The language chosen in governing documents matters. Throughout the Fontaine West Declaration and Bylaws, different terms are used for different purposes:

Owners

Eligible votes

Majority

Quorum

Votes cast

Those terms may interact with one another, but they do not necessarily mean the same thing.

That distinction is particularly important when reviewing the Special Assessment.

The provision of the Declaration governing this Special Assessment requires approval by a “Majority of Owners.”

At the same time, the Bylaws contain separate provisions addressing voting eligibility, quorum, and voting by written ballot.

And importantly, the governing documents contain a specific definition of “Majority.”

That definition refers to more than fifty percent (50%) of the applicable “total eligible number.”

I recognize that this definition may mean the required Majority is based upon fewer than Fontaine West's 184 total unit votes.

That is not the issue I am raising.

The issue is determining what the applicable total eligible number actually was.

The Association's June 15 notice told Owners that:

at least one-tenth (1/10) of the eligible votes of the Association must be represented, and a majority of the Owners must vote in favor.

I believe that wording deserves attention.

The notice did not describe a single voting requirement.

It described two:

Quorum: a specified portion of the eligible votes must be represented.

Approval: a Majority of Owners must vote in favor.

The use of the word “and” separates those requirements.

That does not, by itself, answer exactly how the required Majority must be calculated.

But it does raise a legitimate question about whether satisfying the quorum requirement automatically makes the participating ballots the denominator for determining approval.

The Association subsequently reported:

57 ballots received

48 valid ballots counted

25 in favor

23 opposed

The reported approval percentage was 52.1%.

That percentage is mathematically correct:

25 ÷ 48 = 52.1%

But that calculation answers a particular question:

What percentage of the 48 valid ballots cast voted in favor?

It does not, standing alone, answer another question:

Did 25 affirmative votes constitute the “Majority of Owners” required by the Declaration when the governing documents are read as a whole?

To answer that question, we need to understand why 48 was the appropriate denominator—or identify the provision establishing a different method of calculating approval.

The definition of “Majority” in the Declarations does not use only the phrase “eligible votes.” It separately identifies “eligible votes, Owners, or other group as the context may indicate.” I believe that distinction deserves consideration. If “Majority” were intended always to mean a majority of eligible votes, it is reasonable to ask why the definition separately identifies Owners and instructs the reader to determine the applicable group based upon context. In the Special Assessment provision, the Declaration specifically uses the phrase “Majority of Owners.”

I am not suggesting that this observation conclusively determines the voting threshold. Other provisions of the governing documents address voting eligibility and must also be considered.

But neither do I believe the words “eligible votes” and “Owners” should automatically be treated as interchangeable when the Declaration itself lists them separately.

What effect does the Association give to that distinction, and how does it affect the calculation used for this Special Assessment?

I am not arguing that every reference to “Owners” necessarily means all 184 units regardless of voting eligibility.

The governing documents themselves make eligibility relevant, and that must be acknowledged.

But neither should we assume that:

Eligible votes = votes cast = quorum = Majority of Owners

unless the governing documents establish that relationship.

Each term should be given the meaning assigned to it by the Declaration and Bylaws.

That brings us back to the same straightforward request:

What was the total eligible number?

What number constituted the required Majority?

What provision establishes that calculation?

Why did 25 affirmative votes satisfy it?

The answer should come from the governing documents and the Association's records—not from assumptions about what any of these terms mean.

And when those words determine whether a financial obligation has been validly approved for an entire community, the calculation behind them should be clear enough for every Owner to verify.