Help Me Read This

[PilotMan]

So it's a poorly worded document. A couple of us have read it back and forth. What is the prevailing sentiment with which it's written? I'll just let you read it and see if you understand it clearer than I do.

Any provision of this Declaration may be amended in whole or in part or terminated by a recorded instrument approved by the Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots located in the Property.

The President of the Board shall determine whether the persons who have approved of any amendments or termination of this Declaration constitute Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots.

So if you have 100 Owners; what is the minimum for the vote to be official, and what is the minimum of that that must approve for said amendment to pass?

[weegeebored]

I read it as min of 67, but that 67 needs to be verified by the board president as being actual owners before anything is official. Maybe the intent is for 67 unique owners in the case of people owning multiple lots.

[SirFozzie]

The way that it reads to me, that 67 out of every 100 must approve via a written manner, but the president of the board will determine if it meets the 67% requirement.

(so, if there's some doubt if it reaches the threshold, the President of the Board will have a final say).

(and if they wanted to be a dick, they could say "Nope, you may have 4/5ths of the crowd, but that doesn't equal 67% of the registered owners of the lots"

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by weegeebored

I read it as min of 67, but that 67 needs to be verified by the board president as being actual owners before anything is official. Maybe the intent is for 67 unique owners in the case of people owning multiple lots.

I don't believe so. Reading the text:

"Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots located in the Property."

It does not state that 67% owners have to vote. It states that the owners of at least 67% have to vote. So, if Owner X has six lots, he has six votes.

[Vince, Pt. II]

It sounds like for a group of 100 owners you would need written approval from 67 of them to amend/terminate something, but that the President of the Board is responsible for determining/verifying that there were indeed 67 owners who approved of the amendment/termination.

To me it reads that the first paragraph sets the number of owners required to make the change, and the second paragraph just sets the party responsible for validating/verifying the first paragraph.

Edit: as those above me have correctly pointed out, I am falsely assuming a 1:1 owner to property ratio.

[cartman]

2/3

[JPhillips]

Maybe it's defined elsewhere in the document, but it actually doesn't say that a multi-lot owner gets multiple votes, just that owners of 67% of the lots are needed to pass. Just based on these lines it looks possible that in a 100 lot environment the owner of 66 lots would get the same single vote as the owner of 1 lot.

[Ksyrup]

"Owners of 67% of the lots" could theoretically be 1 person. I read it as requiring an unknown number of owners having to approve the amendment/termination, as long as they collectively own 67% of the lots. The second part is a provision requiring the President to confirm that those who approved the amendment actually constitute owners of at least 67% of the lots and seems to support the idea that it might not be as simple as each lot being owned by a different owner.

I don't really see this as requiring a separate vote and approval, either.

[Neon_Chaos]

How I understood these phrases:

"approved by the Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots located in the Property."

"constitute Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots."

The number of owners does not matter. What matters is that the voters who approve own at least 67% of the Lots.

Obviously assuming 1-to-1 lot ownership (100 owners, 100 lots), minimum of 67 owners.

In a different scenario, if one person owns 68 lots out of 100, then he will always approval, since he is the owner "of at least 67%of all lots located in the property"

[PilotMan]

So is it a 50%+1 to approve of 67% of the members? For the purpose of voting, one property equals one vote. If an owner owns multiple properties they get a vote for each one.

Or is this a 2/3 vote of 2/3 of the owners?

Or is it a 2/3 vote to approve of ALL of the owners?

[JonInMiddleGA]

67, IF there are 100 owners with one lot each.

That said, the phrasing makes it seem that the ownership was more concentrated than 1:1 (owner:lot) at least when the document was originally written.

Neon Chaos last sentence covers my read of it quite well.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Maybe it's defined elsewhere in the document, but it actually doesn't say that a multi-lot owner gets multiple votes, just that owners of 67% of the lots are needed to pass. Just based on these lines it looks possible that in a 100 lot environment the owner of 66 lots would get the same single vote as the owner of 1 lot.

In our case one property is one vote. The only place where that isn't true is in voting for board members, where one vote is one vote no matter how many properties an owner has (which prohibits one or two owners from soaking the board and keep reps slightly weighted toward owners who live in the neighborhood).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So is it a 50%+1 to approve of 67% of the members? For the purpose of voting, one property equals one vote. If an owner owns multiple properties they get a vote for each one.

Or is this a 2/3 vote of 2/3 of the owners?

Or is it a 2/3 vote to approve of ALL of the owners?

None of the above? lol

The only verifcation I see for the 67% requirement having being met is the Board President. The Prez is the sole arbitor of whether the 67% threshold for change/amendment has been met.

