Injustice?

Nope, this isn't about how we pay our recreation fees to the RCSC. This one is more insidious because who ever really knows about whether something is being done right or being done wrong? Away from the maddening crowd and getting virtually no ink, how the PIF is charged and collected is mostly silent and done behind closed doors.

Many of you now i help out as an administrator for a Facebook page called Sun City Chat Arizona. The page's membership has exploded over the past year. The oddity is it could have grown twice as large, but we actually throw more applications away than we accept. Sadly, Facebook is filled with scammers and those wanting to hump their product or services.

This past week i have received two private messages from members; neither i knew personally. Both have followed my daily posts on the page and know i have a fairly solid working understanding regarding Sun City. The first was about her condo association. While i'm no expert, i have come to understand the difficulties for many of the 383 associations struggling to get by with volunteer officers. Most often i turn to my good friend Ben Roloff for suggestions as he has been the president of his association as well as the COA president years ago.

The second call i got was the one that triggered my frustrations over PIF. Most of you know i am good friends with a local Realtor couple and we talk often about home sales. 5 or 6 months ago, they mentioned the RCSC has become very aggressive over collecting PIF when owners died.

It's complicated and it's almost game-like. Owners die, the kids inherit and while they are trying to sell the property (within months), they get a bill for PIF ($4000), Rec Fees ($525) and for the transfer fee ($300). Back in the day it used to slide as once the home was sold, again within months, the RCSC would collect from the new owner all those same fees.

After some digging by my friends, it appears as if the RCSC has been aggressively searching for these changes so as to immediately collect these fees. When they questioned it they were told if the property sold within a years time, they could apply for a refund. To be clear, if they don't apply for the refund, they don't get the money back. makes me wonder how many times that has happened.

But this call was wholly different. This call was from a woman who has lived in Sun City since 2002 and after an oddity at point of sale was put on the deed/title along with her husband in 2003. She offered to send me a copy of her deed, but i trusted she was telling me the truth.

For those of you who know, she has a 5 digit member number. She's been an active member since the day she moved here. Her husband Hugo died last year and shortly thereafter got a letter from the RCSC telling her she owned them $4000 PIF, $525 membership and the $300 transfer fee. Remember, she's on the deed.

The RCSC changed the process years back as properties were changing hands through trusts and were losing out on PIF. The GM and the board agreed that for PIF to be collected at the point of death, there needed yo be a 51% change. The spouses death would only be 50%.

I asked her what she had done about it because they were threatening to take away her membership privileges if she didn't pay them the $4,825 dollars. She went to the RCSC offices and met with an employee (name withheld) who told her she had no options but to pay them. I guess in an effort to be reasonable, he offered to allow her to pay $100 a month until it was payed off. She's paying that sum now.

Very generous other than based on the story i have been told, they have no right to collect that money to begin with. Suffice to say, i was livid. She's not here now, but I will take up this discussion tomorrow at the "Exchange" meeting. I know they won't have an answer for me and frankly i don't need one but somebody from the RCSC needs to get a hold of this member and make things right.

 

I got a chance to discuss the matter above yesterday at the Exchange meeting. It's now posted online and if you watch it you will see and hear how ugly this was. The RCSC member in question has a membership card dating back to 2002 or 2003. Even with her paying the $100 a month payments to cover the nearly $5000 bill, she still has her 5 digit member number. While we all had hoped this was a one-off occurrence, i don't think it was.

After the meeting a member i have seen at meetings for years came over and talked to me. He told me he went through the same thing and fought like the dickens to resolve it. They were adamant he was wrong but he refused to budge. He kept bringing in documentation and they kept trying to put him off. Eventually he proved he was right and they let it go. Then he told me of another woman whose husband had died and they did the same crap to her and she paid it.

I've written this a hundred times or more; PIF may have been the smartest action ever taken by a board. In 1999 the board had the courage to pass it. It has and will provide the RCSC and the membership hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate old and tired amenities. That said, it should never be used as a club to beat either members who don't owe them or sellers getting out of the community (typically kids who inherit a home and put it on the market immediately) to collect even more money than they are entitled to.

I hate the term slippery slope, but in this case it is applicable. I said at the meeting i don't want to be in the middle of this, but i will be following and reporting on how they handle it.

 

Insidious is right. It makes a person wonder how many people have been intimidated by staff, just gave up and paid the fees. Thanks for making members aware; another matter that needs resolution. After a few members raised this issue, maybe somebody should have thought, hmmmm, maybe we are wrong in our interpretation. No, instead, we'll just do what we do because we can? This needs fixing, and members need to be made whole.

 

Insidious, great word to describe what has happened Linda. If you watched the meeting i told them i neither want nor expect for them (the RCSC) to follow up with me. That said, i have sent Betty a link to the meeting and asked her to let me know when they have either resolved it, or told her to pound salt.

