Posted:
OK... APOLOGIES for bring a "dead" topic back to the front, but I used the search feature for "order of precedence" and these posts came up - along with additional questions from me, on a current issue.
From the posts this is the order widely accepted as correct...
Federal Law
State Law
Local Law/codes, etc
Plat's
Declaration/CC&R's
Articles of Incorporation
By-laws
Rules and Regulations
I have Art's of Inc, which were drafted and filed two months before the Declartion/CC&R's. Now, the timeline does not really worry or concern me - it is the actions which trigger the creation of the above.
Example, obviously you need to actually "have" a created and recognzed "corporation." Question - is the trigger point here, the collection of the first set of monies from the sale of a unit? In other words can decisions impacting upon the HOA be done during this period, in the name of the HOA, by developer's agents, as appointed directors, which alter (reversing the position), the original documents?
The issue that I am facing is that under our Declaration it was put forth to the County that one set of terms and conditions would be in place - these terms and conditions were approved by the County, and properly filed as the Declaration. Then once the developer's agents were appointed as directors, about six months later, an amendment was submitted to the County, which changed the Declaration's terms and conditions, and did so in a manner that was not conducive (face value, and also cited as "unusual" by attorneys), to the HOA - and more than likely would only benefit the Developer. Then an additional year later (fall 2003 to spring 2005 no HOA meeting, just developer appointed directors making decisions, with no record of minutes/meetings), the first HOA meeting took place with election of directors to Officers, hiring of MC, etc.
My "assumption" is that during that period prior to actually having official meetings of the HOA (under whose name the directors were appointed), there should have ONLY been decisions made in "open meetings" when it addressed HOA matters. If the developer needed to alter a valid and filed agreement with the County, as it affected the HOA, then this was an action required to scrutiny by guidelines of the letter/spirit of "open meeting" laws. As it stands now, there are "question marks" into why this developer, and his appointed agents would enter into an agreement which was lop-sided to the HOA. And because the first meeting did not take place until almost a year after Declaration filed, the "questionable" Amendment filed, to the time of the first official meeting of the HOA - there is little "evidence" or rational which can be explored or answered to shed light on additional information. And while the County has not released bonds, the developer, and developr agents on the first HOA board, are "ghosts."