U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2012, 10:53 PM
 
5,048 posts, read 6,892,669 times
Reputation: 4146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The board members, the vendors (including the management company, and the HOA attorney) and their HOA corporation lost. There might even be a shoe or two left to drop.

How big a deal was it? Embezzlement? Putting in a parking area on a meadow and causing home values to drop? Poisoning animals because of voting to not notify residents of strong weed spraying? Treasurer who invests assessments in his own investment company...and stocks to boot? Or something milder? Oh, I just noticed to attorney was included too. Must be bigger. Yeah, ours is a tool too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2012, 10:57 AM
 
2,818 posts, read 3,332,025 times
Reputation: 3014
The particulars of our case are not unusual or atypical. The same or similar problems exist wherever there is an HOA corporation. The same vendors are certainly actively involved in doing the same things everywhere they operate. The management company organization is interstate and is engaging in its same practices in every subdivision in every state that it operates in. Whenever someone tries to claim that a case is an "isolated instance" you should realize that is more marketing hype. The problems are ubiquitous and prevalent with HOA-burdened property.

HOAs never preserved property value for owners. That claim was nothing but marketing hype. Most of the time when someone states that "HOAs preserve property values" you'll notice that they don't identify "for who". That's because the "for who" is the developer, the local government, and all the vendors - NOT the property owner.

The people that plan to live in the home are not purchasing 'rental property'. They purchased the home for their own use and enjoyment and to raise families in. The HOA offers nothing of value in that arena either.

The HOA corporation is a financial and legal liability and presents a threat to you, your family, and your property. Due to 40+ years of marketing hype out there, most folks have to experience it once before they realize that all the little catch phrases and quips used by real estate professionals and the community association industry were equivocal at best.

For "connected" condominiums, the real estate and the condominium corporation are closely integrated. Termination of the condominium generally means that a number of the owners will be losing their property. They will either get their pro-rata share of proceeds of a FMV sale of the entire project or get a depressed value because the only "buyer" will already have ownership of the required number of units to terminate. The project may then be torn down, turned into apartments, or revamped and converted to condos again.

For non-condominium properties, the HOA corporation is not as tightly integrated with the definition of the property that you own. Accordingly there are several ways to eliminate the HOA corporation without impacting ownership of your property. The approach will vary depending upon the particulars of the subdivision and the laws in each state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:39 AM
 
5,048 posts, read 6,892,669 times
Reputation: 4146
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Such things are not "held in common". In an HOA burdened subdivision, the HOA corporation owns the property. In a condominium project, the unit owners have an undivided interest in the "common areas". The use of the term "common areas" outside of the context of condominiums is another marketing gimmick - used to make you think the property is worth more than it is. You have no ownership of the "common areas" in an HOA-burdened subdivision. The areas are not owned "in common" either.

Interesting that you refer to the HOA management companies as "homeowner management" companies. All too often, that is the attitude of the management companies. Somehow the management companies believe it is their job to manage the homeowners or to manage the homeowners' properties.

There is no dispute with the proposition that HOA-burdened property isn't a choice, it has been public policy of local government to get tax revenues without providing services. There hasn't been much of anything besides "planned communities" being built for some time. Numerosity is not a result of popularity but rather the result of local government mandates. But then that illustrates the absurdity of the "option" suggestion.

The "option" you refer to is rapidly disappearing and all but non-existent in many areas of the country. Certainly a significant percentage of homeowners has little choice but to be involuntary members of an HOA corporation if they want to have housing. Given that finding non-HOA property has become a difficult proposition, an alternative to avoiding one might be to put the management company, the HOA corporation, and the board where they belong. The theHOAprimer website does a good job of exposing myths about HOAs
The HOA as a corporation is fascinating to me because, for one thing, coincidentally I heard this for the first time just a couple of weeks ago from someone in person...and then someone else. And now you. I had also heard a sort of backwards view by several people in our community for a couple of years but the way you are saying it may be the way it was intended to be presented to these people and they mixed it up somehow.

