Math for 67% Vote to Amend CCRs

Started by MargoT • 29 replies • 2322 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

We are amending the Declaration of CCRs at the Annual Meeting because the current CCRs don't have the legal language to fine/enforce violations per our HOA Attorney.

We have written Rules and Regulations and await this vote.

Please be so kind to verify my math for 30 members.

30*67% = 20

20 Affirmative member votes via proxy or person
5 Less Delinquent members

15 Affirmative votes

I would appreciate your input.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Margo,

67% of what?

Is it 67% of the membership, 67% of eligible votes, 67% of votes cast or 67% of members in attendance at a meeting?

It makes a big difference on what is needed to adopt.

Using your example of 30 members.

If 29 are eligible to vote but only 25 show up at a meeting and 23 of them cast ballots, the results would be:

67% of the membership = 21 yea votes needed to adopt (.67*30=20.1 rounded up to the next number)

67% of eligible votes = 20 yea votes needed (.67*29=19.43 rounded up)

67% of votes cast = 16 yea votes needed (.67*23=15.41 rounded up)

67% of members in attendance = 17 yea votes needed (.67*25=16.75 rounded up)

The reason why you round up is because you normally can't have a percentage of a vote. Example: 67% of the membership = 20.1 20 votes is less than 20.1 so you didn't receive the required 67%. Therefore, you need to round up to 21.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Margo

Part of it depends on your Bylaws. Not all Bylaws bar delinquent members from voting. It can depend on how long delinquent, proper notification given of voting suspension rights, type of vote, etc. Read them closely.

That said

67% of 30 is 20.1 thus requiring 22 of the 30.

2/3rds (66.66%) of 30 is 19.99 thus requiring 20 of the 30.

30 minus 5 ineligible to vote leaves 25 eligible voters. 67% of 25 is 16.75 thus requiring 17 of the 25.

2/3rds (66.66%) of 25 is 16.66 thus 17 of the 25.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Margo

An addition. Your math is counting the delinquent as NO votes. They are not NO votes. Depending on the Bylaws, they are votes not even allowed to be counted.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

OOPS

67% of 30 is 20.1 thus requiring 21 (not 22 as I said) votes.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Margo, I'm not an attorney but I seriously suggest your Board consult one before they deny any homeowner a vote on amending documents. Typically CC&R's contain the phrase % of homeowners not homeowners eligible to vote. I have no problem denying homeowners the right to vote in annual elections but I would make darn sure your CC&R's and applicable state law allows it regarding amending documents.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

I concur with Glen. If it is an amendment to the Governing documents, then everyone should be allowed to vote.

DaveD3 (Michigan)
Posts: 796

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 12/03/2013 6:35 PM
Margo,

67% of what?

Is it 67% of the membership, 67% of eligible votes, 67% of votes cast or 67% of members in attendance at a meeting?

It makes a big difference on what is needed to adopt.

Using your example of 30 members.

If 29 are eligible to vote but only 25 show up at a meeting and 23 of them cast ballots, the results would be:

67% of the membership = 21 yea votes needed to adopt (.67*30=20.1 rounded up to the next number)

67% of eligible votes = 20 yea votes needed (.67*29=19.43 rounded up)

67% of votes cast = 16 yea votes needed (.67*23=15.41 rounded up)

67% of members in attendance = 17 yea votes needed (.67*25=16.75 rounded up)

The reason why you round up is because you normally can't have a percentage of a vote. Example: 67% of the membership = 20.1 20 votes is less than 20.1 so you didn't receive the required 67%. Therefore, you need to round up to 21.

As usual, Tim is spot on.

Read your documents CAREFULLY!
We have a 2/3 majority vote requirement for amendments, but our docs make NO reference to "eligible" units or any other language that could mean less than 2/3 of our entire association needs to approve. And you would always round up as Tim stated. We have 20, so we need 14 yeas, rounded up from 13-1/3

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GlenL on 12/03/2013 7:21 PM
Margo, I'm not an attorney but I seriously suggest your Board consult one before they deny any homeowner a vote on amending documents. Typically CC&R's contain the phrase % of homeowners not homeowners eligible to vote. I have no problem denying homeowners the right to vote in annual elections but I would make darn sure your CC&R's and applicable state law allows it regarding amending documents.