Hopefully it's not the latter, that would plain old piss me off. I will happily report when she gets her refund and this is behind her. If i have not heard by the June board meeting, i will be there with the letter from the RCSC dated Dec 2002. It was sent to both mortgage companies and real estate brokers to insure they understood the soon to be passed PIF would affect no one living in Sun City.

Let me be very clear, as the grandfathering language was specific that even if a property sold and a current resident moved, a couple would be protected from ever being libel for paying the full lot assessment even when one of them died. The letter i have in hand literally says that. The problem was the GM wasn't happy with how fast the conversions were being made to lot assessments from single payers.

She convinced the board to approve doing away with the guarantee to pre-2003 home owners(if they moved from their current residence) in spite of former board members telling them what they had done. They did it because they could, because by then the membership's voices had been removed and who was going to stop them? Yes i was one of those that got screwed but it matters not until one of us die. That said, countless others have been impacted by that board's actions (driven by the former GM).

I don't know, nor do i care to pursue the legality of what they did. That said, i know that anyone living here in 2003 and living in the same house was and still is covered by the grandfathering. Was it a simple misunderstanding? Or, was it just a money grab because they felt they could?

We'll see shortly...won't we?

 

BILL: I posted this June 2022 you told me I was wrong. This shit has been going on for years!!!! Here's my post:

Exactly Jeb that's what I was talking about. Sorry having a problem with my hands to type. There's many men and women here that are married for decades where only one is considered a member because their name was never put on the deed. This means one is considered a second class citizen in Sun City because they have no rights unless they pay to be added to a deed and having to pay $5000 because of a change of the deed. This is what I'm talking about. They are being considered as outsiders even though they have Sun City drivers license and home address here in Sun City. These prices are going to go up on these residents because they don't have a member card just a privilege card. This is where all hell is going break loose in a couple months. This is what I'm talking about and trying to explain. Your neighbor that you have been doing things with for 15 yesrs are 2nd class citizens now because only one is on the deed with a member card and the other a privilege card who has limited rights.

Now, you folks here have taken the first shot. Let me say one thing to all the readers here: Get ready to pay through the nose! You have allowed a hand full of crybaby newbies scare you into voting for things that you have no idea what they are talking about. Get out your checkbooks and blame it on nobody but yourself for not doing your own research. RCSC has been very successful at what they do for years. But since the new folks have moved here they want to ruin what we have enjoyed for many many years because they didn't get a new blue ball to play with. I have lived here for over 25 years and my days are about done, but you selfish crybaby newbies haven't even began to pay your dues!!!

PS Bill, this has nothing to do with golf do don't try to shove it down my throat

 

I remember you posting that, but it was in the middle of the discussion regarding golf SW. So we are clear, the instance i brought up at the meeting and posted here was a woman who was and still is on the deed/title. She has a 5 digit rec card number and has had it since 2002 or 2003. She should never have been charged. And so we are even more clear, if a spouse was on the deed they would have been entitled to a rec card. If they weren't then they would have had to buy a privilege card to use the amenities. It gets more complicated, because after 2003 new buyers with the title in one name would be paying the single lot assessment (full price) and the cost would have been even higher as they were paying for a privilege card (half the cost of a lot assessment). No idea how many members were affected by that. The bigger number is from all of the rentals in the community that used to be paid for by owners. In the end it is a cash windfall for the RCSC, because they get a full lot assessment from the property owner plus if the renter wants to use the amenities, they too have to buy privilege card(s).

As far as your second paragraph, sorry say what, you are simply delusional. You want to debate the state of our technology? The state of our fitness equipment? The sorry state of Mountain View that should have been fixed 6 or 7 years back? How about the nightmare coming at us on golf course desert landscaping conversions? The South course was projected at 8 million dollars and Brian said it could be two or three times that. That has nothing to do with the new board, or the old board for that matter. That's the state telling us we need to do it. Unless of course we do nothing and just let the ruffs turn to dirt. Hell, i'd rather hit of dirt than rocks.

The biggest mistake was trying to bill Sun City as the cheapest place on this earth to live. That was all board members cared about and now it is catching up with us. So blame the new folks all you want but our shortsightedness has finally caught up with us. Thank God the board killed the40 million dollar MV boon doggle and the crazy scheme to throw pickleball courts at Lakeview. Best thing to happen in Sun City in more years than i can count.

 

It's always all about the money! But with that aside, and forgetting about the dollars, I'm still bothered.

The way I see it, the assessment is really based on the property not the person. And the bylaws do say that, "Up to two Member Cards may be issued for each Property, provided there are two individuals who meet the Member qualification..."

