SW Austin HOAs (West, Howe, Lawn: credit, lawyer, realty)

[Trainwreck20]

Since this is such a popular topic, I did a quick search and pulled up a neighborhood association in SW Austin called 'OHAN' (Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods). It has lots of links and good info, although you have to dig to find some of it.

Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods (OHAN)

Since I live in the Villages at Western Oaks, I looked through the latest HOA rules (http://www.newvillages.org/governingdocs3.pdf, starting on pg. 118). This is a very brief summary, and possible incorrect since I just jotted down what it looks like is meant, but it gives an idea of what the HOA construction looks like.

A few notes:

• The normal assessment is limited to $120 + 5% per year, starting in 1993. It is capped at $250 this year;
• I do not see any tranfer fees;
• Interest on late payment is capped at 6%, but other fees may apply if it is really late;
• Developer is pretty much out of the picture now, essentially all homeowners;
• 3/4 vote to change or eliminate HOA rules.

Article I - Definitions
Article II - Additions to the property

• This basically says the developer can develop property in the original area, up to 2022. There is very little, if any, left in the 'original area'.
• In addition, it contains a paragraph indicating what happens is two HOAs merge, for whatever reason (don't see that happening).

Article III - General Restrictions

1. Exterior antennae/satelllite dish must be approved;
2. Lots may not be subdivided;
3. Signage requirements (no flashing, blinking, noise, neon, etc.);
4. No visible rubbish, no offensive odors, garbage can out of sight;
5. No noise devices (other than alarms) and no 'offensive' or 'detrimental' noises allowd (kind vague);
6. Construction of Improvements approval (floor plans, elevations, etc...really meant to apply to developer);
7. Repairs to improvements (buildings must be maintained in good repair);
8. Alterations and Removals (need approval);
9. Roofing Materials (needs approval);
10. Underground Utilities required;
11. Drainage;
12. Hazardous Activities;
13. Temporary structures;
14. Mining and Drilling;
15. Unsightly Articles; Vehicles - RVs, trailers, boats, etc must be inclosed in a building or screened from sight. Cars may not be parked at the curb for more than 72 hours;
16. Mobile Homes, Travel Trailers, RVs - No mobile homes. Trailers/RVs limited to 48 hours if visible from other properties/street;
17. Fences - Need approval for changes/construction;
18. Animals/Pets - only 'normal' household pets. Pets must be on your property unless on a leash, no free-roaming pets. Animal area must be kept clean.
19. Maintenance of Lawn/Plantings
20. Construction Activities - home construction is basically exempt from most of these requirements.
21. Compliance with Provisions - you gotta comply, or the HOA can fine you.
22. Unfinished Structures - must complete construction within a year.
23. Setbacks - (on plat or approved by commitee)
24. Rentals - (are okay)
25. Sidewalks - (must be built)
26. Warranty of Enforceability - (there is none)

Aritcle IV - Use Restrictions

1. General Use - Single family homes; no businesses. It appears you can get variance.
2. Minimum Yards - 5' setback from property line required.
3. Greenbelt/Amenity Area - Prohibits/limits development here. Can limit access to allow only homeowners.
4. Recreational Improvements (in Greenbelt/general areas) - must be approved by HOA.

