« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
May 22, 2008
Elections Errors - How Do You Know What to Do About Them?
I get so many questions from readers about elections. Here are just a few ... and my answers to the best of my ability, given my knowledge and expertise. Do not take these answers as the only possible answers. The California elections law is just complicated enough and unsettled enough that attorneys disagree on answers and application of portions of the law. However, I think it fair to "weigh in" on some of the issues.
Here goes:
Question: "I'm on the board of our HOA and our management company mailed the call for nominations on the 29th of April and closed on May 2nd. Is there not an amount of lead time specified for this? Seems a little short notice to get people to be nominated."
I agree wholeheartedly, it seems way too short a time, and believe that any person acting as a hearing officer and deciding whether the election was fair or not would have a problem with a 3-4 day op to put one's name in the hat, especially for a mail solicitation, given that California law has a presumption in it of 5 days delivery time for first class mail. There is nothing in Civil Code Section 1363.03 that specifies a minimum time for soliciting candidates, but ... there is obviously something wrong with this picture.
Question: "What is the requirement and liability of the Board if the information that the Property Management Company [or Board] puts out for an election is incorrect? "
Answer: This is the way I would guess it might go:
LEVEL ONE : PROBABLY ACTIONABLE, PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE: If what happens is directly contrary to the law, then any owner would have a right to challenge the election, and could probably unravel the election, if he or she could prove the errors were direct violations of the statute, or the intent of the statute. The idea of the statute is to make sure that elections are fair to all.
LEVEL TWO: As above in the facts about the time for weighing in as a candidate, if what the owner who wants to challenge the election is relying on facts and circumstances that are not contrary to anything stated in the law, because there is not any standard stated in the law, the hearing officer would probably give some consideration to whether the error mislead, misrepresented, or misdirected the owners such that the election was not fair.
LEVEL THREE: If an owner wants to challenge an election on something they perceive as unfair or illegal, and it is not in violation of the statute and there is a question as to whether it was unfair to all, or the owner just perceives it as unfair, the hearing officer would have more trouble unraveling the election.
Question: "I have a question about a recent election. I am on the Board. When the homeowners received notice for elections the letter stated that we had two positions available, however when the ballots arrived via mail in February there were three (3) candidates names on it and we were told that we had three (3) votes now. Our monthly statements had the annual meeting date as one day but on the ballots and election paperwork there was another. At the annual meeting the Property Manager said there was no quorum however there was no sign in list or other supporting documentation present. The Property Manager indicated that it was a clerical error. The board did not take any action to correct the misleading information and at the next meeting there was again no quorum, no homeowner list, and no election."
Answer: This sounds like a series of errors and it apparently no election results were announced. Should there have been? This Board can go back and correct the errors; however, should it? Someone would have had to count the ballot packages that were returned in order to determine if there was a quorum because a sign in sheet for the meeting would not do it. Maybe it was obvious there was not a quorum, so obvious that no one made a move to get formal. It is hard to tell.
The other problem seems to be a lack of interest. After two times without a quorum - if true, it would be time for the Board to make a decision. Given the errors, does the Board go back to square one, or count the votes that are in and name the candidates? Here, it seems there were 3 candidates for 3 positions ("we got 3 votes"), after two tries, and it the question arises as to whether the Board should go backwards, or forwards.
It's a good question that I cannot answer as a legal opinion, but I would be inclined to think that it makes sense to go forward, even recognizing that there were some errors. There are probably facts that I am not getting through the questions asked and they could be important in the scheme of things, but lack of quorum and interest in elections is a common nagging problem for HOAs, and I am not of the camp that believes that HOAs have an obligation to keep calling for another counting date, and another, and another, until the enough members "wake up" and vote (because it may never happen). The biggest "non-statutory-error" is the failure of owners to vote when given a fair opportunity to do so. If that opportunity was not fair, then we are talking about a completely different animal.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:20 PM
May 21, 2008
Are the New FNMA Guidelines Realistic?
