ReneeP3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42
Posts: 42
Posted:
I'll apologize in advance for this long explanation.
These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding upon all persons, whether deeds make reference to them or not until January 1, 2006 at which time they will be automatically extended for successive periods of (10) years unless by a majority of the then owners it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part.
Notice there is no directive as to a meeting, signature petition, NOTHING.
In November, we put forward a vote to amend the CC&R's. This was a meeting vote. Quorum was not achieved, the Board notified the homeowners that the meeting was adjourned and that they were no longer pursuing amending the covenants.
Shortly afterwards, the former Board President, petitioned the board for a "special meeting" to again take a stab at amending the covenants. The Board announced the meeting to take place on December 16th. The Board sent out another copy of the proposed revised CC&R's as well as two additional pieces of paper. One had an interesting twist. It was entitled:
"Special Meeting Proxy/Ballot"
51% (46)of members must be present in person or by proxy to meet quorum requirements to conduct business.
PLEASE RETURN TO HOA MGT NO LATER THAN 12/15/15 FOR VALIDATION.
400 CENTURY PARKWAY, GREENVILLE SC
Owner Name/Address: ______________________________________
Owner Signature:__________________________
Phone # for use in verifying your proxy: _______________________
Ballot VOTE OPTIONS: (select One)
Vote No to Amendment ______
Vote Yes to Amendment _____
The Board actually told people they didn't have to attend the meeting, they could send in their ballots to the property manager or contact the former president and he would bring a notary to over to their house to notarize a separate Signature Page for Petition and pick-up their ballot. Ballots received prior to the meeting were carried into the meeting and counted towards quorum and towards acceptance of the new covenants along with those cast at the meeting. The Board was notified that they were in violation of both our bylaws as well as the State rules of non-profit corporations voting rules. We allow for proxy's to vote for members not in attendance, but that the ballot cast outside of the meeting, by the owner, not the owners proxy was an absentee ballot and that is not allowed by either or bylaw's or the state laws. The following day, the Board sent out an email announcing Quorum was met at last night's special meeting. This means that all votes received are valid and can be counted towards the Amendment. They did not announce the results of the vote. Instead they said, If you have not yet voted, please do so no later than 5:00pm Monday December 21, 2015. So they extended the vote, after quorum was achieved and a vote taken, an additional week. They provided to the former board president a list of members who had not submitted ballots and he began contacting people. After multiple emails to the Board for a demand to know the results of the vote, the Board announced a PRELIMINARY count 46 in favor, 4 opposed. The required number to approve the covenant change was 46 votes, which they had. So why would you extend a vote, not having the power to do so by either the State or the HOA governing documents? It became very apparent after they filed the new covenants, 2 of the signatures were invalid as they were spouses not on the deed. They received an additional 2 signatures after the meeting vote in favor, and 8 signatures opposed when they announced after the week extension that "The Revised Covenants Have Been Passed"!
They filed the new covenants on 1/4/2016.
My questions:
If in the C&C&R's there is no directive on how to cast your vote, are you limited to the bylaws?
Where are the legal objections to calling a meeting vote then accepting ballots outside of the meeting?
What are the legal objections to holding a meeting, receiving more than enough total votes (50), and refusing to acknowledge that voting has been concluded because you didn't achieve the desired outcome of passing the covenants.
Because the CC&R's are silent does any of this matter. Heck, just get 46 valid people to sign the form below and everything's good! What they submitted to the county were 48 individual Notarized Signature Page for Petition forms as verification that 48 owners approved the change of the amendments. I remind that 2 of those names are invalid because they are not on the deed. 2 names were obtained 2 days following the meeting vote. Below is literally the form, minus the notary information which was included.
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PETITION
Witness:
________________________ LOT # ________
________________________ Print Name ____________________________
lot owner name
Signature ________________________________
Print Name _________________________________
lot owner name
Signature _________________________________
I understand nobody is an attorney. I also understand that you've all seen a lot and because of that you're more aware of how the courts have seen this and I'm trying to figure out if this is worth contacting an attorney about.
