Response to Allegations Made at an
Informational Meeting Held September 26,2010 at RRLE
(Also Known As Protectors of the
RRLE Covenants and the Planned Unit Development)
(001) For decades property owners at Rock
River Leisure Estates have debated the language in the Covenants that govern
the park.
(002) Some of the more controversial
language concerns the restrictions placed on RV
lots.
(003) Some property owners believe the RRLE
Covenants allow the use of a recreational vehicle (RV)
lot as permanent residence.
(004) While others, including the
Concerned Citizen at RRLE, believe the Covenants prohibit this use.
Rebuttal:
Apparently, if you do not agree with the Authors, you are excluded from
being a “Concerned Citizen at RRLE”. It will be a sad day for RRLE when we all
think and act alike. Progress STOPS.
(005) Numerous attempts to reach a common
understanding have always resulted in failure.
Rebuttal: See FootNotes
(006) So the RRLE Board of Directors
decided it was important to resolve this issue using the legal system.
(007) This is not simply a matter of
intellectual debate, but goes to the very future of RRLE and our investment in it.
(008) On September 16, 2010 a
lawsuit was introduced in the Rock County Circuit Court.
(009) Hopefully the court will issue its
ruling sometime in 2011 and our internal
squabbles on this subject can finally end.
(010) On September 26, 2010 a group
of property owners that support permanent residence on RV lots held an
informational meeting at the RRLE recreation center.
(011)
Their purpose was to discuss this lawsuit filed by the Board of Directors.
(012) Minutes from their meeting were
then mailed to all the RRLE property owners, complete with half-truths and
innuendoes.
(013) The paragraphs below reiterate
those Allegations made at this meeting and the following Truth statements allow
you to view things from a very different perspective.
1.Allegation:
(014) Harold Estep said the Board did not
give status of the Permanent Residence issue at the September 11 Board meeting.
Truth:
(015) Per the tape of the property owners
forum, at the September 11 Board meeting
Harold Estep asked about the status of the Permanent Residence issue and if it
was in the Circuit Court at this time.
(016) Bob Buckley told him that the
attorneys were reviewing it and it was not in the courts at this time.
(017) The first time the Board saw the
complaint was on September 14 and it was not
filed until September 16th.
2. Allegation:
(018) Harold Estep said Lucy and Gerry
Gaffey invited two Board members, Bob Buckley and Diane Neff, to their property
regarding the status of the Permanent Residence Committee.
(019)
Estep said
the Gaffeys were told by these Board members that the Permanent Residence issue
was a “dead issue”.
Truth:
(020) At the August Board meeting, the
RRLE Board agreed to look into implementing the previous "deed
restriction" form, which would let violators continue to reside
permanently on an RV lot until they sold their property.
Rebuttal: As
of this writing, there is no such thing as “violators” on this matter, as I
will explain later. There is a weekly
paper published in Dane County that says “deed restrictions” are illegal. Look for link to this site on the Home
Page. The Web Site is called “Freedom
Matters”.
(021) In a subsequent meeting with Bob
Buckley and Diane Neff, Lucy Gaffey started the meeting by saying she had
contacted an attorney who told her not to sign anything.
(022) Bob Buckley told the Gaffeys the
use of the "deed restriction" form, as a viable compromise in
enforcing the Covenants was a «dead issue".
(023) Bob also told the Gaffeys, per the
Park attorneys, that this form would not hold up in court because the Board
does not have the power to authorize or grandfather a violation of the RRLE
Covenants.
(024) Neither Bob Buckley nor Diane Neff
said that the Permanent Residence issue was a “dead” issue.
3. Allegation:
(025) Harold Estep said his place is for
sale.
(026) Some potential buyers asked him if
they could live at RRLE year round and about the sign at the front gate.
(027) He said he told them there were
people who live at RRLE year round so they would have the right to do that if
they so chose.
(028) He went on to say that the sign
affects the values in the Park and although there are places that have sold,
people drop their prices so low, it's really sad.
