Reunión de propietarios 2016

[colmport]

Friends/Neighbors:
Because I have heard it rumored that the formation of a HOA, actually called an Assembly of Property Owners by the law, was required by Panama Law Number 31 of 18 June 2010 titled What Establishes the Regime for Horizontal Property, I took the time to read the same. I read a translation in English and I compared the translation word for word to the Spanish. Although Spanish is not my forte, I feel I read and that I understand what the statute says.

First, nothing in the statute applies to Altos de Cerro Azul or to any other neighborhood of existing single unit properties that did not have a valid HOA on or after the time of the law being adopted.

Second, the law contemplates that a developer, the law uses the term promoter, makes a decision to place such property restrictions on his property prior to commencing his development and commencing construction or sale of units of property. Having made this decision, the developer must conform to very complicated rules to create the HOA and to have the same filed with the public registry prior to developing the property.

Third, the property restrictions imposed by the developer and its creation of an Assembly of Owners must be laid out in writing in the deeds to the properties as the developer sells them to new buyers.

None of the foregoing apply to Altos de Cerro Azul in 2016.

Next, the law does speak of converting multiple unit rental properties to conform to the law after the fact if the owner of the property involved desires to do so. the law sets forth a detailed process to convert multiple unit rental properties to include a HOA.

There is no such provision for converting an existing neighborhood or community of separate property owners into a "horizontal community" subject to this law.
It is clear from the first article to the last that the law was intended to cover mainly horizontal properties or multiple unit dwellings with multiple floors and common walls.

The law also contemplates shopping malls or mixed commercial and residential developments or developments with several multiple dwelling unit buildings.
The law appears to contemplate that a developer may desire to develop a neighborhood of single family dwellings and subject all of his property and its subsequent owners to a HOA. It mentions this only in passing as nearly every provision relates to horizontal properties with multiple dwelling units in a single structure with common walls.

None of these various provision could have ANY applicability to a community such as Altos de Cerro Azul. Such provisions deal with common walls and floors; of common hallways; of elevators, of addressing situations where one property owner's water leak damages the dwelling below his, etc.
Let us assume that the law's meaning could be stretched beyond the imagination of common reason. The law then sets out very detailed numbers (super majority) of property owners whose approval MUST be obtained to act.

Most provisions, such as those for establish fees; those altering fees previously approved; those for making any alterations to common areas; those governing the use and disposal of common areas REQUIRE and affirmative vote of not less than 66% of all owners or of the value of all property in the development.

A quorum to conduct any business is set at 66% of all owners. If the 66% is not met at an initial meeting called and noticed, a second meeting may be convened but business cannot be conducted unless at least 33% of all owners are physically present or vote by proxy.

There is NOTHING in the law that states that business may be conducted by any numbers less than those stated in the law by merely giving notice and then announcing that a majority of those who choose to present themselves can rule over the required super majority.

It is very clear that because a HOA so severely restricts the property rights of owners that a super majority of all owners is required to conduct business; so as to prevent a tyranny by a minority or any action that is not overwhelming supported by the owners.

To liquidate any common property or to terminate a HOA once established requires a 75% vote.

If such super majorities are required to conduct any meaningful business (except for emergencies such a fire, earthquake, etc.); it is inconceivable that a small minority of tenacious neighbors can force the formation of a HOA upon the majority.

Changing gears, the "scary" things a neighbor wrote about, as if facts were fantasy, recently are all set forth, in detail, in the law.

The horizontal property law requires that the HOA enter contracts for management and for the hiring or the workers to conduct the day to day business and to maintain the common areas; to collect fees; to take reports of violations of by-laws; to convene required meetings; to maintain records, etc. All of the things that scare our neighbors are REQUIRED by the law governing horizontal properties. The details of the management of a horizontal property are immensely complex as I have laid out in detail in previous discussions.

The appointed manager may be micro managed by the directors of the HOA. If anyone contemplates that the Melo organization will consent to an appointment as manager with huge responsibilities set forth in the statute and subject to day to day micro management by a small group of nattering naybobs of negativity (officious meddlers or nay sayers); such individuals are either disingenuous of delusional.

The appointed manager, who will be subject to micromanagement and persistent harassment, will either need to be one of the promoters of this endeavor or a party who enters a contract outlining such responsibilities, in detail. I can only imagine that anyone entering into such a contract would demand a payment commensurate with the demands that will be foist upon him or her.

