San Antonio HOA Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:
A jury has spoken in the somewhat protracted dispute between the Ventura s HOA and various owners of properties in that northeast Bexar County subdivision. The former HOA President and its former attorney were hit with a whopping $280K verdict on December 21, 2012.
Watch the videos from WOAI TV below.
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn HOA lawsuit. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn HOA lawsuit. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Thứ Năm, 27 tháng 12, 2012
Thứ Bảy, 18 tháng 2, 2012
Houston Area HOA Sues to Stop Individual from Acting as HOA
San Antonio HOA Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:
The battle over who is the the "official" homeowner's association governing a Park Harbor community, has ended-up in the Houston Court of Appeals.
According to the Court, the Park Harbor Improvement Association, Inc., sued appellant, Mildred Dunn, for usurping its duties and attempting to act as the official homeowner's association governing the Park Harbor community at issue. The Association sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that Dunn had no authority to act. Dunn counterclaimed for defamation and sought injunctive relief to prevent the Association from acting as the authorized governing body of the Park Harbor community.
On August 30, 2011, in three orders, the 234th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association on all claims and denied Dunn's motions for summary judgment. The trial court declared that Dunn has no authority to act as the homeowners' association; has no authority to levy or collect assessments, dues, or fines and fees; and has no authority to file documents on behalf of the Park Harbor community with the Texas Secretary of State or the Harris County Clerk. In addition, the trial court permanently enjoined Dunn from taking various related actions.
On February 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, dismissed Dunn's appeal, deeming it premature. We'll continue to track this case.
The battle over who is the the "official" homeowner's association governing a Park Harbor community, has ended-up in the Houston Court of Appeals.
According to the Court, the Park Harbor Improvement Association, Inc., sued appellant, Mildred Dunn, for usurping its duties and attempting to act as the official homeowner's association governing the Park Harbor community at issue. The Association sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that Dunn had no authority to act. Dunn counterclaimed for defamation and sought injunctive relief to prevent the Association from acting as the authorized governing body of the Park Harbor community.
On August 30, 2011, in three orders, the 234th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association on all claims and denied Dunn's motions for summary judgment. The trial court declared that Dunn has no authority to act as the homeowners' association; has no authority to levy or collect assessments, dues, or fines and fees; and has no authority to file documents on behalf of the Park Harbor community with the Texas Secretary of State or the Harris County Clerk. In addition, the trial court permanently enjoined Dunn from taking various related actions.
On February 9, 2012, the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, dismissed Dunn's appeal, deeming it premature. We'll continue to track this case.
Thứ Ba, 17 tháng 1, 2012
Thứ Hai, 9 tháng 1, 2012
New TX Law For HOAs Give Homeowners More Time Before Foreclosure
San Antonio HOA Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:
Here's a good story from Houston's NPR affiliate, KUHF
Listen to the story here:
Before January 1st, Homeowners Associations were able to foreclose on homes without going through the courts. Now, they have to ask a judge for an expedited order of foreclosure. Homeowners would get an extra 60 days to cover whatever they owe a homeowners association.
Kevin Cloves is a Houston attorney who represents both HOAs and homeowners. He says this will slow the process of taking away homes from people whose HOA debt is just a fraction of the home's value.
"The extra time that's given to the homeowner provides them with an added opportunity to save their property by virtue of maybe coming up with a loan from friends, working out a payment plan with the HOA."
And the new laws do require HOAs to offer payment plans of up to 18 months. Terry Sears is another Houston attorney who specializes in HOA matters. He says while the intent of the new laws is noble, the regulations will cost HOAs more to achieve the same result.
"We're eventually going to get the foreclosure. But now, we have to jump through additional hoops which requires a lawsuit and service fees and court costs. And it drove up the fees exponentially for the entire subdivision, and, in my opinion, unnecessarily so."
The new foreclosure rule is part of a batch of new laws governing HOAs. Some of the regulations took effect last September. They cover everything from flag displays, to where and how residents can collect rainwater for other uses.
Here's a good story from Houston's NPR affiliate, KUHF
Listen to the story here:
Before January 1st, Homeowners Associations were able to foreclose on homes without going through the courts. Now, they have to ask a judge for an expedited order of foreclosure. Homeowners would get an extra 60 days to cover whatever they owe a homeowners association.
Kevin Cloves is a Houston attorney who represents both HOAs and homeowners. He says this will slow the process of taking away homes from people whose HOA debt is just a fraction of the home's value.
"The extra time that's given to the homeowner provides them with an added opportunity to save their property by virtue of maybe coming up with a loan from friends, working out a payment plan with the HOA."
And the new laws do require HOAs to offer payment plans of up to 18 months. Terry Sears is another Houston attorney who specializes in HOA matters. He says while the intent of the new laws is noble, the regulations will cost HOAs more to achieve the same result.
"We're eventually going to get the foreclosure. But now, we have to jump through additional hoops which requires a lawsuit and service fees and court costs. And it drove up the fees exponentially for the entire subdivision, and, in my opinion, unnecessarily so."
The new foreclosure rule is part of a batch of new laws governing HOAs. Some of the regulations took effect last September. They cover everything from flag displays, to where and how residents can collect rainwater for other uses.
Thứ Ba, 27 tháng 12, 2011
Sometimes Fences Anger Neighbors... Especially Litigious Ones!
San Antonio HOA Attorney Trey Wilson wrote:
My client, the Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, was featured in the following article, which appeared in today's San Antonio Express News:
FENCE BESIDE AIRSTRIP AT ROOT Of DISPUTE
Guadalupe County officials accused of RICO violations.
By Zeke MacCormack, zeke@express-news.net
ZUEHL — A fence erected in 2008 beside a rural airfield here in southwest Guadalupe County has spurred a rash of lawsuits, the latest of which accuses dozens of county officials of engaging in organized crime and seeks $31 million in damages.
The defendants deny the allegations made by New Braunfels resident David Goad, whose prior self-drafted court pleadings led to his being declared a vexatious litigant.
Goad claims the fence installed by the property owners association illegally blocks access from the lot to subdivision roads, taxiways and the 3,000-foot airstrip. The fence runs along the edge of a portion of Windsock Lane that is largely undeveloped. The association says the Goad parcel lies outside the platted subdivision, so they can bar access to roads and the airstrip.
Goad's suit also asserts that association members conspired with county officials to deprive Goad of his rights, and to have him and witnesses he called at prior hearings arrested.
Read more in the Express News
My client, the Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, was featured in the following article, which appeared in today's San Antonio Express News:
FENCE BESIDE AIRSTRIP AT ROOT Of DISPUTE
Guadalupe County officials accused of RICO violations.
By Zeke MacCormack, zeke@express-news.net
ZUEHL — A fence erected in 2008 beside a rural airfield here in southwest Guadalupe County has spurred a rash of lawsuits, the latest of which accuses dozens of county officials of engaging in organized crime and seeks $31 million in damages.
The defendants deny the allegations made by New Braunfels resident David Goad, whose prior self-drafted court pleadings led to his being declared a vexatious litigant.
Goad claims the fence installed by the property owners association illegally blocks access from the lot to subdivision roads, taxiways and the 3,000-foot airstrip. The fence runs along the edge of a portion of Windsock Lane that is largely undeveloped. The association says the Goad parcel lies outside the platted subdivision, so they can bar access to roads and the airstrip.
Goad's suit also asserts that association members conspired with county officials to deprive Goad of his rights, and to have him and witnesses he called at prior hearings arrested.