Rebuttal: This is true.
Ask any realtor to run a survey over the last eight years and see for yourself
that the greatest loss of selling your property in RRLE is because of the sign
and the fighting about “permanent residence”.
Truth:
(029) What Mr. Estep is advocating here
in effect is that he wants the ability to commit a fraud on unsuspecting and
uninformed potential buyers.
Rebuttal: There is no “fraud” committed by anyone
exercising their rights as property owners.
Whether you agree with him or not doesn’t make him wrong and you right
or the opposite. This is why we are in
the Courts.
(030) It is unfair not to disclose the
legal restrictions placed on those buying a RV lot or any property at RRLE.
Rebuttal: By “legal
restrictions” do you mean State, County and Fulton Township Legal or RRLE
Legal. It has never been proved
otherwise.
Deeds to property in RRLE state “See Covenants”. We have the power to change our Covenants
at any time with a 3/4 vote of the
Property Owners. Nothing in the
Original Covenants says what we reasonable decide as a HOA must be approved by
any outside governmental body.
(031) It is unethical for a current
owner, like Mr. Estep, to dump his problem on someone else.
Rebuttal: Mr. Estep doesn’t
have a problem, the Authors and their supporters do.
(032)
The sign at the front gate is intended to deter this unfair practice and avoid
the problem as much as possible.
Rebuttal: Once again it is only an “unfair practice”
to the Authors and their supporters.
(033) See RRLE Covenants Article I, (i), Page 1,
Article IV, (c), Page 9, Article V, Section 1,
(b), Page 10, Article V, Section 4,
(i), Page 13 and Article VII, Section 3.
(034)
Also see Wisconsin State Statute 66-0435 (HM).
Rebuttal: This State Statute has to do with license
for a “Mobile Home Park”. Seeing as we are a PUD, this does not apply to our
Park. Nice try, Authors.
(035)
It is not what is on a lot but how it is used in relation to the Covenants
and the PUD.
Rebuttal: Our Covenants read: “Any lot smaller than
9000 square feet shall not be used for a permanent residence”. When this was original written the majority
of the lots were vacant lots. Now the
question arises, “How does one use an empty lot as a permanent residence?” Answer: Research. A “permanent residence”
is almost always a structure, meaning a house, condo, apartment, hotel room or
suite and the like. In the state of
Wisconsin that little room that you see attached to the cab of a semi-trailer
has been classified as the owners “permanent residence”. The owner has the same rights as the rest of
property owners have. Check it out for
yourself, it is on the Internet.
Wisconsin cited when New York State was defining the term ‘Permanent
Residence”. Our Covenants state that
only non-dwelling buildings are allowed on RV lots. Where does this leave us with Park Models????? Please read the Tax lawsuit of 2003.
(036) The Board's responsibility is to
enforce the Covenants.
Rebuttal: This is the Authors opinion only. Our Covenants says it is the responsibility
of the HOA, not the board.
(037) The entire Board simply wants
property owners to abide by the Covenants, Rules and By-Laws.
Rebuttal: Once again it is
the HOA responsibility. If there is
controversy about what the term “Permanent Residence” means, who decides what
it means. Whoever coined the terms
“permanent livers”, “year-round living”, “year-round residency” and “permanent
living” must not understand what a permanent residence is. These people should research the term.
(038) They do not want anyone to have to
move but they do not want anyone else to make this his or her permanent
residence.
(039) Although permanent residency is
against the Covenants, property owners have access to their property 365 days a year.
(040) As to the lessening of
property values because of the restriction against permanent living, the
opposite is likely more true.
(041) Without this restriction, RRLE
development becomes more attractive to people that are primarily looking for
low income housing.
(042) That is what will negatively impact
property values.
(043) Mr. Estep also seems to have
ignored the fact that real estate values since 2009
have been plummeting all over the United States.
(044) Did he expect RRLE to be any
different? HELLO!
