Upcoming Budget Meetings

He can intimate whatever he wants, the question is a legal one. Like i said, if memory serves me this was one of ARS's arguments that went nowhere.

It's never been a fair solution to have a single lot assessment. Like i said, he makes a great argument, what's the solution that doesn't get us dragged into court over breaking the contract? Every home purchased after 2003 when the grandfathering went in had buyers agreeing to pay a lot assessment, whether there was one or two people eligible for membership.

 

I thought the obvious omission by Les Bethany regarding the difference in assessment fees for SC were per rooftop saying how cheap we are in comparison to SCW for example was deplorable. So much for transparency and trust. If it wasn't for Mr. Court speaking it would have been glossed over. And people wonder why the board is not trusted. IMO big mistake on Mr. Bethany's part.

 

Maybe he doesn't care like a lot of us.

 

I am sure he is right. It just shows how little they care, and like Mr. Bethany they will hide what they can.

 

As always josie your comments are anything but reflective of what anyone is saying. Little in life is black and white like you want it to be. If the question has already been litigated you are just blowing smoke. I read the settlement when it came out and as Emily mentioned it seems to me to have included this issue. You can find it easily enough on line. See for yourself, don't take my word for it.

Beyond that, my preference was they had never made the change from per person in 2003. Had anyone looked at the history, in all likelihood they may have opted to stay on a per person basis. Not that those first couple of years were the perfect comparison but they were close enough for anyone looking to at least question the value of doing what they did.

Arguing for or against is an exercise in futility if there isn't a workable solution for the problem. It would be like me arguing the president should be elected by the popular vote. That idea makes perfect sense (to me), except it's not what our documents call for.

 

Jesus Bill you are so tiring. I said that to emily in the above post, but you just want any reason to poke the bear. If a solution is not looked for how will we know if there is one. Take the blinders off. Mr Bethany also proved the board will never change. He just blew right by the assessment fee discrepancy. He didn't lie, but he sure did not tell the truth. The slide was incorrect or the little asterisk was hidden to show how many our fee was for.

 

Would changing to Title 33 make it easier to charge per person? I have heard one of the new candidates is in favor of it, but that is hearsay.

Also, could RCSC grandfather all of the people who bought since 2003 so they would continue to pay per rooftop? If it could, it might be fewer dollars in the short term, but more in the long term. Then we could avoid litigation.

I don't know who Les Bethany is. I guess I will after watching the video.

 

Hell if I know, I didn’t live here then, owned a house, only visit a couple of times a year. Brought my ex out on a quit claim and I am only one on the deed. Went to pay my rec fees and was told I only had to pay half as I was grandfathered in. I wasn’t going to argue the point.

Speaking of fairness, what if three people are on the deed, which makes them members but they can only be issued two cards.

 

You are correct Emily, it was ajuducated five years ago wherein the plaintiffs couldn’t sue themselves ( a really stupid ruling) and that the RCSC could set the fees as they saw fit. The attorneys wasted a lot time and make a shitload of money had they attacked the class in the first place it would have over quickly. Half the plaintiffs suffered no damages, necessary for a lawsuit, one was a real estate company and the remains plaintiffs would have to litigate individually. It was obvious that the RCSC attorneys has minimal practice with type of case. I know because I talked to them in the beginning and they seemed puzzled by my strategy. The case was dismissed with prejudice with each side bearing their own costs.

 

I make no pretense of being an attorney Jean, which is why i referred it back to John. The terms and conditions a home sold after 2003 (following the grandfathering) was the following: A per lot assessment with up to two cards provided for owners. Up till then, it was on a per person basis. The change was made by the board and they did it by protecting those owners who had purchased before 2003. They also went on to explain to new buyers they were purchasing on a lot assessment basis.

To be clear, i'm not arguing one way or the other. Like i said, my preference would have been they had never touched it and left on a per person basis. We had just moved in and we were grandfathered (because we bought in 1999) until the board changed what grandfathering meant. I guess one could argue that change wasn't "legal" either but they did it. Nobody sued them, and so it became a reality.

In this case, a change to say to the 15,000-20,000 (a guestimate) couples owning a home in Sun City their lot assessment will now be doubled (its not that simple an equation, or that high) would trigger a shit storm of controversy with the inevitable outcome of lawsuits flying and attorney's chomping at the bit. I could be wrong, which is why i suggested readers on this site find the ARS lawsuit and subsequent dismissal. I thought one of the arguments they made was the lot assessment was a violation of the Articles of Incorporation because it was "unequal." If that was part of their ruling, Mr Court's argument is DOA (legally).

Before anyone charges forward, getting sound legal advice from actual attorneys should be a given. And i mean on either side of the argument.

The challenge isn't identifying the problem, the difficulty is in finding a solution that works without years of litigation.

 

Simple question eyesopen: Are you advising this as an attorney familiar with contract law? I guess if you are willing to insure there won't be a legal action by couples who purchased their homes under the lot assessment calculation i'm all in. I highly doubt you are willing to make that guarantee, i know i wouldn't.

As far as the lawsuit, that was one of the areas ARS was arguing. From memory, the entirety of the "unequal" based on what a member was paying was a non-starter. I think the claim was the board has the right to make those decisions and changes. Which may make your argument they have the right to change it, but i imagine should they try, there would be an immediate recall petition started along with the attorneys circling.