This manager will then have the responsibility to enter a contract or a series of contracts for the security; for the maintenance of common areas; for accounting; and for each and every day to day requirement to maintain the common areas; to interface with owners; to take and to forward complaints; to mediate disputes; to collect fees; etc.

As to the collection of fees from consenting owners; the law sets forth a complex mechanism to coerce payment. In some cases the remedy is merely to deny access to common area such as a pool or a parking lot to deadbeats who refuse to pay until they pay in full ("less depreciation)

Unfortunately, all practical coercion tactics do not apply to Altos de Cerro Azul. How could the HOA limit access to the river; to the use of roads; to the trails? It is a practical impossibility. For instance, the HOA may cut off water; electric; telephone; internet; satellite; gas and so forth to owners BUT only if services originate from a common point inside the "horizontal structure" over which the HOA has control and only if the HOA enters the contract for such services that are then provided to owners of the building.

If the owners contract individually, the HOA may ask the company providing services to cut off service to a neighbor who falls into disfavor. What is the probability that the HOA will have the influence to convince ENSA, IDAN, C&W, etc. to terminate services to paying customers? I will guess the likelihood is statistically ZERO.

If all else fails, the law allows the HOA to take the consenting owner(s) who refuse to pay fees approved by no less than 66% of the owners to court. It delineates a complicated process under which such proceedings can ultimately result in a judgment lien and in the eventual foreclosure of said lien and an involuntary sale of the property (not subject to a mortgage). I am not sure I will live to see the day when a small group of owners forces the sale of the property of neighbors with who they disagree. I certainly hope I will not see this tragedy.

The horizontal property law also bestows upon a HOA and its officers (directors) vast powers over the consenting homeowners. I scratched the surface in the preceding paragraphs. I will not spend pages re-writing the detailed powers that owners lose if 66% or more owners consent to such loss of authority over their owned properties. Everyone can read the law for themselves and determine, before voting for or against the creation of a HOA, how much of their ownership they are willing to give away for any perceived benefits of a HOA.

I recommend that every owner read the law or have the same explained to them before engaging in any discussion of a topic that very few people seem to have even the remotest knowledge.

Mark P. Ort

[tsimons]

Clarifying issues:
It seems to methat there is a terribele misconception about the right goverment laws and regulations that should apply to Cerro Azul

Regarding the right to establish a HOA in Cerro Azul, we must look at the right documents if we are to get the legal basis of this claim. We would like to point out 2 critical issues on this matter.

1. Are we obliged to pay for the maintenance?
There is an Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 36 de 31 de Agosto de 1998) named “Por el cual se aprueba el Reglamento Nacional de Urbanizaciones de aplicación en el Territorio de la Repùblica de Panama” dictated by the Ministry of Housing regarding the following in its article 61:

ARTICULO 61: En los casos de proyectos de urbanizaciones que contemplen en su diseño vial, calles de uso privado, se exigirà a los propietarios de la urbanización, indicaren los contratos de compra y venta las iguiente anotación:
“En las calles de uso privado, el propietario de la urbanización queda obligado a construir los pavimentos, desagües y demás obras de saneamiento y de ornato de acuerdo con las especificaciones de las instituciones correspondientes. El mantenimiento de estas estructuras, posterior a la inscripción en el Registro Pùblico y venta deberá efectuarse por cuenta de los propietarios, esta disposición deberá quedar consignada en los contratos de compra-venta”

Since Altos de Cerro Azul was declared with “private streets” by the Ministry of Private Works (MOP) way back in 1989 when Vistamares was beginning to develop the area, they addresed the issue with the MOP (letter no. 2212-343-89 sent to Ing.Maritza de De Leon, National Director of a department of the MOP), soliciting the designation given to Cerro Azul streets and roads.

The incoming law of 1998 was enacted to correct the government obligation to maintain the roads & streets in community like ours. Accordingly to the lawyers consulted on this issue, we are in obligation to pay for such maintenance. I will not get into the issue about if this obligation was included into our purchase contracts, since that an entirely different argument to take up with the seller`s obligations.

2. Are we supposed to have an HOA in Cerro Azul?

The same alleged Executive Decree No. 36 in its article 2 states that administrative authority that will be in charge of applying the Executive Decree is to be the Ministry of Housing (MIVIOT), and all other government authorities will participate in technical aspects the law.

