DOES ANYONE KNOW UNDER WHICH ADMINISTRATION, MARSHALL OR LOEWENSTIEN, THE 30/70 CV PAYMENT AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED. WHY DIDN'T THE SIGNING ADMINISTRATION PUT THE 70% INTO AN ACCT. THAT LEVY COULDN'T TOUCH WITHOUT UCO'S SIGNATURE. ONE OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIONS DID NOT PROTECT THE CV UNIT OWNERS. I AWAIT AN ANSWER FROM SOMEONE, MAYBE I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE WHOLE 30/70 AGREEMENT. MIKE
Friday, February 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Think about this. G Lowenstein was Treasurer in the Marshall administration, he had fiduciary responsibility for UCO (incl. Operating Cmte), in charge of budgets, audits and Finance Cmte. The current administration is all G Lowenstein all the time.
I’m no expert but I think there is something there.
I guess you are saying Bob and Geo. both signed the 3/70 agreement.
WPRF was debating the solution with the Insurance Company, who proposed 62%, While The Chief Accounting Officer of WPRF proposed 70%.
WPRF offered to Mr. Loewenstein the 70%, he accepted, subject to the approval of the Operations Committee, which we Approved. Since then Mr. Loewenstein has claimed to have negotiated this amount, really!
His part was to visit, tentatively accept, subject to the Approval of the Operations Committee and NOTHING MORE!
The 70% WAS SET ASIDE into the Resident Reserve. For the approval of those items the INSURANCE WOULD NOT COVER – UPGRADES, ETC. When Expenses were approved, WPRF paid for the items from this account. The drum beating about not getting this money is FALSE. Out of necessity the money was used to make this clubhouse the BEST of the Century Villages and that was completed ….because the millennium Agreement MANDATES WE PAY FOR ANY AND ALL UPGRADES, WHICH WE DID. All of the Operations Committee agreed, MARSHALL, DOWLING, BLACK, LOEWENSTEIN, RICHLAND, BUMMOLO, ALL agreed! Until they ran for election!
Ed Black
Ed,Why didn't UCO take control of the reserve acct? Thanks Ed.
Hi Mike
We did! The Committee voted on proposed billing for upgrades, which are RESIDENTS EXPENSE TO PAY, (and most of the votes were ALL in favor), President Marshall would only sign to approve the expenditures the Committee had APPROVED.
After the vote he simply signed authorizing the Residents payment for the upgrades to bring this building to this extraordinarily improved state it is in now. Let’s face it, the Clubhouse is the most modern, and most upgraded facility, and we did not have to be assessed to do this important renovation.
READING the millennium Agreement is mandatory to comprehend the triple net lease concept. Three legal teams were involved to make certain we were following the Agreement.
Just how Mr. Solomon is going to
P R O V E any of the 11 million assertion is difficult for most of us to comprehend. He stirred the
E M O T I O N S, but will not convince the Arbitrators without concrete E V I D E N C E.
Perhaps your questions should be placed at the feet of those leading this emotional charge. We have already spent $ 300,000.00 for the Failed rent strike, struck down by A FEDERAL JUDGE. How much confidence remains for the majority of owners, I’d guess not much?
That Mike, may be the whole point of this coming election. Remember, this team, never expressed any clear evidence to us prior to an emotion charged vote to FIGHT! One must weigh the evidence, but they didn’t give us any, ....so what may we truly expect?
Do you remember the saying
“WHERE’S THE BEEF”? If you can’t find it, neither can most of us.
Ed Black
Thanks Ed but I'm still trying to figure out where 2 years of 70% money went,insurance paid for nost of the rebuilding except the upgrades . I understand Bob signed when stuff was approved but UCO did not control the money , Levy controled it all, it was not put into a separae acct away from Levy., where it should have sat until everything was fixed and then UCO would take back the funds not used and return to the unit owners. There is no way the upgrades cost 2 years of 70% money.I understand what a triple net lease is very well. Mike
Hi Ed, How much did the Engineering Study cost?? I assume they reviewed code items and upgrades, what else? Were the residents given a summary of the results?
Thx for your other clarifications.
I hope there was no one-year limit in the 70/30 agreement signed by GeorgeL. Does anyone know?
Hi Mike, Elaine
The differences over the 70% is:
1. The business interruption Insurance paid the claim for one year, totaling about 6,000,000.00. We received that amount in the Residents Reserve account. (This “Reserve” is operated under the restrictions of FS 718, and when Mr. Loewenstein, incorrectly, demanded Mr. Levy send a check for $ 250,000.00 for legal and engineering expense, Mr. Levy was, by Florida Statute 718, COMPELLED
to REFUSE. This Reserve is the surplus of our payments, and is held as a reserve for budgeting shortfalls, including unanticipated renovation expenses such as occurred during the hurricane recovery, or Insurance deductibles.
