights were.

You are correct thatmost of the time the builder during the development retains the rights.

In the recent appelat court ruling in the South Caralina CourtsIssues the most recent rulling.

"a Developer may reserve to himself, in his sole discretion, the right to amend restrictive covenants with the land or impose new restrictive covenants running with the land, provided five conditions are met:

Out of the 5 (3) The developer must strictly comply with the amendment procedures as set forth in the declaration of the coveneants and (5) the amended or new covenants must not be unreasonable, indifinate, or contravene public policy"

It's odd but the rulings as stated in the first section conflict and lock the changes unless builder and memvers are in adreement.