So the way I see it, regardless of whether or not your spouse's name is on the deed, if when purchasing a home, you can provide your marriage license proving your married to the person who's name is not on the deed, or show by virtue of your Last Will and Testament, that upon your death your spouse inherits the house, then that person should also be awarded a Membership Card and not have to pay the piper again or for a Privilege Card.

We're all old and live with our own hardships everyday, so when that traumatic event of a death of a spouse turns our lives even further upside down, let's just add one more burden on an already devastating situation. Blood suckers!

Just my opinion!

 

Let me give you a history lesson. Mr. Jinlinfu is on the deed married to ,Mrs. Jinlinfu who is not on the deed. If Mr. Jinlinfu put her on the deed they have to pay the PIF again. Now Mrs. Jinlinfu can have a user card but not a "Member"card as she's not on the deed. As I said months ago, Mrs. Jinlinfu has no rights, no members card, cannot ever vote. This is where I said that you become a second hand citizen. Many here in Sun City are 2nd class citizen because of this with no rights whatsoever. I'll finish later bed time and this took a lot out of me.

 

I agree with Mr. Say What. It took me back to my parents' demise regarding their garden apartment in Sun City. They were both on the deed. When my mother died in late 2008, my father did not have to pay the PIF. Since my father was legally blind, I had to do all of his paperwork. I recall my father and I visiting with Jan Ek and she encouraged me to get my name on the deed which my father wanted to do. I didn't think it was fair to my brother so we didn't go that route. (My mistake!) However when my father died in 2010, I had to pay the PIF since my name was not on the deed.. Perhaps I would have had to anyway since I wasn't a spouse. Even after being on the Ad Hoc Bylaws Review committee, and reading that section several times, I still find it confusing. However, I agree with Bill Pearson that it is unfair to a widow/widower to expect her/him to pay the PIF on a property they already own! Pure silliness! Hey, we have made great strides - Mr. Say What, Bill Pearson and I are all in agreement!

 

This is one of those "rabbit holes" i hate going down. Before i do though, let me be very clear about the RCSC member i commented on. She has a quit claim deed with both her husband her name listed as owners and it is dated 2003. She offered to send me a copy but it's more important the RCSC sees it, not me. Plus, she has been a member (not a privilege card holder) for the past 20 years.

There really is a convoluted past associated with the whole PIF assessment, especially when it comes to changes in title. The former, former GM recognized a glitch in the system when it came to transferring titles. There was no PIF until 1999, so it is a fairly recent problem that when initially begun hadn't been thought through. She realized some "sales" were slipping through. Most often it happened when a property was placed in trust and kids would inherit the home and escape paying the PIF.

Just about the time i was elected to the board it had become a hot button issue. There was an effort to be reasonable, yet not get beat out of the PIF when both parents/owners were gone. The problem was it created a lot of confusion as trusts were gaining in popularity and the impression was any change to the trust document would trigger a PIF payment. Jan tried to help people understand by clarifying it took a 51% change or more would be the qualifying event. I suspect what she told you would not have initiated a payment Janet, but had you included your sibling to the deed would have most likely done so.

What i don't know is how, at the point your father died it would have meant you paid the PIF. If it was tied to the original ownership, then it would be straightforward. I simply don't know.

The bigger issues we were having were regarding multiple ownership of properties where members were remarrying and electing not to put a spouse on the title of the home they were living in together. The other stickler was gay/lesbian rights, but we'll come back to that in a minute. Death is inevitable and divorces were also causing the problem. As couples were left alone, it wasn't all that uncommon to find a mate. If each owned their own home and wanted to keep them, most often as rentals, they would find a new home to move into together. It sometimes resulted in only one name on the title.

Under the rules, even though they were married, if you weren't on the title, you had to buy a privilege card to use the amenities. It was especially galling because at times these were home owners (with rental units) who were paying the full lot assessment but had virtually no rights as owners. The worst instance i heard of was a couple between them that owned 5 or 6 homes (paying assessments on all of them), but lived in their new home where only the male was on the title and the spouse had to purchase a privilege card. Ouch.

The gay/lesbian issue was even worse. Until marriage between partners became legal in AZ, even if both were on the deed (but one was under 55) they had to buy a privilege card. Our documents stated you had to be married. As other states started allowing marriages and gay/lesbian partners began moving here, someone was smart enough to realize the potential for a very expensive litigation was looming and it was quickly changed.

Finally, to Say What's point, i am confused. Anyone buying in Sun City after 2003 (when we converted to lot assessment rather than a per person payment) was foolish not to put their spouse on the deed (unless it was for the reason listed above). The reality was they were going to be paying the full assessment whether they were or were not on the title. I suspect there are those who bought a home before 2003 who intentionally kept their spouse off the title so they were only paying the single rate, but it had to be a very small minority of buyers who were so cheap they were trying to save paying what back then would have been around $125-$150 a year.