What i do not want to see us go to that legal rabbit hole with never ending legals fees as we "sue ourselves." I think it is a huge overreach on your part to state the RCSC is in violation of their Articles of Incorporation...at least until there is a legal opinion.

 

why bill

 

Let me clear this up, Jean Totten is not eyesopen. She posts as onedayatatime. So rather than "doxing" anyone, let's rephrase this question for eyesopen: Are you advising as an attorney familiar with contract law? I guess if you are willing to insure there won't be a legal action by couples who purchased their homes under the lot assessment calculation i'm all in. I highly doubt you are willing to make that guarantee, i know i wouldn't.

Here's what the bylaws say:
Annual property assessments are assessed on two methods, as follows:

1. Per Property Basis: Each Property and its Owner(s) is assessed, regardless of the number of Owners, one annual assessment on a Per Property basis as determined by the Board. Any Property which has any change in its legal or beneficial ownership after February 1, 2003 will be assessed on a Per Property basis.
2. Per Person Basis: Each Property and its Owner(s) is assessed for each and every Owner at the rate of one-half (1/2) of the annual Per Property basis assessment as determined by the Board. Property owned prior to February 1, 2003 will continue being assessed on a Per Person basis as long as:

It's why i hate dragging out the bylaws and arguing what they mean. I could play the cut and paste game, but why bother? None of what i type or what you think it says matters. Nope, not minimizing any/either argument. What i have said is get the questions answered from a legal standpoint first. If and when you clear those hurdles, then the next giant step is convincing the membership that singles should pay the single rate.

Just a hunch, but i suspect the fur would fly. It would be the "fair" thing to do, would it be the wise thing to do? The data would help tell the story on the net affect. We know Sun City West per person rate exploded since the change (we used to be about the same; within $10 per year per person). Part of the issue was as they had more single owners (at one point they reported more than 40% of their properties were single owners) it resulted in having to take larger increases to keep pace with the necessary revenue (with roughly 18,000 rooftops).

The board can change the language in the bylaws anyway it wants (as long as it conforms/follows the Articles). It's why i have asked the question about your interpretation being the Articles not being followed. If in fact the legal precedence has been established, that would make a difference.

 

This is definitely an area for legal expertise, not weekend "bylaws" warriors. However, it should be investigated. New case law or legislative bills may have changed the landscape since the previous lawsuit.

 

Advising all my comments about Equal Assessment Fees are deleted by request.
‘Nuf said.

 

Why, there's nothing wrong with your comments or Mr. Courts arguments. As Janet said, all of the discourse is best resolved by those familiar with the law.

That would not be me.

 

Yeah, but I hope we get better advise than we got at the 2021 Membership Meeting when all hell broke out when the corporate lawyer told us the Bylaws supercede the Articles of Incorporation?????

 

I believe the gist of the conversation is the interpretation of this provision in the AoI: . The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities. Such Bylaws shall also provide the method for determining assessments to be paid by the Members. I got into a discussion with Alan L. (who referred this to the RCSC counsel) that the equal rights language prohibits RCSC from excluding snowbirds from being on the board. The folks that wanted me to run advised me to get an Arizona drivers license which seemed acceptable to the cabal at the time. For my own two cents on the matter of fees is it is a bargain no matter how you cut it. I am more concerned about the 15.5M PIF currently allocated to the Theater and the Indoor dog training facility. You have heard me say this before; these projects need to go through the revised process for PIF approval before they proceed.

 

Then it seems to me that the same "equal rights" clause would prohibit the RCSC from setting two different sets of standards for paying your assessments?

 

"Equal rights" for members of a nonprofit organization generally means that all members, regardless of their background or involvement level, should have the same access to participate in decision-making processes, vote on key issues, receive information about the organization's activities, and be treated fairly within the framework of the organization's bylaws and governing documents, including the right to elect board members and potentially participate in membership meetings where votes are taken on significant matters; this is often subject to specific rules outlined in the organization's bylaws regarding voting eligibility and procedures.

Key aspects of equal rights for members in a nonprofit:

• Voting rights:
  All members should have the opportunity to vote on important matters like changes to the bylaws, major policy decisions, or the election of board members, depending on the organization's structure and voting requirements outlined in their bylaws.
  
  
• Access to information:
  Members should have access to relevant information about the organization's finances, activities, and decision-making processes.
  
  
• Fair treatment:
  All members should be treated with respect and without discrimination based on factors like race, gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.
  
  
• Participation in activities:
  Members should have the opportunity to participate in the organization's activities and events, depending on their interests and availability.
  

Factors influencing member rights:

• Nonprofit structure:
  Different types of nonprofits may have varying membership structures, impacting the rights and responsibilities of members.
  
  
• Bylaws:
  The organization's bylaws will clearly define the rights and responsibilities of members, including voting procedures and eligibility.
  
  
• State laws:
  State regulations regarding nonprofit organizations can also influence member rights.
  

Important considerations for ensuring equal rights:

• Clear communication: Clearly communicate membership rights and responsibilities to all members.
  
  
• Inclusive practices: Develop policies and procedures that promote inclusivity and prevent discrimination.
  
  
• Conflict resolution mechanisms: Establish a process for addressing member concerns and resolving disputes fairly.