Injustice?

She was added to the deed after the fact. It's a longer story than i care to go into here, but if you are so clear on her owning this, in spite of the fact the money to pay for it came from her savings account she cashed in against the advice of her financial advisor, how the hell did she become an active RCSC member if she wasn't on the title? Based on what you are saying, she should have been buying a privilege card. She never has; she has always been a member.

The PIF was never intended to be a money grab from those who have been living here for the past 10 or 20 years. I'm more than familiar with the reasons they implemented the efforts to stop parents from passing on the title of their homes to their kids without paying the PIF. This is hardly the case and sadly, the more i dig the more stories i hear about the abuses by the RCSC grabbing PIF payments even as the home is being sold when a parent dies.

 

Being a member isn't enough according to the bylaws. "Original payor of PIF" is the key phrase. Can she prove she also contributed to the PIF when the home was purchased?

 

Is that what the bylaws said when she and Hugo purchased the house in the early 2000's or is that what the former GM added when she rewrote them to fit the money grab? Clearly it matters as does the the intent of the board when the PIF was initiated. I've got the letter sent from the RCSC to mortgage brokers and real estate brokers at the end of 2002 when the changes were coming to move to a single lot assessment. I'll try and dig it up and post it. It will certainly shed some light on how they screwed members grandfathered in 2003.

I know this is what they have been telling people when they are fighting over making long time owners pay the PIF, even after they have lived here for years, but i suspect the language in existence at the time has been changed on more than one occasion. Help me out here Lyoness, haven't we (the RCSC) been telling husband and wife they must be on the deed to be a member and if they are not on it, the fact they are married does not entitle the spouse not on the deed/title a membership card and in fact they have to buy a privilege card? The idea one spouse or another paid the PIF seems immaterial and for most people saving records from 20 years back is unlikely.

I also have bylaws from the early 2000's and i'll root those out as well. Just curious what kind of changes were made to the bylaws to fit the money grab.

 

Not saying I disagree. What the bylaws state today... are they the same now as when her husband passed? Membership doesn't always mean half ownership so I'm not following you on that part.

 

No because she signed a Disclaimer Deed when the home was purchased by her husband. The language which she signed stated: “The property above-described is the sole and separate property of the spouse having been purchases with separate funds of the spouse.” It also stated that the Disclaimer Deed was forever on the specific property.

The property above-described is the sole and separate property of the spouse having been purchased with the separate funds of the spouse.

The undersigned has no past or present right, title, interest, claim or lien of any kind or nature whatsoever in, to or against said property.

This instrument is executed, not for the purpose of making a gift to the spouse, but solely for the purpose of clearly showing of record that the undersigned has and claims no interest in and to said property.

NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the premises, the undersigned does hereby disclaim, remise, release and quit claim unto the spouse and to the heirs and assigns of said spouse forever, all right, title, interest, claim and demand which the undersigned might appear to have in and to the above-described property.

Dated May 12, 2003

 

If you know all of this, you should also know the rest of the story. The initial sale was a note carried by the Meade real estate company for that first year until Betty could cash in her thrift savings account in Canada. That note in the file was from that sale. When she cashed in her account to pay for the house the end of 2003, they came down and paid off the note to Meade and nothing was changed as it should have been. You also know, as long as you have seen the file, there was a quit claim deed filed with her as one of the owners after that. It's in the file as well.

I have no idea why the Meade's wanted it that way, other than there was a time in this country when women couldn't even buy a house without a man co-signing for it. Was it a throwback to those "good old days?" No idea, really don't give two-shits.

As long as you are so well versed on this topic 3GenSCAZ, how the hell did she get a membership card? In that she wasn't on the title, she should have been buying a privilege card. If her husband was the sole owner, she had no rights as a member. Help me out here, because what is going on, and has been going for too long is the RCSC is grabbing PIF monies that shouldn't be collecting. You can tell me it's legal, but it's not right.

