Has anyone been following the case?

Looking back to 2013 when I first discovered Sun City I read 55 places and thought Sun City was a very cool idea and I wanted to explore more, so we did. Along the way I ran across a report by the one who filed the lawsuit. At that time this individual was trying to raise cash to file.
I was concerned and even called and talked to her at one point. Not knowing much about Sun City at that time her arguments all seemed to make sense, one point still does IMHO, but it seemed a minor issue to me.
Filing a lawsuit seemed way too extreme, but I could see her point assuming all I was told was fact and not just an emotional reaction to idea rejection.
Now that I know a little bit more of how Sun City is run I still raise eyebrows with some of what the past and recent RCSC has done, but a lawsuit seems extreme until one realizes that talking/reasoning goes on deaf ears. What is a person supposed to do then? For me a lawsuit would not be the path, as a long time project manager you learn to talk with people and come to a compromise. There is a lot of give and take, but it usually works. It might not have in this case and maybe there was some heart to heart discussions, but a lawsuit is a very last resort and maybe this is the way this person felt.
Bill mentioned a plan with patience and long suffering is a better way to go... I very much agree. But a lawsuit is also a path that requires much patience and very long suffering and in reality no one really wins. It is always preferred to settle things without the court involvement. Once the court decides then all negotiation and reasoning is out the window, when the law speaks it is not always in the best interest of the parties involved.

 

Hey Bruce, thanks for weighing in. No doubt there were issues that prompted Sun City residents to help fund the startup of this suit. Between the BS about how they were going to reap the rewards from the suit along with some of the actions by the RCSC that helped fuel it, it obviously got beyond anyone's ability to resolve the differences.

So we are clear on how this all started, let's take a look back: Virtually all Sun City golf courses have streams wandering through them where they feed into holding ponds. This is for far more than esthetics. We own wells that help keep them filled so as to insure we can keep the courses green, even in the dead of summer. They used to be lined streams that were beautiful when conditions were perfect. During monsoon season when we got pounded with rain, they became mud filled and swampy. When we had droughts, they turned into minimal trickles that were less than attractive and stunk.

As time marched on, the liners in these streams wore out, they only last so long. As the RCSC board looked at them, from a cost effective standpoint a decision was made to put in concrete runways from pond to pond. They would last longer and be more efficient from moving water from one place to another. ARS lived on one of the courses and she went off on how awful it was. At one point, on her website, she claimed Del Webb would be turning over in his grave. I always get half crazed when i read statements like that, because if Del was anything, he was practical. This was a man who kept apartments in the three cities he flew into regularly, and rather than carry bags on the plane, he kept the apartment stocked with identical black or blue business suits, white shirts and dark ties. Practical.

That started the fiasco that led us to where we are now. The fight escalated and over the years the accusations grew, with claims of mismanagement and went as far as outright theft. Like i said, i sat with her several times to see if there was any middle ground. There was none because the only outcome for her was the burning desire to go to court and get even. Worse yet, when i questioned her on any better solutions to funding the PIF, she said that wasn't her problem.

It was at that point i lost any and all respect for virtually anything she said. The PIF was and is the one thing that has kept Sun City alive, vibrant and growing forward. If there's a Sun City resident that doesn't understand that, God help them. We would be lost without the advent of it, and the idea this suit could jeopardize it makes my blood boil. Most folks moving here know nothing of the history, they simply see this self-proclaimed "community activist" fighting for the rights of the little guy. Sorry, i don't buy it.

 

Interesting Bill, sounds like I had a similar conversation with her. The issue of per person or per household for rec center fees was a good point, but I could see the positive of being able to budget better the way it is. I supported PIF when I heard what it was used for and will be happy to pay it when we buy, to me the idea of PIF is brilliant. I have a timeshare and have been lucky, I've seen other TS owners get hit with huge assessments and that is what Sun City would have if PIF didn't exist. Saying something like improvement funding in a self supporting community you live in is a bit moronic IMHO. If a person feels that way they shouldn't live in that kind of community. There are no taxes to pay for improvements, no huge assessments that no one living there can afford, PIF just makes sense. I guess you could say that it is the entrance fee for the fun City. Heck, I'm more than willing to pay it to see the lifestyle continue.
OK, I'm rambling now... off to something productive like dinner.

 

And therein is the rub for me on this one E. The folks who filed the suit have little or no concern for Sun Cities future. They were sold a bill of goods on how they could benefit personally and the community be damned.

