Ever wonder why almost all of the homeowners on Discovery Point are excluded from the DBPOA’s jurisdiction?

Amidst the confusion and controversy over questionable authority and actions of the DBPOA, James and Linda Hall, homeowners in tract 4077, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court (1987) challenging the legality of the actions taken in usurping the homeowner’s property rights.  The court found that the DBPOA’s 1985 amended CC&Rs were never effectively executed and ordered these amended CC&Rs removed from the chains of title for the entire tract. (Click here:  HALL CASE)  Pertinent areas are highlighted.

As part of the settlement agreement, the court records were sealed at the request of the DBPOA, and a gag order put in place.  Therefore, homeowners in other tracts remained ignorant of the facts and opinions which resulted in this decision, and controversy and confusion continued.  (Click here)   Pertinent area is highlighted.

In 2002, after much expense and lengthy continued efforts, Anthony Steller, homeowner, was successful in having the Hall case records unsealed.  Included in this action is a document of legal opinion from Curtis Sproul, Attorney, solicited by the DBPOA and received in June 1993; which supports that even then the DBPOA was unsure of whether it was legal in proceeding with its efforts to govern the homeowners’ property rights.   

This letter has become commonly known as the “Hunch and Bluff” letter, and recognizes that discrepancies existed in the voting process and language of the original Veronica Development Corporation 1970 CC&Rs, in regard to the Hall case, but that other homeowners would have the burden of also establishing these facts for each tract (disregarding that the same methods were employed for all tracts and these tracts were governed by the same original 1970 CC&Rs).

It was Sproul's hunch that few homeowners would want to spend the money on attaining the records that would be necessary, and that the passage of time was in the DBPOA’s favor.  His advice was to continue the bluff; establish a fair set of enforcement procedures, administer them in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner, and thereby reduce the risk of being challenged by a homeowner as to the legal status of the 1985 CC&Rs. (Click here:  HUNCH & BLUFF LETTER)  Pertenient areas are highlighted.

Homeowner associations which require mandatory membership can do so only because this is necessary to legally administer common interest property that is owned jointly by the homeowners.  There is no common interest property within the DBPOA.  All amenities and/or services are administered by the County.  Therefore, it is often asked why the DBPOA is really necessary to tell homeowners what they can or can’t do with, or how they can enjoy, their private properties…

So, the crux of the DBPOA’s continuing problems is twofold: (1) the presence of an underlying skepticism about the legality of the association’s authority in administering the CC&Rs; and, (2) since we are not a Common Interest Development (CID), why the DBPOA is necessary at all…

“Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.”