BTW Lyoness, i don't care what the bylaws said when Hugo died, we are talking about what the documents called for back when the purchase and transactions were initially done; 2002 and 2003 and 2005. Back then, the PIF was in the board policies and in fact were different.

 

The collection of PIF is occurring because of the death of her spouse and change in degree of ownership. The bylaws on that date of his death would be the ones in effect, not those in effect when the property was purchased unless something happened to be grandfathered which it doesn't appear unless I've missed something.

 

Everyone can have a story after the fact which is why we have laws, rules, regulations and even bylaws to protect people. And let’s face it, there are fraudsters and gold diggers of both sexes all over retirement communities including right here is Sun City. And while I’m not saying there is anything nefarious about this specific transaction, we need to look at the facts and not the hysteria.

Here is what we know from the paperwork and known facts:

Hugo was a widower who had remarried when he bought the house in Sun City, one of the largest models available at 2,150 sf on a 12,000 sf lot.

He had then and still has several living children from his first wife Kay.

His then current wife Betty signed a Disclaimer Deed at the time of the home purchase stating none of her funds were used to purchase the property and waiving any right to the property then and forever, hence the initial DEED was Sole and Separate Property.

Roughly two years later a handwritten Quit Claim Deed, executed by Betty, was filed with the county changing the DEED to simply Hugo & Betty. At that time the original Disclaimer Deed was not revoked via a new Warranty Deed or other document and the new DEED was filed without any reference to Tenants in Common or Joint Tenancy.

Using the new DEED the RCSC would of course issue a Resident Owner Card to Betty as she was now on the DEED, of course regarding the PIF the RCSC still had the Disclaimer Deed showing none of her funds were used to pay the PIF which wasn't a factor at that time.

I don’t think we can place any blame on the RCSC for what has subsequently transpired based on known facts and signed documents. Betty signed documentation stating her money was not used (and thereby for the PIF) and the Disclaimer Deed was not cancelled or revoked nor was there a proper reference to how Hugo and Betty were holding the property via the revised DEED. And certainly the RCSC should not make decisions based on he-said she-said situations which is what IMHO we have going on here.

The moral of this story goes back to the days of Abe Lincoln “The man who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

 

Why wasn’t she originally on the deed? Why should she be exempt from the rules?

 

So given the fact the RCSC is now sharing all of this with you 3GenSCAZ how about you post the rest of the story. How about posting when Betty first received an RCSC membership card (long before Hugo ever got his wasn't it?) Or feel free to post the a copy of the quit claim deed that you are presuming Betty forged (which by the way is signed by Hugo and was witnessed by a notary and two witnesses). Were they all in on the gold digging plot as well?

You should be freaking ashamed of yourself for leveling those accusations at a 20 year member of the RCSC. Hell, the RCSC should be ashamed of themselves for going after a twenty year member and trying to collect the PIF again. But why not eh? They've been doing this for years. Money grubbing at every turn.

Think not? I've got the letter mailed by the RCSC on Dec 13, 2002 to local title companies and real estate brokers and here is the first paragraph: We anticipate that a resolution will be passed at the January 2003 RCSC Board of Directors meeting that will change the annual per person assessment to a per property assessment as of February 1, 2003. The change will not affect current property owners that have personal residences titled in their name(s) as of the above date. These property owners will be grandfathered and will continue to pay the per person annual assessment, or one-half of the per property assessment. If a resident is a property owner as of the above date, and sells their primary residence and purchases another primary residence, they will be assessed at the per person rate.

So what does this have to do with Betty, nothing other than the intent of the board members was to grandfather those owning homes in Sun City as long as they lived here...even if they sold their home. Most often it would be a woman who lost her husband, sold the home and downsized. Those owners were promised the single rate. Unfortunately we oldies weren't dropping dead fast enough and the RCSC reneged on that promise and changed it in 2009 or 2010. Do you have any idea how many single residents they have cheated out of that single payment over the past 13 years? Have i mentioned money grubbing?