I say this is fascinating because I've lived in communities with one form of association or another as far as being overseen so to speak, mostly HOAs and never had a problem and was always told we were all in it together. Whether Reston, Va where the whole city is a HOA community, to very small communities where neighbors used the excellent local laws swiftly if need be, to historic communities with historic district, city, state and federal restrictions, lots of regular HOAs in between...condos, townhomes, mostly detached homes. Only with a current one are we having trouble. (In fact, all of the items mentioned in my last post to you last night.)

One question...in a subdivision where there are condominiums but also single family...then what? Here and there in our current community I've heard the condo owners were told they own all the common areas in common. Single family don't. But the single families have permission to use them. (I think according to you, it may be that all have permission and none own in any form). There is this great divide between condo and single family owners.

Another question. What did you get rid of? Bad practices and put in a new board? The Association Mgt. co? The HOA idea as a whole (If so how did you divide and maintain common areas?)

Lastly, how in the world did you get the community to agree to all this? It must have been a very lengthy arduous process. More like herding ferrets than cats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,142 posts, read 5,450,196 times
Reputation: 4020
Default Don't be misled, Cully

Cully, IC is an HOA hater plain and simple. He is on threads all over the country encouraging rebellion, dissolution and defiance to HOA's. Truth of the matter is that builders in conjunction with local governments, and yes, even the Federal government, have established HOA's to assist themselves in a number of ways---and, if it assists homeowners, as it sometimes does--then all the better. Kind of like healthcare for profit and insurance companies--if it assists the sick, then all the better. But for builders its to meet Federal requirements regarding run-off water in communities, and for local governments its about collecting property taxes on property that they will not have to provide services to.

That's a strong, powerful combination, and learning to work within the system is by far the easiest method to accomplish what you want.

HOA's are sued a lot by homeowners---not only for "onerous" enforcement of their Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR's), but also for NOT enforcing those rules. The Boards are made of amateur directors who frequently have no clue how to run their HOA and even less tact with handling the always present intractable homeowner.

From Wikipedia:
At their own expense, a homeowner-member may sue a board of directors for perceived breach of duty. Association insurance provides not only for a board member's legal expense, but any judgment attained against them. Homeowners must pay out of pocket for any case they bring to court and risk being personally liable for any judgment and/or association's legal fees as well as their own.
Corporation and homeowner association laws provide a limited role for HOA homeowners. Unless either statutory law or the corporation's governing documents reserve a particular issue or action for approval by the members, corporation laws provide that the activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board of directors. Many boards are operated outside of their state's non-profit corporation laws. Knowledge of corporate laws and state statutes is essential to a properly-run HOA.

I spent 30 years as a policy development researcher, ratemaker and compliance officer in the insurance field. The ONLY way someone can bypass the duty of a D&O policy to defend a board member is if they violated a provision in the insurance policy. Even then, the likelihood is that the policy would provide defense, even if it didn't pay for a judgement. If IC encourages people to sue, he is passing out foolish advice, and I don't give a sh*t what he has won in a lawsuit. He has not won the right to ignore the CCR's of his homeowner association if he is still a part of one.

The best method in dealing with a board that is not responsive to the homeowners is to vote them out of office and find people who genuinely like other people, enforce rules evenly and WITHIN state and Federal laws.

California has the most restrictive rules on HOA's of any state out there, but look up and read their case Sui vs. Price that was settled in California's Fourth Court of Appeals, which upheld the right of an HOA to place restrictions on homeowners "after the fact". HOA's have a lot of power. You had better have not only an extremely good case, but lots of money in fighting with one of them over CC&R's)

People like IC who have become so angry and hateful do NOT have an agenda to genuinely help anyone. They want revenge, and want to pull otherwise thoughtful people into making less than optimal decisions.

I'm not defending the many mistakes made by HOA's. But they are amateurs. The Homeowners Management Company I worked for held meetings for Boards of Directors 3 times a year to educate them about the pitfalls facing HOA's (the most common being inadequate reserves for future maintenance). In addition, we were fortunate in that our HOA manager had spent a number of years as a City Councilwoman with tremendous experience in dealing with HOA's and homeowners from the city government prospective. You dont like the way they are doing things, then put the footwork into getting a new board.