 

I don't know how long the plaintiff list was originally but it gets shorter each year. It appears some have removed themselves from the lawsuit. Others have passed away.
Take away the duplication for spouses listed as two plaintiffs and the list is even shorter.
Not even enough for a block party, much less a (class action?) lawsuit.
Certainly not representative of the community.

 

I think the implication that the small number of plaintiffs are the only residents that support(ed) the lawsuit and are not representative is no more provable than a belief that the 1100 or so people who voted to elect the board are representative of the will of the majority. We don't factually know either, actually... no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise. Our national political discourse is replete with statements on both sides which are factually false. I hope we don't let the same culture guide discourse on the RCSC. We live in a time when typically less than 20% bother to vote in national politics and what, maybe 5% of those eligible vote in RCSC elections? Who's to know whether those percentages are representative of the majority?

For those not here when the lawsuit ruckus converged into a lawsuit... as I recall there was something like 4000 residents who joined ARS' registry in support of one or more aspects of her cause... certainly a significant number compared to the 800+ residents voting to electing the board in those days. A somewhat lesser number donated to fund the lawsuit. The solicitation for donations and volunteers to be plaintiffs for the class action appeared to be cut off when they had a sufficient number of plaintiffs to be considered a "class". We don't have a clue how many additional donations and/or plaintiffs might have surfaced had they been allowed to join after the cutoff. Both sides of the lawsuit have made statements intended to scare residents into believing the RCSC will be devastated if the other side wins. We have a state representative who passed a retroactive bill to assist the RCSC's defense. We just don't know what will happen until the judge decides. My hope is the judge is above the politics of the situation and rules to do what's right for the majority of the members. We'll see.

 

I read the RCSC is contending this is a class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs are saying it is not. I wasn't implying that there is no support beyond the plaintiffs. There could well be, but at this point in the case that doesn't matter.
It was just an observation that the plaintiffs list is short, and many have dropped off.

 

I think the original number was 72, but as you noted fix, there were any number of husband/wife filings. A number have died and others for whatever reason have dropped off. The vast majority of the complaints were about the PIF, my guess, well over 75% of them. A handful were where the RCSC tried changing the facilities agreement without them actually signing a new one...which may well have been a clerical error on the part of someone in the membership office.

Back to E's question: Anyone know how long the judge can take this under consideration?

 

There is no time limit as to how long a judge can hold a case prior to rendering a verdict. More than likely there are an intern or two researching case law which most resembles the case before this judge. There will also be a paralegal or two reading cases for relevance, and speaking with the Judge as to the validity of each associated known verdict.

IMHO, this case is ex post facto, or in other words, no valid as to Title 33 of the ARS. The RCSC, was already up and running as a non-profit corporation long before Title 33 ever became a glint in some legislators eye. Ex post facto tries to make something or someone guilty of a crime before there was case law to denote a crime.

"Ex post facto law
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."

 

I wish I could find the reference I read before on this but I had read when title 33 was passed they didn’t exclude those that had been organized prior to the initiation of title 33. I’ll try to look a bit more and find where I read that. It’s been a year or more.

 

Title 33 specifically refers to "Planned Communities". RCSC is not now nor was it ever established as a planned community. It was, at is inception a not-for-profit corporation, brought together for the benefit of its members. It is the part about the members that has fallen by the wayside. "This chapter applies to all planned communities." a cite from Title 33 of the ARS section 1801. A person purchasing a property or a condominium in a planned community automatically become members by default. There is no need to identify or ask for consent.

Title 10
10-3601. Admission

A. The articles of incorporation or bylaws may establish criteria or procedures for admission of members and continuation of membership.

B. No person shall be admitted as a member without that person's consent. Consent may be express or implied.

Title 33 was not established until 1983. Long after Sun City had been built out and established. When reading some of this case there is reference after reference to Title 33, which are not a party to, never was. When it comes to planned communities there is no need to address exclusions, as planned communities have titled themselves as such. Sun City never has.

What would be a planned community within Sun City would be any of the several condominiums within our great city. As once you purchase a condo or townhouse in these area, you are automatically a member of the association.