Article V - Villages at Western Oaks Homeowners Assoc., Inc

1. Organization - The HOA will be formed....yada, yada, yada.
2. Membership - The owners and the developer.
3. Voting Rights - 1 vote for each private lot, 3 votes for each lot the developer owns (is pretty close to zero now). Once private owners have 3/4 of the votes, the developer then gets 1 vote per lot instead of three.
4. Powers and Authority:
   • Create rules and bylaws;
   • Obtain insurance;
   • Keep records;
   • Levy Assessments;
   • Right of Entry and Enforcement - Can enter property in emergency or can give 24-hours notice if not emergency. Can levy fines/liens. Cannot use HOA funds to sue developer. Hah!
   • Legal and Accounting services - Basically, may hire accountants and lawyers, as necessary.
   • Collection for Subassociations - There are none that I know of. HOA may collect for these, but may not levy fines/liens
   • Conveyances - may convey property to other parties for parks, roads, utilities, etc.
   • Manager - may hire a management assoc.
   • Assoc. Property Services - May hire/pay for landscaping, water, lighting, etc.
   • Other services - May pay taxes, etc. as required.
   • Construction on assoc. property
   • Contracts
   • Property ownership - HOA may purchase additional property.
5. Maintenance and Landscape Authority
6. Lighting
7. Common properties - requires 2/3 votes for imporvements on common properties.
8. Indemnification - Big, long, legal thing.....

Article VI - Architecural Review Commitee
About what you woud expect here. A very detailed description of the process.

Article VII - Funds and Assessments

1. Assessments
   • Uniformly applied;
   • Due by the owner, Liens may be placed (including interest and collection fees);
   • Prorated for partial years
2. Maintenance Fund - All monies are paid into maintenance fund and are disbursed as required/allowed by this declartion.
3. Regular Annual Assessment - Based on estimate expense. Started at no more than $120/yr/lot (1993), may not increase by more then 5%/year. Excess funds roll-over and are used for next year's estimate.
4. Special Assessment - On an 'as need' basis. Total of Special Assessments may not exceed regular assessment.
5. Owners Obligation - Owner owes assessments. Late assessments are charged 6%.
6. Lien and Foreclosure - List of priority of Liens and establishment of the right to foreclose due to failure to pay liens.

Article VIII - Easements
Not very exciting. Specifies which easements may exist and guarantees access to greenbelt and common areas.

Article IX - Misc.

1. Term - Last until 2022 and then is automatically renewed (so why an expiration date at all?). May be amended by a 3/4 vote of owners or may be terminated by a 3/4 vote of members.
2. Nonliability of the HOA - Members can't be sued for enforcing the rules, unless there is willful misconduct.
3. Amendment - It appears that an amendment requires either a) a 75% vote of approval with at least an 80% turnout, or b) and 80% vote of approval. Not sure what this is saying.
4. Notices - delivered by hand or mail by the 3rd of the month.
5. Interpretation
6. Mergers and Consolidation
7. Exemption of developer - exmempts the developer from Arch review commitee.
8. Assignment by developer - may assign voting rights to other party.
9. Enforcement - Failure to fine someone from the rules does not waive the rights to fine them later, etc.
10. Construction - Legal stuff related to the construction of this document.

[austin-steve]

These are fairly typical HOA rules in Austin.

I finally had to check out of the other HOA thread due to the hyperbole and scaremongering being spread by one of the participants.

You're personal experience (no major problems) in living in an HOA neighborhood is what I think would be reported by 95% of normal people living in HOA neighborhoods.

Steve

[IC_deLight]

It is interesting that the developer decided that it was in the "best interests" of the homeowners to impose a perpetual special assessment in order to pay for the Karst Preserve. I suspect, that this was some concession to enable the developer to get permission to further develop as-yet undeveloped areas within the city of Austin. Mighty generous to benefit the residents in such a fashion with a perpetual special assessment.

Notice page 91 in the part about an agreement between the city of Austin, declarant, and your HOA. That's not a 3 party agreement - the declarant controls the HOA. See also page 101 where the declarant states the "desire of the homeowners association". Note also the declarant's specific reservation in the document regarding special assessments for section 31 to have the ability to come back and amend that (page 107)

Look at page 111 where property was subject to the "master restrictions" and governed by a "master association". The developer sold off the land to a declarant and as part of the purchase they agree that the sold property was no longer subject to such restrictions. Now if those restrictions were truly imposed to preserve property value, wouldn't you think that removing the restrictions "harms property values".