And remember, "the difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits!" Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 12:10 PM
 
2,818 posts, read 3,332,025 times
Reputation: 3014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Cully, IC is an HOA hater plain and simple. He is on threads all over the country encouraging rebellion, dissolution and defiance to HOA's. Truth of the matter is that builders in conjunction with local governments, and yes, even the Federal government, have established HOA's to assist themselves in a number of ways---and, if it assists homeowners, as it sometimes does--then all the better. Kind of like healthcare for profit and insurance companies--if it assists the sick, then all the better. But for builders its to meet Federal requirements regarding run-off water in communities, and for local governments its about collecting property taxes on property that they will not have to provide services to.

That's a strong, powerful combination, and learning to work within the system is by far the easiest method to accomplish what you want.
In my experience, when the industry hacks have nothing else they have to resort to ad hominem tactics. You did say you were formerly an HOA board member and worked for an HOA management company, didn't you?

As far as the rest of your statement ... kind of like admitting that slavery exists and suggesting that one should be a good slave rather than refuting an unacceptable system. Acceptance simply perpetuates and exacerbates an untenable problem.

Quote:
HOA's are sued a lot by homeowners---not only for "onerous" enforcement of their Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR's), but also for NOT enforcing those rules. The Boards are made of amateur directors who frequently have no clue how to run their HOA and even less tact with handling the always present intractable homeowner.
There are vendor trade groups that make it a goal to turn every HOA client into fee pyramiding foreclosure mills and litigation vortexes. No doubt your former employer was a member of one of those trade groups. They aren't assisting the homeowners - the homeowners and the HOA corporation are the prey.

Quote:
From Wikipedia:
At their own expense, a homeowner-member may sue a board of directors for perceived breach of duty. Association insurance provides not only for a board member's legal expense, but any judgment attained against them. Homeowners must pay out of pocket for any case they bring to court and risk being personally liable for any judgment and/or association's legal fees as well as their own.
Corporation and homeowner association laws provide a limited role for HOA homeowners. Unless either statutory law or the corporation's governing documents reserve a particular issue or action for approval by the members, corporation laws provide that the activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board of directors. Many boards are operated outside of their state's non-profit corporation laws. Knowledge of corporate laws and state statutes is essential to a properly-run HOA.
There is no question the playing field is not level. That's because the aforementioned industry trade groups have been lobbying for laws more favorable to the HOA corporation and its agents to the detriment of the property owners. However, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a legal treatise and that these definitions are written by anyone that wants to contribute to the definition.

There are a number of problems with the claims about insurance above. The quality of the insurance isn't always there. Oftentimes the board delegates its responsibilities to the managing agents. More frequently the management companies usurp authority over things like choosing insurance coverage for the HOA corporation and getting control of the bank accounts. One should not be surprised that the management companies choose a coverage plan that is financially rewarding for the management company rather than protective for its client HOA.

Quote:
I spent 30 years as a policy development researcher, ratemaker and compliance officer in the insurance field. The ONLY way someone can bypass the duty of a D&O policy to defend a board member is if they violated a provision in the insurance policy. Even then, the likelihood is that the policy would provide defense, even if it didn't pay for a judgement. If IC encourages people to sue, he is passing out foolish advice, and I don't give a sh*t what he has won in a lawsuit. He has not won the right to ignore the CCR's of his homeowner association if he is still a part of one.
That is a very broad statement by someone with zero knowledge of the language of the policies applicable. Many types of policies pay for a defense, so what? The insurance carrier also often issues a "reservation of rights letter" so that it can try to demand a payback from the HOA corporation of all the amounts paid for the defense. Coverage denial letters are also common. The insurance carriers are part of the problem in these HOA subdivisions. You will find that the insurance carriers are often surplus lines carriers - very little regulation - and that they have a separate undisclosed business relationship with the HOA management company.

The insurance carrier can and will deny coverage for defense and judgments against the HOA corporation for many things. In short, there are lots of gaps in coverage. The mere existence of a policy is not an assurance of coverage for judgments or defense.

Board members can be directly liable for their own actions but they can also wind up being personally liable vicariously for a judgment against the HOA corporation.

