Page A2 - http://suncityindependent.az.newsmemory.com/ Lawsuit counts Count 1 Allegation — RCSC is not conforming to Arizona’s Planned Communities Act. Judgement sought — Determination RCSC is subject to the act, including open meeting requirements, allowing for inspection of RCSC records, allowing residents to be heard prior to board votes, allowing recording of meetings, prohibitions on proxy use and limitations on RCSC’s ability to foreclose on property. Count 2 Allegation — RCSC has taken actions in violation or inconsistent with state law, its articles of incorporation of bylaws. Judgement sought — Determination RCSC unlawfully increased quorum requirement, incurred indebtedness or liability beyond $750,000 without member consent, conveyed amenities and property for tax purposes in violation of articles. Count 3 Allegation — RCSC adopted bylaws that conflict with the articles of incorporation and failed to accord equal rights or priveleges to members. Judgement sought — Determine that such bylaws are invalid. Count 4 Allegation — Members are not treated equally. Judgement sought — Determination that all property owners are members. Count 5 Allegation — RCSC breached contract to treat owners and members equally. Judgement sought — Reimbursement to property owners and members charged differently. Count 6 Allegation — RCSC breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Judgement sought — Reimbursement to property owners and members charged differently. Count 7 Allegation — Breach of contract regarding the PIF by charging different rates to different members. Judgement sought — Reimbursement to property owners and members charged differently. County 8 Allegation — Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the way PIF fees are charged. Judgement sought — Reimbursement to property owners and members charged differently. County 9 Allegation — PIF is unlawful and invalid transfer fee. Judgement sought — Recovery of civil penalties, civil penalties and reimbursement to property owners and members charged differently. Source: Plaintiffs’ complaint
It's best to stay out of any conversation regarding this litigation as this forum will be ruined like has happened in the past. My only comment is who will have to pay all the litigation costs that will be incurred by the RCSC in this matter???? We RCSC cardholders!!
I'm sorry Aggie, I was truly shocked when I read this. It's not my intent to ruin the forum. I thought we had done our due diligence before buying, but it looks like I left out searching for this type of lawsuit. I'll hold any further comment.
I am not a resident and therefore have very limited knowledge other than that of an outsider who has done some research into the community. SC appears to be a very good community and given the recreation opportunities available at a very affordable cost I am unable to determine why a resident would consider the operation to be "criminal" as described on page 7 of the local paper. I also would recommend that this suit not 'silence' residents here or on any other forum. Is speech on this topic dangerous? If so, why? As stated above I'm not a stakeholder in the community but might be soon so there is much I do not know. But if I were to determine that the suit is being brought by some crabby, never-satisfied, always playing the victim, homeowners then I would certainly not be afraid to state my opinion. On the other hand, if I were to discover that the board is treating homeowners unfairly and in violation of the CCR's I would also not be afraid to publicly take such a position.
I'm just being cautionary as this issue quickly becomes a war of personalities. The Admin of this forum has already had to step in to keep the forum falling off the rails. There's no fear of discussing the individual items(which we've already done on some threads) but it becomes a slippery slope when it becomes hijacked. I do hope the Admin keeps watch as the Newszap Forum which we were able to post to for such a long time was shut down just a year ago.
Points well taken and made gang. Aggie is right, this forum was on the verge of becoming another newszap ( an extension of the Independent Newspaper where I was given the boot 9 times). The individual who filed the suit had logged in here and spent most of her efforts soliciting donations and was removed from the site. There is a significant history to this lawsuit and I have shared my thoughts on it in PM's with people who have asked. I am more than willing to pass those thoughts on to anyone who requests them in a PM. I just refuse to acknowledge the person who filed the suit in a public setting because she craves that kind of attention. I will address a couple of issues in a new thread that will help readers understand how and why this happened.
I did make an effort to read more in the suit from an originating source but my eyes glazed over in boredom. I did notice however there seemed to be a lot of "me" pictures with attorneys involved. Thought it seemed a little out of place (to be generous). I also agree that this forum would not be served by what we on the farm used to call a p***ing contest. Thanks for clarifying the issue!
Any action of any consequence will happen closer to summer next year. I have a pretty good knowledge of litigation and will try to boil down what is going on for anyone who would like to know through PMs then.
As predicted, the Board is raising the annual fee to cover the cost of litigation. See the agenda for the upcoming board meeting for more information
