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%.<BR><BR>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.Does 38 out of 57 constitute 2/3? Using no decimals, it's 67%. However, if you extend it out, it's 66.6666667.Yes, 38/57 is 67%, enough.No, 38/58 is 66.6667%, short.

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?

No, he needs the definition of 2/3s in Colorado real estate law.

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.

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.

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.

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?

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/1440062044

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?

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/1440062044

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.

Your poll is flawed, as noted by others above.

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

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.

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?

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.