The CC&Rs for the immediate community of Anthem Country Club. The legal association name is Anthem Country Club Community Association.
The bylaws for the immediate community of Anthem Country Club. The legal association name is Anthem Country Club Community Association.
The bylaws for the overall association for Anthem. The legal association name is Anthem Community Council.
Note that Anthem Community Council unilaterally declared itself as not an HOA and that it wasn’t subject to the Planned Communities Act.
The firm representing me in this matter won a case on appeal that affirmed that ACC is, in fact, an association by statute, and cannot exempt itself from the law.
The Recreational Covenant is the underlying document that formed the servitude to AG&CC. It is not subject to the association, nor is it listed as a Community Document on any community websites.
It is the foundation of the unconscionable contract that requires us to sell our homes to cancel our “mandatory” membership, but allows anyone from the public to be an equal member without such a burden.
The Membership Policies are an extension of the unconscionable contract. They outline Club policies, which the club does not enforce such as revocation of membership for continued non-payment of dues, amongst more unsavory past violations of its own policies.
Supplementary documentation for The Club.
Excel document that compares the increases of HOA assessments compared to Club Dues since my residency. Further, it demonstrates that when The Club was formed, rates may have been intentionally lower than assessments for the purpose of inducing home sales, which raises the question of consumer fraud.
The equitable, community-driven donation policy for supporting this matter.
This is a journal publication dealing with the topic of mandatory memberships in clubs such as ours. I had an exchange with one of the authors who stated he had never heard of a situation such as ours and stated it was worse than anything they wrote about.
Additionally, the paper deals with the FUD of the potential of lower property values, stating:
“Finally, the authors offer an explanation of how this mandatory membership moral hazard may actually lead to decreases in property values and rent transfers among the participants. “
This is the most relevant case related to ours, however, there is one notable difference – we lack the protection of voting rights.
The limited rights we have (which requires a supermajority of residents) is unilaterally nullified by The Club. Even if vote for a change to the Recreational Covenant, The Club can single-handedly veto it, thereby mitigating our single recourse.
Copyright © 2024 Panimus Consulting, LLC