Adrian Adams of Adams and Aucoin in SoCal just put out a newsletter listing the new requirements FNMA has published. You can read what he has to say by visiting DavisStirling.com (not a government-backed website; its a law firm website - but very informative), and what FNMA has to say by visiting https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refmaterials/approvedprojects/index.jsp?from=hp.
Here is my take on the new regs. GET REAL FNMA! If this secondary lending organization (known for buying loans in bulk) wants to continue to buy condo loans (and I assume there is a profit in it or who would be in the business of doing it??), I foresee having to back down on some of the new requirements. Why? Here are some reasons:
1. HOAs in California are typically underfunded, meaning shy of having 100% of the money needed to fund improvement, rehab, reconstruction and major projects. Heck, many are having a hard time meeting operating costs. The new regs require lenders to attest to the fact that the HOAs are "adequately funded." At the request of a couple of lenders, I created a lender class to help them learn to read association budgets and reserve studies in order to assist them in making this "representation." After my first class, the concensus was that they either had to (1) go forth with consirable liability exposure, (2) not work with FNMA, or (3) go back to FNMA and discuss these impossible standards.
2. I do not believe associations generally have enough money in reserves to cover large insurance deductibles, such as earthquake insurance. If you remember (those of you immersed in HOA issues), Freddie Mac posed a new requirement - after the Northridge losses - that in order to purchase a condo loan, the HOA had to have the earthquake deductible 100% covered in funds in the association accounts. That did not last long before it was retracted - I believe that would have eliminated the purchase of any HOA loans because HOAs do not have that kind of ability. It would likely make condos unmarketable if the owners had to come up with the assessments to immediately fund earthquake deductibles.
3. The California legislature is being counterproductive to the option of HOAs to invoke amendments that would limit leasing in the developments with the introduction of AB 2259 relating to limiting these provisions. The very reason HOAs consider lease limitation amendments is to counter the FNMA and Freddie Mac regulations that deter the purchase of loans in HOAs with a high percentage of rentals.
4. It seems to me that many new HOAs seeking the FNMA "gold seal" or certification of approval would fail if the number of investor owners had to be less than 10% of the units.
5. If FNMA cuts out the condo associations that are not separately metered, that is a BIG CHUNK of condo associations. Although there seem to be many benefits to doing so, some just cannot afford it, especially in these hard economic times.
6. If FNMA is not going to purchase loans where the HOA is more than 10% delinquencies on the HOA accounts, well, there go more out the door. HOA delinquencies today are doubling, tripling and worse, because of the subprime lending issues, hard economic times, and cumulative effect of California legislation that protects HOA owner/debtors and makes it harder for HOAs to collect assessments. While 10% and under for delinquencies was a reasonable goal a few years ago, it is unreaslistic for many HOAs today.
So, I have to ask the question, FNMA, do you want to buy condo loans or not? Only time will tell.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 12:47 PM
May 19, 2008
California Overregulation is Overburdening Small Associations
There are many small associations in California that cannot afford management. The Davis Stirling Act is intended to regulate HOAs, and the average person cannot comprehend a lot of what is in it. Yet, the legislators keep passing more complicated laws. And furthermore, the California Law Revision Commission has worked on an entire new Davis Stirling Act, that is longer, and in some cases, simpler, and in other cases more complicated. Still, average persons will not be able to self-regulate without doing their homework, committing to learning what is needed to run the association and trying to understand the laws.
I get emails almost every day from some of the smaller association Boards who are overwhelmed with all of the laws. Some even are bold enough to write that they intend to ignore one or another of the laws - and this comes up a lot with the new complicated election laws. I mean, can you imagine being a member of a 4 unit HOA, and having to go outside the association to find an inspector of election to receive the 4 ballots (because all of the owners are ineligible to serve as inspectors), open the double envelopes on each and announce the election results of the Board election each year?
Here is a recent email from a frequent reader.
