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.