Menu
Log in
Log in

    



 

Maine Alliance for Road Associations

variation on statutory bylaws permitted?

  • 25 Jul 2011 11:26 AM
    Message # 662545
    Deleted user

    I'm looking to start an association here on Stanley Pond (S.Hiram) but it will not fly with the usual "democratic" provisions, as many will not vote to make any expenditures.  So I'm looking to form one with the benefits of a Statutory RA without the member liability for expenditures.  IOW, I want to have my cake (Well sort of) and eat it too.  Our voluntary association works about as well as can be expected, a handful will kick in $, a different handful will do some labor, and most couldn't be bothered either way.

    I'd like an association that will get past the loan underwriters, and figure a Statutory one should do that.  If I modify the bylaws to give any one landowner veto on expenditures, no one should oppose the formation, right?  Which leaves us with the current voluntary system, but a Road Association never the less.  And that should satisfy the underwriters, unless they really dig into it (and how likely is that?).

    Any reason this won't work?  How rigid is the Statutory language anyway? Such veto power is eminently fair, equitable, and democratic seems to me, even if it weakens the association's powers.

    Thoughts? This is a real concern, as we are looking to sell, and with FHA requiring a RA and some conventional (20%) loans doing the same, marketability/financing could be a deal killer w/o a RA in place.

     

  • 27 Jul 2011 5:16 PM
    Reply # 664527 on 662545
    Deleted user
    Robert Howe wrote:

    I'm looking to start an association here on Stanley Pond (S.Hiram) but it will not fly with the usual "democratic" provisions, as many will not vote to make any expenditures.  So I'm looking to form one with the benefits of a Statutory RA without the member liability for expenditures.  IOW, I want to have my cake (Well sort of) and eat it too.  Our voluntary association works about as well as can be expected, a handful will kick in $, a different handful will do some labor, and most couldn't be bothered either way.

    I'd like an association that will get past the loan underwriters, and figure a Statutory one should do that.  If I modify the bylaws to give any one landowner veto on expenditures, no one should oppose the formation, right?  Which leaves us with the current voluntary system, but a Road Association never the less.  And that should satisfy the underwriters, unless they really dig into it (and how likely is that?).

    Any reason this won't work?  How rigid is the Statutory language anyway? Such veto power is eminently fair, equitable, and democratic seems to me, even if it weakens the association's powers.

    Thoughts? This is a real concern, as we are looking to sell, and with FHA requiring a RA and some conventional (20%) loans doing the same, marketability/financing could be a deal killer w/o a RA in place.

     



    Thanks to Howard Lake, got an indication that the "super majority" I'm considering would likely not invalidate the association.  In my view, it's a way to get an association in place with minimal opposition, then let the benefits sell a change to something more workable.  And it should immediately solve the FHA and lender underwriting kibosh that exists without the Association.  JMO, YMMV

                            The Maine Alliance for Road Associations


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software