A Developer Board action of 2 years ago comes back to bite us in the rear
I noted on the Board newsletter that there is some discussion of whether or not Pelican Realty can have the usage of one of the offices in the clubhouse.
"The Board is looking into the use of a clubhouse office by Pelican Real Estate, and determining if it can be used at no charge. There is an ongoing discussion about charging for use of that office."
As I wrote to the current 2 Owners on the Board:
"That ship sailed 2 years and one day ago when Norman Knight, as President of the Nautilus Cove Condo Assn., signed off on the Shared Facilities Easement Agreement of Oct 4, 2010, which gave away prime office space to the Developer, who he represents on our Board.
"That ship sailed 2 years and one day ago when Norman Knight, as President of the Nautilus Cove Condo Assn., signed off on the Shared Facilities Easement Agreement of Oct 4, 2010, which gave away prime office space to the Developer, who he represents on our Board.
I will leave it to you to decide but as I see it they can have Pelican Realty or Al Qaeda in the office and we have nothing to say about it and it seems that we have no way to 'charge' them anything."
Also FYI: on page 3 of the Shared Facilities Easement Agreement, at 2 Easement (a) below it provides in part:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Developer hereby reserves the Office described in Section I(A)(8) hereof and depicted as the "Reserved Area" on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the exclusive use of the Developer and its employees, agents, licensees, contractors or management company."
Exhibit B of this Easement agreement shows clearly the office given away, even to having an arrow point to it on the plan. See the Bay County Records where the document is filed:
http://records2.baycoclerk.com/oncoreweb/showdetails.aspx?id=6618141&rn=80&pi=5&ref=search
http://records2.baycoclerk.com/oncoreweb/showdetails.aspx?id=6618141&rn=80&pi=5&ref=search
I reported this nonsense on my blog site and hoped that when 'Turnover' came in a few weeks that we could undo this. Didn't happen, the Board while having 2 Owners, remained under control of the Developer.
Here is what I said at the time:
10/23/2010
10/23/2010
Old BOD Sweetheart Contracts can be overturned and voided by new BOD
FYI: As you know the recent BOD made an end run to give Concord a 3 year management contract where prior contracts had been 1 year terms and they also gave away one of our offices to Nautilus Development Partners LLLP to use until Hell freezes over for free.
I have taken advice from an attorney at a major Florida Law firm with a Gulf Coast office and the opinion quoted to me was to the effect that both can be overturned when the Owners take over the Association. I will omit details as I have frequent look ins from both Concord and the developer and I don't want to 'give away' how this change will be done. It will of course require the hiring of an attorney.