I second that advice. Unless your declaration or state law specifically allows you to exclude owners not in good standing with the association, all owners have a say in whether to amend the contract (the declaration) to which they are parties.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

My CCRs, which are 14 years old, state the Association has the right and power to suspend a Member's voting rights only for the period during which any assessments against residential unit remain unpaid and delinquent. This is how the voting power of the association is calculated. Granted, not all associations suspend someone's voting, but in this case it applies to all voting, whether elections, amending documents or raising assessments. You don't pay your assessments, IMHO, you thrown away your rights to vote for anything.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Glen

On a side note, just saw your phrase that you have after each of your postings. Reminds me of the Golden Rule, D"Do until others as you would have them do until you". reminds me of "Blame others for your problems as your president has done for himself".

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Should be "unto"

JoK2 (California)
Posts: 198

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RichardP13 on 12/03/2013 9:49 PM
Glen

On a side note, just saw your phrase that you have after each of your postings. Reminds me of the Golden Rule, D"Do until others as you would have them do until you". reminds me of "Blame others for your problems as your president has done for himself".

From your quote you are have not arrived to the don't blame others, you obviously are putting your problems on a POTUS. Would it be the one that send over 4000 men and women to their death with his WWMD lies, or the current one who's lie hasn't killed anyone?

JoK2 (California)
Posts: 198

Posted:

We needed to do address the same thing regarding our CCR's, however it was done by a resolution, and not amending the CCR's. We did not need to put the resolution to a vote, it was done via the BOD.

JoK2 (California)
Posts: 198

Posted:

We needed to do address the same thing regarding our CCR's, however it was done by a resolution, and not amending the CCR's. We did not need to put the resolution to a vote, it was done via the BOD.

JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569

Posted:

Many, if not most, documents:

CCR vote issues: delinquency does not matter

Bylaw (corporate) vote issues: delinquency disqualifies

For CCR changes: lack of a vote = NAY

whatever % is specified must be voted AYE

30 X .67 = 20.1 therefor you would need 22 AYE votes regardless of how many actually vote

BruceF1 (Connecticut)
Posts: 2,535

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnB26 on 12/04/2013 6:49 AM

30 X .67 = 20.1 therefor you would need 22 AYE votes regardless of how many actually vote

21, not 22. 22 is one more than necessary. Whenever the result is a fraction, no matter how small, the vote needed is the next higher integer - not the next higher integer plus 1.

Robert's Rules gives several numerical examples on how votes should be counted and results determined based on a variety of conditions.

RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 1,767

Posted:

Not yet it hasn't, but wait for IPAB to kick in.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

Tim:

Thanks for verifying my math. The HOA Attorney’s registered letter to amend Section 21 of the Declaration did say 2/3 vote of the Lot Owners. Honestly, I hoped to hear of the eligible Lot Owners but that is not the case because the Declaration is amended.

The HOA Attorney attended the Annual Meeting for an hour to answer legal questions since the Board copied him on several emails from the Board to the Owners.

We had a great Annual Meeting.

The Attorney thanked me for my questions about the 2/3 vote because based on the Georgia Code O.C.G.A. 44-5-60 (2010) which states 51% of the persons owning plots…..

Since the Developer’s Declaration is so vague on some language, I asked the Attorney if he agreed it’s possible for us to retain him again in the near future to amend another Section and he stated it was very possible.

My Motion: I Move that the members request to opt in to the Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act (“POA”) when the HOA Attorney amends Section 21 of the Declaration.

Great Discussion and motion unanimously carried.

We now have a Reserve Fund and everyone is excited about the POA.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

JohnC46:

Thanks for verifying my math. Per your explanation on the Bylaws, we had to amend Section 21 of the Declaration because our Declaration didn’t contain legal language to fine and enforce the Rules and Regulations DRAFT we prepared. So, opting in to the POA resolves this.

I thank you and Tim: I shared the math with everyone and the members.

The HOA Attorney’s registered letter to amend Section 21 of the Declaration did say 2/3 vote of the Lot Owners. Honestly, I hoped to hear of the eligible Lot Owners but that is not the case because the Declaration is amended.

