PPHOA Annual Owners Meeting Agenda
12 November 2014
Board attendance: Norm
Tong, DeeAnn Jennings, MSJones, Ryan Holdaway, Daniel Trousdale, Kelsey
Navasard
Visitors: John Buckley,
Esq., Ashley Contario, Paul Contario, Shirley Tong
Review of Minutes from October
1. Megan needs
to send out the annual report.
2. Megan needs
to change the date to October 2014
3.
Minutes are
approved
President’s Report
1.
One of the
Peterson’s dogs attacked another dog on the property and called Ryan.
2.
He reminds us
to call the cops.
Treasurer’s Report
1.
All is
up-to-date and well.
2.
Business
checking: $46,251.39
3.
Capital
reserve: $40,549.32
4.
Savings:
$25.18
Secretary Report
1.
By-laws all
edited and posted to website.
2. Megan will make
a note on top of the edited copies that it has been edited and to refer readers
to the actual documents, which are the legal versions.
3.
Most recent
amendment notarized.
4.
Annual
Meeting minutes and fall newsletter delivered to all occupants and mailed to
all off-site owners by 15 November.
5.
Welcoming
committee—need several copies of this for new residents.
a. Megan will
make 6 copies for the newest member of our community
b. Megan and
Kelsey will coordinate welcome
Painting Project update
1.
Marcello is
unable to finish the paint before he moves to Texas. This will have to wait until the spring when
the weather warms up.
2.
Ryan was
overwhelmed at the amount and selection of the shutters. They have not been ordered. He talked to a friend in construction and
called a siding company, which might be able to hang them as well.
a.
We have one
$1400. This is too much.
b.
Bid from
Santos. We still don’t have his number
from Kim McClellan and have been unable to get a second bid.
3.
Is Marcello
leaving the paint? We need to get the paint. Ryan will get that paint and the names of colors so we can match them
in the future.
4.
WE WILL
COMPLETE THE PAINT/SHUTTER PROJECT IN THE SPRING
a.
Finish
painting Mason and Walker doors.
b.
Explore
working with a siding company for purchase and hang of shutters
Repair updates
1.
McKell deck—has
not started yet. Tony is supposed to
start this week. DeeAnn will follow up.
2.
Flashing between Trousdale and Jones roofs?
3.
Sidewalk
repairs (start with lifting save shaving for next year.)
a.
Gregory would
not get a quote over the phone—this is troubling and we won’t pursue this
contractor although he came recommended
b.
Ryan can get
more bids on the phone, but these would be from billboards.
c.
Norm is
willing/able to use Angie’s list.
d.
Precision was
$1300 for the shaving and the lifting was in the $500 range.
e.
We decided in
our last meeting to not shave now. The
question—should we lift now? We don’t think that run-off from the snow this
winter will measurably impact the lawn or homes.
4.
WE WILL REVISIT
THE SIDEWALKS AND STAIRS IN THE SPRING.
a.
We don’t need
to shave everything that precision marked.
b.
We can use
Angie’s list to get new bids.
DeeAnn Jennings response to request to remove
claim to parking spot .
DeeAnn shared a letter
she has prepared in response (see PPHOA board files for copy of letter):
1.
This has been
very stressful.
2.
She feels the
specially-called meeting was an “illegal special secret meeting” filled with
“half truths and accusations” that she has not been able to address. She wasn’t invited to defend her position.
3.
She reasserts
that when the Orman family bought the unit, they paid money to gain rights to
the parking spot in perpetuity.
4.
DeeAnn
reclaims the rights of sole use to the parking spot. The family doesn’t plan to sell or ever sell.
5.
The answer to
the request of the PPHOA board are as follows:
a.
The
affidavits will not be removed.
b.
No paperwork
will be filed with the County to remove the claim to the parking spot.
c.
Because of
the private agreement, the Orman family will continue to have the right of sole
use of the parking space.
d.
Not agreement
provided will be signed.
6.
DeeAnn feels
that since the meeting to determine the Board’s concerns with her claims were
held in secret, all decisions are null and void.
The discussion following DeeAnn’s response lasted
about an hour and was wide-ranging.
Everyone in attendance participated with comments, questions, and
concerns. The following is a summary of
the conversation organized topically rather than chronologically:
Concerns with the unexpected
presence of a lawyer
·
It is intimidating
to bring a lawyer to a meeting where the expectation was an open conversation to
work towards resolution. To bring legal council
to a meeting to defend a position without allowing the PPHOA to bring council
is blindsiding.
·
There is a
possibility that there may be further legal action. Before we discuss any action that we are
going to take, we need to be aware that there is a distinct power imbalance in
the room with the presence of only one legal council. We shouldn’t make any decisions in this
environment.