"Beth, I agree with your comments on the micromanaging by the legislature. We are just trying to have our lawns mowed and pay our bills. As the treasurer of our small HOA (I am also a CPA), we feel overly burdened by Davis-Stirling. We are entirely self managed and this compliance is too time consuming. I envision a point when no one will want to be on our board."
Touche! I agree.
Well,I am here to help after all. I know you do not want to pay me over $300 an hour to hold your hand, so for those of you who want help, check out http://www.californiacondoguru.com, the publications page. You can purchase THE DAVIS STIRLING ACT IN PLAIN ENGLISH and many other affordable Plain English tools at very low prices. Also, if you spend the time to peruse the website, you can get a lot of information for free. When people call or email me and ask if I know a good resource for gathering information about HOA stuff, well, I have to ask myself if they just did not take the time to look!
My best...
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:33 PM
Who Has To Fix The Fence?
Here is a question I recently received on maintenance of fences in a Caliornia HOA.
"I own a SFR and I live next to an easement/common area owned by our HOA. During the winter, a portion of the fence blew down due to heavy winds. I believe the cost of repairing the fence should be shared by us and the HOA.
We live in California and according to California Civil Code 841: adjacent landowners equally contribute to maintain walls and fences between them, unless one of the two landowners chooses to let the remaining sides of his property remain unfenced.
However, the HOA sent us back a letter stating that according to HOA's CCRs, the HOA is not responsible, but I am responsible for the fence and its maintenance and repairs.
My question is doesn't California Civil Code supersede any HOA by-laws?"
MY ANSWER: Sometimes the law controls and sometimes governing documents control. If a law says "Notwithstanding the declaration [or governing documents] ... blah, blah, blah, the word "notwithstanding" bacially it means it doesn't matter what the governing documents say - the law controls. If the law says "Unless the declaration provides otherwise," ... the words "unless the declaration provides otherwise," mean that the declaration would take precedence.
In this case, the law (Civil Code Section 841) says neither. In fact, it is not even in the Davis-Stirling Act. It is in a section of California law that simply codifies some "common law" principles.
In this case, California law relating to property restrictions and equitable servitudes is more specific to the situation and it prevails. (It's a bunch of legal jargon but what it means is that since there is a more specific law, and an agreement that binds properties and commits owners to property restrictions, it controls - it is more specific to the issue.)
I am not providing a legal opinion here because I have not been asked to review the documents or provide one. While it is fair to say that the governing documents will control with regard to fence maintenance, I did not review them to figure out how the allocation on party fences (those shared by two property owners) is made. HOA CC&Rs often have regs on party fences, and then the question has to be answered as to whether the fences between the common area and a separate interest lot are treated as party fences would be (shared expense),as common area maintenance is (HOA expense), or as the sole obligation of the owner of the Lot.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:06 PM
May 18, 2008
Retaliation is Never The Answer
Your neighbor is driving you crazy. It's the clack clack clack of the high heeled shoes and the long nails on the family dog on the tile floors above, or the thump thump thump and bang bang bang of the children running and jumping, opening and closing the doors. You have contacted the board, and been told there is not much that can be done about normal daytime noise. So, you decide to "get back" at the neighbors.
Think before you leap. Here's a true story.
It started in a condominum development for seniors. A beautiful downstairs unit came up for sale. The elderly couple, looking forward to retirement in this beautiful community was checking out the unit. The realtor was embarrassed because the resident that lived upstairs seemed to be walking around with heavy loud footsteps. She mentioned that the lady was 85, and must be wearing hard shoes. As it was, this had happened before. In fact, the seller had made a disclosure about the footfalls, stating that although there was only one resident, and she was about 85, the downstairs neighbors could hear the footfalls. Apparently, this woman had established that she did not want downstairs neighbors. Realtors showing the place had come to that conclusion because she was always home, and always "sstomping" around when the lower unit was being showed. However, one couple - potential buyers - were not deterred. They loved the place, and the buyers had discounted the price and were really motivated. So they bought the place. They told the realtor that they would just make friends with the woman upstairs, take cookies, get to know her and ask her to wear lighter sole shoes, or put down some rugs.
