CRE Single Lot/Homeowners Owners, It's Time To Speak Up!

exnodak

New Member
The paragraphs below are copied directly from the covenants as posted on the POACRE website.

Your argument is, as I understand, that because the phrase “for each lot” exists in the Road Fee paragraph and not in the M&O paragraph the M&O can only be applied once to each property owner. I disagree.

The reason I disagree is twofold. First, the M&O paragraph also goes on to say “these fees shall constitute a lien against the property” which distinctly implies that the author meant one property one fee and that the fees are applied on a property basis and not a personal basis.

Certainly if a multiple property owner owed a fee, it would be very difficult for the POACRE to decide which lot they could legally file a lien against. By that fact, the fee is intended to be applied per lot.

Secondly, I disagree because the two paragraphs were authored by two different people. The Roads Fees paragraph was constructed by the original developer and exists verbatim in the original covenants text from the 1960’s. The M&O paragraph was added by the POACRE Board in 1988 at takeover. Some say illegally because there apparently was no proper vote of the membership, and there are several differing versions that were paraded around that are quite different than this “recorded” version, but that is another argument.

Furhermore, there is a total absence of language to suggest that those fees shouldn’t be collected on a per lot basis. The POACRE Board of 1988 allowed for unusual cases and built in for themselves an ability to “waiver” in certain circumstances based on a vote of the membership.

If you consider that the phrase “for each lot” is simply a redundant term, you can clearly see that the author in 1988 was merely conserving words.

There is no need for a covenant change for this item. It just takes the guts to enforce it properly. It would be easier to survive a legal challenge than it would be to get the covenant changed. Besides, the membership would probably go for your change if the Board had actually tried to do the right thing first.


• MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FEE: Each lot purchasers or owner shall pay to the Corporation in advance by May 25th of each year an annual maintenance and operations fee (formerly call annual Chesapeake Ranch Club dues) for the operation of the common facilities and to provide security services. If not duly paid, these fees shall constitute a lien against the property enforceable by foreclosure under the Maryland Contract Lien Act; however, such lien shall be subordinate to any prior or subsequent, VA, FMHA, or FHA lien. The annual maintenance and operations fee may be changed by a majority vote of the owners provided that membership contracts of the former Chesapeake Ranch Club, Inc., which specified fixed dues and fees will not be changed without written approval of the individual owner.



• ROAD FEE: Each lot purchaser or owner shall pay to the Corporation in advance by July 1st of each year an annual fee for each lot, for the construction, maintenance and repair of all roads in the subdivisions. Said fee shall be $86.40 for the year beginning July 1, 1987. K The fees may be increased yearly thereafter by the same percentage that the price for March increases over the price index for March of the previous year. Prior to the conveyance of title to a lot, the Corporation may add the unpaid road fees to any unpaid purchase price of the lot; in the event of nonpayment after conveyance, such unpaid fees shall constitute a lien against the property enforceable by foreclosure under the Maryland Contract Lien Act; however, such lien shall be subordinate to any prior or subsequent, VA, FMHA, or FHA lien. (“Price Index” means United States Consumer Price Index. All items for the “Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Areas)
 

Flyonthewall

New Member
This is interesting stuff.

I'd be interested in hearing how the rest of the BoD feel on this matter and if it is a matter of having the "guts to enforce" as Exnodak so eloquently put it and not another issue getting in the way.

Would the current billing procedures mandate that precedents have been set thereby eliminating an alternate interpretation?
 

exnodak

New Member
According to this paragraph from the covenants, the issue of precedents has already been taken care of.

"WAIVERS: The Provisions herein contained shall run with the land and inure to the benefit and be enforceable by the Corporation and the lot owners, and the failure of the Corporation or the lot owners to enforce any of the said Provisions contained herein shall not be deemed a waiver of right to do so thereafter as to a default occurring prior or subsequent there to. ......"
 

dgates80

Land of the lost
I agree with you, exnodak -- pretty thin basis to give the multiple lot owners an out to pay only one M&O fee.

I am wondering if this was adjudicated in the past to end up with this interpretation, or was this merely one attorney's opinion. Seems that this is a resonable and logical way to add to the income side of CRE's balance sheet, with no added financial impact to the good folks that are already paying an M&O fee.

