OCR Text |
Show 6 - TRYING TIMES - JANUARY 1995 — COMMUNITY Legal Games Waste POA Dues There have been a number cf legal questions and challenges to the actions of the POA Board in the past two months. This report will hopefully clarify some issues. 1. The formal adoption of our long-standing Fence Encroachment Policy was challenged. The objecting party claimed that the signatures of the majority of the members at a meeting were required because we were making a CAPITOL ASSESSMENT against individual lot owners. In reality we specified that we could place a LIEN for services rendered. Our lawyer gave numerous reasons why the lien was NOT a capital assessment. So we had ISSUES:: POA worked nine years ago to lower individual property taxes. None of us pay property taxes on the road easements within our lot’s boundaries, so “adverse possession” which requires the payment of taxes for the past seven years can not occur. Again the position of the POA was confirmed. 3. The ownership of streets and easements by the POA was challenged because their dedication by Carlsberg to the POA was allegedly not formally recorded in the Grand County court— house. Our lawyer has clearly stated that under Utah law the transfer of the streets and road easements by Carlsberg Corporation to the POA in the covenants (which are recorded in the courthouse) and the platted map properly followed the Bylaws. (which is recorded in the courthouse) are sufficient. The acceptance of Castle 2. Then it was claimed that individual lot owners whose fences had Valley Drive by the Town of Castle been encroaching on the road easements for seven years had secured the property within their fence by the method called “adverse possession.” Again this was an incorrect claim. The Valley and Grand County is tacit recognition that the POA was owner of Castle Valley Drive. 4. Now there are those who believe that two POAs existed for Castle Valley River Ranchos once upon a time Assessor’s Office of Grand County and Dividing the POA in the dim ages, circa 1973. There were never two POAs. There were two sales units, each with their own agent Upon direct consultation with Hersel Nokes, the sales agent for Carlsberg and Unit One, and Joe Kingsley, sales agent for DMA Corporation and Unit Two, we have confirmed our belief that there has always been only one CVRR POA. (We also have copies of the legally recorded documents regarding this in our files for your inspection.) We have contacted the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Utah which licenses nonprofit corporations to confirm this legally. We annually renew our charter ' and there have never been any distinguishing documents for Unit One and Unit Two at the state office. All of these frivolous and erroneous challenges to the actions of the POA Board have caused dissention, animosity, wasted time, and hundreds of wasted dollars of YOUR DUES. We have had to double check and triple check our decisions with the lawyer after his initial inspection of our intended actions. During a two year span of time we didn’t even have a lawyer. I made recommendations to the Board to the best of my ability. We graded the roads, had encroaching fences moved, purchased a community lot, placed liens on delinquent lots, and From: Castle Valley River Ranchos Property Owners Association-Unit 2 c/o CVSR 2303, Moab, Utah 84532 collected those liens. And we never paid a lawyer one thin dime. To: Castle Valley River Ranchos Property Owners Association-Unit 1 Attn: Maria Doe, Treasurer legal games STOP. Dear Maria: As you may or may not be aware, the original documents establishing Unit 2 here in the valley provided for a separate POA entitled POA Unit 2. Owners in Unit 2 are required to be members in POA Unit 2 and to pay their annual dues to POA Unit 2. POA Unit 2 has been operating in cooperation with Unit 1, however, the time has come where Unit 2 is returning to their original (and legally required) organization. A transitional board of directors has been established and our first meeting is being scheduled. We are putting POA Unit 1 on notice at this time to segregate any and all dues received from property owners in Unit 2 for payment over to POA Unit 2. Please keep a record and reimburse these payments, payable to “Castle Valley River Ranchos Property Owners Association-Unit 2”, directed to the above address It is hoped that the two units can work together, perhaps by way of an Inter-Local Agreement, on issues which will serve to benefit both units. I am sure you can agree that this situation will serve to more closely meet'the needs of the property owners in each unit and will certainly reduce the \workload for POA Unit 1. Sincerely, Theresa Carey, Secretary—CVRR POA Unit 2 cc: CVRR POA Unit / Property Owners, Unit 2 I personally hope that the recent It is your dues that are being wasted for nothing. Sound and fury signifying nothing. ——George Ottinger, Vice-Chair, CVRR POA From POA Covenants: Here’s what our Declaration of Covenants says in two separate documents, first for 370 Unit 1 lots (May 8, 1973), second adding 78 Unit 2- lots (August 30, 1974). These documents are on file with Grand County: —FIRST DOCUMENT— Paragraph 1: “THIS DECLARATION, made this 8 day of May 1973, by STANLEY E. GORDON and GENEVIEVE A. |