The Lakes of Northville Homeowners Association(LNHA) was incorporated on October 10, 1978. The board failed to refile documents as required by the Non Profit Corporation Act PA162 of 1982,MCL 450.2101. The last document filed was by Marjorie Banner on March 16, 2003. Peggy English filed the 2004 report. According to the LNHA 2012 directory, Ms Banner is presently serving as V.P. and Chairperson of Legal/Government Affairs. Who is responsible for filing these documents?
According to a letter to the Lakes of Northville Association on June 27, 2012, the LNHA has been legally prohibited from conducting any new business since October 1, 2007. The letter from Attorney Kimberly J. Bowlin continues, "Moreover, the board has no authority to assess and collect dues, assert authority over any homeowner, conduct activities for alleged by-laws which are null and void....". Over the past 5 years the alleged LNHA has collected over $250,000 in dues. Was this money illegally collected? If so do we get money back and from whom? This board does not have authority to conduct ANY business. Records of expenditures for 2011 and the budget for 2012 can be found on the LNHA web site.(www.lakes of northville.org.)
According to Atty Bowlin, "One cannot simply re-file corporate documents and expect that individual owners in a platted subdivision are bound." This organization was dissolved by the State of Michigan in 2007 for failure to file timely reports. In order for everyone to be bound, signatures must be collected. Homeowners may agree to be reincorporated and proper documents submitted to the State of Michigan. This is not an "instant cure" problem. It may takes months to a year to reconstitute.
Some of these individuals associated with LNHA are running for election or re-election to NORTHVILLE TOWNSHIP POSITIONS. Before voting one must consider the competence of individuals who cannot perform simple tasks of filing a document for a non profit organization in the State of Michigan.
This entire revelation came to our attention as result of a LNHA resident filing a complaint about the placement of playground equipment in very close proximity to her/his lot line.
Lee Gribbs /Len Piner
Viewpoints expressed by community bloggers on Patch do not represent Patch or its employees. Patch's Local Voice blogs are open to anyone local with something to share. Blogs must be posted under the user's actual name. If you'd like to blog on Patch, click here to get started.
Bill Sivy President Lakes of Northville Homeowners Association
As far as Margie Banner, she has worked tirelessly for not only our homeowners association but also Northville Township. She is the right candidate for Treasurer. Margie has the experience, integrity and dedication to service we need. Carol Oldenburg Lakes of Northville Resident
Sure is a lot of effort for somebody to take on just so playground equipment, which the neighborhood children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews will use, won't be placed in a COMMONS area that just so happens to be behind a lot which a homeowner purchased knowing full well it was an area owned by the subdivision...Such is life these days, rather than allow happiness or talk about good things, somebody always has to turn things negative and sour in an incredibly selfish manner.
Whether or not, who did or did not, file the proper paper work, it simply was not filed. I personally believe the "playscape" will not be used to the best benefit of "all" Lakes of Northville home owners. If the few who want to "meet" the neightbors, go the association picnic or talk to your neighbors when you walk around the subdivision with your neighbors. For those who want the playscape, drive around the Northville Commons subdivision and look at how their playscape in NOT being used. The money that the association has in cash reserve was ear marked for lighting and new street signs, not for a playscape. I don't live on the commons, so its placement won't effect me one way or the other, it certainly will not increase my property values, despite what the association pronounces. Mr. Anderson, every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle. Whoever the resident is, they brought to light a serious issue with LNHA board and their operation. If done properly, every resident should have a say in the building of the playscape, not just the few who will benefit from it. If you were at the meeting, you would have witnessed that the board does not even know the rules for the commons area. As the president of the association stated, "children can play ball around the playscape", (paraphrase). He was corrected by another resident who read the by- law, the one which reads; playing of sports on the common area is not allowed.
If you were at the meeting, as you seem to let on, you would have heard the discussion regarding the earmarked funds for the lights/street signs and the declaration that this would have zero impact on those funds, as such that should not be an issue (I wasn't there, but it's clearly documented in the minutes available on the website). Bottom line is protocol was followed by the board (oddly, if the board doesn't exist, neither do the bylaws you referenced) and the VAST majority of residents would like this structure, which can come to fruition with no additional raising of funds. I look forward to bringing my kids there and we'll be sure to stop by and say hello since you live kitty corner from the entrance. I look forward to discussing with anybody at the picnic on August 26.