Read more in the Express News
Thứ Bảy, 24 tháng 12, 2011
Two Time Winners of Town's Christmas Lights Display Are Fined by HOA
WELLINGTON, COLORADO — Davin Armstrong is facing his own version of the Grinch this year: a homeowners association that wants to snuff out his Christmas decorations.
Armstrong, 35, and his wife, Amber Hersh, 34, have won the town of Wellington’s Christmas lights display two years in a row, but in June, his Buffalo Creek subdivision HOA passed a rule limiting the amount of permissible lawn ornaments to three, he said.
The HOA is now threatening to fine the family $25 every two weeks until they take the lights down, he said. His display, which has become a neighborhood favorite, exceeds the rule by more than 20.
Read the rest of the story in The Coloradoan.
Note the civic-minded nature of the Armstrong's display -- their home is a drop-off site for the Big Country 97.9 Quarter Million Can Crusade and Lights for Life, an initiative that recycles old and broken holiday string lights to benefit children with cancer.
Armstrong, 35, and his wife, Amber Hersh, 34, have won the town of Wellington’s Christmas lights display two years in a row, but in June, his Buffalo Creek subdivision HOA passed a rule limiting the amount of permissible lawn ornaments to three, he said.
The HOA is now threatening to fine the family $25 every two weeks until they take the lights down, he said. His display, which has become a neighborhood favorite, exceeds the rule by more than 20.
Read the rest of the story in The Coloradoan.
Note the civic-minded nature of the Armstrong's display -- their home is a drop-off site for the Big Country 97.9 Quarter Million Can Crusade and Lights for Life, an initiative that recycles old and broken holiday string lights to benefit children with cancer.
Thứ Tư, 21 tháng 12, 2011
Fourth Court Waters-Down Homeowner's Victory Against HOA
BOTH SIDES SWALLOW THE LION'S SHARE OF THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS' FEES
On December 7, 2011, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio released its opinion, on rehearing, in a case where a Bexar County jury punished a local HOA and its attorney for pushing too aggressively in its efforts to collect past due assessments. The case received extensive media coverage when the verdict was first rendered in June, 2010.
The suit, Hidden Forest Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. James Hern was originally tried to a jury before Judge Martha Tanner. Following trial, the jury returned a mixed verdict requiring Hern to pay around $946 in past due assessments, plus the HOA's attorneys' fees of $728.00. **Notably, the Association had asked the jury to award attorneys' fees in the amount of $25,000.00** The jury also found that the Hidden Forest HOA engaged in unreasonable collection practices, and violated its own restrictions by attempting to foreclose on Hern's home and take an individual judgment against him. The jury awarded Hern $11,000.00, denied Hidden Forest's request for judicial foreclosure, and ordered the HOA to remove its assessment lien placed on Hern's home.
The HOA filed an appeal seeking to set aside the award to Hern, and the measly award of attorneys' fees to the Association (which approximate less than 5% of the amount sought by the HOA). Upon analyzing the verdict, the appeals court found that the HOA did not breach its covenants, or engage in unreasonable collection practices. Accordingly, Hern's verdict for damages was reversed.
With regard to the collection efforts, the Court did add this proviso:
The Court refused to side with the HOA in its claims that the jury's award of only $728.00 was against the great weight of the evidence, and should be increased to $25,000.00. Despite the fact that the HOA's attorney testified that he personally spent 75 hours on the case (at $250/hr) , his associate spent over twelve hours on the case (at $200/hr), and his legal assistant spent almost 26 hours(at $125/hr), the Fourth Court found that:
A full copy of the Fourth Court's opinion can be found here.
In the end, it appears that the HOA spent a bunch of time and money to collect an amount that the homeowner was willing to pay all along. Spending attorneys' fees chasing attorneys' fees is never a good ida, especially in the arena of HOA litigation. Not surprisingly, though, local media reports that both sides are claiming victory in this dispute.
On December 7, 2011, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio released its opinion, on rehearing, in a case where a Bexar County jury punished a local HOA and its attorney for pushing too aggressively in its efforts to collect past due assessments. The case received extensive media coverage when the verdict was first rendered in June, 2010.
The suit, Hidden Forest Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. James Hern was originally tried to a jury before Judge Martha Tanner. Following trial, the jury returned a mixed verdict requiring Hern to pay around $946 in past due assessments, plus the HOA's attorneys' fees of $728.00. **Notably, the Association had asked the jury to award attorneys' fees in the amount of $25,000.00** The jury also found that the Hidden Forest HOA engaged in unreasonable collection practices, and violated its own restrictions by attempting to foreclose on Hern's home and take an individual judgment against him. The jury awarded Hern $11,000.00, denied Hidden Forest's request for judicial foreclosure, and ordered the HOA to remove its assessment lien placed on Hern's home.
The HOA filed an appeal seeking to set aside the award to Hern, and the measly award of attorneys' fees to the Association (which approximate less than 5% of the amount sought by the HOA). Upon analyzing the verdict, the appeals court found that the HOA did not breach its covenants, or engage in unreasonable collection practices. Accordingly, Hern's verdict for damages was reversed.
With regard to the collection efforts, the Court did add this proviso:
Although we do not condone Hidden Forest’s refusal to accept Hern’s prepayment and subsequent settlement offers, we cannot say that its collection efforts were harassing or outrageous. Hidden Forest did not repeatedly call Hern or send letters to his home or business.
The Court refused to side with the HOA in its claims that the jury's award of only $728.00 was against the great weight of the evidence, and should be increased to $25,000.00. Despite the fact that the HOA's attorney testified that he personally spent 75 hours on the case (at $250/hr) , his associate spent over twelve hours on the case (at $200/hr), and his legal assistant spent almost 26 hours(at $125/hr), the Fourth Court found that:
the jury was aware of the simplistic nature of Hidden Forest’s case, which merely sought to recover assessments that Hern admitted he had not paid. The amount Hidden Forest sought in attorney’s fees was more than 26 times the amount it recovered due to Hern’s failure to pay assessments. The jury could have rationally determined that 3.78 hours was a reasonable amount of time to expend in legal services for this case (dividing $728 awarded in attorney’s fees by Newton’s hourly rate of $250).
A full copy of the Fourth Court's opinion can be found here.
In the end, it appears that the HOA spent a bunch of time and money to collect an amount that the homeowner was willing to pay all along. Spending attorneys' fees chasing attorneys' fees is never a good ida, especially in the arena of HOA litigation. Not surprisingly, though, local media reports that both sides are claiming victory in this dispute.
Thứ Bảy, 1 tháng 8, 2009
Deed Restrictions -- They Aren't Always Forever !
Many, many homwoners who are disgruntled with a neighbor or with their own HOA underestimate the importance of closely reading applicable deed restrictions (CC&R's). I'm always amazed at the number of people seeking legal representation against their HOA, but who don't even have a copy of their CCRs or Association By-laws.
That's right. That small type-face, fuzzy, packet you were given at the closing upon your home is importance. Too many times, homeowners either glance over the restrictions just once at closing, or never bother to look at them at all. They then get filed away, or thrown away, with little thought. This is a mistake, though,m because the restrictions can carry tremendous implications for property values, neighnborhood regulation, and assessing the authority of your HOA Board.
In some cases, we have determined that particular CCRs have expired, or that some mandatory condition required to give them continuing force has never occured. In those instances, the restrictions are usually legal nullities that cannot be enforced. When serving as lawyers representing owners against their HOA, a discovery that the CCRs are non-enforceable is a powerful weapon that almost always carries the day. However, the absence of restrictions/covenants cuts both ways, and can carry several negative implications for all property owners in a given development.
