The Wedgefield Examiner,
provides the following information to the best of my ability, from review of
records, and my notes, taken during a scheduled visit at the WPA. While the law covering records review,
provided the ability to have copies of requested documents, I did not request
copies, as my board, your board, have denied them in the past. To confirm the detail provided below, I
suggest that you write the board, and request a date and time to review The
orders -2, signed by Referee Beverly, in 2013 and 2014, regarding the
litigation, against the canal lot owner who refused to pay the dredging
assessments.
I visited the office today
at the scheduled time, and was provided most of the detail that I had
requested. I’d like to thank Board
Member Cline, for her efforts in gathering the documents, and arranging for a
comfortable place to review, at what has to be a very busy time. In this article, I will focus on two
documents in particular, two orders, signed by Chip & Hal Beverly. The orders focus on the litigation of
members, at times one, at another two, who failed to pay their canal related
dredging assessments. Both live on the
canals, and to protect their rightful privacy, will be titled A & B
members.
It should be noted that
these cases have been hanging, almost since the beginning of the dredging,
which took place in 2010. Details of
which each owed, is insignificant to this particular article. It appears to me, to become and issue of
principle, sound judgment, and open honest governance.
I am not a lawyer, so bear
with me. It appears that the first order
reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related
assessments. The order is dated 6/25/2013,
signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.
This
litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the
$175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all
canal lot owners, were assessed. Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use
significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of
assessment. Quotes will be provided in
black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.
“Therefore,
I find that the plaintiff acted with proper authority when it maintained and
assessed the canal assessments”
#13
of the order. “Regarding the assessment
of fees, section 3331-302 (15) of the South Carolina Code (2006) states in
Part, “(E) every corporation has…the same powers as an individual…to do all
things necessary or convenient to carry out it’s affairs including without
limitation, power…to impose dews, assessments, and admission and transfer fees
upon it member… “The Covenants and By-laws of the Plaintiff run with the land
and are binding upon all persons, firms, and corporations owning any interest
in the lands within Wedgefield Plantation Association. The language of Article IV of the By-laws,
particularly Sections 2 and 4 give the Plaintiff wide discretion in levying
Individual Assessments and using the Individual Assessments. For the payment of
common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes
necessary or desireable in the opinion of the board of directors for the
general benefit of the subdivision.”
#11
“The Master Deed and By-laws, together provide among other things that 1) The
owner of each lot shall be personally liable to the Assoc. for the payment of all regular and individual
assessments levied by the Association and shall be personally liable for
interest.”
From my reading, and
understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain
unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were
legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and
assorted legal fees. It appears, one
member paid. We’ll call him A. That leaves us with the “last man standing”,
member “B”
Go back to my letter to the
board. I requested documents that would
have showed me what was happening after order one, and before order two. They weren’t provided. I asked for all related invoices, defendant
lawyer, or member correspondence, etc.
They might have provided insight to the road traveled. We can’t rely on the minutes of meetings, in
my humble opinion they have been sanitized.
I attend most board meetings, and for the most part, little to nothing
was said from the board table, between the two orders. The next order relative to this case, is
signed almost a year and a half later, and reverses the decision regarding
Individual Assessment - $5,000 to canal lot owners, only.
The second order is signed on
October 30, 2014, by CHIP
Beverly, Special
Referee Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use
significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of
assessment. Quotes will be provided in
black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.
“CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
A. VALIDITY OF THE
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE I find that
the Board of Directors’ decision to levy an annual assessment increase is an
intra vires act and the purpose for the increase (canal dredging) is within the
sound business judgment of the Board. It
is reasonable for the Board to construe canal dredging as a preservation of property values, safety,
and aesthetic appeal of the subdivision.
It matters not that the canals are not Association common area property
because the dredging could still be construed as a benefit to the association
at large. WPA is entitled to judgment
and foreclosure against the Defendants in the annual assessment Increase,
reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of collection, and interest.
B. Validity of the five
thousand dollar Individual Assessment The association is bound to follow the
covenants and its own bylaws. Seabrook
Island Prop. Owners Ass’n V. Pellzer, 292 S.C. 343, 348, 356 S.E. 2d 411, 414 (S.C.
Ct. App. 1987) (reversing judgment against a homeowner for non payment of
assessments on the basis that the association had no authority to levy flat fee
annual maintenance charges where the governing documents required charges to be
based on property values).
In addition to Annual assessments, the
By-laws for WPA provide that individual assessments may be levied by the
Board. These relate to architectural
review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by the Association, in an
effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-laws and in the deed
“Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.
The Restrictions themselves do not mention individual assessments.
The strict parameters for which an individual
assessment may be levied indicate that the board was without express authority
to levy individual assessments for the purpose of canal dredging. Individual Assessments are limited to costs
for keeping up lots. Clearly the canals
are not within the bounds of individual lots.
As it relates to the Individual Assessment of Five Thousand Dollars, I
find for the Defendants.”
After I took my notes, and went home, I sat and reviewed my
notes. I am still left wondering about
too many things. First, notice Chip
& Hal Beverly. I assumed two people,
maybe in a partnership. I asked myself
why our board after the first order, would go back and pay again. They had won!
Both assessments stood. I went to
the computer and looked for Hal & Chip Beverly. It isn’t two people. Hal’s nick name is Chip. What would cause a board to go back to the
same person, who gave an opinion, justified it, and they won, who is now
writing a new opinion on Individual Assessment, and they lose a large
part? My only thought is that someone,
or more, who moves the board HERD around, convinced them, that they had to do
it.
There is a larger HERD, led by some on this board, - members,
enough of them, that we have such apathy, that we don’t question, we don’t go
review documents, we take half truths, reports from the board table that have
little or no information – long absences with no updates, and let it be.
One of the two members sued, paid the $5,000. One was robbed because he believed he had to,
or lose his home. It could appear, that
the second, had contacts on the board, and was involved with their Agenda. If this one didn’t have to pay, why did the
other, and what about the 78 other canal lot owners who paid. I forget myself. When word got out that one didn’t have to
pay, and some of us asked for our money back , it was stated that
the time had run out for us. No one,
would answer as to what law, etc. This
board answers to no one, just dances to the music of their own hidden
agenda. I believe that we deserve
answers to just exactly how the second ruling was allowed to happen. Garrison & DeMarchi, during a board
meeting October 2014, with little or no information provided, kept
calling Beverly a judge, like a judge, the power of a judge, when actually he
was a referee, who each side would have had to pay him his fees. No judge calls for a board to vote, on an
outcome! We were paying this judge?????,
for a second time to violate his first ruling.
This should have gone to court if the member & his lawyer wouldn’t
pay, after the first settlement.
Before I finish, I should note that Beverly died. I’ve nothing against him. I resent this board’s denials of fact by
hiding information that should be available under the law, failing to offer
full – if any information at meetings, and individual board members who sit by
raise their hands and vote yes, either without demanding information, or
turning a blind eye to the great deviance of the actions of this board,, that
robs us of good, sound, fair governance.
Write the board, and ask to see these documents, ask where all
the documents are? Ask individual board
members how they could have voted for this second go around, with a REFEREE
that wrote the first one, and was about to turn the first order up side down..
