Thanks for the post theo, great info!
in the 2nd resort example you mention they were able to obtain a majority vote...was this just 50%+1? or did that resort have an extremely high (say 90%) requirement? if so how did the resort succeed in getting all those votes from owners?
I honestly don't believe the issue is so much the clause in itself, but in getting the owners notified...and actually voting on the matter in enough numbers to get the CCRs changed!
thanks again!
I can't (and won't) speak to specific legal details about which I am not fully and precisely informed regarding that CBC situation. However, I can and do state with certainty that they did
not even get a simple (50+%) majority of owners to respond
at all. I believe they obtained less than a 40% response, but I don't claim to know the exact response figures. Truth to tell, I was already very actively and very energetically "closing the exit door behind me" there before things reached that point.
I can say with certainty that the BoD acknowledged needing a specific percentage of owners to vote in order to attain a valid quorum. The BoD openly admitted barely attaining that "quorum" --- and even then only after "extending" the voting period beyond their originally stated intentions. How many owners actually understood the underlying issue(s)
at all and / or how many fully (...or even partially) understood the potential future impact of their vote is surely a matter for conjecture.
Suffice it to say that you can just "color me extremely dubious" on that particular latter point.
For us, ownership there is now "not my circus, not my monkeys", to borrow (with proper attribution) that old Polish proverb. We sold at a small loss, but got
out.
=================================================================================================
P.S. If I can somehow unearth accurate figures on the above described CBC "vote", I will report back here with same ASAP, for whatever use or interest that info may be to others. I am no longer a CBC owner, so I no longer have access to the "owners only" portion of the CBC web site (they have
individually issued owner passwords), but the relevant info may well be available somewhere else of a more open source nature. My individual CBC site password was (appropriately) deactivated soon after the new deed transferring our ownership to someone else was officially recorded and the facility so notified by new recorded deed copy being provided to the resort.
=================================================================================================
P.P.S. A day later, I've found some facts & figures in statements posted by a CBC BoD member on a Yahoo group bbs (i.e., it's
not taken from the internal CBC site). I've culled out and condensed some straightforward and basic facts and figures directly from that BoD member's own posted statements regarding the CBC vote to be a "timeshare in perpetuity"; a decision which
supposedly can be reversed by a later vote (...according to a posted statement by that same CBC B0D member, anyhow).
In short, "in perpetuity" may or may not literally or ultimately mean "forever".
I should note for background that this particular facility was
not initially constructed or sold as / for interval ownership. It started out as a motel (early 1960's?
).
I do not know when it was converted to interval ownership or when the newer condo sections and units were later constructed there, but those details seem irrelevant to the topic at hand anyhow. We didn't own there for long and I cared little about the underlying CC&R's there. All that being said, now "just the facts" --- with no confidences being violated and no legal opinion of any sort offered, implied or intended:
1. There were reportedly 2000 "owner owned" CBC weeks at the time (late CY 2014) of CBC BoD-initiated voting on the conversion to "timeshare in perpetuity".
HOA-owned weeks were
not included or counted in that 2000 figure and HOA-owned weeks had no vote.
2. Ballots were reportedly sent to every owner with maint. fee bills; at least one owner openly claimed to have received bill but no ballot and had to chase one down.
3. CBC bylaws reportedly require 34% of owners to vote to constitute a quorum. Simple math says that's 680 votes minimum (34% of the aforementioned 2000).
4. A majority (in this instance, apparently anything over 50%, i.e., 341 votes out of 680 minimum would suffice) required for or against the issue being voted.
5. Same BoD member reported vote total of 680 (the bare minimum); 640
for, 40
against. CBC is now officially a "timeshare in perpetuity" --- for better or worse.