PROXY VOTING 15 homes

I’ve found myself living in a HOA that does not allow boats. I’m in a debate with the homeowner’s management company with changing the docs. I’ve read the doc and they say that I need 66 2/3% of votes out of 15 homes to be yes to amend the doc. The problem is that the management companies “calculator” says that we need 11 votes. My scientific calculator says that we need 10 votes. I’ve even gone to explaining the 5 times tables to the management company for them to see it my way. Even the attorney is also standing by the 11 votes needed. Now, I am not sure what to think about the 66 2/3% of 15 houses is. I know I can appeal the ruling and have a judge take a look at it after the vote. Can anyone please help me, on how to clear this up with them??

We have 3 homes in foreclosure and I don’t think they would vote. Also I’ve heard about a reverse vote. How do I ask for this to happen?

Donna,

Talk about angels on the head of a pin! Here's my alternate calculation:

Does 66.666666 = 2/3 of 100%? If not rounded, no. If rounded, yes.

If the PM is busting Roy's chops because they don't want to round the .666666 to .67, I'd say that's an agenda talking. And PMs don't set agendas - his Board does. I'd ask for the Board to make this call.

With all due respect to both of you, the answer more accurately lies within the exact quote of the percentage required to amend the documents.

If it says "two-thirds" then the number needed is 10.
If it says 66 2/3% the answer is still 10
If it says 67% the answer is 11

Finally, if the exact verbage says "greater than" rather than "equal to", any of those percentages, the answer is 11.

Donna - but in this case there IS the ability to gain EXACTLY a 2/3 vote - ergo 2/3 of 15 = 10 exactly.

John,

I agree that this is as simple a math as can be, 15 divided by 3 is 5 and 2 times that is 10. I guess that the P.M.s interpretation was using a 66-2/3rds which gives the decimal point and rounding off. (reason that I hated math)

Roy,

I read the amendment change that is proposed. All that I have to say is "HOLY CR--!! A 28 foot boat on a trailer that will be hidden from view by bushes or a fence? I'd like to see that in person before I'd vote on that. Have you done a count on how many are in favor of this? That's a whole lot of boat to look at.

Donna,

10/11 aside, I'd agree that Roy has a steep hill to climb. But good for him for taking a shot.

Did the DECLARANT have an area designated for storage? no area at this time, and the home owners dont want to add one.

The change in the wording to allow boats is really changed by allowing them on a units lot--sides or back, it puts a limit on size to 28 feet and allows them on the rear or sides of a lot as long as they are fully landscaped or enclosed. I agree with you Kirk, why not include the motor homes and campers if the boats are allowed. This sounds like it was written by a boater. As I said, where we were , there were no boats allowed in the developement but an area was provided for all rec vehicles to be securely stored. Or find a storage facility which all you need to do is to call in 1 half hour before you arrive and the boat is put into the water for you.

The home owners dont want to have RVs. I am the boat owner that is asking for the changes.

Roy - This concept of a "reverse vote" is unlikely to be permissible under your governing documents. Particularly if the verbage in the proposed amendment you posted previously is reflective of the verbage in your covenants.

Note that that verbage is structured in an "affirmative" way such that 66 2/3% must approve. This suggests that this many members/owners must take a positive action rather than adopting the position that "no action" can be interpreted as approval.

I will admit that this isn't exactly my area of expertise - that's just the way I read it.

Thanks for all the info. I hope everyone votes in my favor.

Kirk,
I so agree with you on this attempt to change the association documents voting process just to accomidate what seems to be one guy on a mission. Protective Covenants are written for all of the members, not just someone who wants to change what seems to be a covenant to maintain a certain look of the community. There are options to boat storage, campers and all of these very big, obviously visable objects. As I asked Roy, how do you hide a 28 foot boat on a trailer. That big probably has a flying bridge and antenna and rods shooting skyward. People buy into a certain area because they like the looks of it and perhaps the value of the property.

A Florida example-- a city north of Palm Beach--Port St. Lucie, if you go onto Google Earth and zoom in on certain areas, it looks like a boat junk yard. And this is not even near any water. This area has NO boat restrictions so this is what happens when restrictions are not in place. Sorry Roy, but I would also fight against this all the way.

Donna,

To be sure I would vote against the amendment. Partly because I agree a 28 foot boat is big. I have never seen one that size that could be screened from view entirely. But I would feel that if you can have that with screening then I should be able to have a travel trailer if screened. Then again, I don't have an issue with either if they are screened such that the only place you can see them is from an alley.

For that matter, I would allow for two days in view as well to allow one to load and unload. (Or in the case of a pop-up they could allow the thing to dry before putting into storage.) But this last part goes very much into a level of appearance and I respect that some would rather not see them at all.

William - you'll see from my first post in this thread that I essentially addressed the same issue of "at least" vs "greater than".