If 67% of lot ownership (where each lot owned = 1 vote) agrees to amend or terminate the (original) Declaration then so it shall be.

There's no requirement, for example, that anyone other than a hypothetical single person who owns 67% of the lots participate in any vote to amend/terminated. If there was one guy with 67/100 and 33 others, that one could act unilaterally, aside from needing the Board President to verify the ownership percentage.

Maybe it's just how I read things but honestly, it's pretty straightforward to me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

None of the above? lol

The only verifcation I see for the 67% requirement having being met is the Board President. The Prez is the sole arbitor of whether the 67% threshold for change/amendment has been met.

If 67% of lot ownership (where each lot owned = 1 vote) agrees to amend or terminate the (original) Declaration then so it shall be.

There's no requirement, for example, that anyone other than a hypothetical single person who owns 67% of the lots participate in any vote to amend/terminated. If there was one guy with 67/100 and 33 others, that one could act unilaterally, aside from needing the Board President to verify the ownership percentage.

Maybe it's just how I read things but honestly, it's pretty straightforward to me.

This is how I see it, too.

The second clause is just a verification of the ownership percentages.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

How I understood these phrases:

"approved by the Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots located in the Property."

"constitute Owners of at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of all Lots."

The number of owners does not matter. What matters is that the voters who approve own at least 67% of the Lots.

Obviously assuming 1-to-1 lot ownership (100 owners, 100 lots), minimum of 67 owners.

In a different scenario, if one person owns 68 lots out of 100, then he will always approval, since he is the owner "of at least 67%of all lots located in the property"

So in this case, should there be 100 different properties, and we get 67% of them to vote, there only needs to be 34 affirmative votes for success? Yes?

[PilotMan]

So you're basically ascribing that the minimum threshold or quorum in this case is 67. Whether it is from one owner of 67 properties, or 67 individual owners, the quorum to determine the official status of the vote verified is 2/3rds.

Then to approve, is it a simple majority of that quorum that determines approval? Or something else?

[PilotMan]

Assuming that there's a yes/no vote in play for all of this.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

67, IF there are 100 owners with one lot each.

That said, the phrasing makes it seem that the ownership was more concentrated than 1:1 (owner:lot) at least when the document was originally written.

Neon Chaos last sentence covers my read of it quite well.

Exactly, that's why the second line about the President confirming the 67% appears to have been originally added.

[weegeebored]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So in this case, should there be 100 different properties, and we get 67% of them to vote, there only needs to be 34 affirmative votes for success? Yes?

I don't think so. It reads to me (and others) that the board president just approves the original 67% as being official. I am not sure why you would subtract from 100%. The only question for me is if 1 lot = 1 vote or if it's the number of unique owners who get a vote, which is probably not a correct assumption.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So you're basically ascribing that the minimum threshold or quorum in this case is 67. Whether it is from one owner of 67 properties, or 67 individual owners, the quorum to determine the official status of the vote verified is 2/3rds.

Then to approve, is it a simple majority of that quorum that determines approval? Or something else?

I don't see two separate steps here. I see one step - if owners of 67% of the lots want to amend/terminate a provision, they can do it, subject to confirmation that they actually own 67% of the lots.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't see two separate steps here. I see one step - if owners of 67% of the lots want to amend/terminate a provision, they can do it, subject to confirmation that they actually own 67% of the lots.

I guess that aspect was never something that I really considered. Typically, this would be something that would originate from the board, they go and try and collect enough votes to reach the threshold for a vote. Here in this case, it looks like in order for something to be amended, that 67% of the owners of the lots (more than 1 to 1 concentrated owners understood) would need to approve of the change.

The critical mass for approval is that 67% must approve.

So in this case, any owner, could write, and collect approvals on their own. And they would need to get agreement from 67% of the lot owners. They then could submit that to the President, who would be in charge of determining that the 67% threshold was met. If it was, then the change would occur.

Is that a better representation?

[Lathum]

I read it like this

Běn shēngmíng de rènhé guīdìng dū kěyǐ quánbù huò bùfèn jiāyǐ xiūgǎi, huò yóu yǒngyǒu rén pīzhǔn dì bùdòngchǎn zhōng zhìshǎo bǎi fēn zhī liùshíqī (67%) de suǒyǒu zhě rènkě de jìlù wénshū zhōngzhǐ.

