The statute specifies that the association membership operates by majority vote.  Does this refer to a majority of all owners (or possibly all votes, if some parcels have more than one vote), or does it refer to a majority of the votes cast at the meeting (potentially including absentee votes)?  For example, if an association with 9 members calls a meeting, and a total of 5 members attend or vote by absentee ballot, does a 4-1 or 3-2 vote succeed or fail?

Todd Tolhurst wrote:The statute specifies that the association membership operates by majority vote.  Does this refer to a majority of all owners (or possibly all votes, if some parcels have more than one vote), or does it refer to a majority of the votes cast at the meeting (potentially including absentee votes)?  For example, if an association with 9 members calls a meeting, and a total of 5 members attend or vote by absentee ballot, does a 4-1 or 3-2 vote succeed or fail?

If 5 members either attend, appoint a proxy, or vote by absentee ballot, and if all members have been duly informed of the meeting and offered the chance to do a proxy or absentee, then a majority vote is 3. This is assuming the question voted on was on the call to the meeting (aka agenda on the call). If not, and if the # of absentees could change the vote, then the absentees have to be polled for the vote to be final.  

No, the two vote per parcel idea is so that if an association decided that if there are two owners who disagree, it may vote that all parcels be allowed two votes. It can't vote that just one parcel have two votes. It can vote on how much or little that parcel owner pays so long as "size of parcel" is applied across the board.  Voting that one larger parcel owner has more votes than all other parcel owners would not be doing that. The courts seem to honor a basic presumption of fairness, "similarly situated" means "similarly treated," and "similar" means parcel ownership; probably because it's use of the road that has historically  "behind the scenes" in these things, so to speak. Owning a large parcel does not mean that you will use the road more than owning a smaller parcel. I'm speaking here from general experience and my belief about the overall development of things here, not anything I've read in a decision, but that's what I think. If anyone, especially someone with professional knowledge of the law or just a general knowledge, agrees or disagrees, speak up!

I have a question.....What is the interpretation of "fair and equitable" and what is the interpretation of  "benefited by the way (or road)".  Does this mean that if my cottage is at the beginning of a four mile road, and I do not use the balance of the road, is it fair and equitable that I should have to pay for a road not of any interest to me?