4. Allegation:
(045) Harold Estep said that at every
Permanent Resident Committee meeting he wanted to make sure that whatever
agreement came out of the Committee that the final approval would be put in
front of the property owners and that three-quarters of the property owners
would have to approve this before we implement it.
(046) He said Diane Neff, Chairperson
said she agreed.
(047) He went on to say, however, it never
went in front of the people for such a vote.
(048) It went from that Committee, to the
Board, to the attorney's, to the Rock County Court Systems.
Truth:
(049)
The RRLE Covenants prohibit permanent residence on RV lots.
(050) Both Harold Estep and Diane Neff
were wrong. Diane Neff has since indicated that she now knows she was wrong,
but Harold Estep has never so agreed.
(051) Further, it should be clearly noted
that Committee members, Harold Estep, Bob Sarto and Marilyn Wirt, all in favor
of allowing permanent residency, initiated a request to dissolve the Committee
and to take the matter to court.
(052)
The Board voted in favor of both requests.
Rebuttal: If
this is true, where are our signatures to support this statement. Since when did the Committee or the Board
ever pay any attention to what we had to say?????? Goto the ReViews Page and look at the June Review of 2010, Page 5, last paragraph and see for yourself if the Board voted in favor of
both request. I don’t think so.
(053) The purpose of the Permanent
Residence Committee, per the previous Board, was to negotiate with Fulton
Township to develop a plan for coming into compliance with the permanent
residency restrictions on RV lots and submit a recommendation to the Board.
Rebuttal:
There is no “coming into compliance with the Fulton Township”. The Fulton Township stated at several of
our Committee meetings that there is nothing in their ordinances preventing
“year-round living” or “permanent residency” or “permanent residence”. Our lots have been classified as R-1 since
the Park started. Only the Park
recognizes RV lots as RV Lots. The
Committee never officially stated this to the Board, nor did the Board relay
these statements to the Property Owners at a meeting.
(054) It needs to be clearly remembered
that until any change in the existing Covenants was adopted by the necessary
membership vote, no permanent residency could occur on RV lots.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
(055) The burden of change to the
Covenants and the PUD was and still is on those wanting to allow permanent
residence here.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
(056) Final approval of any Committee
recommendation could not be put in front of the property owners unless the
Township approved the recommendation.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. In our Covenants there is no Rule, Order or
any references that we as a HOA has or have to report to the Town of
Fulton for any guidance to the running or operations of our Park, outside of
common courtesy. If this were true,
then the Town of Fulton has control of RRLE, not the HOA.
(057) Even then, the Committee's recommendation,
no matter what it was, could not change the Covenants, as the existing
Covenants' effectiveness can be changed only by a three-quarters membership
vote.
Rebuttal: This is Incorrect. Read the Original Covenants of 1975. The very same people that proclaim to uphold the Covenants do
not understand what they read. They
read one thing and say another. The
Covenants of 1975 reads (Line 097) ‘Covenants can be ADDED or REMOVED by a ¾ vote of the
Membership. The Covenants of 1975 reads (Line 130) ‘The Covenants can be CHANGED in whole or part with 2/3rd
membership voting. 1982 Covenants (Line 079) and (Line 126).
2005 Covenants (Line 075) and (Line 120).
(058) If a change in the Covenants and
thus the PUD were recommended, the Township would have to approve the change.
Rebuttal: This is
Incorrect. This was explained above on
Line (056)
(059) The Township has indicated it will
not approve permanent residency on RV lots and will not approve that change in
the Covenants.
Rebuttal: This is
Incorrect. This was explained above on
Line (056). Any statement by the Fulton Township representatives were their
opinions and nothing more. No
statement was ever approved or disapproved by the Fulton Township Board.
5. Allegation:
(060) Harold Estep said that suddenly it
was brought out that all you could be in the Park was 278
days per year and that it was never talked about in Committee meetings.
