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.
(005) Numerous attempts to reach a
common understanding have always resulted in failure.
(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.
(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.
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.
(030) It is unfair not to disclose
the legal restrictions placed on those buying a RV lot or any property at RRLE.
(031) It is unethical for a current
owner, like Mr. Estep, to dump his problem on someone else.
(032) The sign at the front gate is intended to deter
this unfair practice and avoid the problem as much as possible.
(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).
(035) It
is not what is on a lot but how it is used in relation to the Covenants and the
PUD.
(036) The Board's responsibility is
to enforce the Covenants.
(037) The entire Board simply wants
property owners to abide by the Covenants, Rules and By-Laws.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(055) The burden of change to the
Covenants and the PUD was and still is on those wanting to allow permanent
residence here.
(056) Final approval of any
Committee recommendation could not be put in front of the property owners
unless the Township approved the recommendation.
(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.
(058) If a change in the Covenants
and thus the PUD were recommended, the Township would have to approve the
change.
(059) The Township has indicated it
will not approve permanent residency on RV lots and will not approve that
change in the Covenants.
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.
(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.
(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.
(067) Diane Neff submitted the final
proposal to the Board that was approved by the Committee.
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.
(070) Wisconsin State Statutes
require either a person or persons to be named and served.
(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.
(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.
(075) At no time did anyone ask
property owners to vote yes.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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.
(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.
(092) That is why some of its
members were removed from that board.
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.
(094) He said there are lawyers
going through the Covenants and there is nothing that prevents you from living
at RRLE permanently.
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.
(096) Each separate day shall
constitute a separate violation of the ordinance, if the ordinance is one in
which a continuing situation is possible.
(097) This section shall not be
construed to abrogate minimum and maximum penalties prescribed by the laws of
the State of Wisconsin.
(098) According to the Township,
this includes violations of the PUD and thus our Covenants which are the basis
of complying with the PUD.
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.
(100) He said Buckley, Neff, the
whole group, all refused to give up their rights.
(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.
(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.
(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.