Dǒngshìhuì zhǔxí yīng quèdìng yǐ pīzhǔn běn shēngmíng de rènhé xiūgǎi huò zhōngzhǐ de rén shìfǒu gòuchéng quánbù pāimài pǐn de zhìshǎo bǎi fēn zhī liùshíqī (67%) de suǒyǒu zhě.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I guess that aspect was never something that I really considered. Typically, this would be something that would originate from the board, they go and try and collect enough votes to reach the threshold for a vote. Here in this case, it looks like in order for something to be amended, that 67% of the owners of the lots (more than 1 to 1 concentrated owners understood) would need to approve of the change.

The critical mass for approval is that 67% must approve.

So in this case, any owner, could write, and collect approvals on their own. And they would need to get agreement from 67% of the lot owners. They then could submit that to the President, who would be in charge of determining that the 67% threshold was met. If it was, then the change would occur.

Is that a better representation?

Yes, just from what you've quoted, that's how I would interpret an amendment could be accomplished.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by weegeebored

I don't think so. It reads to me (and others) that the board president just approves the original 67% as being official. I am not sure why you would subtract from 100%. The only question for me is if 1 lot = 1 vote or if it's the number of unique owners who get a vote, which is probably not a correct assumption.

Many times a quorum of votes must me achieved before a vote can become official. In that case, once a quorum is reached, whatever the required threshold for approval that needs to be met, only needs that portion of those participating, as long as quorum is met. In this case, from what you guys are saying, is that there is no quorum. The only requirement is that 67% of owners must approve. In our case, we have 300 properties. Any change would require the approval of 201 homes.

There had been a discussion, because of the way it's written, that it implied that only 67% needed to participate, and of that 67% only a majority OF THAT GROUP, would be needed to pass the amendment or change.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yes, just from what you've quoted, that's how I would interpret an amendment could be accomplished.

Which from a board member's perspective is awesome, because if you've got part of the membership that wants the change to be made, the board can really turn it back on them to make that happen, and the board doesn't need to be a part of the process.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"Owners of 67% of the lots" could theoretically be 1 person. I read it as requiring an unknown number of owners having to approve the amendment/termination, as long as they collectively own 67% of the lots. The second part is a provision requiring the President to confirm that those who approved the amendment actually constitute owners of at least 67% of the lots and seems to support the idea that it might not be as simple as each lot being owned by a different owner.

I don't really see this as requiring a separate vote and approval, either.

This how I read it too

[tarcone]

I will give you an example and see if it helps.

HOA board wants to raise the HOA dues from $100 to $200. In order for this to happen 67 of the 100 lot owners (Some may get 2 or more votes). If only 50 vote, then there is no way it can pass.
The 2nd pat is part of the same example. One lot in the subdivision is a rental property. There is 100 votes cast on the ballot. 67 of the votes say YES. The board president then looks at the ballots. It shows on of the Yes votes was cast by the renter and not the lot owner, thus invalidating that vote. So now there are 100 lot owners but only 99 votes and 66 YES votes. The measure fails.

[molson]

When I was in law school 15 years ago there was a push for contracts, briefs, and other legal writing to be in written in English. You know, the kind of English real humans read and write.

I don't think that ever took off. But I still try to do it.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, the second clause is just verifying that the vote is accurate.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So in this case, should there be 100 different properties, and we get 67% of them to vote, there only needs to be 34 affirmative votes for success? Yes?

I dont think quorum comes into play, with the wording. As long as the total votes to approve represent at least 67% of the total lots in the property, the vote passes.

The line regarding the president is to just confirm that those voting do hold at least 67% of the total lots.

[AlexB]

Agree with Neon Chaos - for example if one guy owns 68% of the properties, no-one else matters.

And if ownership is limited to one per person, and only 66 people show up to vote, it’s a pointless exercise

[PilotMan]

Thanks for the help guys. We've read that thing for years and had an assumption about the way it was written (basically what you've said, 2/3 approval), then someone suggested it meant something else, but you guys really helped zone in on it, and the process being something that any group within the Association could initiate and be responsible for really helps the Board as those volunteers are already tasked and unwilling to take up a mantle for a group if they don't have to. Especially if it's something that they don't support.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cartman

2/3

done and done

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

When I was in law school 15 years ago there was a push for contracts, briefs, and other legal writing to be in written in English. You know, the kind of English real humans read and write.

I don't think that ever took off. But I still try to do it.

Some companies I've worked with (mostly tech) have gone through pretty useless exercises to "dumb down" their contracts so that most customers can read and understand them. Which is fine, I understand the purpose and it's a laudable goal, but it just leaves the attorneys with one more reason to stay up all night thinking of all the ways that other attorneys can drive a truck through the new simplified language.

[CrimsonFox]

instruments? what like an oboe?

[stevew]

The next amendment could be perhaps clarifying the language about amending procedures?