The Board of Directors has voted to submit two proposals to the members for a vote. The purpose of this entry is to discuss the reasons why the Board of Directors felt that the adoption of those two proposals would be in the best interests of the community.
This entry will also rebut and reject certain erroneous statements made by an anonymous author in the July 2009 Owners to Owners Community Newsletter.
This is part 2 on the upcoming Documents Revision. This article deals with the proposed Insurance Amendment.
Insurance Amendment
This is a difficult subject. The WWS Association Attorney recommended that we amend the Declaration to better address insurance. Excerpted at this link is a portion of WWS Attorney's Letter of January 14, 2009. That excerpt explains the risk associated with staying with the current Documents and the reason for the change to our current Documents.
The following section will address the OTO errors in regard to the insurance article.
Excerpts from the July 2009 OTO Newsletter will be in “italics”:
The OTO Newsletter article states that ”condo owner insurance is now the responsibility of the condo owners. The Association is not responsible for buying condo insurance for owners that do not have coverage”.
This statement is true. See Section 10.2(a) of the proposed amendment that lists the specific items that must be insured by each unit owner. The type of property insurance policy issued to a unit owner is typically referred to in the insurance industry as an HO6 policy. The Association has no intention of buying a property insurance policy of the contents of any unit if an owner fails to do so.
The OTO Newsletter article also states that “If in our documents we just say “per the 718 statute” we could not have to change our documents every time the state of Florida changes the law”.
This gross oversimplification misses the point entirely as to the significant underlying reasons why we want to rewrite our insurance provision. The statute does not supersede a poorly conceived documentary provision that requires the use of an insurance trustee, or approval of a mortgage holder to the insurer or settlement of a claim. We need to amend our Declaration to get rid of these undesirable provisions. Further, we need to be consistent with the many complex statutory requirements. Simply citing to a statute is not going to provide the necessary direction to management, board members and owners and there are some discretionary issues under the statute that will be determined by our documents, not the statute.
Now let's consider a scenario. Assume that for 558 units, there are 50 banks represented as mortgage holders. Assume we have taken the OTO advice and voted 'no' on Article X. In September 2010, Hurricane Pistachio blows Oakview Village into Palm Tree Village. 15 of the 50 banks challenge our current Documents because we don't have pre-approval by mortgage holders for the Insurance proceeds distribution. From this point we can expect a lengthy court process as 15 banks and their lawyers demand an Insurance Trustee to protect their interests before any reconstruction effort begins. Is this what you want?
If you vote 'no' based upon the erroneous OTO advice consider the following:
A 'no' vote on Article X gives control of our Insurance Proceeds in the event of a catastrophe to bankers and bank lawyers not WWS BOD and owners. A 'no' vote is shortsighted, irresponsible, and dangerous.
Aside from the fact that the anonymous OTO author has clearly made a number of inflammatory and false remarks with intent to damage my integrity or question my motives, the anonymous OTO author's material regarding the Documents change is inaccurate and misleads, misinforms, and misguides the readers.
The source material for FS718 is readily available online. We have reviewed both Articles in open WWS Committee and Board meetings within the last four months. What excuse explains the inclusion of such blatantly inaccurate material as the basis for the OTO recommendation?
You be the judge.
If you wish to vote 'no' on these items, make a well informed decision based upon the correct information, not the OTO propaganda. Understand clearly, the ramifications of your choice. Since the Special Meeting is not yet scheduled and voting materials have not been distributed, ask OTO Leadership why they have intentionally provided erroneous information about FS718 in lieu of waiting for the official materials and explanations.
The Special Meeting (date TBA) devoted to these Documents items will include a presentation about the two items to be voted upon. At least two weeks in advance of that meeting, voting materials will be provided to all owners regarding the two items. There will be ample opportunity for owners to ask questions.