“Que la Ley 9 de 25 de enero de 1973, faculta al Ministerio de Vivienda como la autoridad responsable del desarrollo urbano, estableciéndose entre sus funciones, aprobar, e inspeccionar, en colaboración con los Municipios afectados, las urbanizaciones pùblicas y privadas”

Accordingly to this mandate, the Ministry of Housing issues the Ministerial Resolution No. 28-3003 dated 21 of February 2003, stating specifically in its article No. 11 the following:

“Articulo 11: Asociaciòn: El proyecto de urbanizaciòn que se aprueba con el sistema de calles privadas tendrá una Asociaciòn de Residentes debidamente organizada y registrada en el Ministerio de Gobierno y Justicia como una instituciòn sin fines de lucro.”

The said article plainly states that the development will have an Association. I recap the imperative word "Tendrá" ("will have")

Notwithstanding the above arguments, Also the ANAM’s Resolution for the “Residencial de Montaña Los Altos de Cerro Azul” also states that the owners shall have a HOA for the purposes of complying with the “Manual de Propietarios del residencial de Montaña Los Altos de Cerro Azul”.

To those who have not heard about these Laws, Executive Decrees and Ministerial Resolutions, they are available through Google search, just stating the wordings in this post.

[tsimons]

Just to clarify issues:

Since our non-active associations of property owners (HOA) iwere all registered under de form of Non-profit associations ("Asociaciones sin fines de lucro"), the law no. 31 of 18 of june 2010 does not apply to our community. There was an intent to put communities similar as ours, under article 2.6 of when said law was regulated, nevertheless, it was not done in the Reglamentations of the Law, and no further attemps has been made to this matter.

Terani Simons

[itzelfong]

Buenos días todos, tengo unas preguntas, para quien quiera contestar:

1. Alguien sabe cuándo van a presentar los Estados Financieros 2015?

2. Cuánto cuesta el mantenimiento de las calles privadas? Cuánto es que hemos estado invirtiendo en este rubro en los últimos años? Hay algún reporte visual reciente, luego de las lluvias, del estado de las calles?

3. Qué va a pasar si nadie va a la Reunión de Propietarios 2016? O si solo va un par de propietarios vs la totalidad de los propietarios? Por lo que puedo deducir aquí hay 4 grupos.
Grupo A. Un pequeño grupo de propietarios dedicados a la conformación del HOA. Se les agradece su tiempo y voluntariado, pero recomiendo cautela. Por cierto, quiénes son los que conforman la Junta Directiva inicial y/o la formal?

Grupo B. Otro pequeño grupo de propietarios que tienen sus reservas al respecto y han expresado varias inquietudes en torno a este tema. Desde mi perspectiva, en este grupo hay un nivel de inseguridad y/o desconfianza frente a una administración criolla. Lo comprendo, no los culpo. Yo misma tengo algunas interrogantes planteadas por este grupo.

Grupo C. Este es el más numeroso, aquellos que no sabemos que opinan al respecto, que tampoco han mostrado interés en el tema o no están leyendo los correos o los leen y no los entienden, entonces aquí hay una gran interrogante.

Grupo D. La Administración Vistamares, quienes a la fecha colectan la cuota y , mal o bien, dan el mantenimiento pero presentan unos EF deficientes en cuanto a detalle de información. Sacando mi bola de cristal: la nueva administración criolla HOA, se enfrentaría a toda una situación (la misma a la cual se enfrenta Vistamares hoy día), sin infraestructura... sin personal, sin equipo y propietarios que no pagan. Cuánto nos cobrará Vistamares por continuar con la administración? eso ya se estableció por parte de ellos? Es esto un "borrón y cuenta nueva" para los morosos actuales?

[admin4206]

Mensaje enviados por varios propietarios a la casilla del Administrador.

Sra. Iris Quintera mejor explicación que esta la daña, yo creo que este es el fin que los miembros de CDF persigue. el bien común de todos y de no sacar a nadie de Cerro Azul y mucho menos asaltar la administración, lo que se quiere es que lo mucho o lo poco que se paga de TSM se utilizado en el bien de la comunidad y no gastar los dineros de todos en otros asuntos. Yo creo que ya es tarde para querer desmeritar un trabajo que por mucho tiempo le ha tomado al comité y lo más importante es que ALTOS DE VISTAMARES Y EL GRUPO MELO NOS HA ESCUCHADO, espero que todos los que tenemos algún interés en Cerro Azul responsablemente se presente y hagan sentir su voz y voto de apoyo a esta gestión que deber ser para algo bueno de todos los que tenemos un terreno, una casa.
Esperemos el día de la reunión a ver si la convocatoria general nos resulta positiva para todos los residentes.