These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding upon all persons, whether deeds make reference to them or not until January 1, 2006 at which time they will be automatically extended for successive periods of (10) years unless by a majority of the then owners it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part.
Notice there is no directive as to a meeting, signature petition, NOTHING.
In November, we put forward a vote to amend the CC&R's. This was a meeting vote. Quorum was not achieved, the Board notified the homeowners that the meeting was adjourned and that they were no longer pursuing amending the covenants.
Shortly afterwards, the former Board President, petitioned the board for a "special meeting" to again take a stab at amending the covenants. The Board announced the meeting to take place on December 16th. The Board sent out another copy of the proposed revised CC&R's as well as two additional pieces of paper. One had an interesting twist. It was entitled:
"Special Meeting Proxy/Ballot"
51% (46)of members must be present in person or by proxy to meet quorum requirements to conduct business.
PLEASE RETURN TO HOA MGT NO LATER THAN 12/15/15 FOR VALIDATION.
400 CENTURY PARKWAY, GREENVILLE SC
Owner Name/Address: ______________________________________
Owner Signature:__________________________
Phone # for use in verifying your proxy: _______________________
Ballot VOTE OPTIONS: (select One)
Vote No to Amendment ______
Vote Yes to Amendment _____
The Board actually told people they didn't have to attend the meeting, they could send in their ballots to the property manager or contact the former president and he would bring a notary to over to their house to notarize a separate Signature Page for Petition and pick-up their ballot. Ballots received prior to the meeting were carried into the meeting and counted towards quorum and towards acceptance of the new covenants along with those cast at the meeting. The Board was notified that they were in violation of both our bylaws as well as the State rules of non-profit corporations voting rules. We allow for proxy's to vote for members not in attendance, but that the ballot cast outside of the meeting, by the owner, not the owners proxy was an absentee ballot and that is not allowed by either or bylaw's or the state laws. The following day, the Board sent out an email announcing Quorum was met at last night's special meeting. This means that all votes received are valid and can be counted towards the Amendment. They did not announce the results of the vote. Instead they said, If you have not yet voted, please do so no later than 5:00pm Monday December 21, 2015. So they extended the vote, after quorum was achieved and a vote taken, an additional week. They provided to the former board president a list of members who had not submitted ballots and he began contacting people. After multiple emails to the Board for a demand to know the results of the vote, the Board announced a PRELIMINARY count 46 in favor, 4 opposed. The required number to approve the covenant change was 46 votes, which they had. So why would you extend a vote, not having the power to do so by either the State or the HOA governing documents? It became very apparent after they filed the new covenants, 2 of the signatures were invalid as they were spouses not on the deed. They received an additional 2 signatures after the meeting vote in favor, and 8 signatures opposed when they announced after the week extension that "The Revised Covenants Have Been Passed"!
They filed the new covenants on 1/4/2016.
My questions:
If in the C&C&R's there is no directive on how to cast your vote, are you limited to the bylaws?
Where are the legal objections to calling a meeting vote then accepting ballots outside of the meeting?
What are the legal objections to holding a meeting, receiving more than enough total votes (50), and refusing to acknowledge that voting has been concluded because you didn't achieve the desired outcome of passing the covenants.
Because the CC&R's are silent does any of this matter. Heck, just get 46 valid people to sign the form below and everything's good! What they submitted to the county were 48 individual Notarized Signature Page for Petition forms as verification that 48 owners approved the change of the amendments. I remind that 2 of those names are invalid because they are not on the deed. 2 names were obtained 2 days following the meeting vote. Below is literally the form, minus the notary information which was included.
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PETITION
Witness:
________________________ LOT # ________
________________________ Print Name ____________________________
lot owner name
Signature ________________________________
Print Name _________________________________
lot owner name
Signature _________________________________
I understand nobody is an attorney. I also understand that you've all seen a lot and because of that you're more aware of how the courts have seen this and I'm trying to figure out if this is worth contacting an attorney about.