So we are clear, Betty is most assuredly not the first person to have to pay the PIF even if it was paid when they purchased the house. I know there have been several instances where this has happened. So we even more clear, if a member in 2002 or 2003 wanted to read how the PIF worked, they would have had to get a copy of Board Policy's and could find them in B P # 24. All 3 pages of them. How many new buyers do you think ever saw them?

Love to have you explain how many Sun City home buyers knew or understood what they were signing regarding the PIF, two years after it had been passed and how it worked other than they had to pay $750 into the fund. Even better, how many Realtors to do think understood how it worked.

Never the less, it's nice to see you standing up for the corporation. We've been down this road before though haven't we. Members be damned.

Dude, did you really go there accusing Betty of trying to beat the ex-wife and kids out of what should believe they were entitled to?? That's just plain freaking nasty.

I know the RCSC holds all the cards and all the money...but yet it's still not enough is it?

 

When they bought the house (2002), they didn't have the money to pay for it till the following year. The Meade Real Estate company carried the paper on it until Betty could cash in her thrift savings account (in Canada). They told Hugo the only way they would give him the note if it was in his name only. That's where this all went south. Once she cashed in her account they paid off Meade (she thinks it was the end of 2003). She had been a member already (not a card holder) and in 2005 they (Hugo and Betty) filed a quit claim deed and the RCSC has a copy assigning both of them as owners (yes it is notarized and yes there are two witnesses names on it). I have no idea why one piece of paper is more valuable than another piece of paper ask 3gscaz, he apparently has a direct pipeline to someone at the RCSC. I suspect the first one counts more because then they can beat her out of more money.

I know some folks want to stick it to people. I know in fact the RCSC has been doing this time and time again. I know even more recently they have been billing kids when they inherit the house. Nope, nothing wrong with billing them the $4825...with this exception...they are doing it even though the house is on the market and in some cases, even when they are days away from closing, or already in escarow. The rules say that if they pay it and it sells, they can request a refund. I know local Realtors familiar with the rules tell their clients to request it (even though some employees play dumb when that happens), but what do you think happens when the kids get the bill and just pay it knowing full well they will be getting an inheritance shortly and they have a Realtor who doesn't know up from down?

It's just a freaking money grab.

 

I never said she forged anything and even stated that there may not be anything nefarious in this matter but THE FACTS are she signed a legal document "Disclaimer Deed" when the home was purchased and the PIF paid that 1. Stated her funds were not used for the purchase and 2. Waived her rights to the property forever. When I mentioned the document was hand written I was trying to infer the possibly there was no legal or professional representation when the document was executed. There is no "money grab" here. Quit with the fake hysteria and look at THE FACTS. As for the family of Hugo, some of them live in the Phoenix area and are hopefully involved in this process but that is not a matter for the RCSC to be concerned with. Thankfully you are not in charge of the PIF funds or Sun City would be BROKE in a few short years after hearing every sob story from people who made very poor decisions and now need to pay what they rightfully owe!

It's just not a freaking money grab.

 

Thanks pal, i wanted a screen shot and by now i figured you were smart enough to have deleted the personal stuff (Hugo's previous marriage info). You weren't and now it will live on into perpetuity. You had to get that information from the RCSC and as well as the other crap you are suggesting. My best guess is them releasing that information to you is illegal. Some days you guys just over play your hands.

Classy the way they are allowing her to pay $100 a month but accruing interest and legal fees. Did i mention money grubbers?

They made decisions because they had virtually no information. They wanted the house and they signed what the Meade company asked them to sign.

