Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn HOA litigation. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn HOA litigation. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

HOA Embezzlement Prevention Bill (HB 3803) To Be Heard Today

San Antonio HOA Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:


State Representative Ruth Jones-McClendon's HB 3803 is set for public hearing today before the House Committee on Business and Industry

As I previously wrote, the Bill (filed on 3/8/13) seeks to prevent Board-member fraud and embezzlement of HOA funds through a series of money management procedures and local government regulation. Pundits have predicted substantial testimony concerning the Bill.

It should be an interesting day, as sentiments on both sides of the Bill are strong. Among the most important concerns regarding the Bill are its financial implications upon the Texas Attorney General, cities and counties who would be granted regulatory authority over HOAs. According to the Fiscal Note prepared by the Legislative Budget Board, local governments, including the City of Houston, are uncertain about the financial impact of this new-found authority. 
  

Thứ Bảy, 18 tháng 2, 2012

Judge, not ref, settles HOA hoop feud


More HOA litigation hijinks. This time, Association money was spent to litigate a homeowners right to keep her basketball hoop. According to reports out of Omaha, the goal-tending Mom "won a slam dunk victory in court."

Read the full story here: Judge, not ref, settles hoop feud - Omaha.com

Thứ Bảy, 25 tháng 7, 2009

Subdivision residents vote to oust HOA board

A neighborhood association dispute is headed to court after homeowners met and voted to remove the association's board of directors and install a new and larger board.

Homeowners in the Ventura and Spring Meadows subdivisions in northeast Bexar County met June 30 and voted 221-1 to remove the association's current board members — President Lisa Pfeiffer, Vice President Vicki Pawelek and Secretary Kathleen Vargas — after a tumultuous eight months that saw the board close its monthly meetings to the public, remove lifeguards from the community pool and discontinue participation in the county Citizens On Patrol program.

The group of homeowners called a special meeting and gathered at Northeast Church of Christ on FM 78 and voted to remove the three board members, to enlarge the board to five members and to fill the board with a new slate of board members.

But attorney Susan Rice, speaking on behalf of the Ventura Homeowners Association, told those gathered that their votes didn't count and that any action taken that evening would end up in court.

“Basically, it's the corporation's position that this is not a properly called meeting, pursuant to the governing documents; nor are the votes that are going to be taken proper.

“It does not mean that tomorrow morning your votes are going to be honored,” she said, adding, “Those are going to be going through the court system and we'll be dealing with those through the courts.”

But Lanny Worel, one of a group of organizers of the special meeting, disagreed.

“We feel that this meeting is lawfully called and … in compliance with association bylaws, and that any and all business that takes place here tonight will be valid and binding,” Worel said.

The association board tried to file a restraining order to keep the meeting from happening, but a county judge found no validity in the association's complaint and allowed the meeting to go forth.

“In November, the board of directors closed the board meetings to all of us, none of us could go,” Worel said. “It was three months later that (they) began sending out invitations. Without an invitation, you couldn't attend.”

Worel was one of five Ventura/Spring Meadows homeowners elected to the board during the meeting. Also elected to the board were Tony Jones, Evelyn Nolde, Stephen Turner and Gary Siegel.

Worel said the board has done everything in its power to stop the group from meeting, despite the group's gathering of enough signatures to properly call a special meeting of the association. The board told Worel's group that the petition contained invalid signatures, but refused to give the group a list of any faulty signatures.

The group decided in May to call the special meeting, assured they had enough valid signatures to do so. A letter dated May 15 was sent to the board, citing articles and sections of the Ventura bylaws that allowed for such a meeting to take place.

Once a quorum was established at the meeting, a motion was made to remove all three current board members from their positions. A ballot vote was taken and the motion passed, 221-1. The next motion sought expansion of the board from three to five members, which was approved 223-0. Names of seven homeowners were put on a ballot and the five were selected.

Residents openly questioned why the board meetings were closed, and asked who was responsible for monitoring the board's actions.

Worel explained that the homeowner associations are governed under the non-profit corporation act and that board meetings are not mandated to be open, “but what we go by is the (people) who have been here for over 20 years, board meetings have always been open except for a short time in 2007, when they simply didn't hold meetings.”

Jones, a subdivision resident since 1999, said, “If you pay your dues, you should have a say in how your money is spent. If they take that away from you, you should also be allowed to say, ‘If I don't have a say, then why am I paying you?'”

Homeowners expressed anger over the board's decision to cancel its lifeguard contract at the pool and replace it with a camera-security system.

“I've never seen a camera give CPR,” Jones said. “By the time you see it on camera, what's happened has happened.”

“It was a total three-person decision,” Worel said. “It was not our decision to do away with the lifeguards and put a web-based camera in there for security.”

The pool was closed for a period of time following a June 11 investigation by the San Antonio Metropolitan Health Department. A resident who spoke during the meeting said she called the health district on June 8 following a weekend swim.

“I was disappointed with the condition of the water, it was filthy,” said resident Yvonne Rex. “That was Saturday; on Monday morning, I called the Metro Health Department and filed a complaint, because they (association management) didn't seem too concerned.

“They officially closed it down (June 11) because of the condition of the water. Come to find out, the filter was broken ... but my question is, how long had the filter been broken, and they were still allowing people to use the pool, with that disgusting water?” she added.

Lifeguards in neighboring subdivisions commonly perform hourly or bi-hourly water sampling in addition to enforcing hourly safety breaks and monitoring pool attendance.

Worel said that since the June 30 meeting, both sides have agreed to enter into mediation.

“We don't know where it will go from here; all we can do is do our best and then carry on,” he said.

By: Jeff B. Flinn, Northeast Herald

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Bài đăng phổ biến