Saludos a todos

Felice Delgado
El Guardia Ag 4


TSM should be paid by everyone. If everybody pays, there would be more funds available to cope with all CAPEX and OPEX. The club should be owned by all property owners and profits should be aimed at dealing with both CAPEX and OPEX. There should be an option to give it as a concession to a private entity for a fee and this fee should be used for both CAPEX and OPEX.
Melo should pay more than regular owners as they use the road for business purposes.
We need a ruling entity which will present an annual budget for the consideration of all owners regardless of whether the owner acknowledges or not and responses should be taken into account for changes. Monthly reports should be sent to all owners in respect as to how the budget is being executed.
Nothing should be made on the backs of property owners. If they occur, there will be no difference between this new HOA and Melo.
As for the upcoming meeting, technology advancements can be used to get as many people involved as possible. WEBEX is an option which is free. Presentations can be streamed through internet, the same as the conference audio. Questions could be sent over the chat screen. All in one application and it can be accessed everywhere.
I appreciate all efforts that go towards getting the decision making process closer to property owners.
As to lawyers, I doubt that there are none available in the community that could help in this matter. If there are any fees to pay, they should be way lower than regular ones. Lets us act as a real community and not try to make a profit here.

Regards,

Daniel Munoz
Fortaleza #62

[colmport]