 

Dude, you’re being played like a fiddle at the Grand Ole Oprey! FYI Hugo was quite famous and of course his obituary will live on in perpetuity. https://www.mackeys.ca/memorials/hugo-dittfach/4772217/

 

Wow and all of the data from the documents you keep citing are appearing from that same obituary notice? Get real brother, you know as well as i that information can only be coming from the RCSC files, something you have no legal access to. I really did think your smear of her was beneath you, but apparently not. What happy horse manure, you just happened to be searching his death notice. Yawn.

By the way, there are really a lot of sad stories across all of Sun City, and this is one of them. Nope, not going to waste my time with it here and on you. A guy like you is far more inclined to look for the worst in people rather than the best. You're right, it's not my job to figure out who owes PIF. I know this, the schemes foisted on residents to bleed them after they have already paid it makes my blood boil. It's wrong on so many levels. People buying homes shortly after the PIF started, had no idea how it worked. Over the years, it's become clear, not many board members have understood it either.

I've written dozens of times, PIF was the best decision a RCSC board has ever made. Over a 30 year period (2000-2030) the RCSC will legally collect somewhere between $200 and $250 million dollars. That many home sell every year to trigger an enormous collection of money. That's a good thing. Lots of us have paid it more than once and we knew the rules going in, we understood them and we accepted them. It's the widowed ones that paid it when they moved here and now they are trying to make them pay it again that makes it all shameful. Masking it as "that's the way it has to be, makes it even worse."

But there's nothing even more remotely disgusting than you implying she was a gold digger.

 

Everyone with a computer and internet has access to property records including filed documents in the State of Arizona. How do you think we find out who is under reporting the square footage of their homes and thereby not paying their fair share of property tax? Sound familiar?

Search to your hearts content at this address: https://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/

 

Nice try 3GenSCAZ, old news and you played that card a year ago. It didn't matter then, it doesn't matter now, the fact is i never hid the information and when we tried to rectify it the county had no interest after all the years that had gone by. It was the county’s mistake, not mine. But again, nice try.

I’ve be really nervous as well and try and divert the facts of this situation now that you’ve dug the hole. How you got the data isn’t really my issue, but more the idea you would smear a 20 year member when you’ve never even talked to her but are relying on what the collection guy is telling you.

All of which brings me to a question for you. I have more than a passing knowledge of the collection business and know how ugly it is/can be. However the reality is collection companies deal with people who are most often notorious at trying to avoid payments. It’s become an art form for many; both from collections and avoiding payment.

From a practical standpoint, the collection business in Sun City and especially for the RCSC is a wholly different situation. All too many folks who find themselves owing the RCSC money are simply up against some really difficult positions. It’s been curious to me how quickly the RCSC finds newly deceased residents and now after your posts, i get it, they are scouring death notices to find potential claims to go after.

Did I mention classy? But that’s not the question, that’s rhetorical. I’m more interested in our collection guy. Is he an RCSC employee or is he like most collection agents who are paid on commission? I’ve heard from several people he has quickly become abrasive when questioned or challenged. Most RCSC employees are overly polite. They see little value in insulting or humiliating members and most bend over backwards to be civil.

I’ve known this has been an issue for years. It came to a head about a year and a half ago when an RCSC member was delinquent. She posted on line she always paid her rec fee when her tax returns came in. There was an issue with her refund by the time she finally got it, her $496 payment had ballooned up over $1000. Might have been nice if someone had mentioned the Sun City Foundation to her.

That’s why i am curious if the guy feeding you information 3GenSCAZ is an employee or a collection guy who wants to gouge members and fatten his paycheck? Eagerly awaiting your response.

 

I have been curious about how the sister of a friend got "dinged" almost immediately for fees after her sister passed earlier this spring. After following this conversation, it is becoming crystal clear. I've also heard horror stories about how elderly residents lost their homes due to past due assessments. I didn't see how that could really be a thing - was it?

 

It is clear that some in the community are in desperate need of financial aid. But the answer is for the Foundation to campaign throughout the year to get them more assistance, not to allow rules to fall by the wayside. You're asking for big trouble once that that box opens.