Sage Port #2 ACC
The Failed 2001 Covenants
Monday, May 28, 2018
The Almost 2001 Covenants
Currently the SPHOA’s Web Site lists two sets of Covenants for Sage Port:
The 1971 Version for #2
The 2001 Version for #2 & #6A
You may wonder why we, and the courts, only references the 1971 Sage Port #2 Document?
Well the simple reason is that the 2001 version has no legal standing!
Our original Sage Port's 1971 Protective Covenants state that the covenants run "with the land and shall remain in full force and effect for twenty-five (25) years from the date hereof, at which time they shall automatically extend for successive periods of ten (10) years each unless by a vote of the majority of the then owners of the residential tracts of this subdivision, it is agreed to change them in whole or in part."
So without having to resort to “New Math” here is what that means.
From Aug. 1971 till Aug 1996 the Covenants are effectively sealed – no modifications can be made. This is very common language and is intended to provide a stable environment for development to take place.
Now if no changes are made in Aug 1996, the first window, the Covenants are again resealed for 10 years
With windows again only every 10 years; Aug 2006 and this year in Aug 2016. The only exception would be changes to the ACC membership which is not a change in the document but only a reference to the current ACC members.
The biggest problem with the attempted 2001 Covenants – they were as about a close as possible to being in the exact middle of a 10 year sealed period as you could get! 5 years after the 1996 window closed and 5 years before the 2006 window opened. I guess it might have helped if the authors of the change had taken time to read the Covenants first – or maybe they did and it was just some bad mathematical work with dates? None the less, there was no way to modify them during that sealed period! Sealed is Sealed.
So while it is an interesting historic document it has absolute no legal standing. In addition to the bad math we also have the support of a key legal case.
We only need to reference the last of the major Sage Port HOA Court battles in 2009 (which they lost) where District Court Judge Nancy Hopf laid out the legal foundation for her ruling. At the beginning in Section 2 the judge lists all the relevant documents and existing case law she based her opinion on.
II. Factual Background
All individual parties to this proceeding are owners of real property in Sage Filing #2, Douglas County, Colorado (hereinafter, Sage #2). This subdivision is governed by a declaration, written and recorded in 1971, that creates an Architectural Control Committee.
And in her final ruling:
For the reasons set forth, the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Determination of a Question of Law is granted: neither Sage #2 nor the SPHA is governed in any respect by the terms of CCIOA. (NOTE: SPHA is her short version of SPHOA)
The 2001 Covenants are never referenced. In addition, in all the legal and court case from 2003 till 2009, none referenced the 2001 version.
So currently the SPHOA is saying that the 2001 Covenants actually went into effect in 2006. Well if that is true they surely would have entered them into the 2009 case - which would have resulted in an easy WIN for them! The SPHOA has no problem making up any version of the "Facts" that support their actions to our home owners, but when it comes to pushing "Custom Facts" before a District Court Judge - well how the story changes!
So why does the SPHOA list them? Well likely because they, as a private group have extended membership to Sage Port #6A residents – which as a private club they have every right to. But there is absolutely no linkage between the failed 2001 Covenants and who they accept as members.
Or because the 2001 Version would have established them as a regulatory and enforcement HOA for Sage Port. They like to have people think that they are.
Again, unfortunately, we have the SPHOA "Club" putting out incomplete information that only tends to cloud the history and legal issues in our community. They are well aware that the attempted 2001 changes have no legal standing, especially as they were named in the bulk of the court actions over the 6 years! As much as they would like Sage Port to be both the #2 and #6A divisions (with the SPHOA in charge) – the simple fact is they are still just a private Club and #6A is not part of our Covenant Community. Even if some of their members live in #6A.
This site was last updated 03/27/16