The area that was originally going to be SFH was apparently sold off for condos. (pg 111). Although I really couldn't interpret a whole lot in a quick read, pg 112 seem to indicate that there are at least two associations and that the condo owners won't be members of the master association but that they will have to pay fees to it anyway.

sec 3.1 regarding antennas probably violates the FCC OTARD rules - especially if your ACC required an ACC fee. Some of these associations are now requiring a $500 fee for ANY submittal to the ACC.

Your restrictions do not appear to provide for private fining. Can you tell us whether there have been "resolutions" or "policies" to permit the Board to fine residents despite the lack of such powers in the CCRs?

Do you have to pay fees for any submittals to the ACC despite the lack of any such requirement in the CCRs?

Examining section 9.3 the declarant can still amend your CCRs against your will until some unknown point into the future. Note the "entitled owners" part of 9.3(B). Guess who the only entitled owner is until the expiration of 9.3(A).




The remaining assessments appear to have been imposed retroactively on people in 2001 that had purchased lots without such assessments at least as early as 1993?

Also apparently the masonry requirement was varied from section to section anywhere from 50% to 100%. Clearly the percentage had little to do with preserving value.

In 2000, the Board authorized expenditures to "educate" residents on proper use of pesticides, etc. In addition, the restriction was added to require people to abide by the laws regarding pesticides, etc. Now people are already bound by the municipality, why do you need to fund an HOA to require people to follow municipal laws? Isn't it a little odd to give a private entity the ability to fine people for violation of an actual law without providing due process, equal protection, etc.? This also seems like a perk to force residents to have to pay for "education" by whatever vendor the Board wants to use for such purposes.

[Trainwreck20]

I have to admit, that anything prior to page 118 I did not look over, since it is no longer in effect, nor was it at the time I bought my house, so it has no direct bearing on me currently.

As for antennae, I believe they have a standing requirement that you meet FCC requirements. I had it paraphrased to me that you were limited to two antennae and pole mounted untis must be below the fence or otherwise not visible from the street. We pole mounted our dish behind a tree in the back yard and it is below the level of the fence. Anyway, the ARC approval is generally used to make sure that the grounding requirements are met for the antennae.

Your restrictions do not appear to provide for private fining. Can you tell us whether there have been "resolutions" or "policies" to permit the Board to fine residents despite the lack of such powers in the CCRs?

The association has no power, that I know of, to directly assess fines; however, if you are in violation - say, you let your grass die and do not replant/regrow - then they will hire someone to replace your grass and charge you for it. There is no ability for the board to make policies that create fines, that would require amending the document.

Do you have to pay fees for any submittals to the ACC despite the lack of any such requirement in the CCRs?

Again, no fees are required, nor are allowed under the powers of the association, at least that I can find.

Examining section 9.3 the declarant can still amend your CCRs against your will until some unknown point into the future. Note the "entitled owners" part of 9.3(B). Guess who the only entitled owner is until the expiration of 9.3(A).

This appears to be incorrect. The declarant no longer holds a majority of the votes and 6/1/2002 is past, so any changes require a successful vote by the association.

The remaining assessments appear to have been imposed retroactively on people in 2001 that had purchased lots without such assessments at least as early as 1993?

I suppose, although they are members of the HOA and can now vote regarding the assesments. I understand that the assesment was made by the HOA board (not unilaterally by the declarant) and those homes were allowed to vote for or against the fees.

Also apparently the masonry requirement was varied from section to section anywhere from 50% to 100%. Clearly the percentage had little to do with preserving value.

Actually, as the value of the developing neighborhood went up, I think the 'bar' was set higher. I don't really have an issues with more strict standards being created for newer construction, it in no way negatively impacts older houses - probably has a beneficial impact.

The pesticide thing was before my time, so I am not really up to date on it and do not have any idea what the rational was. It is quite possible there was one, I don't know. Again, I am concerned with myself going forward.

[IC_deLight]

Sorry for the earlier too-long post. I was taking notes and hit "post" instead of preview. However, please look at the following attachments.