Months later, they came to the board. Neither the cookies nor the attempts to make friends worked. The couple asked the board to do something. The Board sent a letter to the woman upstairs and asked some questions, pointing out the problem. Suggestions were made that the woman (aka the 'stomper') wear softer soled shoes, house slippers, or place padded runners in the traffic areas of her unit.
Meantime, the neighbors below like the occasional "barbecued" dinner. They had moved in a gas grill onto their patio and grilled every Wednesday, once a week, like clockwork. The 'stomper' instead of agreeing to make any changes, said that she wore soft soled shoes, that she had rugs, and that she walked on them instead of the hardwood floors.
And, it appeared that the neighbor's complaints incensed her. So she complained about the barbecuing. She wrote to the board and said that it complicated her allergies and she wanted it to stop. In response to the letter to the below neighbors, the Board was told they only did it once a week. That did not seem unreasonable; the Board suggested that on Wednesdays, the stomper keep her balcony door closed. Instead, she took to sweeping her balcony and watering her balcony plants (I should say overwatering) on Wednesday evenings, when the below neighbors were barbecuing. Once they got 'wind' that the stomper hated the barbecuing, they started doing it every night.
Once again, the Board was contacted with the complaint about the barbecuing. The 'stomper' had hired an attorney and the attorney wrote and asked the board to put a development-wide moratorium on barbecuing.
That was clearly overkill. And the Board said "no". However, the Board did propose a solution. The Board arranged to have weatherstripping replaced on the stomper's slider since she was claiming the barbecue smoke seeped into her unit. And the Board wrote to the parties with these demands: the stomper was to look for a way to quiet the footfalls (such as adding traffic area rugs and padding or wearing soft soled shoes) and the barbecuing couple was told to move the barbecue to the other side of their home on a porch, so it would not be below the stomper's balcony.
Neither party complied. Both retaliated. The stomper started sweeping the balcony when the neighbors barbecued. They started barbecuing every night instead of their once or twice a week prior habit. The upstairs neighbor started taking a shower every night late, claiming that she had to wash off the barbecue smoke that had intruded. The downstairs neighbors started flushing their toilet while she was in the shower and turned their TV up loud afterwards. It went on and on.
Then they sued each other. Both sides had insurance carriers get involved. The carriers and the court had a hard time with this one. You just cannot always regulate human behavior, or get people to act reasonably.
Much money was spent. At one point the insurors came to the Board for architectural approval with something they thought might solve at least part of the problem - they had arranged for a specially designed barbecue with a smokestack. The Board denied the application as it did not want a large orange smokestack going up the side of the building where the golfers would have to look at it. It was "back to the drawing board" in the court process.
Eventually the judge "nonsuited" the parties, kicking them out of court, essentially. The newspaper touted "Judge Douses Barbecue Suit".
Even that was not the end. Both parties came back and demanded a Board hearing. All parties were "invited" to come to a board meeting. They brought their attorneys and their doctor statements and the below neighbor brought a DVD of the interview with his doctor stating how his health had declined. The Board's solution - one of the board members would meet with the parties in an attempt to get back some semblance of peace if, and only if, the parties would meet with a mediator or social services rep (they were all elderly), together, to talk.
Neither party would go in the same room with the other. The Board opted out of this. The lawyers threatened to sue the Board, the Board's attorney (me) mailed them the "Judge Douses Suit" story, and that might have seemed the end of it. It was not.
The husband of the couple below died, the wife sold their home and moved back to where their children lived, on the East Coast. I suspect they had to take a considerable loss since they had not only experienced, but exacerbated the situation of the "nuisance" upstairs. The stomper died.
End of Story....Do you want to end up in the same place? Then eliminate retaliation as one of your means of dealing with a difficult nuiance situation.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:52 PM
May 15, 2008
CAN HOMEOWNERS GET BALLOTS BACK?