Truth:
(061) On April 21,
2010, Diane Neff sent an E-Mail to Committee
members scheduling the first 2010 meeting
and reviewing the Agenda.
(062) The Agenda included reviewing
status after the winter, discussing next steps and sharing a draft of an
Implementation Plan to gradually bring the Park into compliance that she had
developed and would distribute for comments.
(063) This draft was discussed at every
meeting and revised each time based on input from Committee members.
Rebuttal: This is
Incorrect. Dave Brown did most of the revisions
of the draft, but the results delivered to the RRLE Board did NOT reflect the
revisions stated during the meetings.
I was criticized by certain members of the Committee for sending the
drafts to a member of the Town of Fulton Board. If we were all in agreement with the drafts (including the Town
Of Fulton) then there should have not been a problem.
(064) Was this sudden?
(065) Only for Harold Estep and Bob Sarto
who were not trying to resolve the problem, would not participate in reviewing
or revising the document and spent their entire time arguing and disrupting the
meetings.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. You
(Authors) were not present at any of the Committee meetings. You (Authors) only
heard what you were told by certain members of the Committee.
(066) Despite a promise by Mr. Sarto to provide additional
information to be included in the Implementation Plan before submitting it to
the Board, Mr. Sarto did not do so.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. How do you present anything to a Committee
when the Chairperson takes up 90% of the Committee’s time with his or her own
agenda? The Chairperson did not fully
understand what the Chairperson role is.
It is the Chairperson’s duty to make sure that all sides or point of
interest are heard and debated, not to dictate the outcome of the Committee.
(067) Diane Neff submitted the final
proposal to the Board that was approved by the Committee.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. We were
constantly left out of the Committee decisions. The decisions were made in
private with Board members. If you
would listen to some of the monthly meetings, you would hear us protesting
whatever the Board stated, not being accurate.
If you did not agree with the Chairperson, you were left out of all
matters to be voted on.
Truth:
(068) The Board voted to take the
Permanent Residence issue to our attorneys.
(069) The Board has the power under the
Covenants to make this decision and is not obligated to ask the permission of
anyone or a group of owners in the Park.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. The Board does not have the power it thinks
it has. Read the Robert Elliot vs RRLE lawsuit.
(070) Wisconsin State Statutes require
either a person or persons to be named and served.
Rebuttal: This may be true only to collect money owed
to the RRLE or stop or prevent violations of the Covenants, providing the
violation is accurate. It has not yet
been decided by the Courts if any violation on my part exist. It should have been decided during the Committee
meetings the definition of “permanent residence”. You can thank the Chairperson that a satisfactory decision was
never met. We had to decide on a
punishment before we decided if a crime was committed.
(071) For financial and practical
purposes, in order to not name every property owner, the Board made the
decision, consistent with the Park's lawyer's recommendation to name one person
who is in violation of the Covenants.
Rebuttal: This may be true if this case happened
outside of RRLE. The RRLE Park is not
controlled by the Board and their lawyer. The RRLE Park is controlled by all of us property owners, HOA.
(072) This would make the necessary point
of the need for all others violating the Covenants to come into compliance.
7. Allegation:
(073) Harold Estep said the Board asked
for property owners to respond to the request for a dues increase within 30 days and that after the 30 days they were going around asking people who did not vote
to vote yes.
Truth:
(074) In Board meetings and in three
Review, the Board told the property owners the votes would be initially counted
following the September meeting and property owners that did not vote could
expect someone on their doorstep asking them to vote.
Rebuttal: This is illegal. Those of you who did not like the outcome of the last
presidential election should go out and solicit votes after the election until
you get your candidate elected. Damn,
we could have used this process of election anytime we don’t like who gets
elected or what gets voted on.
(075) At no time did anyone ask property
owners to vote yes.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. Then what was the purpose of canvassing for
votes?????
(076) Because of the questions regarding
this issue, it was referred to the Park attorneys who advised the Board, in
writing, they could "canvass".