Here is a newsletter from West Cave Estates. This document serves as an excellent example of what's going on in these subdivisions. WCE's declarations did not provide for fining or a host of other conduct that the management company has advised the Board with respect to.

Look at page 4, last sentence of column 2. Alliance's basis for justifying fines is that the CCRs do not provide a ban on fines and thus they are permitted. There was NO vote by any members to institute these policies. The Board members unilaterally implemented private fining from which of course the Board members are inherently immune.

This is happening in subdivision, after subdivision, without the consent and to the great detriment of the members. Typically wherever Alliance goes, you will find that they convince a Board to implement these fining policies. Next, Alliance will instruct the Board for the need of a priority of payment document which enables Alliance to extort money from you under threat of the loss of your home.

Fox 7 On Your Side did a story about Alliance's practices in November 2006. The only thing that has changed is that more subdivisions have fallen victim to these practices.

In reviewing the comments made by the Board, the gullibility of the Board members to Alliance is appalling. Alliance does NOT represent the interests of the homeowners but rather the homeowners are Alliance's prey.

Look at page 4, column 1, last sentence where the Board falsely represents to the members that Alliance "actually shares contractural liability with the HOA for actions taken and thus will never violate the Declarations of any HOA with which they have a management contract" . This is utterly false. Alliance's contracts provide that Alliance is wholly indemnified by the HOA for any actions it takes - thus Alliance faces zero liability for its actions. Look at this ridiculous justification in the fact of what Alliance pushed through this HOA - private fining.

Look at page 4, column 3, point 2 - Alliance and the attorney wholeheartedly agree. Of course they do. This fining policy in conjunction with the priority of payment resolution enables wholesale scamming of the entire neighborhood - for the benefit of Alliance and the HOA attorney. The remaining rationales are ludicrous.

Referring to points 3, 4, and 5 - The homeowner is threatened with the loss of his home unless he complies - no court, no due process. This is rationalized as giving the BOD more negotiating power. Of course it's quick because it's the financial equivalent of a carjacking. Here you go:
WCE0406p4.pdf

[austifornian]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

It is interesting that the developer decided that it was in the "best interests" of the homeowners to impose a perpetual special assessment in order to pay for the Karst Preserve. I suspect, that this was some concession to enable the developer to get permission to further develop as-yet undeveloped areas within the city of Austin. Mighty generous to benefit the residents in such a fashion with a perpetual special assessment.

This clause is about the city protecting its interests. In developing the property the developer has created impervious hardscape. In the document, the purpose of the Karst Preserve is to "filter and treat storm water runoff from the lots in section 25 and provide recreational and educational opportunities". What is so sinister about homeowners being required to pay for flood control needs created by their properties and to pay for open space that they are the primary beneficiaries of?

Notice page 91 in the part about an agreement between the city of Austin, declarant, and your HOA. That's not a 3 party agreement - the declarant controls the HOA. See also page 101 where the declarant states the "desire of the homeowners association". Note also the declarant's specific reservation in the document regarding special assessments for section 31 to have the ability to come back and amend that (page 107)

Of course the declarant controls the HOA. When this agreement was written, there were no homeowners! At this point in the game, the Lumberman's Investment Corporation is negotiating with the City of Austin for the rights to develop the property. Agreements are made as to exactly what that development will entail and who will pay for the impact that the development has on the surrounding community. Are you saying that when control of the HOA passes to the homeowners once they become vested in the property that they shouldn't be bound by the agreements that made the development possible in the first place?

Look at page 111 where property was subject to the "master restrictions" and governed by a "master association". The developer sold off the land to a declarant and as part of the purchase they agree that the sold property was no longer subject to such restrictions. Now if those restrictions were truly imposed to preserve property value, wouldn't you think that removing the restrictions "harms property values".