FINALLY, I get a brief question that is easy to answer. From a reader:
"A brief question if I may – In an HOA vote [ 2 envelope system ] on an assessment; can a member request the return of a ballot previously mailed to the management company if the request is made before the ballots are opened? …. or is this return precluded by law?"
California Civil Code Section 1363.03 provides that ballots are not revocable once provided to the Inspector of Election. So the easy answer is that an owner is not entitled to get their ballot package back - in California any way.
The statute itself is unequivocal in its terms, but that is not to say that there can be NO exceptions. Facts or circumstances may occur that could affect that premise. Some examples might be fraud, coercion, mistake, or other issues related to voting materials. So I never say never.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 10:32 AM
May 13, 2008
Is There A Stranglehold on HOAs in California?
Imagine that you own a business. Imagine that the legislators keep passing laws that make it tougher and tougher to collect for the goods or services that are offered. Imagine that your earning capacity is limited to collecting just enough money to budget for the coming year. Imagine then, that the bills (and bad debts of other customers) keep mounting and your ability to increase prices for your goods or services is limited, in fact, imagine that you have to go to your customers and ask them to approve any increases.
Imagine that you are a volunteer trying to run this business. Then, as icing on the cake, imagine that you have to tell your customers that they have to pay not only for their goods and services, but those purchased by their neighbors who cannot pay because they have gotten themselves into an upside down financial dilemma.
Imagine all this, and then imagine how long your business would survive and until it folded, how unhappy (AND uncomplimentary!) the customers would be.
Now, imagine how that translates into running an HOA in California. Boards are required to collect assessments sufficient to pay the bills but are limited in increases (Civil Code Sectiond 1366 and 1366.1) They are limited in collecting unpaid assessments by Civil Code Section 1367.4, meaning they have to wait to exercise serious collection remedies until the owner is REALLY in debt. The HOAs have to spend considerable sums to collect the assessments that remain unpaid by owners. The Boards have to continue to maintain the properties and pay the bills in spite of rising construction costs, increased costs in insurance, increases in management costs because of compliance requirements, increases in water and utility costs, increased legal compliance costs and on top of all that - these volunteer Board Members trying to run these ailing "'businesses" have to put up with Board bashing by the members who do not want to pay more.
HOAs take a bath (meaning lose thousands of dollars) every time a lender forecloses on a property in their development, which is occurring more and more often - and which is often stalled by the Lender's own processes. In this day and age of 100% plus lending, there are usually insufficient proceeds from the sale by the lender to pay the Association's lien. And guess what? They (the Boards) have to go to the other owners and ask for more money to make up the shortfalls, which include maintaining those owners' properties that have gone into default or bankruptcy.
How can one expect an HOA to survive in this day and age? The members have to pull together to make them work. Support is needed, volunteers are needed, everyone has to bite the bullet. And shooting the messenger is not nor has it ever been the answer to a crisis situation.
When you talk to your legislators, remind them that there are many of you who live in HOAs that are suffering at the hands of the ever tighter collection laws (making it difficult to collect debt). There are many states that have what is called a "super lien" in their state law, meaning that HOAs can collect up to 6 months of delinquent assessments from a lender that forecloses, even if there are not enough proceeds to cover the debt. California HOAs could benefit from such a lifeline, but the legislators in power will not hear of it. What state does more to protect the lenders and banks that make the "creative loans" and put people so abundantly in homes they really cannot afford? I would truly like to know.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 10:11 AM
May 12, 2008
MORE ON FLOORS - WHAT IF YOU LIVE UPSTAIRS?
More about condo flooring/noise issues: what if you are the neighbor who lives upstairs with the down stairs neighbor complaining of noise.