8. Allegation:
(077) Harold Estep said he was in the
office last year going over the records of the expenditures for the back pool.
(078) He was critical of how much was
spent and for what reason.
Truth:
(079) You would think they would have
found that the fence post should not been billed to the pool repairs, along
with the chemicals, parts and labor for showers and sinks, covers for the front
pool and a bill for $7000 for repairs in 2007.
(080) Not to mention Bob Sarto and Bob
Tirjer who on their own called the state for licensed plumbers to do the job,
even after they were told the Park could do the repairs.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. Once again the Authors and their supporters
do not understand or acknowledge the State of Wisconsin Laws.
(081) And what about the $3500 for new drawings and a $200 state approval fee, both of which were not
needed.
(082)
This resulted in a required update to the back pool, which cost another $4000.
Rebuttal: Once again the
Authors still do not understand the Law.
This was required by law because of the Virginia Graham Baker Act. The pools must be inspected and correct at
that time or the pools could not open at the beginning of the season. Please
check this out for youselves.
9. Allegation:
(083) Harold Estep said the courts seem to
frown on something that's been allowed for 30
years and all of a sudden a few people want to stop it.
Truth:
(084) Mr. Estep is not mentioning Article
VII, Section 3. which provides,
"Enforcement of these Covenants shall be by any proceeding at law or in
equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any
covenant, either to restrain violation or to recover damages, and against the
land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure by the
Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant herein contained shall in no
event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter".
(085) This has been in the Covenants for
over 40 years.
(086) All of a sudden a few people want
to stop it?
(087) Previous boards over the years had
taken some measures to stop or slow it down, but in recent years the problem
was becoming worse as word spread among some that one could violate the
Covenants with no worry.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
(088) Harold Estep and others (like Bob
Sarto, Krist Enger, Jon Strang, Nancy Schlenz, Bob Tirjer and the Gaffeys) are
at best misinformed or are intentionally misleading innocent people.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
Truth:
(089) The Park is paying for the lawsuit
that was requested by Harold Estep, Bob Sarto and Marilyn Wirt.
(090) The Park is paying for the lawsuit
because it is the Board's responsibility to enforce the Covenants, Rules and
By-Laws and there are property owners not abiding by them, and they have
refused to accept any compromise that has been offered over the last five years
at least.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
(091) This Board is still well under the
budgeted amount of $8000 for 2010, unlike the previous Board that spent $12,658.10 on legal fees trying to figure out how
to violate the Covenants and the By-Laws with an $8000
budget.
Rebuttal: Speculation on
the Authors part. This is just the
present Boards opinion. It has not been
proved.
(092) That is why some of its members
were removed from that board.
Rebuttal: Speculation on
the Authors part. More unproven words.
11. Allegation:
(093) Bob Sarto said the Town of Fulton
has nothing on its' books to prevent anybody from staying fulltime or
permanently in this Park.
Rebuttal: This is true.
Contact the Town of Fulton Board’.
(094) He said there are lawyers going
through the Covenants and there is nothing that prevents you from living at
RRLE permanently.
Rebuttal: This is false. I
said the Town of Fulton Board said this at the Committee meeting.
Truth:
(095) From the Town of Fulton - Any
person or entity violating any provision of this Code or any ordinance that may
be enacted or amended by the Town shall forfeit not less than $50 nor more than $1,000
for each violation, together with the costs of prosecution and other Court
costs and penalty assessments permitted by law, except where a penalty is
otherwise specifically provided for.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. Does not apply to RRLE. The Town of Fulton never said this during a
Committee. If it were true, why did they not fine us, the “Violators”.
(096) Each separate day shall constitute
a separate violation of the ordinance, if the ordinance is one in which a
continuing situation is possible.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. Does not apply to RRLE. The Town of Fulton never said this during a
Committee. If it were true, why did they not fine us, the “Violators”.