One contract, one fee, one vote. Anything else is not acceptable.
 
Last edited:
R

residentofcre

Guest
wow... I should have gone public with this before.... I am ready some agreeable stuff....

I have asked to be on the agenda on Saturday with the Covenants Change....

It would be nice if you could be there to share your views... which oppose the legal advice I was given last year...

It would be so much easier to change policy and procedure or bylaws than to go the Covenants route....
 

ladyhawk

New Member
residentofcre said:
wow... I should have gone public with this before.... I am ready some agreeable stuff....

I have asked to be on the agenda on Saturday with the Covenants Change....

It would be nice if you could be there to share your views... which oppose the legal advice I was given last year...

It would be so much easier to change policy and procedure or bylaws than to go the Covenants route....
We can only get the changes made if we can get the membership to show.

I'm hoping that we can push this enough to get more of them involved.

Thats not the only thing we need to be taking care of either, but it sure would make a difference with our budgets and finances... Maybe it will help us maintain our amenities much better to considering it is M&O and most of our money goes into operating the association now... It sure would be nice if we could put it in the roads though... I wish when they first set that all up someone would have considered the costs associated with the roads, or at least researched things, a little better...

June
 

REBEL

New Member
residentofcre said:
wow... I should have gone public with this before.... I am ready some agreeable stuff....

I have asked to be on the agenda on Saturday with the Covenants Change....

It would be nice if you could be there to share your views... which oppose the legal advice I was given last year...

It would be so much easier to change policy and procedure or bylaws than to go the Covenants route....


Is there a meeting this Saturday? Where? When? If so why did I not find it on the CRE web site, or did I just over look it?

Is it one of the prescheduled meetings?
Sorry I can not keep up with the CRE meetings and my other Saturday meetings.

For me it would be nice to see this kind of stuff on the WEB site as a Reminder. :coffee:
 

ladyhawk

New Member
REBEL said:
Is there a meeting this Saturday? Where? When? If so why did I not find it on the CRE web site, or did I just over look it?

Is it one of the prescheduled meetings?
Sorry I can not keep up with the CRE meetings and my other Saturday meetings.

For me it would be nice to see this kind of stuff on the WEB site as a Reminder. :coffee:
We have a meeting this Saturday at 10am in the Lower Level of our Admin Building. I hope to have the agenda posted tomorrow evening. We have to give 48 hours and I am trying to make sure I have everything that was requested. Yes, Becky I did not forget yours....LOL

This should be a membership meeting as our president said he was going to make all our Saturday meetings member meetings... But if we don't get a quorum it will get turned into a regular meeting... Please come so we can get our quorums...

Thanks
June
 

exnodak

New Member
Thank you.

For the record, I have the same problem as Lusbymom. I aquired a neighbor lot myself that sits on a pseudo-cul-desac. Never in my lifetime will the road be improved to it but I must pay the road fee and std on it. Based on my own position however, I am inviting that I also pay the M&O fee on it. (Sorry Lusbymom!!)

The only legal and legitimate way I can get rid of all of these fees is to merge my lots. That used to be easy, but since the greedy County Commissioners have decided they want to tax anything that looks like a title change it would cost more to merge than the lot cost me in the first place. I'd even have to have BOTH properties completely surveyed even though all I'm doing is dissolving the common boundary. So, I might as well develop it and add to the overwhelming density of my neighborhood.

For the record, there is a totally separate contract for each and every lot in POACRE. Separate legal instruments should be treated as separate. I think that supports the one fee/lot position.

The one vote/member rule is not related to the M&O fee. It is a completely separate issue. I'm with Ladyhawk on this one. POACRE is an incorporated association, not a stockholder corporation. We did not buy shares, we bought equity in a common interest. The Home Owner's Association Act ignores the fact that a property owner that is not the developer could aquire enough properties to control the community. So, the only protection that exists for that is in the one vote/person.

Maybe her Donald Trump being one voter in NYC was too large a scale to comprehend. Lets try it if Donald Trump lived in POACRE and aquired 100 properties. Given that scenario, he could be a one person petition to change anything any way he wanted. I like the one vote per person concept.