These problems are not easy to solve. A couple of readers' notes have been combined in this series of questions:
"We had our laminate flooring installed over a year ago. We asked our neighbor if he/she had any noise issue and he/she said no. Then our circumstances changed. We [had a baby, got a dog, had a relative(s) move in temporarily, got a new stereo system, a large plasma TV, new speakers, etc.]. The neighbor started complaining about the noise."
The notes go on to say that these writers had obtained architectural approval and that the underlayment that was presented to the Board/ACCs was considered sufficient. And so these owners want to know what they can/should do about the complaints. Two of the writers are selling, and have their properties in escrow, and want to know what to do about disclosures.
The following additional questions were asked:
"Do we have to get acoustical testing done if [the Board/Neighbor] asks for it?"
"If the [Board/Neighbor] decides to sue us for nuisance, would he/she have a case?"
"If the neighbor had complained about the noise earlier we could have [asked the contractor to fix the problem/added some padding or changed the accoustics], but now, we do not know what to do."
"Our board has been notified about the problem - [we] do not know if they will get involved with this issue."
With regard to any given flooring-noise related issue that is brought to my attention, I cannot of course say unequivocally one party [among whom might be the board, the upstairs neighbor, or the downstairs neighbor] is right or wrong, or would win in court if suing or being sued. All I can do is set out a sense of what questions might arise and let the parties or their attorneys have some criteria to consider. The bottom line is that the courts are not really very good at solving these issues unless there is a clear cut "wrong" that can be identified, and in many cases, there is not. I have heard from readers who want to sue, and also readers who have sued or been sued and ended up in court spending a lot of money without getting a satisfactory result.
So here are what I believe are some key questions to consider:
Is this a pre-existing condition or did something change, i.e., flooring, neighbors, change in family circumstances, residents (number or age), and if there was a change that is now creating a problem, will it be remedied any time soon?
Are you just the problem, or also part of the solution?
Did you do anything to cause or exacerbate the noise issue(s)?
Did you do anything to mitigate or minimize the problems or condition leading to the problems?
Did any of the parties violate the governing documents in their actions?
Was there any requirement or duty to make disclosures?
If so, were those disclosures made to the right party?
Are there any viable solutions that do not involve expecting the impossible, such as moving when economics or life logistics do not allow it?
Liability depends on facts and circumstances. Does any party have a duty to the other party? [HINT: Generallly, the parties have a basic duty toward others to act as a reasonable, prudent person. Boards have a higher duty because of their "fiduciary" capacity which means they have some control over owner's assets. Developers have more specialized knowledge which might suggest they have a higher duty as well. By "higher" duty, I mean may have to be more careful, do more investigation, perhaps consult experts, etc., which is "higher" than having to just act reasonably.]
Did any party breach its duty to the other person? That is determined by the facts.
If so, did that breach cause the damages or pain and suffering, nuisance, etc.?
If any of the parties can prove the answer to be "yes" to any of these questions, they may have a case.
In the above examples, there are some things the upper floor owners can do - and maybe should do. After all, it may be incumbent on them to alter the situation, since it is their circumstances which changed after approval had been given for the floors and it was those changes that lead to complaints from a resident living below who had not earlier complained about the flooring. Getting ACC approval does not insure that owners will never have to answer to anyone if a nuisance situation develops.
So the upstairs owners might add some padded runners in the traffic areas, turn down the noisy speakers or TV, place padding under the new surround sound speakers, take the kids out as much as possible or set up their toys in the least offensive (with regard to the noise transmission) room, buy quieter toys or engage the kids in thinking or board games instead of in house running, jumping or throwing things.
Generally, each party can do SOMETHING to alleviate the "noisy" nuisance. Standing firm on principle (such as "I have approval for the floors", or "The neighbor did not complain before", or "We have a right to a quiet home all hours of the day", or "They did not even ask for approval for the floors") rarely leads to resolution of the problems. And unresolved, they tend to escalate into neighbor-to-neighbor battles, unrest in the home, and disclosure issues.
