- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi all… Can a motion be submitted that directly contradicts an existing motion?
Here’s the story:
Majority of the OC submit a requisition for EGM to address excessive spending of EC on a ten-year running legal dispute that has cost the OC $50k legal fees the past five years.
One motion in the requisition resolves to end the legal dispute.
When EGM is noticed, this motion has been amended to say: end the legal dispute OR continue the legal dispute.
Very odd. First, can the secretary amend a motion submitted in a requsiton for egm, and second, can the secretary submit a motion that directly contraditcs an existing motion.
Thanks for your advice.
-
Replies
-
It is odd, as you say, but I don’t think it’s particularly sinister – just a bit unnecessary. Logically, if people vote against ending the dispute, then they are voting to continue it – or am I missing something here?
As far a submitting a motion that is directly contrary to another one that’s been submitted by someone else, again there’s no reason why they can’t but I can’t see why you would ask people to vote twice on the same issue.
If I were chairing this meeting, I’d call for a vote on the first motion then rule the second one ‘out of order’ since the decision had already been effectively made.
The only difference might be if the contrary motion included a qualifying paragraph. For instance, it could be a) stop the legal action or b) continue the legal action up to a limit of a certain amount or money or until a specific stage or something like that.
But if you are voting yes or no, you don’t have to vote no to no, then yes to yes. One vote suffices.
Perhaps the secretary just wants the owners to be aware of the choices – but you’re right, it’s a weird way of going about it.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Jeez some people know how to make life complicated, even if they can’t draft resolutions.
You don’t say whether the EC/OC is suing another party, or whether the OC is the subject of legal action. If it is the latter, you may not have much choice – if you are the respondent in an action then you have to do something.
So, assuming that is not the case and the EC is seeking to take legal action or has taken legal action against another party on behalf of the OC – has there been a previous resolution under which a majority at a general meeting approved the seeking of legal advice or the initiation of legal action?
As of 2011 if an OC wants to seek legal advice or take legal action and the anticipated legal costs exceed $12500 (or $1000 x the number of lots, whichever is the lesser) approval must be obtained at a general meeting. You would expect as part of that approval that a costs agreement with the lawyer would be provided so the anticipated costs are clear.
Given the requirements of the legislation, I don’t think the resolution as drafted is sufficient to obtain approval for the legal action to continue, but it is hard to say because you haven’t given much information.
You should be ok if the majority of the OC wish to discontinue the legal action, presuming you are not the respondent. Perhaps you should remind the EC members that if they don’t comply with the requirements of the legislation as outlined above, they could be held personally liable for the legal costs.