 

Thanks for the information CM. This has always been the nexus of her complaint; Sun City is a planned community, hence falls under Title 33. The RCSC argument is exactly as you have stated, there are any number of buyers who are not eligible for membership, in accordance with community documents, and therefor we are not subject to Title 33. There are a couple of other triggers, but they aren't as obvious as this. Those filing the suit have always wanted the RCSC to be under Title 33 because lawsuits are much easier to sustain if there is a breach of the state statute.

You are spot on with the fact that condo's (all 386 of them) are in fact covered under the planned communities act. Once you buy, you are "protected" under the statute. Last month i found out there are variations in how the governance is applied based on size. I had never known that and was stunned when i heard that some of the smaller associations have different requirements than the larger ones. Mostly it applies to how and who must get the governing documents and financials in the new buyers hands.

Hopefully this ends soon and the sad saga of infighting can end and we can begin to move forward. I often wonder if we had done as Sun City West had done and voluntarily embraced most of Tittle 33, whether any of this would have been litigated?

 

Interesting read E, thanks for posting that it is up; click anywhere on this sentence for the link.

I'm no attorney, thank goodness, but it appears the plaintiffs got a judgement the RCSC should fall under Title 33, but will not be able to pursue an action collectively but on an individual basis. Not sure what that means on either hand so perhaps someone better versed in the law can fill in the blanks.

 

Can someone please post a link to the judgement please.

Never mind, found what I was looking for. The Cliff Notes version states we should be Title 33, based upon the way we collect fees, and maintain facilities for the benefit of members, we are a homeowner's association.

"The Court rejects RCSC’s “condominium” argument for reasons stated in the Reply. In conclusion, all Sun City residential property owners are obligated to pay assessments that RCSC uses to defray the costs and expenses it incurs owning and operating recreational facilities in Sun City and, as such, are entitled to be subject to and protected by the Act regardless of whether RCSC actually characterizes those property owners as “members.” RCSC is subject to the Act for the purposes of plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the claim that RCSC is subject to the Act is granted." In other words, the paragraphs leading up to the decision is the fees and charges the RCSC collects are for the benefit of all, therefore, RCSC is a planned community.

 

Bill's post just above yours contains the link by clicking on the first sentence.

My first unprofessional take is that in the first part anyone who is a deeded owner and pays the annual assessment is considered a member. This may mean that the owners(up to 2 cards/votes) will have all rights to use facilities and vote??

The second part seems to state that there are so many variables in ownership involving when the property was purchased, possible multiple properties which would make the owners investors and owners that no longer reside or own the property so that this cannot be considered a class action. Owners must continue as individuals.

Not a closed case just yet....

Judge Judy move over!!!

 

I think silence speaks volumes. Not one word from the RCSC as to the verdict or what the next plan of action may be. The first section defines the rendering of the RCSC as a planned community after going through much talking points. The part that winds this down is: In conclusion, all Sun City residential property owners are obligated to pay assessments that RCSC uses to defray the costs and expenses it incurs owning and operating recreational facilities in Sun City and, as such, are entitled to be subject to and protected by the Act regardless of whether RCSC actually characterizes those property owners as “members.” RCSC is subject to the Act for the purposes of plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit.

The second part of the decision cites there are no specific cases or actions to order a class action suit, and cites the cases used to arrive at the decision. There are several cites as to the Federal case studies and the four tests that must me matched in order for class action to be awarded. The Plaintiffs did not meet the obligation to meet the four statutory needs for a class action. Also, too many of the litigants seeking relief under class action status are property owners that own several properties in the community, and did not make their case relevant to a class action case with additional evidence needed to prove class status. So, the Judge dismissed the class action portion of the suit.

I find this all to fascinating on so many levels, some great for the RCSC and its members, other parts could be a real bummer. Will have to wait and see

 

I've often written the easiest thing for the RCSC to do was just follow Title 33. It's not that big a deal, adds a little cost, but the community runs in a more transparent manner. Sun City West does it and IMHO is better for it. The second part of the argument was where the potential liabilities were. Again i have written there were a handful of mistakes made in assessments and if i am reading this right, those litigants may be able to bring individual suits to recover their costs, if there were in fact any.

And then of course, there is always the ability for the RCSC to appeal it to a higher court. Stay tuned eh?

 

Watch the video of yesterday's RCSC Board Exchange meeting for an itty-bitty update on the legal case.

 

Thank You Aggie. Can't wait to read the final findings.

 

Do any of the rec centers have a steam room? Steam not sauna. I remember a few years ago someone said they might put one in.