Roy never actually posted the CCR verbage, but he did post the proposed amendment which, if it was accurately copied from the CCR verbage, would indicate the answer is of the "at least" variety.

So at the very real risk of "slaying the neighing equine" (beating a dead horse), this is an "at least" scenario and the correct number of votes needed is at least 10.

how long does the boat have to stay on the property before the HOA cant do anything about it? (kind of like grandfathered in) As you can see i'm tring to find a loop hole.... ;-)

Roy,
If the boat is remaining on a property against the HOA rules, it will never be "grandfathered in." The Board will go into enforcement mode and the daily cost can be as much as $100.00 with a maximum of $1000.00 per violation in Florida. You don't really want to go that route. The Board cannot grandfather anything that is against the Protective Covenants.

Only the people on the board don’t want the boat. They say it looks trashy. Believe it or not, with the way the boat is landscaped you can’t see it from my neighbor’s house or the one main street that runs in the neighborhood. We do live in million dollar homes. And we do police ourselves. But when you read the doc every person is in violation of something or other. It just looks like they are trying to single us out for having a nice boat. Parking the boat on the driveway will ba a code violation with the city. we wouldnt do that..

Well Roy,

Let me try to make this simple for all to read. A lot owner who is in violation of a covenant, Bylaw or Rules and Regs should recieve a letter of the violation, spelling out what the violation is and how many days will be allowed for correction or compliance. Below is the Statute section on what the Board is required to do.

(2) If the governing documents so provide, an association may suspend, for a reasonable period of time, the rights of a member or a member's tenants, guests, or invitees, or both, to use common areas and facilities and may levy reasonable fines, not to exceed $100 per violation, against any member or any tenant, guest, or invitee. A fine may be levied on the basis of each day of a continuing violation, with a single notice and opportunity for hearing, except that no such fine shall exceed $1,000 in the aggregate unless otherwise provided in the governing documents. A fine shall not become a lien against a parcel. In any action to recover a fine, the prevailing party is entitled to collect its reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the nonprevailing party as determined by the court.

a) A fine or suspension may not be imposed without notice of at least 14 days to the person sought to be fined or suspended and an opportunity for a hearing before a committee of at least three members appointed by the board who are not officers, directors, or employees of the association, or the spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister of an officer, director, or employee. If the committee, by majority vote, does not approve a proposed fine or suspension, it may not be imposed.

Mary,

I doubt the Board has the power to stop him from seeking to amend the documents. Most documents state that a percentage of the ownership must approve. There is nothing about the Board having a say. Many times an amendment comes when residents don't like the direction of the Board.

Roy,

You would have to read your documents to know what time frame is involved. Most state that you will be given a period of time to "cure" the violation. And probably you can request a hearing before the Board. But that is not likely to get you anything but time.

If you believe that 10 people will sign it, then go for it. You have nothing to lose but time and a small cost. With only 15 owners, the cost of mailing the proposed amendment won't be too much. (In Texas you must notify every resident of your intent to amend the documents. This can be in person or by mail.)

While I don't agree with the way you wrote the amendment, I don't live there and thus my vote means nothing. I would mail a copy to every person asking them to mail back a signed approval if they agree. Then I would start knocking on doors a week or so later. If you can get 10 people to agree you are set. But be aware that someone may be like me and withhold agreement unless you accommodate their desire as well. And that is how our nation was developed. I agree to your change and you support mine.

just to add fuel to the fire, in my school, we were taught that when "rounding", you roundup up all numbers 6 and higher, and rounded down all numbers 4 or less, and rounded 5 to the nearest EVEN number...

so, 10.5 "rounded" would be 10 in my school. 11.5 would be 12.

In my school, all numbers with a .4 or less we rounded off to the low number--4.4 would be 4. Any numbers with a .5 or greater became the next higher number--6.5 would be 7. OLD SCHOOL!!

John,
Thanks for the concur. I hated to do this BUT I went to my Husband (math guru) and he also said that basic math does it this way. The question is --do Roys documents use basic math or some other creative counting system like Mork would use.

Nah Noo, Nah Noo-- Make this go away.

It was just suggested to me by my colleague standing outside my office door who heard my verbal rant that there is an educational opportunity here.

66 2/3% converts into 200/3%.

That is ((66x3)/3)+2=200/3.

Moving the decimal point two places to the left, since it is expressed as a percentage give us 2.00/3.

Convert 15 to a vulgar fraction: 15/1

Now multiply: (2.00/3) x 15/1

2.00 x 15
3 x 1
which simplifies to

30.00
3

= 10

Do we need a fourth grade reading course as well?

I just showed you that the result is 10 not 10.5. Rounding is done after the calculation, not before. If you round off before the calculation, you compound the rounding error by the multiplier.