So we're now in the early 2000s. GW is a subdivision and Mike is back to building again.
He files new Articles of Association, By-Laws and Land User's Code on March 25th, 2002. There are some important changes to these documents. In addition to reflecting the road requirements for the subdivision, Mike addresses the issue of a board:
By-Laws Article V, Section 1: "The affairs of the Association shall be managed by a single Director/Initiator, Michael Reynolds, the designer and founder of the concept, until the project is at least 90% developed and all debit and business relative to the founding of the community are completed."
I guess that lays to rest whether a board was going to be created within the parameters of the original documents from 1994, doesn't it?
Do you suppose the community got to determine the rules changes as required by NMSA 53-10, which Mike still references as the controlling law, under which the GWLUA was established?
At a board meeting in 2018, Sally Margolin stated that she was unaware that these new documents had been filed. David Henry, who was instrumental in the initial creation of the GWLUA and the development of the documents, was sitting next to her and was incredulous that she would say such a thing! I knew immediately what had happened: New Mexico is a NO NOTICE state. That means that a document can be filed against your property and neither the filer nor the state is required to tell you about it. You would only know about it if you had a mortgage (in which case the bank would have been informed of potential claims against its interests), or if you physically checked with the county. Sally, who owned her home outright, was never notified. Since you can't agree to something that you don't even know about, she also was never consulted about the development of the new documents and she did not grant her permission for their adoption. It sure looks like NMSA 53-10 was violated.
In his response to the current lawsuit, Mike has repeatedly stated that his filing of these new documents reinstated the statutory time limit for the GWLUA, so that it now runs until March of 2022. (2023 with the doucments filed in 2003.) Up until 2015, when the lawsuit was filed, Mike also claimed that we were not an HOA, but an LUA: a Land User's Association. Mike now claims that Taos County REQUIRED that we have an HOA, in order to ensure that the road expenses were paid. I find it interesting that the county could claim jurisdiction over the GWLUA, since we were not a party to that lawsuit. Of course, Mike has not presented any documents showing this requirement. I've seen several GW closing documents which have the NO HOA checkbox ticked, so apparently the county was unaware that the GWLUA was an HOA as recently as 2013.
The Articles of Association state that the undersigned, solely Michael Reynolds, formed a non-profit unincorporated association under NMSA 53-10 as of 3/12/2002. However, by 2002 there were numerous property owners. To be properly formed, ALL members at that time, should have signed the formation documents, showing their agreement to be bound. It appears that Mike filed new documents, retaining his sole authority, without consultation nor agreement of the membership, as required by NMSA 53-10. It also looks like Mike potentially extended the duration of the GWLUA, without the required written agreement of 75% of the membership, as set forth in the original 1994 documents. These problems alone, bring into question whether these filings are legally enforceable.
Mike again filed Articles of Association, By-Laws, and Land User's Code dated 2003 and an addendum dated 2005. These documents don't show the county's filing marks, so we do not know the official dates of effectiveness. Again, only Mike's and a notary's (now Amy Duke) signatures appear on the documents.
I want to point out one very important issue of conflict between docuements: road maintenance. The articles of Association have always held that the community will pay for road maintenance after the initial installation by the developer. In contrast, the Land User's Code, which I claim has superiority, states that the roads will be maintained by the community AFTER TOTAL BUILD OUT.
The conflict is clear, so I have never understood why Mike did this. As I've said this is a contract. By requiring the community pay for the roads before total build out, Mike has breached his side of the contract he himself created, potentially invalidating it entirely.
Here is a link to the 2001 documents: https://www.greaterworldcommunity.org/file/document/2850934796/NpQWT2fM8PqJtUIl.pdf
and the 2003-2005 documents: https://www.greaterworldcommunity.org/file/document/2850934796/oqeMal2VmqteUHtl.pdf