Determining the Effectiveness of CCRs:
Covenants/Restrictions are placed upon subdivisions by the original developers who plat them. Those developers then go about selling individual lots to future residents, or selling the enitire development to a homebuilder who then builds homes upon the lots and re-sells them, individually. In either instance, the developer is often long-gone before the subdivision is fully built-out and occupied. Ususally, he's gone-on to develop his next subdivision.
The restrictions enacted by the developer often have expiration dates 20 to 30 years after they are adopted. Those CCRs may also contain procedures to transfer control of the subdivision to a Homeowner's Association (HOA). In those instances, the HOA becomes the "enforcer" of the CCRs. However, unless there is some action taken to extend them, the CCRs still expire.
In other cases, an HOA is never formed, is improperly formed, or is formed before power to enforce the restrictions is properly transferred away from the developer (or his successor). Each of these situations may result in an inability to enforce restrictions.
Good and Bad:
Like all institutions, HOAs have good and bad aspects. Homeowners seem to enjoy the stewardship of HOAs who clean community pools, keep gates in good working order, erect Christmas lights, and prevent cell phone towers from being erected in enighborhoods. But, when the HOA spirals out of control on issues like yard watering, car bumper stickers, backyard swingsets and the like, they can be downright nasty.
In the end, well thought-out, equally-enforced restrictions probably benefit all owners of lots within a given subdivision because they promote uniformity, land-use integrity, and the common interest in preserving home values.
If faced with a dilemna regarding enforceability of CCRS, one should start with a good reading/review of the restrictions, including any expiration dates. When in doubt, contact a lawyer with experience in HOA law, including interpretating and litigating restrictions. A strong HOA lawyer can be an invaluable asset in understanding your rights and responsibilities within the context of community living and community associations.
Thứ Ba, 19 tháng 5, 2009
R L Wilson Law Firm takes on Regency Park HOA
In October 2007, our clients commenced construction of a swimming pool in their back yard. However, this pool wasn't designed just for enjoying lazy days and working on their tans. Instead, it was an integral part of a flood control plan engineered to mitigate the effects of rushing water experienced each time it rained. The pool was recommended by an engineer, and even by the City of San Antonio -- each of whom had investigated the tendency of the property to flood as the result of run-off from a parking lot constructed directly behind the home.
Prior to commencing construction, our clients submitted plans to the Architectural Control Committee of the Regency Park Owners Association. Much to their surprise, they recived no response. Despite additional approval requests, the HOA's silence continued for months. Frustrated by the lack of response, and after reviewing the ACC's deadline for approving plans, our clients decided to proceed with construction.
Almost immediately, they and their contractor were accosted by a member of the Regency Park HOA Board, who verbally demanded that they cease with construction. So they did. Two days later, the contractor returned to the home to retrieve his tools and equipment. That same day, the HOA scrambled its legal team, and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the construction -- which by that time had already been voluntarily abated. The other portion of the HOA's suit sought a declaration that the pool was not permitted without ACC approval.
After various meetings, the plans were ultimately approved, and our clients were allowed to complete the pool with the blessing of the HOA. They did, and many of the flooding issues have been resolved.
Case closed...or so they thought.
Several months later, the Association came calling. This time they wanted their attorneys' fees, and lots of them. When the homeowners balked, the Association set the case for trial.
On the day before the trial, the homeowners realized that they need the help of an attorney with experince litigating HOA issues. So they called me.
After reviewing the CCRs, I noticed a provision requiring that disputes between the HOA and property owners within the Regency Park subdivision be referred to arbitration. Based upon this requirement, I filed a Motion seeking to compel arbitration, instead of trial in the Bexar County District Court. Judge Andy Mireles considered the Motion, and sided with our clients. Thus, the dispute has been referred to arbitration, where an arbitrator will determine whether the HOA is entitled to its fees, even though it never obtained a Judgment in the suit it filed. We are confident in the property owners' position, and disappointed that the HOA has decided to expend costs and attorneys' fees solely in pursuit of attorneys' fees.
Many times HOAs and their Board Members use the judicial system to advance personal grudges or to "flex their muscle." The laws relating to HOA litigation and restrictive covenants are complex and often favor the HOAs. If you believe that you are the victim of HOA abuses, you should immediately contact an attorney experienced with HOA litigation, and the Texas Property Code. The HOAs are represented by experienced and knowledgable attorneys. You should be too.
Prior to commencing construction, our clients submitted plans to the Architectural Control Committee of the Regency Park Owners Association. Much to their surprise, they recived no response. Despite additional approval requests, the HOA's silence continued for months. Frustrated by the lack of response, and after reviewing the ACC's deadline for approving plans, our clients decided to proceed with construction.
Almost immediately, they and their contractor were accosted by a member of the Regency Park HOA Board, who verbally demanded that they cease with construction. So they did. Two days later, the contractor returned to the home to retrieve his tools and equipment. That same day, the HOA scrambled its legal team, and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the construction -- which by that time had already been voluntarily abated. The other portion of the HOA's suit sought a declaration that the pool was not permitted without ACC approval.
After various meetings, the plans were ultimately approved, and our clients were allowed to complete the pool with the blessing of the HOA. They did, and many of the flooding issues have been resolved.
Case closed...or so they thought.
Several months later, the Association came calling. This time they wanted their attorneys' fees, and lots of them. When the homeowners balked, the Association set the case for trial.
On the day before the trial, the homeowners realized that they need the help of an attorney with experince litigating HOA issues. So they called me.
After reviewing the CCRs, I noticed a provision requiring that disputes between the HOA and property owners within the Regency Park subdivision be referred to arbitration. Based upon this requirement, I filed a Motion seeking to compel arbitration, instead of trial in the Bexar County District Court. Judge Andy Mireles considered the Motion, and sided with our clients. Thus, the dispute has been referred to arbitration, where an arbitrator will determine whether the HOA is entitled to its fees, even though it never obtained a Judgment in the suit it filed. We are confident in the property owners' position, and disappointed that the HOA has decided to expend costs and attorneys' fees solely in pursuit of attorneys' fees.
Many times HOAs and their Board Members use the judicial system to advance personal grudges or to "flex their muscle." The laws relating to HOA litigation and restrictive covenants are complex and often favor the HOAs. If you believe that you are the victim of HOA abuses, you should immediately contact an attorney experienced with HOA litigation, and the Texas Property Code. The HOAs are represented by experienced and knowledgable attorneys. You should be too.
Thứ Năm, 26 tháng 3, 2009
Senator Royce West Files Multiple HOA Bills in the Texas Legislature
On February 18, 2009, Senator Royce West (D - Dallas) filed a flurry of bills that would impact the way HOAs transact business. The following is a brief summary of the Bills. I will post updates as the bills work their way through the 81st Regular Session of the Texas Legislature.
SB 234 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their association. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners can generate considerable acrimony and expense. This bill attempts to restore balance to the relationship between homeowner's association (HOA) boards and individual homeowners.
As proposed, S.B. 234 requires a court to allow the prevailing party in an action on a breach of a restrictive covenant reasonable attorney's fees and cost and claims. S.B. 234 requires the seller of residential property that is subject to membership in a property owner's association to provide certain information and notice to a buyer, including a resale certificate. S.B. 236 sets forth certain requirements relating to the content of and fees for such resale certificates.
SB 235 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. Developers often retain control over most aspects of an HOA while construction and sale of houses within the development is still ongoing.
