The Apartmens and Duplexes aren't being singled out. (By Will)

There is lots of belly-aching that the duplexes and apartmen owners are not being assessed so's they could be treated like the other property owenrs. They don't get that detested notice  in the mail from the BTMA board members dunning them. But now hold your horses.  I ain't no brian surgeon but the way I figger it, since there ain't been no amendments to the covenants of the subdivisions that have apartments and duplexes. then they are just as much a part of Burning Tree as ever other property owner in the era.

Accordian to the  Master Tree Articles of Incorporation and also the Master Tree by-laws, which Windy says the Master Tree board for sure uses,  it is clear as the noonday sun shining on it that none of the subdivisions are part of the Master Tree either. So the Master Tree  should not now or should have EVER been assessing anyone--not the apartments, duplexes or homeowners!!!

Ok, so the apts and duplexes were excluded from voting, using the facilities and all the drama- being forced under threats  to their good reputation and encumbrance to their property, to hand over $250.00 ever single year  so the Master Tree could do what they wanted with the money.  Shame,  shame!

What the Master Tree by-laws say:12.  “Members” is entities entitled to hold membership in the Association  (A homeowner isn't entitled.  It appears that on the Articles of Incorporation  the subdivision HOAs was planned to be the members but   for that to happen Mr. Henshaw woulda amended the Atricles to add them subdivisions HOAs as what some been calling incorrectly "sub-associations", but another calamity-- even worst  mistake was made. See, in order to set up legal HOAs in the subdivisions those who formed them were required to have 100% of the homeowners acknowledge and sign that they were in agreement to an HOA. Then they'd scoot down to file the documents  with Tulsa County. Since they never done that the HOAs in the subdivisions are not even legal HOAs, according to state law.) OOP!


More from the Msater Tree by-laws:
13.  “Owner” shall mean and refer to the record owner.  (Notice that this one is about the owner of the lot and the one in #12 says a member is the subdivision’s HOA. Again, it still doesn't matter since there is no legal document anywhere that ties the HOAs to the BTMA.)

Looky here both the bylaws (ARTICLE III ) and the Articles (Article V )say the very same thing: Every Burning Tree Area Owners Association approved by Declarant* shall be a member of  this corporation. (*According to the bylaws: 6.  “Declarant” is Sixty-First and Memorial Development Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation, its designated successors or assigns if designated declarant, for these purposes, by Sixty-First and Memorial Development Corporation in a duly recorded written instrument. (Too bad Sixty-First and Memorial Development Corporation didn't designate someone else in a duly recorded written instrument to be the declarant!)



It also says in both Article III of the by-laws and Artcile IV of Articles of Incorporation: Membership in Burning Tree Area Owners Association shall entitle the members of those Associations to the right and use of enjoyment of the common areas and common facilities of the Association. (That is extra nice since Wendy Berezowski said that in regards to Article IV rights to charge for using the facilities that it gives the Association the RIGHT, not that it HAS to or SHOULD. Thankee Wendy, I am loading up all my grandchildren right now. With the large number of people you said that you signed up as your family and mine we are gonna fill up that place.) Little Wilbur got so excited he already wet his swim suit twice.


Them by-laws they say that Every act or decision done or made by a majority of the directors  shall be regarded as the act of the board. That is pretty scary for anyone planting themself onto the board and not knowing what the other bored members will do next.