Friends and Neighbors:
The information provided today by Sr. Simmons is enlightening. It also raised additional questions. The information provided indicates that an association should (Sr. Simmons says must) be created to maintain the roads. There is no reason under the facts he provided to create an association with any powers that exceed those set forth.
In other words, a HOA such as would apply to a condominium is not at issue. If the creation of a road maintenance association is all that is contemplated I doubt that many persons will object to such an entity. If the intent is to use the "requirement" for an association to maintain private roads to inflict a condominium style HOA; I doubt this can be accomplished.
The citations provided indicate that private roads must be maintained by private owners. If there are multiple owners, some form of association can (Sr. Simmons states must) be created to supervise the maintenance of the private roads.
The road from Posada Fehrise to and beyond the entrance to Altos de Cerro Azul (which entrance is situated approximately 2.5 kilometers from the guard house and a mere 500 or 600 meters from the Vistamares office) as well as all of the roads in Altos de Cerro Azul are private roads. They are, or they were, owned by Arturo Melo and/or one of his corporations. Unless the ownership of the property underlying the roads has been transferred to another entity or to one or more parties by a recorded deed; Mr. Melo continues to own the roads.
Mr. Melo has also granted easements (either an easement by prescription or an easement by necessity) to each and every land owner who must pass over his property (on his road) to access their properties. Such an easement conveys ONLY the right of ingress and egress. It transfers no other property rights, or duties. Consequently, the owner of any such road, which constitutes the easement, has the duty to allow the ingress and the egress of each property owner with an interest in the easement.
Because the underlying owner of the easement continues to own the same; it is his responsibility to maintain the easement in such a condition that the rights of ingress and egress are not impeded. Unless Mr. Melo transfers ownership of the road or roads constituting the easement of ingress and egress to another entity; no one has the legal right to alter, or even to improve, his property as he desires to see it maintained. The raises the question of what authority an association created for the sole purpose of maintaining our easement will have over Mr. Melo's property.
If at some point in the past; Mr. Melo relinquished ownership of the road(s) is there a recorded deed memorializing this transfer of ownership? If there is; that new owner has assumed the responsibilities to maintain the easement previously residing with Mr. Melo. If by some chance Mr. Melo had relinquished ownership to one or more associations that have since ceased to exist; such as the nine now defunct HOAs, I believe the underlying title to the road(s) reverted to Mr. Melo. This would explain why the Melo organization has maintained the roads to this day. There exists a perpetual relationship between the owner of an easement of egress and egress (the owner of the "dominant parcel of land" containing the easement" and the owners of the "subservient parcel(s)" (those holding owning the easement of ingress and egress). The easement holders cannot improve upon or expand the scope of the easement granted. The dominant parcel owner must maintain the easement in the condition as it existed when granted.
If anyone has the history explaining why Sr. Arturo Melo failed or refused to transfer ownership of the roads to the government so that they would become the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works (MOP) to maintain; I would like to know this history. With that said, let us assume for purposes of discussion that Mr. Melo has transferred ownership of the roads to others, to whom is such property deeded? If not to the new road maintenance association, what legal authority would such an association have over the property owned by others? I ask as I do not know the answer.
The second question that arises is if this new road maintenance association intends to obtain the approval of all property owners from Posada Fehrise to Cerro Jefe? If not, what good will it do to improve only the roads solely within Altos de Cerro Azul (from the "Y" intersection 500 meters from the Vistamares office to Cerro Jefe ) if we are unable to pass over the roads (due to their falling into disrepair as they exist past the police station and on to Altos de Pacora)? Unless the association can control and maintain the entire road network from Posada Fehrisse to Cerro Jefe we the owners may be left with horribly restricted access to our properties.
What I would initially suggest is that we property owners approach Mr. Melo and ask that he give title to the roads to the government of Panama to be administered by the Ministry of Public Works. If the roads are titled to the government and the MOP becomes responsible for their maintenance, there would be no need to form a road maintenance association to undertake this operation. Additionally, MOP has access to a far greater fund base than all owners combined can tap.
I believe that we have among our neighbors some influential persons with connections to the current government. If we can convince Mr. Melo to title the roads to the government; I have no reason to believe that those with political connections could not arrange for the MOP to take ownership of the roads and to maintain the same. If Mr. Melo has no financial interest in owning the roads; why would he not agree to allow the government to assume ownership of and responsibility for the roads?
If the government owned the roads and had the duty to maintain the same; is there any prohibition for we owners to make temporary repairs to holes and the like between government maintenance operations? I raise the question because I do not know the answer.
As a rough estimate, without an engineering study; the cost to improve the roads to the quality from 24 December to Posada Fehrisse would be something on the order of $500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 per kilometer. Only a governmental entity can generate that level of revenue for road improvement and maintenance.
If Mr. Melo does not desire to give title to the road(s) to MOP; is there a good reason to alleviate his responsibility to maintain the road(s)? If there is a good business reason to convince Mr. Melo to relinquish ownership of the road(s) to a road maintenance association; we should all discuss this issue.
This now leads to a review of the newly cited regulations:
First, Article 61 of the Executive Decree 36 of 31 August 1998 (note that Executive Decrees are internal regulations of a ministry and are not laws passed by National Assembly. Consequently, the regulations may be enforced, or not, by the Ministry issuing the same. Such internal rules are also subject to change with the change of administration, unlike laws passed by the National Assembly.) states that the sales contracts for properties in neighborhoods or developments contemplating private roads shall include language that states that the developer is responsible for the construction and maintenance of all private roads but that the responsibility will pass to subsequent owners.
If the sales contract for any property contains such a provision and if the same is incorporated into the registered deed passing title from the developer to the initial owner; said property owner shall be responsible to maintain any private roads after his or her purchase. This raises the issue of which deed contain such restrictions and which do not. Those properties containing such deed restrictions can be told they must pay for a private road; those lacking such a clause may not.
It appears that MOP declared Altos de Cerro Azul to be a community of private roads in 1989. This appears to be a governmental designation accomplished by letter. The citation does not name any legal authority to so designate the roads as private or what statute allows the MOP to abdicate any responsibility to maintain the roads. I will infer that this related to the fact that Mr. Melo maintained ownership of the underlying property that was never titled to the government.
Pursuant to a law of 25 January 1973 the Ministry of Housing drafted a regulation (not a law but an internal document subject to change at the will of any current administration) . This regulation at Article 11 states that a housing project that approves (future tense) a system of private streets will create an Association of Residents (not owners so this could include rent paying tenants or even squatters) that shall be organized and registered with the Ministry of Government and Justice and which shall be a nonprofit organization (what I call in English a voluntary unincorporated association).
To my knowledge, there has been no housing project commenced in Altos de Cerro Azul since 25 January 2003. this development is thirty or more years in existence. The existence of Altos de Cerro Azul preceded by many years the Ministerial Regulations applicable to projects commenced after the effective date of each cited regulation.
To the extent that Vistamares developed properties after 31 August 1998 it should have included the required contract language in any sales contracts and deeds if it desired to maintain private roads and if it desired to foist the road maintenance onto subsequent buyers of property from the developer.
To the extent that Vistamares or any other developer commenced a new project or neighborhood after 21 February 2003, it should have formed the necessary road maintenance association. In the absence of contractual transfers recorded in deeds and in the absence of the commencement of any new developments the responsibility to maintain the easements we call our roads remains with Mr. Melo and his company(ies).
It appears that ANAM likewise has some form of Ministerial regulation that requires a HOA to comply with the Manual of Property Owners of the Neighborhood of Montana Los Altos de Cerro Azul. This regulation, like all other regulations, is not a law. It is enforceable if and only the extent that ANAM seeks to enforce such a regulation. ANAM may choose to ignore its own internal regulation, as it has done for so many years. ANAM may seek to enforce its rule. ANAM may deem the rule unnecessary and outdated and rescind the same. We owners have no control over ANAM or its internal workings. To the extent ANAM fails to rescind the rule and to the extent it enforces the rule; some variety of HOA (not one applicable to condominium properties) would be necessary.
Let me summarize my opinion: It would be preferable to ask Melo to give MOP ownership of the roads from Posada Fehrisse to Cerro Jefe and allow MOP to maintain the same. If desired, a road maintenance association could be formed by all property owners from Posada Fehrisse to Cerro Jefe.
A HOA may become important if ANAM deems such an entity to be necessary and if it seeks to enforce its current regulation. It appears that there exists no interest at ANAM to pursue such an endeavor.