As proposed, S.B. 235 strikes a balance between the developer's interest in the ultimate completion of a development and the need to prevent discriminatory housing practices. The bill provides that a restrictive covenant providing a right of first refusal for the sale or lease of a residential unit or residential lot in favor of the HOA or its members is void.
SB 236 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, individual homeowners have become frustrated with what they perceive as unduly restrictive HOA board policies regarding the installation of solar energy devices.
S.B. 236 strikes a balance between the community's interest in maintaining consistent aesthetics, and the freedom of individual homeowners to make sensible investments in clean energy.
As proposed, S.B. 236 prohibits a property owners' association from imposing or enforcing a restriction against solar energy devices, except under certain listed circumstances. S.B. 236 provides that restrictions that violate the provisions of this Act are void.
SB 237 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Many homeowners lack confidence in the conduct of board elections. Additionally, some HOAs operate under extremely cumbersome provisions for the amendment of their declarations. S.B. 237 attempts to restore confidence in the HOA election process and to provide a uniform standard for amending a declaration.
As proposed, S.B. 237 provides that a declaration may be amended on a vote of 67 percent of the total votes allocated to owners of property in the subdivision, unless the declaration creating the subdivision specified a lower percentage. It also establishes that the right to vote in board elections cannot be limited and states the conditions under which a person is disqualified from serving on the board. The bill requires the use of a neutral third party to count election ballots under certain circumstances and sets forth the requirements for the conduct of elections. S.B. 237 sets forth certain property owners' associations to which certain provisions of this Act do not apply. S.B. 237 prohibits a person from serving on the board of an HOA if the person has been convicted of certain offenses and requires an HOA to obtain criminal history information on candidates for HOA boards. Finally, S.B. 237 provides for the use and content of an association's bylaws.
SB 238 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Often, they feel frustrated in attempts to challenge an HOA board decision due to a lack of information. S.B. 238 attempts to restore balance to the relationship between HOA boards and individual homeowners.
As proposed, S.B. 238 sets forth remedies available to a homeowner if an HOA board fails to comply with its statutory duty to make its books and records, including financial records, reasonably available to a homeowner.
SB 239 by West
(HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their HOAs. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the board for violations of deed restrictions. The manner in which the board notifies the individual homeowner is at times the subject of some disagreement.
As proposed, S.B. 239 sets forth the required content and manner of delivery of a notice of enforcement action by a property owners' association . The bill also requires that the homeowner be given a date certain by which a violation must be cured.
SB 240 by West
(HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the board for violations of deed restrictions. The actions of some HOA boards can cause such fines to become insurmountable burdens for the homeowner. Additionally, because foreclosure is a remedy available to an HOA board for delinquent assessments, the order of application by the HOA board of payments received from a homeowner is a critical issue.
As proposed, S.B. 240 sets forth certain requirements and restrictions regarding a fine imposed by a property owners' association. The bill also requires a property owners' association to adopt reasonable guidelines for an alternative payment schedule, sets forth provisions relating to the priority of application of payments by a homeowner, and sets forth time limitations relating to collection actions against a homeowner. S.B. 240 repeals Section 202.004(c), Property Code, relating to an assessment of civil damages by a court for the violation of a restrictive covenant.
SB 241 by West
HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the HOA board for violations of deed restrictions. Such fines, when combined with assessments and legal fees, can quickly become insurmountable for a homeowner, ultimately resulting in foreclosure. Currently, a homeowner is not guaranteed access to the courts in a proceeding for the foreclosure of an assessment lien.
As proposed, S.B. 241 requires a property owners' association to obtain a court judgment foreclosing an assessment lien and providing for issuance of an order of sale before the foreclosure of the lien, unless judicial foreclosure is waived in writing by the homeowner.
SB 234 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their association. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners can generate considerable acrimony and expense. This bill attempts to restore balance to the relationship between homeowner's association (HOA) boards and individual homeowners.
As proposed, S.B. 234 requires a court to allow the prevailing party in an action on a breach of a restrictive covenant reasonable attorney's fees and cost and claims. S.B. 234 requires the seller of residential property that is subject to membership in a property owner's association to provide certain information and notice to a buyer, including a resale certificate. S.B. 236 sets forth certain requirements relating to the content of and fees for such resale certificates.
SB 235 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. Developers often retain control over most aspects of an HOA while construction and sale of houses within the development is still ongoing.
As proposed, S.B. 235 strikes a balance between the developer's interest in the ultimate completion of a development and the need to prevent discriminatory housing practices. The bill provides that a restrictive covenant providing a right of first refusal for the sale or lease of a residential unit or residential lot in favor of the HOA or its members is void.
SB 236 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, individual homeowners have become frustrated with what they perceive as unduly restrictive HOA board policies regarding the installation of solar energy devices.
S.B. 236 strikes a balance between the community's interest in maintaining consistent aesthetics, and the freedom of individual homeowners to make sensible investments in clean energy.
As proposed, S.B. 236 prohibits a property owners' association from imposing or enforcing a restriction against solar energy devices, except under certain listed circumstances. S.B. 236 provides that restrictions that violate the provisions of this Act are void.
SB 237 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Many homeowners lack confidence in the conduct of board elections. Additionally, some HOAs operate under extremely cumbersome provisions for the amendment of their declarations. S.B. 237 attempts to restore confidence in the HOA election process and to provide a uniform standard for amending a declaration.
As proposed, S.B. 237 provides that a declaration may be amended on a vote of 67 percent of the total votes allocated to owners of property in the subdivision, unless the declaration creating the subdivision specified a lower percentage. It also establishes that the right to vote in board elections cannot be limited and states the conditions under which a person is disqualified from serving on the board. The bill requires the use of a neutral third party to count election ballots under certain circumstances and sets forth the requirements for the conduct of elections. S.B. 237 sets forth certain property owners' associations to which certain provisions of this Act do not apply. S.B. 237 prohibits a person from serving on the board of an HOA if the person has been convicted of certain offenses and requires an HOA to obtain criminal history information on candidates for HOA boards. Finally, S.B. 237 provides for the use and content of an association's bylaws.
SB 238 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Often, they feel frustrated in attempts to challenge an HOA board decision due to a lack of information. S.B. 238 attempts to restore balance to the relationship between HOA boards and individual homeowners.
As proposed, S.B. 238 sets forth remedies available to a homeowner if an HOA board fails to comply with its statutory duty to make its books and records, including financial records, reasonably available to a homeowner.
SB 239 by West
(HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their HOAs. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the board for violations of deed restrictions. The manner in which the board notifies the individual homeowner is at times the subject of some disagreement.
As proposed, S.B. 239 sets forth the required content and manner of delivery of a notice of enforcement action by a property owners' association . The bill also requires that the homeowner be given a date certain by which a violation must be cured.
SB 240 by West
(HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the board for violations of deed restrictions. The actions of some HOA boards can cause such fines to become insurmountable burdens for the homeowner. Additionally, because foreclosure is a remedy available to an HOA board for delinquent assessments, the order of application by the HOA board of payments received from a homeowner is a critical issue.
As proposed, S.B. 240 sets forth certain requirements and restrictions regarding a fine imposed by a property owners' association. The bill also requires a property owners' association to adopt reasonable guidelines for an alternative payment schedule, sets forth provisions relating to the priority of application of payments by a homeowner, and sets forth time limitations relating to collection actions against a homeowner. S.B. 240 repeals Section 202.004(c), Property Code, relating to an assessment of civil damages by a court for the violation of a restrictive covenant.
