One open query and a couple of PM's. Doesn't seem to be much interest, but here it is anyway. I know this is long, but believe me its the short version.
After trading numerous briefs and countering motions for Summary Judgment, we are still waiting for an assignment of a judge.
Once a Judge is assigned, it really won't take much of a trial/hearing. The case will either be dismissed on procedural issues or it will be decided against POACRE and the County. It is unlikely to be dismissed since temporary Judges have ruled at least twice against the County and POACRE on identical motions to dismiss.
It will be decided against POACRE and the County for numerous reasons resulting in vacating the Special Tax District and the Covenants.
Arguments against the Special Tax District are basically constitutional and lengthy, and I don't expect the Court to even look at them. The Court will take the shortest route possible to issue relief.
The Tax District will be vacated because POACRE's Bylaws contain a poll tax which is in violation of Article 15 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, the 5th, 14th, and 24th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and so much more. The Bylaws are a poll tax because the law creating the Special Taxing District incorporates the bylaws by reference and by policy. Those bylaws require that all fees must be paid prior to any property owner being allowed to vote on issues regarding the STD and representation on the Board as the primary petitioners for the STD. It's a poll tax. This requires no argument or discovery and will be decided on stipulated facts and law.
The covenants are a forgery.
The proof is absolute and obvious simply by reading the closing documents signed by the Receiver for CRC, Inc. and POACRE. Those documents make assignments burdening POACRE with the "right" (duty) to collect certain fees and in part turn them over to the Reciever
by the authority of a certain set of covenants that name the Developer as the rightful grantee (Declarant). There is no mention of transferring any covenant authority or perpetual assignment of covenant authority. There is a good reason they weren't assigned.
If the Receiver were to have assigned POACRE the power of "Declarant it would have negated any power of the Receivers to enforce the road and member dues fees collection process dictated in the agreements which split the pot between the POACRE Board and the Recievers. POACRE was never assigned "Declarant".
In Maryland, an assignment as "Declarant of Protective Covenants" must be made in writing. No such document was ever handed to POACRE, and the closing documents prove this.
Six weeks after those closing documents were signed, POACRE went about "amending" the original covenants referenced in the sales contract by removing the name of the Developer and installing POACRE in its place, breaching the agreement. Without written consent of the Reciever, this was an act of fraud making the covenants we now have a forgery.
Where the agreement of sale points to their authority in one set of covenants that named CRC, Inc. as the "Declarant" and where the agreement split the road fee and dues money between POACRE and CRC, Inc's creditors; and then POACRE amends the covenant and records it as an entirely new covenant naming POACRE as the "Declarant" and which changes the titles of the fees is not a hard thing to show the Judge.
POACRE placed the sales agreement into evidence without knowing it containted the evidence required to prove the case against them.
It doesn't matter if the POACRE Board did it or if the members voted on it. Either way, POACRE as a corporation acting as a committee of grantors couldn't unilaterally remove the grantee of a contract and replace him by vote of acclamation with a different corporate grantee by amendment.
Just in case someone is scratching their head:
The closing documents signed by both POACRE and the Receivers give POACRE certain rights under the authority of the old covenants. They didn't have the authority to amend them to their benefit. The ballot was a sham to make the property owners think they were "taking control" of the covenants.
POACRE basically stole the corporate identity and contract rights of the Developer Corporation after it was dead. By law, if any of those rights remained intact they must be used for the benefit of the Developers creditors.
POACRE knew they were on fairly safe ground with respect to the receivers because dead corporations can't sue, and as long as the receivers got paid for a while, they didn't care.
Throughout the sales agreement and attachments the words "all rights, title, and interest in" shows up. POACRE hangs their hat on these words saying they represent their right to be the "Declarant of Covenants".
The operative questions are; what "rights, title, and interest" ? and to what properties do they apply?
The closing documents have an attachment that lists all the real estate that POACRE purchased and answers the above question. The attachment reads: "All properties listed in Exhibit A,....;saving and excepting all platted lots not listed..".
When someone is creating a specific list of properties being sold complete with full legal descriptions of each property, why would they put in a "saving and excepting" clause? When that clause is read in conjunction with the complete set of closing documents those words come through clearly as protecting all those lot owners not involved in the sales contract from any effect of the sale.
That means the recievers clearly intended that POACRE NOT be the "Declarant" and those property owners whose properties were not listed in Exhibit A were "saved and excepted" from being burdened by any "rights, title, or interest' that was being conveyed.
More information and evidence can be seen at
Information on POACRE- Chesapeake Ranch Estates Community- POACRE Covenant Brief
I was sued for fees in District Court but as soon as I filed my statement of defenses [see attachment], the lawyers stepped in and put an indefinite stay order on the case. POACRE Admin apparently had bundled my stuff with several other collection actions which was also apparently NOT what the lawyers wanted to see happen.
1) it gives me a double opportunity for discovery
and
2) In District Court as the defendant, I would be in a position to force the entire burden of proof on POACRE.
My statement of Defense is attached to this thread.