 

Well, I can't totally agree with that comment! Not entirely foolish! There are many couples who are in second marriages and the reason they only want one name on the deed is because if the deed owner passes away, he/she doesn't want the house going to the children of the spouse. He/she wants only his/her kids to inherit the house!

As I said above, "the assessment is really based on the property not the person. And the bylaws do say that, "Up to two Member Cards may be issued for each Property, provided there are two individuals who meet the Member qualification..."

Regardless of whether or not your spouse's name is on the deed, if when purchasing a home, if you can provide your marriage license proving your married to the person who's name is not on the deed, then that person should also be awarded a Membership Card and not have to pay the piper a PIF again or pay for a Privilege Card.

I don't think the whole process was thoroughly thought thru. I don't know what the answer is, and it most likely won't be to everybody's liking, but I do know it needs to be addressed, at some point again, especially now knowing about the injustices and the RCSC's double dipping.

 

I agree Tom. If you are married and living in the home, being on the deed shouldn't be the criteria. I was always of the mind it was more about a money grab than trying to be fair. But that certainly isn't unusual these past several years as we tried to stay really cheap for the masses and make the minority pay more. As i have written too many times i wish we would have stayed on the per-person basis and then just raised rates as we needed. Instead we played the game and now we are all behind the 8-ball as we try and play catch up.

 

Why should marrige be a requirement? We have many people living with a partner without marrige. As long as the second person signs a statement that they are a resident of the home, they should be entitled to the second card. Otherwise RCSC is becoming the morality police.

 

I agree, Bruce. I am in that situation. During our review of the bylaws, I was surprised that our nondiscrimination policy doesn't include marital status but does include sexual orientation as well as the standard ones such as race, religion, age, etc. When I brought that up, I learned that that Arizona's nondiscrimination policy also doesn't include marital status so we are not violating state law. I can't remember why, but I thought the explanation was very weak. Can anyone enlighten us?

 

Marital status is a choice. Race, age, sexual orientation, and religion aren't. Some may say religion is a choice but an atheist with a Jewish or Muslim name may still be discriminated against.

 

One of the issues claimed in the ARS lawsuit (that went to trial in 2018/19) was the way the RCSC was charging singles a different rate than a couple was illegal/varied from our Articles. That suit was dismissed without precedence and if memory serves me there was nothing illegal about it. While it's not "fair," they are the terms and conditions that homes have been sold under in Sun City since 2003. They are what every buyer should have been told (on a per lot assessment) and what every buyer agreed to tk26, including you.

As much as singles are championing for the change, i have yet to hear one reasonable way out of it other than the suggestion going forward new buyers (after the change is passed) would be paying on a per person basis. You've done a good job explaining your logic tk26, but you've ignored the idea that we (the RCSC) wouldn't be sued into oblivion by changing those terms and conditions those 30,000 plus homes sold since the change in 2003.

I know you used the data eyesopen posted from the census, but that includes rentals and certainly not just the RCSC members. If you want an oddity, renters can elect to pay for just one half of a lot assessment in the form of the privilege card. Of course the rest of the argument is the rental owner is paying a full lot assessment on top of anything the RCSC gets from the renter. It's one of the reasons the RCSC could care less how many rentals there are.

If there was an easy answer, perhaps it would have been "fixed" years back. There isn't and until someone can show me a way to make it "fair" without being sued into oblivion it will remain a problem.

 

Someone posted this on line in the question section of the SCA page. Not sure if it is accurate:
I stand corrected. It was Judge Brodman.
Case number:
CV2015-012458
Dismissed with prejudice in February 2020.

 

To date, this is still not resolved. That's tragic to me and frankly the feedback i am getting is less than positive about the outcome. Where i really get excited/frustrated and dare i say angry is when i find out the RCSC has in their hands a copy of the quit claim deed showing Betty as the owner of the home along with Hugo (her husband who died). They also know she has been a member since 2002 or 2003. If she wasn't on the deed she should have been purchasing a privilege card (yes i have a copy of her membership card as well as a copy of the quit claim deed).

Quit playing games, review all of the information and not just selective pieces of it. PIF was never intended as a tool to punish long-time home owners and RCSC members who lived in their homes and never moved. It's freaking bad enough you changed the grandfathering clause (yes i have copies of what the original intent was on RCSC stationary and mailed to mortgage companies and real estate brokers).

This effort with Betty is simply a money grab and is wrong.

 

Simple question. Was her name on the deed when the property was originally purchased or was it added later? If she was not on the deed originally with Hugo then a new PIF is due.