Mark P. Ort
Casa 61, Torreon

[iqsimons]

RECORDATORIO – REUNIÓN 27 DE ENERO DE 2016

Según el plan de trabajo de divulgación de la convocatoria, el administrador ha informado que esta fue publicada en 2 diarios de la localidad, distribuida en el portón de entrada, anunciada en la oficina de la administración de Altos de Cerro Azul y de Urbanización Los Angeles, enviada por medio del sistema de comunicación correo masivo del servicio Altos de Vistamares y la última gestión de esta semana previa a la reunión, colocada en los lotes con casas construidas.

SE ESPERA SU ASISTENCIA

[9FORTALEZA]

Estimados vecinos,

Con respecto a la asamblea general próxima en que se votará por la creación de la Asociación de Propietarios y sus Directivos, hay que establecer el metodo de votación. Anteriormente como en el caso de la votación por el Manual de Propietario, la votación fué levantando las manos. Este metodo permite excesos como duplicidad de votos cuando la propiedad tiene dos personas como propietarios, multiplicidad de votos si un propietario se presenta en compañía de toda su familia y todos levantan la mano. Por otro lado hay que establecer si solo los propietarios de lotes que estén en paz y salvo tendrán derecho a voto o el cumplimiento del pago de cuota es irrelevante. Por lo cual me permito sugerir algunos parametros para la votación.

1- Al llegar cada propietario se identificaráen la entrada aportando su número de lote y nombre del/los propietarios, se hará una lista y se cotejará con el listado oficial de Vistamares.

2- Todos los propietarios tendrán derecho a voz.

3- Unicamente los propietarios de lotes que estén a paz y salvo en sus cuotas de mantenimiento tendrán derecho a voto.

4- Solo se reconoce un (1) voto por cada lote sin importar si el lote tiene más de un propietario.

5- El/los propietarios que tengan más de un lote podrán ejercer el número de votos igual al número de lotes que poseen, siempre y cuando los mismos estén en paz y salvo con las cuotas de mantenimiento.

6- La votación se hara por llamada (roll call) del número y barriada de cada lote, basandose en la lista de entrada de entrada cotejada.

Este es solo un ejemplo. Es importante la reglamentación del proceso de votación ya que de hacerse levantando las manos como se ha hecho antes, quien más gente lleve inclinará la votación aunque solo sea propietario de un lote. Por otro lado hay que auditar a cuantos votos tiene derecho Altos de Vistamares como propietaria de los lotes que aún no ha vendido y determinar quien tendrá el poder de ejercer esos votos no solo en la votación principal sino en la de los representantes de barriada.

Por otro lado es importante hacer público que todos los pasivos y activos de la administración actual se mantendrán igual en la nueva. Ya se está mencionando en este mismo foro la posibilidad de "borrón y cuenta nueva" o "descuentos por cancelar cuentas atrasadas".