2. We did not open the clubhouse in the year that we received the proceeds of the business interruption Insurance that covered just one year. In the UCO operations Committee’s OPINION, the additional time that we could not use the clubhouse should have resulted in the abated rental amount of 70% actually surviving the one-year policy and being deposited additionally into the RESERVE.
Management is of the opinion that the upgrades and contract changes caused the delay of the opening and has impacted on our entitlement. In other word, we caused the delay and should not receive abated rent for the additional time. This is called a business disagreement.
The Millennium Agreement calls for all additions or upgrades (beyond the original conditions), not covered by Insurance, to be our expense. Three Legal opinions were heard about this very issue. Of this there can be no mistake.
Part of our differences was the CODE required upgrades for which we originally paid. To their benefit, WPRF proved to the Insurance Company that we were entitled to $ 2,000,000.00 in refund, and they made sure we RECEIVED THAT AMOUNT. And we did receive it.
A side note, the team at WPRF was kept on the job, without fanfare, and without a place from which to work. Most, if not all employees remained on the job to provide all assistance they might to Owners, during this terrible period. The expense to provide new trailer offices, retain employees, etc., constituted a large part of the normal budget of WPRF, even though, we were receiving rent abatement. Had WPRF place all employees on lay-off while we received abatement, no service would have been available. Just who do you think paid for all those expenses?
So what our differences may really boil down to is we disagree over some 8 months were the 70% was not set aside for the main clubhouse. If we may agree that each month closed approximates $ 500,000.00 and calculate the 8 months we find the sum to be $ 4,000,000.00. Even if we split that into TWO, our remaining entitlement may only be $ 2,000,000.00, which is darn close to the $ 1,800,000.00 Mr. Levy offered!
The last item we disagree is the Business Interruption Insurance. The current UCO Team believes we should not pay for it. Frankly who should? It protects us while permitting management to choose to retain, rather than lay-off everyone because of RENT ABATEMENT. Besides UCO operations committee was responsible from the beginning in “2000” to clearly understand Insurance coverage/expense status. Why would any fair-minded neutral party find for Resident on this one, Because, WE’RE OLD?
It may seem hard to believe we are spending recklessly to defend only $ 200,000.00. It may cost us double that to hear the Decision that: “This case demonstrates no justifiable proof for more the
$ 1,8000,000.00 offered by Mr. Levy”.
Ed Black
TO make a long story short , WPRF collected 6 million business interruption Ins. plus the damage insurance plus full unit payments for the whole time that CV was without amenities and then says the 70% deal is for only 1 year because UCO caused all the delays in the Clubhouse rebuild. Since this is the situation , We are owed a lot more than 1.8 mil. He got 30 % to keep people around to do certain things but that is his problem , not ours . We contracted for amenities , no amenities , no pay . Just my opinion. Mike
Hi Ed , I do understand that the insurance monies were put in the reserve acct along with the 70%. The real problem is, Levy has had control of all the money collected not UCO. UCO should have insisted on controlling the 70% money since it was UCO money to start , not Levy.Levy was entitled to the 30 % in his acct. Mike
Sorry Mike, but I disagree!
The money belongs to Residents and UCO is only “managing the Common Elements”, and not entitled to ‘SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE”. It is NOT A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION.
Neither the Articles of incorporation not the By-laws entitle UCO to recover money from the RESERVE account established at WPRF!
UCO is not entitled to speak for resident, ONLY the UCO Operations Committee may decide Expenses, and nothing else, and that is why resident want the right to vote. The current Administration has promised to pursue the ability to begin the process, but has NEVER DELIVERED!
WPRF is REQUIRED to follow the law, FS 718, on this matter, and would be liable if they did not!
Mike I know it is complicated, but trust in the facts, which is just what is lacking in the FAILED LEGAL CASE and the ARBITRATION CASE.
We can’t expect to recover abated rent and DISREGARD THE agreement totally.
The Thirty percent was to maintain the rest of the facilities, like Hastings, and other pools. That in no way covered the retention of all staff to work for the recovery, which, in hindsight was necessary!
The Insurance for Recovery was NOT PUT INTO the Residents RESERVE. ONLY The Business Interruption Insurance Proceeds were placed into this Residents RESERVE!
Ed
Hi Ed , Thanks for clearing up the insurance thing, I was referring to the business interrup. I find it amazing that with all the people in CV , very few have anything to say. The CV residents will get what they deserve because they don't participate in the process.There will be more fiascos like the clubhouse if the present form of managing CV continues. We must hire a professional management company to run CV.
My hat is off to Levy , I have nothing but admiration for him . He is a businessman whose sole purpose is to make as much money for himself and his company . The CV residents deserve to get fleeced because their lack of participation in the political process. With all the unit owners in CV ,the only people running for president are two people whose past performances in office have gotten CV into the mess it is in today. Good Luck CVers , Over and Out Mike
Hi Ed , Thanks for your time and expertise on the issues. No one else seems to care. Mike
Ditto, ditto Mike. If ever I need advice on business insurance to CMA, etc. I would go to Levy.
Post a Comment