·
DeeAnn feels
that the letter, which suggested that legal action may be necessary to resolve
this issue is she is not willing to compromise, was a threat of legal
action.
·
DeeAnn told
her lawyer and her daughter that there would be a lawyer in this meeting,
although there was no plan for this, no lawyers have been contact by the PPHOA
Board, and no one ever intimated that this would be a legal meeting.
This is an emotional
issue:
1.
Ryan is
deeply disappointment that we couldn’t find a middle ground and he hoped to
provide respect to work through this. As
president, he tried to work through middle ground—both providing use of the
stall and also protecting the PPHOA for the future. Ryan has not tried to pick a fight, but has
tried to talk directly to DeeAnn and not to anyone else. This issue has led to stress in his life and
has impacted the life of his family.
2.
DeeAnn has
been overwhelmed with stress on this issue and wants to resolve it
quickly.
3.
Everyone
agrees that this has been a difficult issue for everyone—there is a history of
concern and complaints over the spot. Some owners have absolutely no problem
with it; others report concerns over the years (personal and from other owners)
with confusion over the space, lack of transparency, inequality, etc.
4.
We recognize
that everyone has a different entry points into understanding the history of
the spot, different times/introductions to the legal filings made by the Orman
Family Trust, and has a unique context for understanding the implications of
the legal filings. This also creates
tension.
5.
Throughout
the meeting individual members of the board reported feelings of betrayal,
anger, disappointment, shock, and frustration.
What is the issue,
exactly?
FROM THE PPHOA
1.
The board is
engaging in a conversation about the rights connected to the parking spot on
the west end of the unit on 165 S as part of their responsibilities to protect
the interests of the PPHOA as a community.
2.
A reading of
the legal filings were troubling and the claim of the space was not obvious to
them—what was actually filed? What does
it mean?
3.
There is no
(and never has been) a record of the exception to the outlined rules that only
1-car garages should have an additional parking space.
4.
The sale of
the land (which was common property, converted by Wayne Luck to limited common
property with the construction of a parking spot) needed to be cleared by the
PPHOA at the time, as Luck would have held less votes that the other owners
(see CC&R 4.2).
5.
There is no
record of this approval, which would have let to an adjustment of the plat, or
a note in the CC&Rs, which suggests that the sale of the spot happened
outside of the legally binding processes established in the CC&Rs.
6.
The board
unanimously felt that the best way to handle this was to honor the Orman family
rights to the parking spot while they own the unit and to revert the spot back
to public parking on any future sale of the home.
7.
The PPHOA
asked the Orman Family Trust to withdraw their legal filings claiming rights to
the space in perpetuity.
Note: Since
this meeting, some members of the Board have changed their mind and no longer
feel that this issue is a concern.
FROM THE ORMANS
1.
The rights to
the parking space were sold to the Orman family by Wayne Luck, the builder, 28
years ago.
2.
Wayne Luck
could do whatever he wanted with the land because he was the builder.
3.
There is no
paper trail going back that far, so recent affidavits of neighbors and of Wayne
Luck are sufficient proof that money was exchanged for rights to the parking
spot in perpetuity.
4.
They have had
the space for 28 years and think that no one has contested it, so it is
obviously theirs.
5.
If they ever
sell the unit, they will also sell the rights to the third parking space as it
is theirs.
6.
The Orman
Family trust is unwilling to compromise on this point, even if every other
homeowner in the association feels the spot should revert on sale. From Mr. Buckley: “If you want this parking
space, you will have to take it from her.”
Unresolved concerns on
both sides of the issue still to be addressed:
1.
Why would the
PPHOA Board decide after 28 years to worry about this spot?
2.
Who owns the
actual land? Is the Orman Family Trust
claiming ownership of the land, or just the rights to park?
3.
Does an
un-notarized letter from the builder, Wayne Luck, stating that he accepted
money in exchange for parking rights constitute a “receipt” (Mr. Buckley’s
term)?
4.
Even if the
affidavits constitute proof of sale, did Mr. Luck have the authority to make
that sale in the first place? If he
didn’t, what does that suggest for the future of this spot?
5.
How does precedence
(parking uncontested for 28 years) work in a case like this? Some suggest that perhaps that a “statute of
limitations” might make this point moot, since it has been 28 years since the
arrangement was allegedly made.
6.
Has the
parking space actually been uncontested for 28 years? Some say no.
7.
Can the PPHOA
board hire a lawyer with PPHOA funds?
8.
Can the
Ormans sell the rights to land based on the documentation they have provided to
date, or would more be necessary?
