"Double Lots"

As referenced in the 2015 Annual Meeting Minutes, there is a lawsuit pending against the WEHOA on behalf of 17 homeowners who WEHOA has been double billing for over a decade.

• These lots are taxed by all authorities as single lots.

• There is no ability to build second residence on these, therefore they do not fit the definition of two individual lots as stated in the Wood’s Edge 4th Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Article 1, Section 1.3 which states a Lot must be “intended and permitted to have one or more attached or detached dwelling erected thereon.”

• The ReSale Certificate does not define "double lot," nor does it include any verbiage stating "double lot."

• Invoices for dues given to the homeowners do not say anything about double dues; they are simply charged double what everyone else pays.

• It is also worth noting that there are single lots in the WEHOA which are actually larger than the so-called “double lots,” but do not pay double dues.

• These lots are designated as single lots on Subdivision Plans recorded in Manor Township, Lancaster County, in March and August 2000. (See J-206-109 and J-208-022.) These are the Subdivision Plans referenced on the Deeds for these properties. You can examine them below. In the upper left corner, these state that they "revise and supersede" Subdivision Plans that were previously filed.

The 2015 Annual Meeting Minutes state that “Developer William Murry changed his plans for a single-two story town home to a one story wider ranch style home and needed more square feet to build this ranch home. Thus, the two lots were combined with one lot number…. The HOA position is that the HOA never gave approval for the lot add on, never gave approval to have the HOA income reduced by dues from 17 lots.” The WEHOA further notes that homeowners sign documents at closing and pay the double dues and non-refundable double reserve fee, and implies they have no other recourse but to accept double billing.

"Income Reduction"

The WEHOA income would never have been "reduced" by the change in the number of lots from what was proposed to what was actually built. They simply needed to bill correctly! Dues are set by budgeting how much total income is needed, and then dividing it equally amongst all lot owners.

For years and despite protests, the WEHOA has allowed 17 Lot owners to carry the burden of much higher dues so that the rest of the Lot owners could pay slightly less. The WEHOA alleged years ago that it had the legal right to double charge these particular homeowners, and indeed that it "HAD" to double charge because of they way the properties were "declared" in the Declaration. Yet the Declaration has been amended NINE times since it was first filed: four amendments and five supplemental amendments, all of which can be downloaded from this website. Clearly, the Declaration could have been amended to reference ALL the updated Subdivision Plans as they were filed.

Cross suit

In 2016, the WEHOA filed a cross suit against developer William Murry (which attorney Angela Ward has incorrectly labeled as a "counter suit"), alleging that he should have to repay the overcharged dues. This cross suit was dismissed in 2016.

Lateness of the Claim

In December 2016, Attorney Angela Ward reported the WEHOA Board hoped the presiding judge would dismiss the “double lot” lawsuit against WEHOA based on the ‘lateness’ of the claim.

The Board did not say how much money has been spent on this lawsuit, the cross suit or attempts to dismiss it so far.

UPDATE January 2017: The presiding judge did not dismiss the lawsuit on grounds of lateness of the claim. It will now proceed into a costly deposition phase. Attorney Richard Puleo states that Ms. Ward indicates that the WEHOA will refuse any sort settlement that includes repayment to the homeowners who have been overcharged.