I am very disappointed in the owners not paying HOA dues and the effect that is having on the resort. How do you expect Las Palmas to be kept up when there is a lack of money? Do you think people are going to want to rent here if pools and hot tubs are not heated, trees and plants not watered and items not repaired? Sure does not seem fair to the owners that are paying there dues and have to watch the value of their place go down. Francisco is working hard at keeping Las Palmas up but without funds what can he do. I am here now and see other resorts being updated and getting new new items and I think yes wouldn't it be nice as well to have umbrellas around the pool for shade or a wall across the pool so it can be heated during the winter months or even just a coat of paint here and there...at this rate, I just do not seem that happening.

I am in agreement with other owners that the owners that are not paying are in the rental pool than their rental income should be garnished to cover their hoa fees. I, as well as other owners have a lot of money invested here and I for one enjoy using my place and do not want to see the resort to become run down and become the college kid rental place as previous renters have gone elsewhere to stay. Doesn't take long to happen once things start to go downhill and word of mouth gets around. I am sure other owners want to be able to come to their condo/casa and be able to use the amenities that they pay for...not to get into a cold hottub and be told, sorry due to lack of hoa monies, we can not afford to heat it. Is also even more embarrassing when you are down here with friends showing them RP and Las Palmas for the first time and it is like this. With all the negative press lately on Mexico, we need more than ever any visitors to be "wowed" with the place as they could become future investors.

Anyway, I could go on but won't. Publish the names of delinquent owners as well as garnish their rental income. Seems only fair to me!

My name is Graham H. Robins and I own Villa #19.
I can only speak for myself and in my case it is not a matter of not paying
I have been paying as in the past and as per the Las Palmas project documents CC&R's – (Paragraphs 6.6.1 and 6.6.2) “…at a uniform rate per membership…”.

Our U.S. Lawyer sent this letter to the HOA on May 8, 2009:

THE LAW OFFICES OF
RESICK HANSEN & FOLLIS
Thomas J. Resick 412 N. Commercial Street Telephone (360) 671-9212 Brian L. Hansen Post Office Box 5846 Fax (360) 671-9226 Starck M. Follis Bellingham, Washington 98227 Tom@RHF-Law.com


May 8, 2009

Francisco Montaño
HOA Manager
Paseo de Las Palmas
Costa Diamante, Ferrocarril Playas
Puerto Peñasco
Sonora, Mexico
CP 83554-CR83551

Jerry Petty
Las Palmas Community Association
891 E. Warner Road, #100-126
Gilbert, AZ 85296

Dear Mr. Montaño and Mr. Petty:

I have the honor of representing Graham Robins, Sr. Our office has represented this gentleman and his business over many years.

Mr. Robins has informed us that there have been problems regarding voting procedures at the homeowners association meeting. I have been informed that, unfortunately, more ballots were issued in a recent meeting than there were eligible voters. If this is the case, and apparently everyone acknowledges that it is so, it would appear that this would make the election null and any actions taken by the election would not be valid.

My client has continued to pay his normal level of assessments which are equal to everyone else’s assessments. Mr. Robins is pleased to do so as he was informed that he and his residence would be treated the same as everyone else through the years.

In any event, we will look forward to this error being rectified.

Yours,



THOMAS J. RESICK
TJR/csd

Does anyone know if Francisco or the HOA Board has responded to the letter? Gary Dufresne

The HOA has not responded.
Graham H. Robins

Below is the sequence of events that led to the decision to employ the services of a Lawyer.

Las Palmas AGM January 31, 2009 - sequence of Events - Voting irregularities:

1) During the counting of the votes for the first ballot, the 1 year term, I took apart my ballot booklets to group them. I had a total of 7 booklets, including proxies, and discovered that I had 4 extra ballots for the fee structure and was missing 4 for the keyless entry vote.

2) I immediately told Shannon and expressed my concern that I could not be the only one to receive extra ballots. She said something like “….don’t worry there are only 125 eligible voters…”. She then took my 4 extra for the fee structure and gave me 4 more for the keyless entry.

3) Sure enough when the votes for the 1 year term were totaled the vote was 85 and 40 – 125.

4) When the votes for the fee structure were tallied there were 113 votes for, 14 against and 1 spoiled ballot – 128 votes – 3 more than there were eligible voters.

5) During the open forum when I brought up what I thought were irregularities, it was acknowledged that something was wrong. I said something like “…thank you for acknowledging that, I am certain it will be in the minutes…”. A few others present acknowledged they had also received extra ballots.