(097) This section shall not be construed
to abrogate minimum and maximum penalties prescribed by the laws of the State
of Wisconsin.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. Does not apply to RRLE. The Town of Fulton never said this during a
Committee. If it were true, why did they not fine us, the “Violators”.
(098) According to the Township, this
includes violations of the PUD and thus our Covenants which are the basis of
complying with the PUD.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. Does not apply to RRLE. The Town of Fulton never said this during a
Committee. If it were true, why did they not fine us, the “Violators”.
12. Allegation:
(099) Bob Sarto said everybody who'd
opposed him living at RRLE refused to give up their right to move into this
Park.
Rebuttal: This statement is false. I said only those
at the Committee meeting, not everyone who opposes me.
(100) He said Buckley, Neff, the whole
group, all refused to give up their rights.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. We, the accused, are part of this “whole
group”, too.
(101) He said Permanent
Residence is for everyone.
Truth:
(102) Bob Buckley and Diane Neff did not
refuse to sign anything in this regard, nor do they ever intend to live here
permanently.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
(103) When one buys property in the RV section
of this Park, by law you imply agreement to comply with the provisions of the
RRLE Covenants against permanent residence on a RV lot.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part. It should be noted here that only less than
7% of all RV Lots actually have a RV on them or are vacant. That leaves 93% that have, according to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, are classified as Real Property, not RV’s. Why do we have Real Property on RV
Lots???? Read the Tax Lawsuit
decision of 2003.
(104)
This is true in any community where you live and is no different in RRLE.
(105) It should be noted that the same
group of people making these allegations continue to do so as of even the last
Board meeting and have given no indication of trying to work with the Board
other than to stop or disrupt all Board efforts at achieving compliance with
the Covenants and addressing the modernization needed.
Rebuttal: Speculation on the Authors part.
FootNotes:
As of this writing no
one in RRLE has violated any Covenant pertaining to “Permanent Residence”. The pending lawsuit is about having the
Court define the term “Permanent
Residence” as it appears or used in our Covenants. Until the Courts define it, I am not guilty
of breaking a Covenant.
I am fully aware of what the term “Permanent Residence” means.
In my opinion, by law it means I cannot build or install any building that is
designed for human habitation, whether it is for temporary or permanent use.
This is not allowed by
our Covenants. To quote, “The only buildings allowed on RV lots are
non-dwelling, such as sheds, garages, boat sheds and the like.” I was told by certain members who oppose
“permanent residence” that this clause in our Covenants was a mistake, this is
not what the developers intended.
This is why they (Authors) say only one (1) shed per lot. What happened to their (Authors) claim to
defend and uphold the Covenants, Rules and By-Laws.
Previous RRLE BOD’s had
ignored this Covenant and allowed us to install Park Model Units and stick
built room additions although the Fulton Township advised them against doing
so. They said it would increase “permanent residence”. RRLE BOD’s replied, “We will worry about
that when it happens”. There is plenty
of paperwork to support this.
The RRLE Tax Lawsuit of
March 2002 is now used as a precedent for taxing Park Models, manufactured
homes and Mobile Homes for the State Of Wisconsin as Real Property..
Click the underlined text to go to http://www.revenue.wi.gov/pubs/slf/pb075.pdf
Page(6)
Yet the Authors and
their supporters still claim our units as RVs and disregard the Wisconsin
Supreme Court ruling.
What makes a “permanent
residence” a ”permanent residence” is the owners intention to return to
his or her residence after being away.
In my opinion this means as long as I use my unit as my “permanent
residence” it will remain my “permanent residence” no matter how long I am
away, whether it was 1 day, 2 weeks or 4 months. The status as “permanent residence” stays the same. Does your “permanent residence” in your
home town stop being your “permanent residence” while you are enjoying your lot
here in RRLE?????.
Our “Articles of
Incorporation” states “A member cannot be expelled for any reason”. I think we all know what it means to be
“expelled”. Forcible vacating of any
lot for any given time in RRLE by the BOD or the HOA is against our “Articles
of Incorporation”.