SB 241 by West
HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the HOA board for violations of deed restrictions. Such fines, when combined with assessments and legal fees, can quickly become insurmountable for a homeowner, ultimately resulting in foreclosure. Currently, a homeowner is not guaranteed access to the courts in a proceeding for the foreclosure of an assessment lien.
As proposed, S.B. 241 requires a property owners' association to obtain a court judgment foreclosing an assessment lien and providing for issuance of an order of sale before the foreclosure of the lien, unless judicial foreclosure is waived in writing by the homeowner.
Thứ Năm, 8 tháng 1, 2009
San Antonio Residents Fire Back At Homeowners Association and Builder
A group of residents of the West Oaks Estates subdivision in San Antonio, Texas are fighting back against what they believe is an unmeritorious attack by their homeowners association, and the builder/developer who controls the HOA. In a counter-suit filed in Bexar County District Court in San Antonio, Texas, the residents have accused the West Oak Estates HOA, Inc., and McMillin Development of breach of contract, real estate fruad, violations of the covenants, and conversion.
The counter-suit, which was filed in response to a series of suits initiated by the builder and HOA against 19 families who purchased their properties in the subdivision PRIOR TO the time that the builder recorded the covenants/restrictions. In the original suit the HOA and builder seek a judicial declaration that the properties are subject to the declaration of covenants and restrictions("CCRs") and to mandatory membership, despite the fact that the builder dropped the ball in timely filing the CCRs with respect to the residents' particular unit of the subdivision.
In the counter-suit, the residents deny the applicability of the restrictive covenants to their properties. In addition, they have alleged that membership in the HOA is not mandatory for them. In support of that argument, the residents have argued that the law in Texas, and even before Texas or the United States were established, provides that a covenant does not run with the land unless it "touches and concerns the land." It is clear from records recorded with the Bexar County Clerk that the restrictive covenants applicable to the West Oaks Estates HOA were not filed until AFTER each of the Counter-Plaintiffs purchased their properties.
The residents are represented by San Antonio attorney Trey Wilson, who has handled HOA litigation before both on behalf of and against homeowners associations. Wilson maintains that the West Oaks Estates HOA is not a proper Plaintiff in the lawsuit because there is no membership in the HOA by his clients. "Restrictive Covenants are treated by Courts as contracts, and since it is undisputed that my clients are not members of the HOA, there is no contractual privity between them and the HOA which would allow the HOA to bring this suit," said Wilson.
There is currently no trial date in the case.
The counter-suit, which was filed in response to a series of suits initiated by the builder and HOA against 19 families who purchased their properties in the subdivision PRIOR TO the time that the builder recorded the covenants/restrictions. In the original suit the HOA and builder seek a judicial declaration that the properties are subject to the declaration of covenants and restrictions("CCRs") and to mandatory membership, despite the fact that the builder dropped the ball in timely filing the CCRs with respect to the residents' particular unit of the subdivision.
In the counter-suit, the residents deny the applicability of the restrictive covenants to their properties. In addition, they have alleged that membership in the HOA is not mandatory for them. In support of that argument, the residents have argued that the law in Texas, and even before Texas or the United States were established, provides that a covenant does not run with the land unless it "touches and concerns the land." It is clear from records recorded with the Bexar County Clerk that the restrictive covenants applicable to the West Oaks Estates HOA were not filed until AFTER each of the Counter-Plaintiffs purchased their properties.
The residents are represented by San Antonio attorney Trey Wilson, who has handled HOA litigation before both on behalf of and against homeowners associations. Wilson maintains that the West Oaks Estates HOA is not a proper Plaintiff in the lawsuit because there is no membership in the HOA by his clients. "Restrictive Covenants are treated by Courts as contracts, and since it is undisputed that my clients are not members of the HOA, there is no contractual privity between them and the HOA which would allow the HOA to bring this suit," said Wilson.
There is currently no trial date in the case.
Thứ Tư, 7 tháng 1, 2009
New York Attorney General's Open Letter About Homeowners Associations -- Though Not Controlling In Texas, Interesting Nonetheless
HOW TO HANDLE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Members of homeowners associations who are unhappy with how their association is acting (or not acting) often do not know what they can do. This paper is designed to tell such homeowners about some of their rights. In most cases there is no government agency that can help unhappy owners who are having problems with their homeowners association (HOA). The Attorney General's office regulates only the offer and sale of real estate securities (which includes interests in HOAs). It generally does not become involved in owners’ problems with boards of directors after the sponsor is no longer in control of the board. However, this office may be able to help you if the sponsor of the HOA is not keeping the commitments which it
made in the offering plan.
As you may know, a homeowners association is an organization established to govern a private community. Typically it owns and manages some common property for owners of private houses or condominium units. By buying a lot and/or home, an owner automatically becomes a member of the HOA of which it is a part. Before offering to sell memberships, a sponsor must file an offering plan with the Attorney General if sales of individual homes, lots or condo units are involved, unless it is exempted by law or regulation.
Most HOAs are corporations established under the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law. An HOA is similar to other corporations -- it is governed by a board of directors elected by the members and a set of rules called by-laws. Books and records of financial transactions must be kept, taxes paid, and certain services provided to members. Usually the board has an annual budget prepared to estimate expenses, and then assesses each member a share of the costs.
HOAs vary greatly in the services which they provide. The developer establishes the scope of the association initially by setting out the services and expenses
in the association's budget. The declaration provides the means by which the association can enforce the members' obligations and the by-laws set forth the procedures for running the association. Generally, the developer controls the association at first and relinquishes control to the individual owners some years later.
The primary purpose of the association is to protect and preserve the value of the privately and commonly used property. In furtherance of that goal there may be
restrictions concerning pets; requirements as to fence height; or limitations on the number of cars allowed in the driveways. These rules often conflict with the desires of an individual owner but exist for the general good of the entire community. In addition, the association may have the responsibility to repair and maintain portions of the community, such as roads, roofs, and recreation facilities.
The individual owner in a homeowners association has the opportunity to become involved and participate in the on-going affairs of the community, and the
responsibility to assure that the association's actions conform to the by-laws and
declaration.
Typical Problems
Perhaps your HOA seems dormant -- you never receive notice of meetings, nor are you given financial statements which explain how the assessments you pay are being spent. Perhaps repairs are neglected and snow not removed as quickly as you
expect. Or a nuisance created by your neighbor is allowed to continue. Maybe one owner is allowed to build a deck and another is refused permission to do the same thing. These problems may arise while the association is still under the developer's
control. Be aware that the HOA is an independent body whose functions must not be
merged with the corporate functions of the developer. The developer creates and controls the association initially, but has a duty to protect the investment of the members and to respond to the needs of the association with a sense of fairness and good faith. From the time of the first closing with a member, the developer must abide by the terms of the offering plan, the by-laws of the association and the declaration in the same way that a later independent board must.
Get the Facts
The way to begin dealing with your problems with the board is to understand what rights you have. There are two kinds of research to do.
A. Check the documents for your HOA -- the declaration, certificate of incorporation, and by-laws. Copies of these document should be available from the board of directors or developer; a copy of the declaration and by-laws is in your offering plan.
These documents should include information on:
. what the HOA is responsible for
. how the declaration can be amended (including percentage required)
. how members of the board of directors are elected
. how members of the board can be removed
. the powers and duties of the board of directors
. how annual owner meetings are called
. how special meetings are called
. what remedies exist when a homeowner defaults on his or her obligations including maintenance charges.