It looks like Lumberman's sold two sections to W.O. Realty Limited to be developed as condominiums. Since the purpose of the property changed from being single family homes to condominiums it doesn't seem too sinister that the restrictions would change also. Even though the parcels are released from the master restrictions, they are required to "obtain LIC's (Lumberman's) approval for certain aspects of the construction, documentation, maintenance, enforcement, and use of the property to ensure conformity with LIC's general development plan.....

[quote]The area that was originally going to be SFH was apparently sold off for condos. (pg 111). Although I really couldn't interpret a whole lot in a quick read, pg 112 seem to indicate that there are at least two associations and that the condo owners won't be members of the master association but that they will have to pay fees to it anyway.[quote]

That is correct, the condo owners will have to pay fees for the maintenance of the Karst Preserve and for maintenance of the developments common properties which they have use rights to. They are not required to pay the costs associated with "operation, managing and insuring the Master Association."

sec 3.1 regarding antennas probably violates the FCC OTARD rules - especially if your ACC required an ACC fee. Some of these associations are now requiring a $500 fee for ANY submittal to the ACC.

Probably correct, with regards to the FCC. This association doesn't seem to have a fee for ACC approval so I am not sure that "Some of these associations" are relevant.

Your restrictions do not appear to provide for private fining. Can you tell us whether there have been "resolutions" or "policies" to permit the Board to fine residents despite the lack of such powers in the CCRs? Do you have to pay fees for any submittals to the ACC despite the lack of any such requirement in the CCRs?

It seems like you are really digging here. Let's just stick to the document. It defines the HOA and is the only thing that is relevant here.

Examining section 9.3 the declarant can still amend your CCRs against your will until some unknown point into the future. Note the "entitled owners" part of 9.3(B). Guess who the only entitled owner is until the expiration of 9.3(A).

I guess that 'unknown point into the future' would be "June 1, 2002 or until Declarant no longer holds a majority of votes (one parcel=one vote) in the Master Association." What exactly is your problem with democracy and property rights? Are you saying that homeowners should have a greater say in the property than their interests in that property?

In 2000, the Board authorized expenditures to "educate" residents on proper use of pesticides, etc. In addition, the restriction was added to require people to abide by the laws regarding pesticides, etc. Now people are already bound by the municipality, why do you need to fund an HOA to require people to follow municipal laws? Isn't it a little odd to give a private entity the ability to fine people for violation of an actual law without providing due process, equal protection, etc.? This also seems like a perk to force residents to have to pay for "education" by whatever vendor the Board wants to use for such purposes.

Listen. I know well enough that HOA's are not perfect. Anybody who is familiar with Morty Seinfeld and the cesspool of politics at Del Boca Vista would tell you the same. You seem to think big government is the answer to everything but I can tell you, it is not. There are a lot of codes on the municipal and county books but enforcing them is not always funded or even encouraged. The truth is society relies on cooperation and a lot of times rules are there to educate people on their expected behavior not to punish them for their failures. An example of this would be smoking 15 feet from a doorway. I have yet to see a policeman with a measuring tape writing a ticket enforcing this law.

You see the pesticide provision by the board as a way to enrich or benefit the board members but it could just as easily be an attempt by the board to get neighbors to stop poisoning one another with the improper use of pesticides. It sounds like you have had bad experiences with HOA's. This shows in your interpretation of the documents and in your posts.

Luckily for you you live in Texas. There are plenty of places available here where nobody, not even the government, can tell you what to do.

[Driftwood1]

This HOA thread and the "other" one really bring it home as to why we will never buy in one. OMG.. what a mess, do you ever actually own you're property?!? (without strings attached)
We looked at a few HOA developements before we bought, and the stack of rules/papers was 10 times as thick as the closing papers on the house we'd just sold, that was enough for us!

I realize it works for some, but of the friends WE know in them, all have had issues..
Cheers

[Trainwreck20]

Driftwood,

Personally, I agree with you...I would much rather NOT be in an HOA; however, given a combination of where I work and the quality of house/neighborhood/school that I want to have, I really don't have much choice.

