Wood’s Edge is a subdivision built by William Murry / SherWal. The land on which the community is built was purchased in 1987. There are single-family dwellings, townhomes, and apartments in the community. The townhomes fall under the Wood’s Edge Homeowners Association (WEHAO), and are subject to a different set of DCCRs than the single family dwellings.
The DCCR for Wood’s Edge Homeowners Association currently consists of 11 documents:
The original Declaration,
four Amendments,
and six Supplementals.
No fewer than 11 Subdivision and Revised Subdivision Plans are referenced in these eleven documents.
The DCCR Amendment 2 dated 1991 provides for
Uniform Rate of Assessment with Developer paying 25% of dues until dwellings are built. (Section? 3-5, messed up numbering, see page 4)
One Vote per Lot or Dwelling Unit, with the emphasis on Dwelling Unit. (Section 3-1, see page 3)
No list of Restrictions, and no power for the Association to levy fines for breaking Rules or Restrictions.
In 1997, the Declarant / Builder Murry submitted a Third Supplemental which described Phase II, Section I. This supplemental references Subdivision Plan J191-72, which had already been superseded by J192-90 before this supplemental was recorded.
In 2000, the Declarant / Builder Murry began building houses on Stone Creek Rd. He changed his original subdivision plan (J192-90, which superceded J191-72). He decided that he would try a new design: rancher townhomes. He redrew the lot lines on three separate Revised Subdivision Plans which were submitted and approved:
J206-109 (3/24/2000)
J207-146 (8/8/2000)
J208-22 (8/22/2000)
On March 20, 2000 four days before the first Revised Subdivision Plan was filed, two homeowners — Paul Long and Donald Galligan — wrote a letter to the WEHOA expressing concern that the Third Supplemental described 84 lots, and in redrawing the lot lines, 17 lots were “lost.” These homeowners wanted the WEHOA to ensure that 84 lots would be paid, despite the fact that the lots had been redrawn.
The WEHOA wrote letters to Murry asking him to ensure that double dues would continue to be paid. Indeed, Mr. Murry was careful in his responses, as he did not want the WEHOA to start a lawsuit to stop him from building. He assured the WEHOA that he would continue to pay double dues. He apparently did NOT address the issue of whether future homeowners should be charged double. (Murry has since stated in deposition that in his opinion, these redrawn lots are and were intended to be single lots.)
[Reference documents submitted by Angela Ward.]
To placate the WEHOA, ONE of these Revised Subdivision Plans (J207-146) includes in the Notes:
“ 8. Lots 39 an d 40 shall pay two (2) times the annual home owner association fees and assessments as established by the Woods Edge Home Owners Association, Inc."
This particular Revised Subdivision Plan affects one duplex townhome with two units. The Revised Subdivision Plans J206-109 and J208-22 for the other 15 properties do NOT include this memo.
[I do not know whether this memo was added by the builder or by the authority which approves such plans.]
Murry has went on to build additional same rancher style on “single” lots. The natural result was that the homeowners who realized they were being billed double became consternated and voiced their irritation. Any double-billed homeowner who complained could expect to be ridiculed by the Board in print and at annual meetings. In Heidi Moser’s first annual meeting, Board Members encouraged residents to jeer at Moser and tell her, “If you don’t like it, you should move.”
One of the specific things that was repeated over and over at meetings and in print: WEHOA asserts buyers “knew” that they were getting a "double lot," and this was adequate reason for double-billing. But in fact there was nothing on the resale certificate or deed to indicate this. The double-paying homeowners did not receive separate bills for each lot, as should have been done if there were in fact two separate lots.
For years and despite protests, the WEHOA allowed 17 homeowners to carry the burden of much higher dues so that the rest of the homeowners could pay slightly less. The WEHOA alleged years ago it had the legal obligation to double charge these particular homeowners because of the way the properties were “declared” in the Declaration. Yet they amended the DCCR in 2008 and 2016 and failed to correct the outdated references and substitute the Revised Subdivision Plans, ending the need for “double billing." WEHOA instead chose to break its own DCCR and double bill what are single lots with single homes on them.
The WEHOA could have assured the other homeowners that the WEHOA would never have been “reduced” by the change in the number of Lots from what was proposed to what was actually built. Do the math. With no house built, the lots generated 25% of dues from Mr. Murry. Once a home was built on the lot, it would generate 1 full dues instead of two 25% dues which equals 50%.