Adjudication in District Court is not binding. Unless it was appealed and a Special Court of Appeals decision is published, the district court cases have no bearing on the law. Only on that specific case. So, if someone got lucky in Dist. Ct. back in the day it doesn't matter.
 
R

residentofcre

Guest
exnodak said:
Thank you.

For the record, I have the same problem as Lusbymom. I aquired a neighbor lot myself that sits on a pseudo-cul-desac. Never in my lifetime will the road be improved to it but I must pay the road fee and std on it. Based on my own position however, I am inviting that I also pay the M&O fee on it. (Sorry Lusbymom!!)

The only legal and legitimate way I can get rid of all of these fees is to merge my lots. That used to be easy, but since the greedy County Commissioners have decided they want to tax anything that looks like a title change it would cost more to merge than the lot cost me in the first place. I'd even have to have BOTH properties completely surveyed even though all I'm doing is dissolving the common boundary. So, I might as well develop it and add to the overwhelming density of my neighborhood.

For the record, there is a totally separate contract for each and every lot in POACRE. Separate legal instruments should be treated as separate. I think that supports the one fee/lot position.

The one vote/member rule is not related to the M&O fee. It is a completely separate issue. I'm with Ladyhawk on this one. POACRE is an incorporated association, not a stockholder corporation. We did not buy shares, we bought equity in a common interest. The Home Owner's Association Act ignores the fact that a property owner that is not the developer could aquire enough properties to control the community. So, the only protection that exists for that is in the one vote/person.

Maybe her Donald Trump being one voter in NYC was too large a scale to comprehend. Lets try it if Donald Trump lived in POACRE and aquired 100 properties. Given that scenario, he could be a one person petition to change anything any way he wanted. I like the one vote per person concept.

Adjudication in District Court is not binding. Unless it was appealed and a Special Court of Appeals decision is published, the district court cases have no bearing on the law. Only on that specific case. So, if someone got lucky in Dist. Ct. back in the day it doesn't matter.
I have asked to put this on the agenda for Saturday the 15th. If it's successful it will come up for discussion. It would then come up during the October Member's meeting. I would appreciate it if those who are interested mark their calendars for both meetings. That's Saturday, September the 15th and October the 13th... 10AM
 

REBEL

New Member
ladyhawk said:
We have a meeting this Saturday at 10am in the Lower Level of our Admin Building. I hope to have the agenda posted tomorrow evening. We have to give 48 hours and I am trying to make sure I have everything that was requested. Yes, Becky I did not forget yours....LOL

This should be a membership meeting as our president said he was going to make all our Saturday meetings member meetings... But if we don't get a quorum it will get turned into a regular meeting... Please come so we can get our quorums...

Thanks
June

Section 7. QUORUM - The quorum for the conduct of business at a duly called membership meeting shall consist
of at least one hundred (100) Members-in-Good-Standing, of which at least fifty (50) shall be in person. The
balance may be in written proxies of attendance.

So do you think that 100 people who live in CRE and care, read this forum or thread? I just lucked across it myself. There needs to be away to get day to day information out to the members. Like a yahoo group and put it out on flyer's. I would put a few dollars into something like that as an individual member.
 
R

residentofcre

Guest
REBEL said:
Section 7. QUORUM - The quorum for the conduct of business at a duly called membership meeting shall consist
of at least one hundred (100) Members-in-Good-Standing, of which at least fifty (50) shall be in person. The
balance may be in written proxies of attendance.

So do you think that 100 people who live in CRE and care, read this forum or thread? I just lucked across it myself. There needs to be away to get day to day information out to the members. Like a yahoo group and put it out on flyer's. I would put a few dollars into something like that as an individual member.
June and one of the members are working on putting just that sort of link on www.poacre.org . When she has it running then it will be reported in the Round Up Times and on these forums.

We're working to make it better....
 

whitecat2

New Member
what about the people who are grandfathered in i heard they dont pay as much as we do. they are on old rates some of them paying as little as 10.00 a year so i hear
 

exnodak

New Member
Yup, its true. And that benefit can be tansfered to a new owner ONCE and only once. After that the fees go back to normal.