B. Look at the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, the New York State law which
governs the establishment of most homeowners associations. The decisions made by
courts in cases involving the law are the case law which interprets the statute.
The Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (NPCL) is published as volume 37 of McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated ("McKinney's") which can be found in law libraries, many lawyers' offices, and in certain public libraries. Included in volume 37 are brief descriptions of case decisions. Important provisions of the NPCL and the sections in which they are found, include the following:
An HOA may have different classes of members. NPCL §601.
By-laws may be adopted, amended or repealed by the members with the appropriate vote, as provided in the by-laws. NPCL §602.
A meeting of the members is to be held annually. NPCL §603.
Members may call special meetings, as authorized in the certificate of
incorporation or by-laws, or if at least 10 percent of the members wish to do
so. NPCL §603.
Directors may be elected at a special meeting. NPCL §604.
Proxies (authorizing another member to vote for you) are permitted subject
to provision in the by laws or certificate of incorporation. NPCL §609.
Members may request that elections be supervised by an inspector. NPCL §610.
The right to vote may be limited by the certificate of incorporation or by-laws.
(For example, there may be no right to vote until the developer gives up
control.) NPCL §612.
Action may be taken on written consent of members without a meeting.
NPCL §614.
Members may demand to see the corporate books and records of accounts, minutes of meetings, and a list of members. NPCL §621.
A derivative action may be brought by five percent or more of the members of the corporation. NPCL §623.
Directors may be removed with or without cause, as determined by the certificate of incorporation and by-laws. NPCL §706.
Unless restricted by the certificate of incorporation or by-laws the board of
directors may take action without holding a meeting if all members of the
board consent in writing to the action. NPCL §708.
Certain actions by a director or officer constitute a conflict of interest, and
may be void or voidable if no disclosure was made. NPCL §715.
Directors and officers must act in good faith and with reasonable diligence,
care and skill. NPCL §717.
Directors and officers may be sued for misconduct. NPCL §720.
Resolving the Problem: First Approach
If the board of directors is not complying with its own certificate of incorporation, declaration or by-laws, you should point this out, in a tactful way, expressing the expectation that the matter will be corrected. Sometimes this is all that is needed to solve a problem. If a simple oral request to an officer of the board fails, you can write a letter. It should be factual, brief and not hostile. Keep copies of any letters that you send, and notes of telephone conversations (the date, time, who called whom, and the gist of the discussion) in case the matter is not quickly resolved. An attempt to influence the board is always more persuasive if it is presented by a significant number of members. If your problem is one that others are affected by, it is worth organizing the other members. If you do, and the attempt to change the situation is not successful, the organized group can always seek to elect new directors at the next annual meeting.
Retaining a Lawyer
If your efforts to resolve your problems with the board fail, you may want to
retain a private lawyer. The Attorney General's office cannot recommend private lawyers. However, a few points may be helpful.
. It is a good idea to select someone with experience in handling HOA problems. You
could begin looking for an attorney by talking with members in your or other HOAs and with attorneys in other specialty areas. If this fails, you may wish to contact a local Bar Association for referrals.
. Some lawyers will not charge for a single initial consultation or will charge only a minimal fee.
. Most lawyers will attempt to resolve any matter through negotiation before considering litigation, as litigation is costly and usually lengthy. Litigating against the board of an HOA, people with whom one lives, can also be very unpleasant.
In Conclusion
If serious problems arise, which the board is not addressing, such as a bank's
threatening to foreclose on a mortgage on the Association’s common property or a
developer's failing to pay common charges on unsold houses or lots, it is important to act swiftly. Often such problems can be resolved, relatively simply, if members organize and act right away. Remember that members of HOA boards are usually other owners who are serving without pay. They generally want to resolve problems and keep peace in the community.
Good luck!
Attorney General of the State of New York
Members of homeowners associations who are unhappy with how their association is acting (or not acting) often do not know what they can do. This paper is designed to tell such homeowners about some of their rights. In most cases there is no government agency that can help unhappy owners who are having problems with their homeowners association (HOA). The Attorney General's office regulates only the offer and sale of real estate securities (which includes interests in HOAs). It generally does not become involved in owners’ problems with boards of directors after the sponsor is no longer in control of the board. However, this office may be able to help you if the sponsor of the HOA is not keeping the commitments which it
made in the offering plan.
As you may know, a homeowners association is an organization established to govern a private community. Typically it owns and manages some common property for owners of private houses or condominium units. By buying a lot and/or home, an owner automatically becomes a member of the HOA of which it is a part. Before offering to sell memberships, a sponsor must file an offering plan with the Attorney General if sales of individual homes, lots or condo units are involved, unless it is exempted by law or regulation.
Most HOAs are corporations established under the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law. An HOA is similar to other corporations -- it is governed by a board of directors elected by the members and a set of rules called by-laws. Books and records of financial transactions must be kept, taxes paid, and certain services provided to members. Usually the board has an annual budget prepared to estimate expenses, and then assesses each member a share of the costs.
HOAs vary greatly in the services which they provide. The developer establishes the scope of the association initially by setting out the services and expenses
in the association's budget. The declaration provides the means by which the association can enforce the members' obligations and the by-laws set forth the procedures for running the association. Generally, the developer controls the association at first and relinquishes control to the individual owners some years later.
The primary purpose of the association is to protect and preserve the value of the privately and commonly used property. In furtherance of that goal there may be
restrictions concerning pets; requirements as to fence height; or limitations on the number of cars allowed in the driveways. These rules often conflict with the desires of an individual owner but exist for the general good of the entire community. In addition, the association may have the responsibility to repair and maintain portions of the community, such as roads, roofs, and recreation facilities.
The individual owner in a homeowners association has the opportunity to become involved and participate in the on-going affairs of the community, and the
responsibility to assure that the association's actions conform to the by-laws and
declaration.
Typical Problems
Perhaps your HOA seems dormant -- you never receive notice of meetings, nor are you given financial statements which explain how the assessments you pay are being spent. Perhaps repairs are neglected and snow not removed as quickly as you
expect. Or a nuisance created by your neighbor is allowed to continue. Maybe one owner is allowed to build a deck and another is refused permission to do the same thing. These problems may arise while the association is still under the developer's
control. Be aware that the HOA is an independent body whose functions must not be
merged with the corporate functions of the developer. The developer creates and controls the association initially, but has a duty to protect the investment of the members and to respond to the needs of the association with a sense of fairness and good faith. From the time of the first closing with a member, the developer must abide by the terms of the offering plan, the by-laws of the association and the declaration in the same way that a later independent board must.
Get the Facts
The way to begin dealing with your problems with the board is to understand what rights you have. There are two kinds of research to do.
A. Check the documents for your HOA -- the declaration, certificate of incorporation, and by-laws. Copies of these document should be available from the board of directors or developer; a copy of the declaration and by-laws is in your offering plan.
These documents should include information on:
. what the HOA is responsible for
. how the declaration can be amended (including percentage required)
. how members of the board of directors are elected
. how members of the board can be removed
. the powers and duties of the board of directors
. how annual owner meetings are called
. how special meetings are called
. what remedies exist when a homeowner defaults on his or her obligations including maintenance charges.
B. Look at the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, the New York State law which
governs the establishment of most homeowners associations. The decisions made by
courts in cases involving the law are the case law which interprets the statute.