Atentamente
G Angulo

[avechaser]

Hola a todos
En primer lugar, deseamos felicitar y agradecer a las personas que tanto tiempo y esfuerzo han dedicado a buscar soluciones a la situación insostenible en que nos encontramos ahora mismo.
Hemos leído muchas opiniones sobre el asunto, a favor y en contra de lo que se propone discutir en la reunión de esta semana, pero en realidad lo único que vale es lo que dice la ley, no lo que cada persona opine. Si examinamos los documentos LEGALES que regían y rigen en Altos del Cerro Azul, es obvio que desde hace buen rato andamos por mal camino. Lo más evidente es que la gobernación de nuestro residencial tiene que ser dirigido por una asociación de propietarios y todos los propietarios tienen que ser miembros de la misma. Los documentos lo dicen:
1. Primer documento, el registro por parte del promotor y aprobación de MIVIOT de los planos y otros detalles de los diferentes proyectos. Se estipula claramente que los proyectos son de naturaleza privada con calles privadas, zonificación R-R2, con descripción de usos permitidos, etc. Según las leyes vigentes en esos momentos - y ahora - para mantener el carácter privado cada proyecto tiene forzosamente que contar con una asociación de propietarios.
2. El contrato de compra-vente de nuestros lotes firmado con el Grupo Melo. En él, cada comprador (propietario) acepta la obligación de ser miembro de una asociación de propietarios y pagar a la misma un cargo mensual por mantenimiento de áreas comunes. Les aseguramos que todos los contratos de venta originales dicen eso, con la posible excepción de unos pocos firmados en años recientes.
3. Estatutos de la asociación de propietarios de cada proyecto, que estipulan como las asociaciones van a dirigir la urbanización, fijar tasas de mantenimiento, manejar los fondos, trabajar con el administrador, etc.
4. Acuerdo obligante entre el Grupo Melo y el entonces Instituto de Recursos Renovables (ahora Ministerio de Ambiente) cuya firma y cumplimiento hicieron posible la modificación para nuestra área de los reglamentos del Parque Nacional Chagres (por ejemplo, se permite una tala limitada de árboles y construcciones nuevas, prohibidos en el resto del parque) e hicieron posible la realización de todas las fases de Altos de Cerro Azul. Este documento exigía la publicación, distribución e implementación del Manual del Propietario vigente dentro del cual, entre otras cosas, se repite la exigencia de que cada propietario pertenezca a la Asociación de Propietarios y que pague por mantenimiento.
A base de este conjunto de documentos legales es obvio que tenemos que tener una asociación de propietarios funcionando, y cada propietario tiene que ser miembro de la misma y pagar mantenimiento según las tarifas establecidas por la asociación. Legalmente esto no es opcional - como argumentan algunos - es obligatorio para cada propietario. Entonces lo que nos toca es dejar de un lado cualquiera diferencia de opinión que quede y unirnos para entrar en un estado de legalidad.
No aceptamos argumentos tales como debemos seguir con el estatus quo (que no tiene validez legal) porque en el resto de Panamá las asociaciones de propietarios no funcionan. Claro que funcionan. A golpes, tal vez, pero al final es el único sistema que garantiza legalidad y una representación verdadera de los propietarios.
En los Altos de Cerro Azul hay precedente. El sistema comenzó a funcionar correctamente a principios de la década de los ‘90 cuando se reunieron los propietarios de los diferentes proyectos y eligieron juntas directivas de las asociaciones. Melo, como administrador, cobraba el cargo de mantenimiento (en esos tiempos $5 por lote con casa y $3 por lote sin casa) y lo acreditaba a la Asociación de Propietarios pertinente. Entonces de esos fondos cobraba sus servicios y suplía a cada junta directiva mensualmente una factura detallada y un estado financiero de la Asociación. El excedente de cantidad cobrada sobre gastos fue traspasado – correctamente - a las reservas de la asociación. O sea, el sistema funcionaba como debía ser.
En 1996 el Grupo Melo unilateralmente eliminó ese sistema y dejó de acreditar a las asociaciones los pagos recibidos de los propietarios en concepto de mantenimiento. En su lugar, y sin haber firmado contrato alguno con los propietarios para tal propósito, inventó un nuevo cargo – TSM. Al mismo tiempo dejó de enviar facturas mensuales por sus servicios y los excedentes de ingresos sobre gastos, en vez de ir al patrimonio de las asociaciones, quedaban como ganancias del Grupo Melo. El Grupo Melo también impuso varios aumentos muy por encima de la tasa de inflación nacional, sin haber recibido aprobación de las asociaciones, lo que ha causado bastante fricción entre propietarios y la administración, y ha provocado que bastante propietarios o no pagan del todo o pagan una tasa que consideran más razonable. Nadie puede hacer nada para recuperar los saldos vencidos porque el cobro de TSM se hace sin contrato.
Hay bastante ejemplos de las tragedias que pueden pasar cuando no existe una relación correcta propietarios/promotor/administrador en proyectos privados. No debe ser difícil entrar en legalidad, y para los que se sienten inseguros con los cambios propuestos, solo podemos decir que no hay nada que temer.
Quién debe pagar los gastos de formar una nueva asociación de propietarios? Depende de su interpretación si el promotor cumplió o no cumplió con sus deberes cuando se formaron las primeras asociaciones. Si no cumplió, tiene que pagar ahora. Si cumplió, entonces nosotros tenemos que pagar y se nos ocurre que se deben utilizar las reservas que quedaron a favor de las asociaciones a finales de 1995 (para casos como este son las reservas). Si eso tampoco funciona, los costos deben ser pagados desde el TSM.
Esther and Bill 142/143 El Torreón