[Of course, I may be able to offer more insightful information and suggestions if I knew more about a situation and if any reader wants more specific information as to what they might or should do in their particular situation. A paid consultation can be arranged. Just go to http://www.californiacondoguru.com and look for the consultation form.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:06 PM
May 3, 2008
So Many Questions -So Little Time - About Making An Impact in Your HOA
I am so backed up right now with many, many good questions. I would like to quit everything else I am doing for a week and answer them all, but like taking a cup of water out of a bucket, it would hardly make a dent. However, I notice that a lot of the questions have a common theme - How does one make an impact in the HOA when they do not like the way things are going. I get questions from board members, owners, and relatives of owners and have been on a kick lately to let readers know -
There are lots of questions ...
My time is limited ...
There are lots of resources that are untapped (even on my website)...
There are processes that work.
Check out two of the latest blogs for courses of action to make a difference, to change something, to stop something, etc. Of course, if the pragmatic diligent courses of action do not work, there is always an option to sue. I very rarely recommend that course of action because it can be slow, frustrating, expensive, and downright offensive to the parties. Readers often want to go there first, until I tell them the cost can could exceed the equity in their home if it is a particularly fractious issue. I do not even need to know what the equity is - its just a way of getting things into perspective. That tends to help people get real, and if it really works, it gets them into proactive mode - determined to make a difference on their own.
I can dispose of many questions asked recently with this one blog, because of the common thread. Here are the questions. You can probably recognize the commonality even though the subjects seem unrelated:
Pool: "Workorders [in our HOA] are totally neglected unless of course it’s a board member. They are not doing their job...SAFETY AND CODE violations have been neglected for years ... at this complex. Myself and my roommate are owners so we have two owners ... even the mailman will testify the place appears to be going down... the HOA has failed this community. Do you have any advice for us?"
Trees: "Our Board has arranged to have several trees removed from our small community. Many owners are up in arms! The Board members seem to be focused on views although they protect themselves by saying its to prevent fires. They seem to be forgetting about aesthetics, shade, landscape design, wind protection, beauty in nature, and other methods of fire protection. Our HOA will go from a place of beauty to a place of ugly soon, if something is not done. What can we do?
Use of Pesticides: "I own a town home. I’ve brought up to the property manager my concern over pesticides that are sprayed on the premises. I provided the Board information from an article stating how dangerous and highly toxic these chemicals are especially to the small children on the property and especially now that they are spending more time outside as it is warmer. Pretty much I feel like I’m being ignored. Any solutions?"
Want More Info: "What should ones course of action be if they believe that certain longtime HOA bored members are not being forthright or honest with the members ? Once a year we get a statement and thats it. They do not even try to enlighten us with monthly minutes. Is almost like they do not want us to know what is going on. The last annual statement included a finacial forecast for 30 YEARS OUT. That hardly seems realistic! Thank you in advance for any insight you may offer."
Want Action: "What recourse does a homeowner have if the Association Board takes over 4 months to deal with a simple rule infraction by a tenant? I have been trying to get my neighbor to remove her filing cabinets and 5 gallon water bottles from the front hall since Thanksgiving to no avail. All the Board says is: Have patience. "
Audit: "Me and some of the neighbors think the board and management are pilfering funds and misspending HOA money. We cannot get the Board to do an audit (duh). They say "it is too expensive" and "there is nothing that requires us to do one." What can we do?"
If you want some very practical ways of dealing with questions, concerns and issues like those noted above from readers, check out the two recent blogs: How To Communicate Concerns in Your HOA and What Can You Do If Your HOA Board is Out of Control? . Check out the inexpensive books and publications on the website. If you believe you need more specific information, or need to go a step further, but don't know what that step might be, look for the consultation form on the website at www.californiacondoguru.com. I will make myself available for a telephone consultation if there is no conflict of interest, at my hourly rate (one hour minimum). I need to form to determine whether there is a conflict of interest (I need to know who the parties are and what the problem is in a few words).
And watch this blog for more ...
Posted by Beth Grimm at 2:32 PM