Dear Editor,
Valle Vista Property Owners Association is not operating outside the law.
On October 21, 2024, The Standard paper published a Letter to the Editor that is full of factually verifiable untruths regarding the Valle Vista Property Owners Association and its board of directors.
The facts are:
Valle Vista Property Owners Association (VVPOA) was originally incorporated in 1972.
Valle Vista is a legally recognized not-for-profit corporation registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission. If one bothers to search the Arizona Corporation Commission’s web site, the POA’s legal status is “in good standing.”
The allegations about VVPOA’s IRS tax exempt designation are irrelevant. In addition, they are invalid and untrue. VVPOA’s tax exempt status was given to the POA by the IRS, not the other way around. If the IRS had an issue with the designation, VVPOA would have heard about it by now.
The duration of the corporation was validly and legally extended by prior boards in accordance with provisions of law, including the non-profit corporation act. The Arizona Corporation Commission accepted those filings and the time to have challenged those actions (in 1994 and 1999) expired decades ago. Perhaps the reason no one challenged the extended Articles in 1994 and 1999 is because nothing untoward nor improper occurred when the corporation’s duration was extended to perpetual.
The following is also true.
Each owner of a Lot within Valle Vista is a member.
Each Lot within Valle Vista is subject to recorded Declarations of Covenants, Limitations and Restrictions (“CLR’s”). A recognized tribunal in the State of Arizona, having heard evidence from both the author of the October 21, 2024, article and VVPOA, issued a binding decision on January 31, 2023. This decision expressly held that the CLR’s were validly extended and in force and effect and that the duration of the corporation, as being perpetual, is also valid. This decision is recorded at Document No. 2023-029543 in Mohave County Recorder’s Office. You can find it by visiting the Mohave County Recorder’s web site or asking for a copy from the HOA management office.
The statements that the author made in the October 21, 2024, article about this decision blatantly misrepresent the actual outcome, including the Administrative Law Judge’s written findings and rulings. The 7-page decision shows the Judge clearly grasped the complexity of the issues.
It is true the petition was dismissed – but it was dismissed because the author of the article lost the case and VVPOA won.
The written decision says, verbatim:
Petitioner (Pamela McKinney) failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent (VVPOA) violated Article 8 of the Articles of Incorporation and Article 19 the CLRs when it passed its September 27, 2022, Resolution to extend the CLRs another 25 years without approval/vote of homeowners. The credible and probative evidence of record established that Respondent amended its Articles of Incorporation, Section VIII, on November 18, 1994, and again on January 15, 1999, which extended the duration of the Articles of Incorporation perpetually. Further, all three Units’ CLRs were amended in 1972 and 1973, for a period of 25 years and provided for the automatic renewal for an additional period of 25 years, unless modifications/changes were made to the CLRs.
Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any changes or modifications were made to the CLRs, and the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the automatic renewal of the CLRs does not constitute a modification/change that required a vote of the homeowners. Thus, Petitioner (McKinney) failed to sustain her burden to establish a violation by Respondent of the CLRs Article 19 Sections A and B, and Article 8 of the Articles of Incorporation. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
The author of the October 21, 2024, article could have appealed this decision – she did not. Instead, she continues to try to litigate this in the on-line arena and the court of public opinion with disinformation and false narratives.
This decision is legally binding upon all similarly situated persons – meaning all owners of lots within Valle Vista are subject to this decision.
Contrary to the author’s statements, Owners in VVPOA need to abide by the provisions of the CLRS, including timely payment of their POA fees.
The members of the Board of Directors, who are volunteers, and who put a lot of sweat equity into ensuring the corporate entity of VVPOA operates within the confines of the CLRs and the law, are saddened, disappointed and offended at the aspersions we are operating in underhanded or illegal ways.
We categorically deny Ms. McKinney’s vitriol that there has been fraud, corruption or any type of extortion or illegal conduct.
We are also worried that as members of the VVPOA, you might take it as gospel what was written in that article. Following the words of someone who had no qualms misstating a written decision of a legal tribunal in Arizona seems a risky proposition.
We are first and foremost your neighbors and only want what is best for our community. But as directors for the corporate entity, we also must ensure the CLRs are followed and that VVPOA meets its obligations to maintain and take care of the common amenities. If VVPOA did not do so, property values would plummet. A healthy community, with well-maintained homes and amenities, benefits us all.
We invite any owner of a lot within Valle Vista to attend a meeting of the board of directors and if you have questions, we would be delighted to answer any you may have.
Sharon M Grossi
Michelle Ponikiski
Brenda Danko
John Westholder
Tom Noble
Barry Van Stockum
Gary Wilson
Valle Vista Property Owners Association Board of Directors