Previously, I lived in Angus Valley, which has a neighborhood association (total different beast) and I really liked it. When we moved into our current neighborhood, I was a little concerned due to the horror stories I had heard about some HOAs. I have gone to a couple of the meetings and have faith in both the intelligence and judgement of the poeple on the board. Since we have lived there, we would never have known that the HOA existed, other than the ~$200/yr that we pay in assessment. There have been no fines and no fees to ANYONE that I know of, and the only 'actions' that I know of are that 1) a junker car parked on the curb for a couple weeks was 'cited' and had to be removed, and 2) some people that were moving had put out a bunch of items (a truck front grill and night stand, that I remember, and one or two other things) and left them out there in a semi-permanent yard sale. They were notified to remove the items. Again, neither was a fine. As I understand it, the owner of the car would have been charge for towing if they had not moved it, and the items on the lawn would also have been removed and the owner charged. I have no real problem with either action, they were not taken maliciously and both owners were well past the time limits of the HOA rules (actually, the yard sale thing is a COA thing, I think).

Alliance's basis for justifying fines is that the CCRs do not provide a ban on fines and thus they are permitted.

That is an interesting position, and I think probably rather weak, legally speaking. Again, I think my HOA is rather educated and aware that there is no reason to incorporate fines - charging for the cost of correction, if required, is appropriate. I am not arguing, btw, that this might be happening. The thing is, the CCR does not ban a whole lot of things, and I can't imagine that that makes them all allowable.

Reading the statement of Powers and Authority of the Association (Section 5.4):

The Master Association shall have the powers of the Texas nonprofit corporation, subject only to such limitations upon the exercise of such power as are expressly set forth in this Declaration. It shall further have the power to do and perform any and all acts which may be necessary or proper for or incidental to the exercise of any ot the express powers granted to it by the Laws of Texas or of the two preceding sentences, the Master Association and the Board action on behalf of the Master Association, shall have the power and authority at all times as follows:
List of powers are included in original post.....

Reading this and the powers included in article V, I don't see the ability to fine. The assessments and other levy's are all specifically spelled out, separate from the 'create rules and bylaws' section. I do not know what other HOA documents look like, so I would like to know if Alliance is referencing some other authority or loophole, or whether the HOA in this discussion is similar to those you are talking about, IC.

[austin-steve]

Trainwreck and Austinfornia,

Great job of pointing out the hysteria and misrepresentation of the ant-HOA posts. Not that I am a big fan of HOAs, but they simply do not deserve the level of concern and fear that some would suggest.

Now I gotta go spread some reputation so I can credit you both for the well thought out responses.

Steve

[IC_deLight]

Trainwreck,

The problem is that the HOAs have been given far too much power and the litigation playing field is tilted very heavily against homeowners by statute. In short, no matter what the Board says and irrespective of what your CCRs state, you will either have to:

1) comply - irrespective of what your CCRs state;
2) fork out tremendous amounts of $$$ in order to defend/assert yourself; or
3) risk losing your home.

Your CCRs might not provide for fining. That's why I provided an attachment to illustrate to you what is going on in neighborhood after neighborhood. Their CCRs didn't provide for fining either. I asked the question about fines in your neighborhood to determine whether the cancer had already hit.

You may be correct that your CCRs don't provide for fining. However, as illustrated by that attachment, the management companies are convincing Boards to adopt fining policies by "resolution". No vote of the members, no CCR amendment. They also convince the Board to adopt a priority of payment "resolution" to re-characterize assessment payments against your instructions. Any payment you make is re-characterized to ensure that the last thing paid is your assessment. Since you can be foreclosed upon for failure to pay your assessment, this is how they extort management company fees, handling fees, collection fees, attorney fees for things you dispute and never agreed to.