The Not-for-Profit Corporation Law (NPCL) is published as volume 37 of McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated ("McKinney's") which can be found in law libraries, many lawyers' offices, and in certain public libraries. Included in volume 37 are brief descriptions of case decisions. Important provisions of the NPCL and the sections in which they are found, include the following:
An HOA may have different classes of members. NPCL §601.
By-laws may be adopted, amended or repealed by the members with the appropriate vote, as provided in the by-laws. NPCL §602.
A meeting of the members is to be held annually. NPCL §603.
Members may call special meetings, as authorized in the certificate of
incorporation or by-laws, or if at least 10 percent of the members wish to do
so. NPCL §603.
Directors may be elected at a special meeting. NPCL §604.
Proxies (authorizing another member to vote for you) are permitted subject
to provision in the by laws or certificate of incorporation. NPCL §609.
Members may request that elections be supervised by an inspector. NPCL §610.
The right to vote may be limited by the certificate of incorporation or by-laws.
(For example, there may be no right to vote until the developer gives up
control.) NPCL §612.
Action may be taken on written consent of members without a meeting.
NPCL §614.
Members may demand to see the corporate books and records of accounts, minutes of meetings, and a list of members. NPCL §621.
A derivative action may be brought by five percent or more of the members of the corporation. NPCL §623.
Directors may be removed with or without cause, as determined by the certificate of incorporation and by-laws. NPCL §706.
Unless restricted by the certificate of incorporation or by-laws the board of
directors may take action without holding a meeting if all members of the
board consent in writing to the action. NPCL §708.
Certain actions by a director or officer constitute a conflict of interest, and
may be void or voidable if no disclosure was made. NPCL §715.
Directors and officers must act in good faith and with reasonable diligence,
care and skill. NPCL §717.
Directors and officers may be sued for misconduct. NPCL §720.
Resolving the Problem: First Approach
If the board of directors is not complying with its own certificate of incorporation, declaration or by-laws, you should point this out, in a tactful way, expressing the expectation that the matter will be corrected. Sometimes this is all that is needed to solve a problem. If a simple oral request to an officer of the board fails, you can write a letter. It should be factual, brief and not hostile. Keep copies of any letters that you send, and notes of telephone conversations (the date, time, who called whom, and the gist of the discussion) in case the matter is not quickly resolved. An attempt to influence the board is always more persuasive if it is presented by a significant number of members. If your problem is one that others are affected by, it is worth organizing the other members. If you do, and the attempt to change the situation is not successful, the organized group can always seek to elect new directors at the next annual meeting.
Retaining a Lawyer
If your efforts to resolve your problems with the board fail, you may want to
retain a private lawyer. The Attorney General's office cannot recommend private lawyers. However, a few points may be helpful.
. It is a good idea to select someone with experience in handling HOA problems. You
could begin looking for an attorney by talking with members in your or other HOAs and with attorneys in other specialty areas. If this fails, you may wish to contact a local Bar Association for referrals.
. Some lawyers will not charge for a single initial consultation or will charge only a minimal fee.
. Most lawyers will attempt to resolve any matter through negotiation before considering litigation, as litigation is costly and usually lengthy. Litigating against the board of an HOA, people with whom one lives, can also be very unpleasant.
In Conclusion
If serious problems arise, which the board is not addressing, such as a bank's
threatening to foreclose on a mortgage on the Association’s common property or a
developer's failing to pay common charges on unsold houses or lots, it is important to act swiftly. Often such problems can be resolved, relatively simply, if members organize and act right away. Remember that members of HOA boards are usually other owners who are serving without pay. They generally want to resolve problems and keep peace in the community.
Good luck!
Attorney General of the State of New York
Thứ Hai, 29 tháng 12, 2008
San Antonio HOA Sells Disabled Couple's Home
From WOAI.com
Every day is a struggle for Dan and Elaine Lambert. Dan has a traumatic brain injury and is partially paralyzed. He was struck by a train while working for the railroad. Since the accident, he's had two strokes and four heart attacks. Elaine says she went for six or seven weeks with open sores on her legs. She suffers from a disease that causes painful sores and swelling in her legs and has bouts of severe depression.
With their belongings already packed after getting an eviction notice from the new owner, Dan and Elaine each take some of the blame. The couple says the HOA dues were simply not a priority as they dealt with getting through their illnesses. They say certified letters from the HOA's attorney went unopened or thrown out because they thought it was junk mail.
Still, they think the HOA has gone too far. "There's no way in hell this association should do this to retired people or disabled people," Dan told us.
Homeowners' association usually don't do sell homes of those who owe them money. Instead, if you don't pay your dues, the association slaps a lien on your house. That way you have to pay up before you can sell it.
Instead filing a lien and leaving it at that, the Heritage Hills HOA took the unusual step of foreclosing and selling the house. The Lambert's home sold at a public auction on the steps of the Bexar County Courthouse. The house valued at $156,000 sold for only $2,200. That is the amount the Lamberts owed after late fees, attorneys fees and interest were added.
Tom Newton is the HOA attorney who sold the Lambert's home. "I'm not kicking anybody out of their house," he explained to the Trouble Shooters. "What I'm doing is holding them to the obligation they accepted when they bought the property."
Trouble Shooter Brian Collister asked Newton, "[Do] you feel comfortable kicking a disabled family out of their home for a few hundred dollars in HOA fees?"
Newton replied, "I feel comfortable in taking those steps necessary to enforce my client's legal rights, and if that means that ultimately somebody may go through this foreclosure process, it's unfortunate, but it is a consequence of their own making." During all of this, no one with the HOA or its attorney ever picked up the phone and called or came to the Lambert's home. They never simply knocked on the door and tried to talk to them about why they were not paying their fees.
Collister asked Newton about this; "Don't you think if you're going to take their home away from them you should at least go talk to them face to face?"
"No, I don't," Newton answered, "I don't, and I'll tell you there are some people out there who have whatever sort of issues they have. They become violent when you approach them about their shortcomings or failure to abide by their obligations, and I think it is a dangerous situation."
The Lambert's say they're not dangerous or violent. They're just surprised that a homeowners association can go so far because they owe so little. The HOA says it sent the Lamberts certified letters during the three years they did not pay their dues, and they had plenty of opportunities to pay up and keep their house.
Wednesday, the Lamberts sit down with the HOA and the investment company that bought the house. They're going to try and come up with a way where the Lamberts can keep their home. We'll let you know what happens.
Every day is a struggle for Dan and Elaine Lambert. Dan has a traumatic brain injury and is partially paralyzed. He was struck by a train while working for the railroad. Since the accident, he's had two strokes and four heart attacks. Elaine says she went for six or seven weeks with open sores on her legs. She suffers from a disease that causes painful sores and swelling in her legs and has bouts of severe depression.
With their belongings already packed after getting an eviction notice from the new owner, Dan and Elaine each take some of the blame. The couple says the HOA dues were simply not a priority as they dealt with getting through their illnesses. They say certified letters from the HOA's attorney went unopened or thrown out because they thought it was junk mail.
Still, they think the HOA has gone too far. "There's no way in hell this association should do this to retired people or disabled people," Dan told us.
Homeowners' association usually don't do sell homes of those who owe them money. Instead, if you don't pay your dues, the association slaps a lien on your house. That way you have to pay up before you can sell it.
Instead filing a lien and leaving it at that, the Heritage Hills HOA took the unusual step of foreclosing and selling the house. The Lambert's home sold at a public auction on the steps of the Bexar County Courthouse. The house valued at $156,000 sold for only $2,200. That is the amount the Lamberts owed after late fees, attorneys fees and interest were added.