I guess some things you just have to outlive.
 

ladyhawk

New Member
REBEL said:
Section 7. QUORUM - The quorum for the conduct of business at a duly called membership meeting shall consist
of at least one hundred (100) Members-in-Good-Standing, of which at least fifty (50) shall be in person. The
balance may be in written proxies of attendance.

So do you think that 100 people who live in CRE and care, read this forum or thread? I just lucked across it myself. There needs to be away to get day to day information out to the members. Like a yahoo group and put it out on flyer's. I would put a few dollars into something like that as an individual member.
If you called your neighbors, and they called theirs and so on and so on.... ect... We might get lucky! What can I say, I'm an optimist most of the time!

June
 

exnodak

New Member
And, what if a quorum showed up. What kind of business do you think you can conduct?

In order for any business to be conducted it requires specific notice of the business at hand going out to the membership.

If a quorum just happens to "show up", a meeting of the membership couldn't take place anyway so you would have a large audience for a small board meeting. And, that audience would be under the impression it could do something legally.

I thinks this one ain't been thought through too good.
 

ladyhawk

New Member
exnodak said:
And, what if a quorum showed up. What kind of business do you think you can conduct?

In order for any business to be conducted it requires specific notice of the business at hand going out to the membership.

If a quorum just happens to "show up", a meeting of the membership couldn't take place anyway so you would have a large audience for a small board meeting. And, that audience would be under the impression it could do something legally.

I thinks this one ain't been thought through too good.

The agenda was made out as a membership meeting so that if we get a quorum we can do something. If we can't then we just adjourn the membership meeting and move into a regular board meeting. I don't understand where you are coming from here. So specific notice has been given and the president has said numerous times that our Saturday board meetings will be membership meetings unless we fail to get a quorum.
 

dgates80

Land of the lost
I think what exnodak is saying that in the event a quarum is in fact available, a specific issue may only be acted upon by the membership if that issue is published to the membership as an item of business to be considered.

That said, what exactly constitutes "published to the membership", I have no idea what the legal requirements are. Published in the RUT? Newspaper ad in the legal section? Perhaps a lower standard such as simple inclusion of the issue on the membership meeting agenda approved by the BOD? Dunno....
 

exnodak

New Member
dgate80 is right. But, it is a little more complicated.

Member meetings and Board meetings are distinctly different. A notice cannot be sent calling a "member meeting" and then just because there is no quorum, switch gears and call it a Board meeting.

The notice requirements AND agenda requirements are distinctly different.

For a member meeting to be held a written notice must be mailed to each and every MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION with specific information concerning the business to be conducted at least 15 days prior to that meeting. The RUT would suffice if timing is correct.

For a BOARD meeting, the notice only goes to the Board members a few days ahead of the meeting.

A MEMBER meeting is conducted by the MEMBERS and presided over by the President. The rest of the Board just sits on the bench and REPORTS to the members as needed/required. In the POACRE format, there are statutory committees that must report to the MEMBERSHIP on community performance.

A BOARD meeting is conducted by the BOARD and is presided over by the President and the MEMBERS sit on the bench and observe the proceedings.

Bottom line...they can't be co-mingled or switched without chaos and a lot of anger erupting.
 

ladyhawk

New Member
exnodak said:
dgate80 is right. But, it is a little more complicated.

Member meetings and Board meetings are distinctly different. A notice cannot be sent calling a "member meeting" and then just because there is no quorum, switch gears and call it a Board meeting.

The notice requirements AND agenda requirements are distinctly different.

For a member meeting to be held a written notice must be mailed to each and every MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION with specific information concerning the business to be conducted at least 15 days prior to that meeting. The RUT would suffice if timing is correct.

For a BOARD meeting, the notice only goes to the Board members a few days ahead of the meeting.

A MEMBER meeting is conducted by the MEMBERS and presided over by the President. The rest of the Board just sits on the bench and REPORTS to the members as needed/required. In the POACRE format, there are statutory committees that must report to the MEMBERSHIP on community performance.

A BOARD meeting is conducted by the BOARD and is presided over by the President and the MEMBERS sit on the bench and observe the proceedings.

Bottom line...they can't be co-mingled or switched without chaos and a lot of anger erupting.
How in pray tell did all this become so complicated?....

June
 
Top