[colmport]

Friends and Neighbors:

I will be unusually brief here. Mrs. Adset raises some interesting issues as does Mr. Angle. The issues raised by Mrs. Adset I have addressed, in detail, previoulsy. If the majority owf owners (more than 66%) want a HOA they can vote the same into existence. We cannot use the prior existence of former and now non existent associations to argue for against what we may do going forward. I have discussed the law, at length. As I see it, no HOA is mandated. What MAY be mandated, if ANAM sees fit to implement prior internal decision documents and if we or Mr. Melo refuse to turn over the ownership and responsibility for the road(s) from Posada Fehrisse forward; is a road maintenance association comprised of all "residents". A dare say that very few owners are "residents" in the legal sense. I reside here half of the year and thus may be a "resident". Rob Shirley and a small handful of people are actual residents who are also owners. A huge percentage of actual "residents" are gardeners, domestic servants; workers; and squatters. Do we honestly want to force the issue of forming an association where the majority of "residents" maintains the roads and where the owners (most of whom are not "residents" have no voice? Good grief people, open your eyes and be careful what you ask for lest you obtain your wish and live to regret it. The bottom line is that there is no LAW, a mandate generated by the National Assembly and enforceable, that requires the owners of this, or of any other residential community, to form any form of association that a majority oppose.

An earlier posting referenced the United States as being the place where HOA laws originated. He is correct. Such laws are a contagion in much of the United States. They provide a great deal of work for lawyers no different than cancer maintains a huge workforce of physicians. I know as my oldest daughter in an oncologist and my youngest is an oncology nurse! Do I go forth and promote the spread of cancer because 40% of my children profit from this disease? Absolutely not. Similarly, I do nto promote HOAs merely because I, and many of my colleagues, profit handsomely from the discord such organizations inevitably produce.

Mr. Angle discussed voting protocol. I agree that this is very important. Votes should be permitted as one vote per lot. My wife and I own our house. The two of us are entitled to one vote, not two. We cannot bring our 8 children to give us ten votes. I also agree that no vote should be accepted from any lot not current or pre-paid in its TSM as of the day of the vote.

Finally, despite the fact that some persist in the belief that they can use now invalid bylaws of currently non existing former associations to avoid the super majority of 66% of all owners to impose their will on the majority; I have yet to find a competent lawyer who believes such a tactic will withstand even minimal scrutiny by any court or by any Ministry in Panama. If the promoters of this idea, who believe that their life in Cerro Azul in unbearable, desire to advance the cause; so be it. Let a meeting be called. Let the promoters demonstrate if they can obtain a super majority of not less than 66% of all owners or of the total value of the development to approve their ideas. If they are able to do so, and if our deeds as recorded contain provisions mandating the joining of such an organization, their will shall be done on earth as God's is in heaven.

If, on the other hand, they fail to obtain the required super majority, this should be buried as a rotting corpse should be buried. At the end of the process, those who do not like the outcome can either accept the will of the super majority or they can sell their property and move to a more suitable community that meets their needs. Thisi no different than the national elections where we all vote and we must accept the will of the majority. The only difference is that in an election to created a HOA the promoters need more than 66% of the vote rather than to 50% plus one that is needed in politics.

Mark P. Ort