Quote:
Posted By TimB4 on 02/19/2017 4:16 AM
I would advise against this unless you actually intend to proceed with such an action.
If bluffing and you are called on it, you lose credibility.
If not bluffing, understand what receivership is.
If there are only 2 directors, the question to ask is why?
Perhaps no other volunteers have stepped forward to serve. Would you be willing to serve if asked?
We don't know how long these things have been going on in JohnD55's condo association. On the financial records front, it's possible John hasn't submitted a proper request yet and that doing so will provide him with what he's looking for. If they've been stonewalling him for months, though, then that's a cause for concern.
Same with the condo board. It may be a short-term problem that will resolve itself soon enough. But if the only 2 directors are a husband and wife and they are and have been acting unreasonably (and possibly unlawfully) for any length of time then I think that's as good a reason as any to initiate the procedure to have a receiver appointed.
It's an extreme measure to be sure, but when the other unit owners are notified of what's about to happen - unless they wake up and smell the coffee - they'll wake up sooner rather than later. No bluffing is involved. The notice alerts all unit owners that unless a sufficent number of directors are in place within 30 days then a petition to the court will be filed asking for a receiver.
The lack of credibility would be on the unit owners who allow that to happen after receiving a 30-day notice, in my opinion. Not the owner looking to force the issue.