IT SEEMS THAT THE MAIN ISSUES ARE BEING AVOIDED BY SOME! WHY? WHERE ARE THE JULY MINUTES OF THE LNHA? WHY AREN'T THESE MINUTES POSTED ON THE WEB SITE? THE LAST POST WAS JUNE. WHY ARE THE LNHA BOARD MEMBERS+ UNDER A GAG ORDER? ARE YOU DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL? WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY TO PERFORM ANY ACTIVITIES IF THE LNHA WAS DISSOLVED BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN 2007? HOW CAN YOU PAY FOR A PICNIC OR PLAYGROUND OR MAKE ANY OTHER OBLIGATIONS IF THE LNHA BANK ACCOUNT IS FROZEN? LEN PINER
Further, there are two board members for finance positions, which is a great internal control of our assets. Our financials are published and available for all residents to see, and are even audited. I have ever confidence that our board has nothing but good intentions, and I am very grateful that they take time out of their lives for these matters. I think this is a great subdivision to live in and have full confidence these conspiracy theories are just that.
If you live on the commons, you purchased your home knowing exactly that. That property is not yours, it just happens to be within sight of your home. I feel bad for you if you think the idea of families within sight of your house is a negative thing and not good for the community. Stop being selfish and allow those of us who want to build the best community do just that.
Another question, if the board was such a big deal for you, why did it only now come up? I must have missed hearing about this when you complained about the roads being salted and plowed for you...
You may as well say you don't want people in the commons because they are in your yard because every comment you make is in that direction. Did you ever think for a minute about the incredible amount of liability that would be on the association if this playscape were to be at the bottom of the hill? You do realize that a pond and little kids don't well mix, right? Liability costs would correlate. Plus nobody would use the playscape during the evening hours as the bugs, in the summer, are far too bad down by the pond. If you think my comments are so far from the context of the letter, consider how ridiculous the entire letter actually is. You and a few others, who don't want people within your assumed "yards", didn't get your way and are now going to the furthest lengths to continue denying all the neighborhood kids fun and community.
In all due respect, only 37 homeowners voiced a "opposed" opinion....which is an even smaller minority. Neither of us can make assumptions for the ones who did not voice any opinion in favor or against. The Board gave countless ways to voice opinions. There were forms to fill out and mail in or drop with a board member, 2 meetings, and email addresses available to solicit any and all feedback. If people felt passionate one way or the other they had adequate methods to communicate their feelings and I trust that they would have. It is unfortunate that a proposal passed for something you are not happy with or in support of, and I understand your disappointment with that, but I do not think it is fair to make it seem that you wronged by the process. I personally know that the Board spent several hours in a meeting discussing the logistics to ensure that the communication was adequate and everyone had amble opportunity for feedback. They were very considerate of all sides during the process. At the end of the day, we are all neighbors and I hope we can go back to being the very friendly subdivision I always say I am happy to live in.
I simply want to point out to you that you continue to prove my point for me - you said "not one of the resident who live along the commons has any kids and I am hoping that you can respect the fact that we really enjoy the peace and quiet". That is exactly it - you don't want people behind your house, just the same as you don't want people in your yard. The only difference is the yard is yours and you are free to desire peace and quiet and lack of intrusion. The commons area is not yours. Just because you've become accustomed to having an extended yard does not mean that it's yours or that you have any right to dictate what goes on in that area. So long as it's within the bylaws, it should be out of your control. The board did everything to accomodate the opinions (too much so in my opinion) of those with lots backing to the commons. The plain and simple fact is that there are approx 12 houses on the commons of the 303 in the neighborhood. And of the 140 some people that responded to inquiries, over 100 were in favor of a structure. It's really sad it's come to this as the entire purpose of this was to build the community, not tear it down....
It's clearly stated in the minutes to the meetings that this in no way impacts the amount set aside for signage and lights. Believe me, I agree with you. When I first moved in, I attended the annual meeting and spoke up about my desire to have both, and have them mimic in form those in Maple Hill (as they have gorgeous signs and lights - in my opinion). At that time, and to this date, the Board has been in favor of doing this, but not until lighting has come to the point we can install solar lighting, thereby reducing the need to dig through yards to run electrical. I have nothing else I can do but be confident the Board continues to look into these solutions. Regarding the play structure not being utilized, there are over 100 children under the age of 12 in the subdivision plus plenty of grandparents in this "aging" sub. I'm personally not concerned about the structure not being used. Mark
Couldn't agree more. We've lost the "Lakes" in "Lakes of Northville." It got cleaned up about ten years ago and was beautiful. The grandkids could fish and I walked there almost every day. Now it's brush, junk trees and most of the views are gone. I hardly walk there anymore. My neighbor used to walk his dog there, and he stopped too. I don't know why the board didn't have it cut once or twice a year after it was cleaned up before, enough to keep the brush from getting overgrown. Perhaps it's only a matter of more of us letting them know we'd like our "lake" back? I know they work hard and don’t know if we don’t speak up. I’m happy for kids to have their play structure. But I’d also like all of LAKES of Northville to be able to enjoy the “lake” views again. I think if the brush were kept moderately cleared, it would add greatly to our subdivision’s character and property values.
One more question: when is the last time YOU volunteered to do anything in this subdivision?