PROOFS THAT THESE ARE SINGLE LOTS
1) The lots are listed on deeds and Subdivision Plans as single lots.
DOCUMENTS:
Phelps deed & Moser deed
(and 15 other deeds if you want to include them)
Subdivision Plans See J-206-109 and J-208-022 dated March and August 2000 which "revise and supersede" Subdivision Plans that were previously filed.
2) The lots are taxed as single lots.
3) Resale documents do not define "double lot,” and do not include any verbiage stating "double lot.”
DOCUMENTS:
4) Past dues bills from WEHOA do not reference “double lot” but simply charge twice as much.
DOCUMENTS:
Moser dues bills
5) Nearly all the redrawn lots are NOT a combination of two former lots, but a complete redrawing of lot lines on both sides (Reference J208-22)
6) The revised plans clearly state that they supersede the prior plan.
J206-109 Notes (March 5, 2000)
“1. This plan revises and supersedes … a plan for Woods Edge Recorded in Subdivision Plan Book J-192, Page 90.”
J207-146 Notes (March 24, 2000)
“1. This plan revises and supersedes … a plan for Woods Edge Recorded in Subdivision Plan Book J-192, Page 90.”
J208-22 Notes (August 8, 2000)
“1. This plan revises and supersedes … a plan for Woods Edge Recorded in Subdivision Plan Book J-192, Page 90.”
7) 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.”
8) There are other lots and homes of similar size in this development that pay single dues. Please note the tax info for WEHOA board member Joan Matterness (built in 2004, purchased 2006) who also has a single story ranch duplex. Her house layout is very similar to the “double lots"
9) There are other lots which have been more recently redrawn by Murry. Subdivision Plan 2010-0176-J was revised and superseded by 2014-0077-J, eliminating 12 townhouse lots. How is the WEHOA planning to bill these redrawn lots?
10) The WEHOA has taken two opportunities to make changes to the DCCR in 2008 and 2016, but did not in either instance take the opportunity to fix the errors in the Supplementals regarding references to the Revised Subdivision Plans. Instead they punish 17 homeowners, while over 200 other homeowners pay lower dues, supplemented by those who pay double.
The DCCR Amendment 3 dated February 4, 2008 provides for
Lot defined as any portion of the Property (whether improved or unimproved) which is (a) now or hereafter included as a separate parcel on a duly recorded, final subdivision or land development plan and (b) intended and permitted to have one or more attached or detached dwellings erected thereon.” (Article 1, Section 1.3)
Four pages of General Restrictions (Article 2; Section 2.1), none of which appeared in the 1991 DCCR.
Membership now states “Each member shall have one vote for each Lot or Dwelling Unit owned by such Owner. For example, if an Over owned an unimproved Lot, that Owner would be entitled to one (1) vote. If that Lot were improved with one (1) Dwelling Unit, the Owner would be entitled to one (1) vote. If two lots are combined with one Dwelling Unit, that owner is entitled to two (2) votes. If the Lot were improved by two (2) or more Dwelling Units, that owner is entitled to two (2) votes. If the Lot were improved by two (2) or more Dwelling Units, the Owner would be entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of Dwelling Units on the Lot.” (Article 4, Section 4.1)
Establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that did not exist previously. (Article 3)
Broad Powers and Duties of the Association (Section 4.3) which allow among other things the WEHOA to levy “reasonable” fines for violations "of all restrictions, conditions, covenants and reservations imposed by the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, the By-Laws and the Rules and Regulations of the Association." (Article IV, Section 4.3 (c)
In this DCCR, the WEHOA made wholesale changes that gave it tremendous power over property owners. It did NOT make the obvious change under Background and Purpose: Under "Article 1: Section 1.2 Property” simply reference all the revised subdivision plans or correct the Supplemental Declarations which reference incorrect subdivision plans.
The HOA should be required to produce documentation that homeowners voting in 2008 were aware of the wholesale changes in the DCCR, and had an opportunity to dissent.
The DCCR Amendment 4 dated 2016 and coming after a lawsuit was on file against the WEHOA allows 2 pets instead of one, again failing to fix the obvious problem of the unmentioned Revised Subdivision Plans.
Please note that according to the DCCR, it can no longer be amended as of September 30, 2017.