9.
What are the
implications of whatever decision is made for the future; what precedence are
we setting?
10.
How can we
know what these documents are if we don’t ask someone with the legal knowledge
to explain the implications?
Options for resolving this
issue:
1.
The PPHOA
Board removes their request of the Orman Family Trust to withdraw their legal
filings claiming rights to the space in perpetuity and votes to accept the spot
as belonging to the Orman Family Trust in perpetuity.
2.
The PPHOA Board
takes this issue to the general membership in a vote to decide if the C&Rs
should be changed on the basis of the current documentation to assign that spot
to its attached unit as an exception to the currently outlined rules. This could be a specially-convened meeting or
could be part of the June 2015 meeting.
3.
The PPHOA
Board hires legal council to represent its interests and we allow a judge to
decide whether the claim is valid.
Additional points for
consideration:
1.
One concern
is that Wayne Luck may have sold the rights illegally and if he did, that
matters.
2.
It’s a
parking spot. What is the big deal? Is it worth all this turmoil?
3.
The parking
spot has financial value. Mr. Buckley
suggests 5 times its purchase value as a thumbnail--$12,500. This is how much more the house could sell
for (and this would improve the value of all our homes). Or the PPHOA could buy it back for that
price.
4.
If anyone has
a concern with Glen Jones in his former tenure as PPHOA president and
treasurer, they should talk directly to him.
5.
The PPHOA
Board doesn’t think we can aggressively address other parking infractions until
the documentation outlining rights to parking spots is clarified. This conversation is key to that
documentation,
6.
Other than
Mr. Buckley, none of us are lawyers. But
based on a layman’s reading of the situation, particularly with the issue of
precedence, it may be that the spot belongs to the Orman family while they live
there.
7.
The Board is
not trying to personally attack anyone, but is trying to understand and follow
the rules as they are outlined. We feel
it is important to be exacting with the rules we are meant to uphold and
enforce.
8.
Mr. Buckley
and the Orman Family agree that they do not own the LAND on the spot—only the
asphalt and the rights to park. Would
they be willing to put that in writing?
9.
Mr. Buckley
reminds that any lawyer who is hired to give an opinion will tell you what you
want to hear. Lawyers can read any
opinion onto any document, so it may not be fiscally responsible to hire a
lawyer to review the documents just to offer an opinion.
10.
Mr. Buckley
points out that HOAs frequently make new parking spots and not change the deed,
the plat, or the CC&Rs.
11.
While the
Orman Family Trust and some early owners in Park Place do not believe that
there is any problem with spot and that no-one cares, anecdotal evidence
suggests that others do care, are (and have been for years) confused about that
spot. Since there is so much movement in
and out of units here, resolving this concern and making it public is key to
help avoid these problems in the future.
Is this something that
all homeowners should have a say in?
1.
Norm suggests
going door to door and asking all homeowners what they think.
2.
The Contarios
report they have already spoken to everyone in their row and report that some
homeowners are livid and would never support a lawsuit.
3.
Mr. Buckley
points out that this is a tricky proposition because the question that is asked
will entirely dictate the response. For
example, if we ask homeowners if they are willing to spend $300 of their own
money to hire a lawyer to contest the Orman’s right to the parking space, no
one would agree. But if you ask them all
if they would like one extra parking spot that anyone could use, everyone would
agree.
4.
We agree that
going door to door to talk to owners is not the right course of action at this
time.
5.
Bringing the
issue to the homeowners in a meeting is still a valuable option to consider.
6.
Some believe that
every homeowner would have to be contacted and give unanimous approval in order
for the Board to contact legal representation to contest the Orman Family
Trust’s claim on the parking space.
7.
Others
disagree, as hiring an attorney a defined use of common expenses (see CC&R
1.5.b) and hiring attorneys is outlined as a responsibility of the board for
default infractions (see CC&R 12.1.)
Additional parking at Park Place:
1.
Why haven’t
we towed all of Glen’s cars? Some
believe this is a bigger issue than the parking spot. Megan reminds the board that the Joneses
absolutely agree that his cars can be towed and that this could have been done
for years and still can be and the Joneses would not complain.
2.
We should
reconsider all of the parking spaces in the back—is RV parking still the best
use of that space? Most agree it is not.
3.
Should we
consider selling other spaces, if this has been set as a precedence? Kelsey absolutely would have liked the right
to purchase a space.
4.
We could rip
up other lawn and convert to more spots, if we wanted. We don’t necessarily want to do this
(especially to loose the basketball court.)
Action:
Ryan moves to table this
discussion until January.
Daniel seconds.
Voting: 4-2 in favor of
tabling the discussion.