The HOA Attorney attended the Annual Meeting for an hour to answer legal questions since the Board copied him on several emails from the Board to the Owners.

We had a great Annual Meeting.

The Attorney thanked me for my questions about the 2/3 vote because based on the Georgia Code
O.C.G.A. 44-5-60 (2010) which states 51% of the persons owning plots…..

Since the Developer’s Declaration is so vague on some language, I asked the Attorney if he agreed it’s possible for us to retain him again in the near future to amend another Section and he stated it was very possible.

My Motion: I Move that the members request to opt in to the Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act (“POA”) when the HOA Attorney amends Section 21 of the Declaration.

Great Discussion and motion unanimously carried.

We now have a Reserve Fund and everyone is excited about the POA

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

GlenL:

Thanks for info on the CCRs but our Declaration doesn't say that; the Developer was strong on collections, liens and many other important sections, some areas are weak because the Developer is focused to sell his Subdivision.

The HOA Attorney's registered letter to amend the Declaration did say 2/3 vote of the Lot Owners. Sorry, didn't make sense because some not current on dues will not attend or mail a proxy.

The Attorney thanked me for my questions about the 2/3 vote because based on the Georgia Code O.C.G.A. 44-5-60 (2010) which states 51% of the persons owning plots....

So, all Lot Owners vote.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

DaveD3:

Yes, Tim shares his expertise with the rest of us; my neighbors are so pleased to have the math!

You are right, I must watch the correct language between Declaration and Bylaws.

The Attorney thanked me for my questions about the 2/3 vote because based on the Georgia Code O.C.G.A. 44-5-60 (2010) which states 51% of the persons owning plots…..

ALL Lot Owners vote to amend the Declaration.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Margo

The math again...LOL

2/3rds is 66.6666%.

66.6666% of 30 is 19.9999 thus rounded up, 20 of 30 is 2/3rds.

67% of 30 is 20.1. thus rounded up, 21 of 30 is 67%.

Some times those decimal points can get you.....LOL

Glad all went well at your meeting.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

LarryB13:

Our declaration doesn't state anything about voting,etc., but strong to collect dues, liens, collections and many other sections.

We did have our HOA Attorney attend the Annual Meeting for an hour to answer and he advised that since we are deleting Section 21 and replace with his legal language, the Georgia Code O.C.G.A. 44-5-60 (2010) which states 51% of the persons owning plots....

All Lot Owners vote.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

RichardP13:

You were fortunate to start out with solid a Declaration. The language in our current Declaration on Section 21 did not contain legal language for us to fine and enforce the DRAFT Rules and Regs. The HOA Attorney will delete/amend that section to provide the legal language.

I asked the Attorney if he agreed it’s possible for us to retain him again in the near future to amend another Section of the Declaration and he stated it was very possible.

My Motion: I Move that the members request to opt in to the Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act (“POA”) when the HOA Attorney amends Section 21 of the Declaration.

The POA will give our HOA more strength. We like the automatic statutory liens, power to fine for rules violatons and I liked: makes both buyers and sellers of a lot liable for assessments – with this provision, you can still try to collect unpaid assessments that previously accrued against either (or both) parties in the sale of a lot;

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

JohnB26:

You are spot on:

CCR vote issues: delinquency does not matter
I now know ALL lot owners vote.

Bylaw (corporate) vote issues: delinquency disqualifies

Agree with delinquency.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

BruceF1:

Our HOA thanks ALL of you; we got the math and appreciate it.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

Because the HOA Attorney deleted/amended the entire section for adequate legal language, he used Georgia Code O.C.G.A. 44-5-60 (2010) which states 51% of the persons owning plots…..

All Lot Owners.

MargoT (Georgia)
Posts: 80

Posted:

JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569

Posted:

in general:

any vote affecting the CCRs is NOT dependent on payment status ~ EVERY HOME gets a vote regardless of payment status

the corporate by-laws, however, are different since they effect dues payers ONLY ~ they will state who votes

there are IN FACT 2 different 'classes' of voting

1) the base contract - CCRs which 'run with the land'

2) corporate affairs - which affect the corp. only

I probably have not adequately explained the fine point

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here