[Miscellaneous]

It would be interesting to know how the courts would view it if someone challenged a group decision. Personally I think throwing someone out largely relies on them not wanting to be in the group and accepting the groups will. Not that I suggest groups are wrong, I agree with the actions given the circumstances. It just doesn't compute that a few individuals can vote on the assets of another individual.

I know diddly squat about the law though.

[ROG]

As said we looked at our rules which he"d signed and broken by not telling us of his accident.
Spoke to AOPA and we have a well known barrister as a member.
You may have problems if you run the group as a limited company--from experience and from legal advice-"it aint worth it".

[riverrock]

Eventually a judge makes an objective decision, which may or may not be based on an agreement signed (but world normally follow it unless the judge thought it unfair).
My understanding is the cost of enforcing a written agreement is often as expensive and difficult as getting a judgment without an agreement - hence why some groups don't bother with a written agreement.
If it goes "legal" the lawyers win.

This normally end up in courts in relation to shared property (buildings) and businesses when the money involved is high. Not worth going to court for lower value items.
As long as judge sees what you are doing is fair, it's probably fine.

[Miscellaneous]

As long as judge sees what you are doing is fair, it's probably fine.

You have more faith in the system than me. There are certainly many examples of the norm not quite aligning with the law. Sometimes it is a cost versus benefit question, other times the consequences of taking legal action are the issue.

I first thought of the concept of others voting to spend other peoples money in a scenario whereby a group was voting for an upgrade which would require a cash call. Not really something that can be done.

[gasman]

If it goes "legal" the lawyers win.
.

So true!
I have a close friend who holds a senior judicial appointment. He says (off the record) that for claims below £50k it is rarely worth entering formal litigation.
Interestingly he also says that he expects conciliation to have been tried first.

[riverrock]

You have more faith in the system than me. There are certainly many examples of the norm not quite aligning with the law.

Indeed - and this is when agreements also fall down and are unenforceable.
In a similar was to a "Prenuptial Agreement" in Scotland. They have no legal basis. A judge might follow it if sensible, but won't if it isn't sensible.

Cash calls in any group are difficult - all the groups I've been in are large and try to ensure there will never be need of a cash call (with good engine funds, etc).
However, if our Jodel engine gave up tomorrow, we wouldn't have enough in the bank to replace it.

[Miscellaneous]

Cash calls in any group are difficult - all the groups I've been in are large and try to ensure there will never be need of a cash call (with good engine funds, etc).
However, if our Jodel engine gave up tomorrow, we wouldn't have enough in the bank to replace it.

That's not the sort of cash call I mean.
I'm saying it's difficult for a majority to vote for, say, an avionics upgrade forcing a member against the idea to contribute via a cash contribution.

Most syndicates work because people are reasonable and have group interests at heart. Just as well really and that they don't have to refer to law.

[PeteSpencer]

Do most group insurance do named pilots or "any pilot over 100 hours plus these named ones"? Would sort most of that out...

We have a general agreement to operate the aircraft in a similar way as each other but it is a gentleman's agreement - not written down. Before anyone joins, a discussion will be had as to whether they would be suitable for our group. We also have a general veto available for anyone joining the group by other members. Some things are difficult to police. Its near impossible to stop someone selling their share to someone else who may be undesirable to the group.

The only issue I've had in the groups I'm is was one individual who is a TRE in an airline, and wanted the group to be run in the same way as the airline.
So if there was anything not perfect (in a 50 year old aircraft) then he wanted it immediately grounded. He accused those who were running the group of negligence and fraud (to the point that an auditor was appointed to do an assessment who found everything was in order - no case to answer - the treasurer is a chartered accountant) and caused a large lever arch file worth of paperwork in all the email correspondence he generated. The group chair (a senior exec in his normal employment) felt he had to step down due to the workload this one individual generated. We found out later that he has a reputation in that airline.

We don't have anything written down as a signed agreement for each member, but we do have a small number of items agreed between members and written in minutes of AGMs which show agreement on certain things - such as what happens on death of a member, just to cover the group from legal issues.

@riverrock
You've hit the nail on the hear re 'gentlemens' agreements>

We run our group by (unsigned) gentlemens' agreement between members and we have written guidelines on what to do if there is default, death or other stuff.It's worked well so far and you're dead right that the initial meeting 'trial by sherry/beer/wine' is vital to discover if the guy standing before you will work out as a group member .

It can be hard because out in the depths of East Anglia new members have always been hard to find and there is temptation to fill a place with someone less than satisfactory.

We've only used the power of veto once when a past member who left under something of a cloud and almost cost us money, attempted to re-join the group.

We also had a gentlemens' agreement on the subletting use of our airstrip ( which we lease long term from the farmer -non profit making, cost sharing-) by other residents. However attempts to formalise this by a signed agreement when a change of treasurer in our group highlighted abuse of the gentlemens' agreement was only partially successful: All bar one other residents were very happy to sign , one was not and left.

Peter