6) The next day, February 1, 2009, when I voiced my concern to Francisco Montana, he said something like “….don’t worry Mr. Robins the Attorney Raul O'farrill ( Legal Counsel for our Last Assembly ), will audit the whole process and if anything is found wrong, he will report it….”. I said something like “….good, I am going to hire a Mexican Attorney, to audit the audit and proceeded to do so.

7) On February 19, 2009 I received an email from Francisco Montana who said, in part “…He (a board member) has already met with Attorney Raul O'farrill ( Legal Counsel on our Last Assembly ) and has valuable information for you….please call him..”.

8) When I spoke to the board member that same day, he informed me that yes, there were irregularities and the vote should be “Nulo” – Null/Void. He then went on to say there would be a mail in vote on March 20, 2009.

9) I followed up with numerous emails and phone calls and had a few exchanges back and forth with 2 board members. One of the emails confirmed there had in fact been too many ballots issued and voted, then I heard nothing more after the middle of April.

10) Still hoping to be able to resolve the issue within the U.S.A. we contacted a U.S. Lawyer and had them notify the HOA of our position in the May 8, 2009 letter to the HOA.

GHR

On July 24, 2009 the following was posted to the HOA site:

Response by Dan Dimovski:
Mr. Robbins has addressed concerns regarding the voting process to the board. After a review of his concerns the Board believes that the voting was consistent with past practices regarding voting processes in the Las Palmas HOA and is upholding the new HOA dues that were effective January 1,09

The board will do what it can within its powers to enforce the new fees including and up to liens on property as well as shutting off service to any unit that is delinquent and refuses to cooperate with the board on full payment. Currently, we have been successful in working with owners and have brought down the delinquent accounts to a very reasonable level under the circumstances with our current economic conditions.

Additionally, the Board would like to be diligent, responsible and will accept legal advise on how to best move forward in this matter. Any action taken will be communicated to the owners.

It is our goal to be fair to all owners however, one thing is clear the majority of the owners have spoken and the majority wanted fair HOA fees. Any action taken by the board take this stand.

Will keep all owners posted on our official owners web page.

Dan

Thank you for the reply. “…Consistent with past practices,..” does not properly address the situation and ignores the following facts: 1) There were more ballots issued than there were “eligible voters”, therefore the vote is null. 2) (The HOA’s own lawyer - Attorney Raul O'farrill ( Legal Counsel on our Last Assembly ) informed the board, on February 19, 2009, the vote should be “Nulo” – null, void.). That means this board does not have “authority to act”. 3) Never in the past has there been a vote that requires a change to the CC&R’s Consider the following: 1) The CC&R’s state, in part, “…assessments shall be at a “uniform rate”. 2) To change the fees, the CC&R’s would have to be amended 3) The date any amendment takes place is the date of the filing of the amendment To date there is no record of such an amendment, therefore the fees cannot be increased. 4) The ballot was to change the fees, not amend the CC&R’s. therefore the ballot was incorrect 6) There is a procedure for notifying owners when their voting privileges are suspended. This procedure was not followed. 7) To change the CC&R’s it requires 75% of “owners” not eligible voters so the number of eligible voters was incorrect. GH Robins

Thank you for the reply. “…Consistent with past practices,..” does not properly address the situation and ignores the following facts: 1) There were more ballots issued than there were “eligible voters”, therefore the vote is null. 2) (The HOA’s own lawyer - Attorney Raul O'farrill ( Legal Counsel on our Last Assembly ) informed the board, on February 19, 2009, the vote should be “Nulo” – null, void.). That means this board does not have “authority to act”. 3) Never in the past has there been a vote that requires a change to the CC&R’s Consider the following: 1) The CC&R’s state, in part, “…assessments shall be at a “uniform rate”. 2) To change the fees, the CC&R’s would have to be amended 3) The date any amendment takes place is the date of the filing of the amendment To date there is no record of such an amendment, therefore the fees cannot be increased. 4) The ballot was to change the fees, not amend the CC&R’s. therefore the ballot was incorrect 6) There is a procedure for notifying owners when their voting privileges are suspended. This procedure was not followed. 7) To change the CC&R’s it requires 75% of “owners” not eligible voters so the number of eligible voters was incorrect. GH Robins

Graham, do you think the outcome would be different if there was a new vote? 113to 10 or 110 to 17 what is the difference? What do you think is not "uniform" about the way the rate is applied? Thanks Gary