Tom Newton is the HOA attorney who sold the Lambert's home. "I'm not kicking anybody out of their house," he explained to the Trouble Shooters. "What I'm doing is holding them to the obligation they accepted when they bought the property."
Trouble Shooter Brian Collister asked Newton, "[Do] you feel comfortable kicking a disabled family out of their home for a few hundred dollars in HOA fees?"
Newton replied, "I feel comfortable in taking those steps necessary to enforce my client's legal rights, and if that means that ultimately somebody may go through this foreclosure process, it's unfortunate, but it is a consequence of their own making." During all of this, no one with the HOA or its attorney ever picked up the phone and called or came to the Lambert's home. They never simply knocked on the door and tried to talk to them about why they were not paying their fees.
Collister asked Newton about this; "Don't you think if you're going to take their home away from them you should at least go talk to them face to face?"
"No, I don't," Newton answered, "I don't, and I'll tell you there are some people out there who have whatever sort of issues they have. They become violent when you approach them about their shortcomings or failure to abide by their obligations, and I think it is a dangerous situation."
The Lambert's say they're not dangerous or violent. They're just surprised that a homeowners association can go so far because they owe so little. The HOA says it sent the Lamberts certified letters during the three years they did not pay their dues, and they had plenty of opportunities to pay up and keep their house.
Wednesday, the Lamberts sit down with the HOA and the investment company that bought the house. They're going to try and come up with a way where the Lamberts can keep their home. We'll let you know what happens.
West Oaks Estates HOA and Builder File Suit Against Non-Member Residents Seeking to Compel Them to Join HOA
On November 16, 2008, the West Oak Estates Homeowners Assocaition, Inc. ("HOA"), and McMillin Texas Development (a susidiary of McMillian Homes) filed at least 15 lawsuits in Bexar County District Court against families residing in Unit 2 of San Antonio's West Oak Estates subdivision. The suits, which are identical, were served upon the residents in the days immediately proceeding Thanksgiving -- putting a damper on the holiday spirits of may of the residents of the West Oak Estates subdivision. San Antonio attorney Trey Wilson has been retained to represent 12 of the families, and several others who were not sued, but who are similarly-situated to the Defendants. Wilson has represented homeowners associations and those individuals adverse to them in a variety of lawsuits.
The West Oak Estates HOA lawsuit arises from the fact that the Defendant households are not members of the homeowners association because they purchased their homes prior to the time that McMillin annexed Unit 2 into the Restrictive Covenants. That is, McMillin sold at least 19 homes in the subdivision BEFORE it recorded its Declaration of Covenants, Codes and Restrictions ("CCRs") with the Bexar County Clerk. "Because these homes were sold prior to the developer recording the CCRs (on May 26, 2006), these properties are not burdened by the CCRs, and my clients are neither bound by the CCRs or subject to mandatory membership in the HOA" said Wilson. "it is unfortuante that the HOA and builder have resorted to litigation, as these type of suits generally result in discord between neighbors and a loss of tranquility and goodwill among neighbors." In 2007 Wilson filed suit in Medina County, Texas against the developers of the Valentine Ranch subdivision on grounds that their property owners association was not formed or incorporated until after many of that development's residents purchased their properties and began payment of POA dues and assessments. The 2007 lawsuit was settled at mediation, and resulted in the issuance of Amended CCRs, a Supplemental Declaration, and several changes in the composition of the POA Board.
McMillin recognized its error as far back as July 2006, and began a campaign of letter writing and negotiations seeking to recruit the non-members to voluntarily join the West Oak Estates HOA. When these negotiations failed, it resorted to litigation, and filed suit seeking to have the Court declare that the non-members are subject to the CCRs and subject to mandatory HOA membership. Although the HOA is a named Plaintiff in the suit, the association remains under developer control, and 2of its 3 Board Directors are McMillin employees. The other Board member is a subdivision resident who was appointed by McMillin. The HOA has claimed in the lawsuit that it is a "beneficiary of the contract bewteen Defendants and McMillin."
Wilson maintains that, in addition to several defenses to the builder and HOA's lawsuit, the non-members maintain several affirmative claims against both the HOA and the builder arising from broken promises, breach of the CCRs, and illegal collection of dues and assessments from the non-members. "These claims will be addressed by way of the non-members' counterclaims against the Plaintiffs, and a third-party claim against the HOA's management company."
More to follow as the suit progresses...
The West Oak Estates HOA lawsuit arises from the fact that the Defendant households are not members of the homeowners association because they purchased their homes prior to the time that McMillin annexed Unit 2 into the Restrictive Covenants. That is, McMillin sold at least 19 homes in the subdivision BEFORE it recorded its Declaration of Covenants, Codes and Restrictions ("CCRs") with the Bexar County Clerk. "Because these homes were sold prior to the developer recording the CCRs (on May 26, 2006), these properties are not burdened by the CCRs, and my clients are neither bound by the CCRs or subject to mandatory membership in the HOA" said Wilson. "it is unfortuante that the HOA and builder have resorted to litigation, as these type of suits generally result in discord between neighbors and a loss of tranquility and goodwill among neighbors." In 2007 Wilson filed suit in Medina County, Texas against the developers of the Valentine Ranch subdivision on grounds that their property owners association was not formed or incorporated until after many of that development's residents purchased their properties and began payment of POA dues and assessments. The 2007 lawsuit was settled at mediation, and resulted in the issuance of Amended CCRs, a Supplemental Declaration, and several changes in the composition of the POA Board.
McMillin recognized its error as far back as July 2006, and began a campaign of letter writing and negotiations seeking to recruit the non-members to voluntarily join the West Oak Estates HOA. When these negotiations failed, it resorted to litigation, and filed suit seeking to have the Court declare that the non-members are subject to the CCRs and subject to mandatory HOA membership. Although the HOA is a named Plaintiff in the suit, the association remains under developer control, and 2of its 3 Board Directors are McMillin employees. The other Board member is a subdivision resident who was appointed by McMillin. The HOA has claimed in the lawsuit that it is a "beneficiary of the contract bewteen Defendants and McMillin."
Wilson maintains that, in addition to several defenses to the builder and HOA's lawsuit, the non-members maintain several affirmative claims against both the HOA and the builder arising from broken promises, breach of the CCRs, and illegal collection of dues and assessments from the non-members. "These claims will be addressed by way of the non-members' counterclaims against the Plaintiffs, and a third-party claim against the HOA's management company."
More to follow as the suit progresses...
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote: As a real estate lawyer in San Antonio -- and one who frequently deals with rea...
-
San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote: Sometimes buyers discover issues, problems or defects in real property after cl... -
San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote: As a San Antonio lawyer with an active real estate law practice, I routinely fie...
-
San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote: Many boilerplate/form/template contracts providing for the sale of Texas real est... -
San Antonio Texas Real Estate Attorney Trey Wilson wrote: As a San Antonio lawyer with an active real estate practice , I am frequently qu...
-
The office of the US Attorney, District of Arizona, reports that a Tucson, AZ man was found guilty of real estate fraud. Dino Sisneros, 42,...
-
As reported by various news publishers, A South Florida resident, formerly from Dublin, OH, was charged with a $13.8 million dollar real est...
-
Our law firm has been helping the wrongfully accused in Bexar County, San Antonio and in Texas. We believe that every person deserves a fair...
-
Last March, a federal jury returned guilty verdicts in United States District Court in Austin, Texas against five current and former Austin ...