Just as your CCRs did not provide for fining, neither did West Cave Estates. You will start receiving "notices of violation" for alleged breaches of other CCR provisions that do not exist. A typical "grab-all" is an 'unsightly articles' clause. They then start making up additional "restrictions" via "resolutions" or "policies and procedures" under the pre-text of aesthetics.

The current Property Code (5.006) provides that a party suing to enforce a restrictive covenant gets their attorney fees if they prevail. That innocuous sounding statement ensures that the HOA almost always wins. Courts have interpreted this provision to provide that a party defending such an action cannot collect their attorney fees no matter what. The homeowners very rarely sue first (i.e., "assert") or if they do then rarely is there a restrictive covenant that can be asserted against the HOA.

In short, the defending homeowner will never get their attorney fees and the asserting homeowner rarely can by statute. The HOA will get its attorney fees if it prevails. It can prevail by simply driving up the costs of litigation against the homeowner which is what usually happens. Even if the homeowner is legally correct, the defending homeowner typically cannot get any award of attorney fees.

The management companies then go in and start proclaiming individuals to be "in violation" - often without being able to identify any specific CCR provision. If you ignore the provision, you do so at risk of losing your home once this priority of payment resolution is adopted. If the HOA sues you, you will have no opportunity to collect your attorney fees while being threatened with the possibility of the HOA attorney's fees. This is used to leverage you into a settlement wholly irrespective of what the CCRs state.

If you sue first, you must be willing to forego a large sum of money even though you are correct. If you sue first, the HOA's insurance defense policy kicks in and now you have an HOA attorney that has a well-funded client footing the bill. They will fight you tooth and nail because fining is extremely, extremely lucrative for the management companies and HOA attorneys as a whole. Even if you prevail, your chances of being reimbursed for your attorney are slim because the statute provides only for the party asserting an action to enforce a restrictive covenant to get paid.

Guess what? There is no restrictive covenant banning fines, so there is nothing for you to enforce against your HOA. Fining is extremely lucrative for the management companies - especially when you can extort the money out of people by threatening them with the loss of their homes.

In other contexts, the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act would prevent a "creditor" from being able to re-characterize your payments. In many states, the FCDPA applies to HOAs. In Texas, however, the FDCPA is deemed not to apply to HOAs. So what happens is, the Boards adopt these policies to your great detriment and against your will. You are bound by virtue of mandatory association. You will find that many of these HOA attorneys tend to be experienced at defending FDCPA claims in Texas as well.

This provision of the Property Code completely flies in the face of the owner's property rights and it was designed, promulgated, and utilized by HOA attorneys to extract money from residents wholly irrespective of what the CCRs state and with zero penalty should they be wrong.

The neighborhood very quickly goes down from there into a very undesirable place to live. Residents trying to escape by selling their homes aren't exactly going to disclose any of this for fear of driving off prospective purchasers.

This is happening in subdivision after subdivision - particularly wherever Alliance Association Management goes. This also generates a very ugly synergy in establishing a corrupt Board.

Unfortunately, some people enjoy threatening others with the loss of their home. Private fining through the proxy of an HOA is empowering them with much greater power than any municipality would have over its constituents. These personality types tend to be attracted to positions of control within an HOA.

For the Board members the currency of trade is ego and control. The currency of trade for the management company is money. Before you say, "elect another Board", keep in mind who counts the votes and who determines eligibility to vote. Also keep in mind what Board members accomplish through private fining and the ability to threaten residents with the loss of their homes in case anyone dare challenges statements made by Board members or ask for records of the HOA.

I hope others will see that this pursuit for the elimination of ugliness is actually quite ugly in its methods and results. You may doubt what I'm telling you or laugh it off today. However, when you experience it you will then understand how insidious private fining is. The management company could care less about the habitability of your neighborhood. The management company only cares about dreaming up new ways to "beautify" your neighborhood in order to extract ugliness fines. This makes your neighborhood a very, very ugly place to live and all of the ugliness is derived from private mandatory association - i.e., HOA.