SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Question for the lawyers, 2/3

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Question for the lawyers, 2/3 Login/Join 
Shit don't
mean shit
posted
I have a question regarding what exactly is 2/3. This question is about Colorado, but I am just curious what others, and other states have found. There's a question about renewal of some covenants. The renewal, which occurred quite some time ago, requires 2/3 vote to renew. There are 57 lots and 38 people voted to renew. That is 66.6666667%.

Yes, before anyone asks, I have consulted an attorney, but I think he had a type-o in his response. I'll talk to him on Wednesday.

Question:
Does 38 out of 57 constitute 2/3? Using no decimals, it's 67%. However, if you extend it out, it's 66.6666667.

Choices:
Yes, 38/57 is 67%, enough.
No, 38/58 is 66.6667%, short.

 
 
Posts: 4251 | Location: 7400 feet in Conifer CO | Registered: November 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Essayons
Picture of SapperSteel
posted Hide Post
Good grief.

38/57 is EXACTLY 2/3.

Not less than 2/3, not more than 2/3, but EXACTLY 2/3.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a licensed structural engineer. And I am telling you that 38/57 is, in fact 2/3.

Do you want/need a mathematical proof?


Thanks,

Sap
 
Posts: 3444 | Location: Arimo, Idaho | Registered: February 03, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
No, he needs the definition of 2/3s in Colorado real estate law.
 
Posts: 21651 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Now in Florida
Picture of ChicagoSigMan
posted Hide Post
Mathematically speaking, 38 is exactly 2/3 of 57. If the controlling documents specify that a vote of 2/3 of the lots is sufficient, then the requirement is satisfied. If the documents require a vote of greater than 2/3, then it would not be satisfied.

In cases where a majority vote is required, it is generally half plus 1. In cases where a supermajority is called for, it is up to the drafters of the documents to define the supermajority. Generally though, 2/3 would not mean 67%, as that is greater than 2/3.

A 2/3 vote in the US Senate requires 67 votes not because it is 67% but because there are 100 senators so 66 would be less than 2/3.

I have seen documents where the supermajority is defined as 67% rather than 2/3. In your case, It really comes down to what the documents say.
 
Posts: 4782 | Location: FL | Registered: March 09, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
Mathematically speaking, 38 is exactly 2/3 of 57. If the controlling documents specify that a vote of 2/3 of the lots is sufficient, then the requirement is satisfied. If the documents require a vote of greater than 2/3, then it would not be satisfied.

In cases where a majority vote is required, it is generally half plus 1. In cases where a supermajority is called for, it is up to the drafters of the documents to define the supermajority. Generally though, 2/3 would not mean 67%, as that is greater than 2/3.

A 2/3 vote in the US Senate requires 67 votes not because it is 67% but because there are 100 senators so 66 would be less than 2/3.

I have seen documents where the supermajority is defined as 67% rather than 2/3. In your case, It really comes down to what the documents say.


If there were 57 Senators, 38 would be 2/3rds.

How long ago was the renewal? “Quite some time ago” can have ramifications.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 46786 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Knowing is Half the Battle
Picture of Scuba Steve Sig
posted Hide Post
I'm not licensed in Colorado, but the answer is MOVE. I've dealt with condo/home owner's association mutinies, condo associations trying to clamp down on unpaid fees, homeowners trying to get condo associations to do what they are paid for. When is the last time you heard someone say: "Gee, I really like our HOA, I can't wait to go to the next meeting." The fact that this question is coming up furthers my point. I'm guessing there was a 45 minute discussion at the last meeting as to whether someone had to chat up Old Lady Crabtree to get her to sign off and make the clear 2/3.
 
Posts: 1740 | Location: Iowa by way of Missouri | Registered: July 18, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SapperSteel:
Good grief.

38/57 is EXACTLY 2/3.

Not less than 2/3, not more than 2/3, but EXACTLY 2/3.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a licensed structural engineer. And I am telling you that 38/57 is, in fact 2/3.

Do you want/need a mathematical proof?

http://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/1440062044 Wink
 
Posts: 15659 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Don't Panic
Picture of joel9507
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:
quote:
Originally posted by SapperSteel:
Good grief.

38/57 is EXACTLY 2/3.

Not less than 2/3, not more than 2/3, but EXACTLY 2/3.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a licensed structural engineer. And I am telling you that 38/57 is, in fact 2/3.

Do you want/need a mathematical proof?

http://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/1440062044 Wink

It's a math question - lawyers (despite the title of the thread) are optional. 2/3 x 19/19 = 38/57. If there is a court of law where that's not true, that court is in denial. Wink
 
Posts: 12025 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: October 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
thin skin can't win
Picture of Georgeair
posted Hide Post
Your poll is flawed, as noted by others above.

38/57 is exactly 66.666675 and is 2/3, and is enough.



You only have integrity once. - imprezaguy02

 
Posts: 8496 | Location: Madison, MS | Registered: December 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shit don't
mean shit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
How long ago was the renewal? “Quite some time ago” can have ramifications.


It's a long and complicated question, which is the reason we hired an attorney. The land was originally platted (filing 1) in 1971 and there were 64 2-acre lots, with specific covenants, including the prohibition on splitting of any lot. In 1972, 7 lots were pulled out of filing 1, and turned into filling 2, filing 2 second addition, and a some others. The covenants were then renewed in 1995. When the covenants were renewed it required 2/3 of the lots to agree with the renewal. The issue is whether or not to include the 7 lots that were pulled out of the original filing. Should the denominator for calculating the 2/3 requirement be the original 64, or 58? We content 58, they contend 64.

We have a call scheduled today with the attorney. I have a specific question regarding the calculation of the 2/3, but I don't want to post it here.
 
Posts: 4251 | Location: 7400 feet in Conifer CO | Registered: November 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
More of a question then an answer, but in 1972 was their a proper amended Plat filed/recorded in the public records and how many lots were in that Plat.

Second, does the Declaration of Covenants address the amending of the original plat? Or is it silent?
 
Posts: 1447 | Registered: September 19, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
That is so complicated that there is no way to assess it without the documents, and even then might not be unambiguous.

The wording may, or may not, accurately reflect the intention of those who were involved at the time, especially if some or all of those involved now have differing interests and incentives.

One factor might be whether the owner doing the split still owned the 7 lots purportedly split off or had conveyed those to others. Maybe the owner who imposed the covenants still owned all of the lots when the 7 were withdrawn, and that would be the simplest case. All the rest are less so.

This may be one for Solomonaic wisdom.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 46786 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Question for the lawyers, 2/3

© SIGforum 2018