Quote:
The best method in dealing with a board that is not responsive to the homeowners is to vote them out of office and find people who genuinely like other people, enforce rules evenly and WITHIN state and Federal laws.
Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz where the "wizard" begged Dorothy and her friends to ignore the man behind the curtain. Well we aren't in Kansas Wardendresden and even gullible Dorothy wasn't fooled by the "wizard". You shouldn't be surprised that anyone having even minimal experience with an HOA knows the absurdity of your proposed solution.

Among the numerous flaws in Wardendresden's reasoning: in most states there is no right to run for office or to vote in an HOA corporation election. The board or its managing agent decide who gets to run or to vote. The board members that provoked the litigation in our subdivision actually wrote themselves into the bylaws and specifically provided that only people they approved of were permitted to run for office. The residents called the "elections" "[s]elections" to highlight the Stalinesque nature of command and control that the board attempted to assert over other owners and their properties. This is not an "isolated instance". You can find similar schemes implemented all over the place. Frequently the HOAs will have the same management companies or advisors so it isn't difficult to ascertain that the vendors are frequently behind many of these schemes. Once they find a board that is amenable or supportive of the vendors' activities, the vendor wants to keep that board or like-minded individuals in control of the subdivision.

You can forget the myth of democracy that Wardendresden would have you believe exists in HOA corporations. There is no such thing. As long as you tolerate an HOA system, any "election" will simply change who the targets of the HOA corporation are. The problem to be addressed is the existence of the HOA corporation in the first place.

Quote:
California has the most restrictive rules on HOA's of any state out there, but look up and read their case Sui vs. Price that was settled in California's Fourth Court of Appeals, which upheld the right of an HOA to place restrictions on homeowners "after the fact". HOA's have a lot of power. You had better have not only an extremely good case, but lots of money in fighting with one of them over CC&R's)

People like IC who have become so angry and hateful do NOT have an agenda to genuinely help anyone. They want revenge, and want to pull otherwise thoughtful people into making less than optimal decisions.
Wardendresden seems more to have a fear that his myth of democracy is being exposed. If nothing IC could do would have any effect then why would Wardendresden need to engage in ad hominem attacks and try to create the myth that the HOA system or HOA corporations are somehow invulnerable or impenetrable walls/hurdles? They aren't and neither are the boards or their agents.

HOA corporations and their boards and vendors are losing lawsuits all over the country. As with many, many cases across the country, the HOA corporation lost in our case, period and now gets to pay up. The managing agent, board, HOA attorney, and HOA corp will also get to enjoy published negative court opinions and well-deserved bad press about their conduct.

Quote:
I'm not defending the many mistakes made by HOA's. But they are amateurs. The Homeowners Management Company I worked for held meetings for Boards of Directors 3 times a year to educate them about the pitfalls facing HOA's (the most common being inadequate reserves for future maintenance). In addition, we were fortunate in that our HOA manager had spent a number of years as a City Councilwoman with tremendous experience in dealing with HOA's and homeowners from the city government prospective. You dont like the way they are doing things, then put the footwork into getting a new board.
Anyone knowledgeable about your industry knows that those board 'education' seminars are brain washing indoctrination sessions on par with high pressure timeshare sales seminars. For the most part, the vendors are trying to convince the board members to pursue courses of action lucrative to the vendors.

The industry folks always claim that HOAs are democratic institutions and that one can simply vote to change things to your liking. Doesn't work that way at all. The solution is to work towards eliminating the HOA corporation - not arguing about who is in charge of one. The HOA vendors need HOA corporations. The homeowners do not.

Quote:
And remember, "the difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits!" Albert Einstein
Call me stupid Wardendresden! - me and my fellow winning stupid Plaintiffs. The "limits" you attempt to create through myth, fear, misdirection, and misinformation might work on sheeple - but we're not herd animals.

Rest assured that the homeowners probably will be referring to the HOA board members as "geniuses"! I doubt that will be the only adjective used to describe the board though .....

Now back to thinking about which assets we strip from the HOA corporation before pursuing the board members personally...

Last edited by IC_deLight; 12-06-2012 at 01:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,142 posts, read 5,450,196 times
Reputation: 4020
Default Foolish and incorrect advice

quote" in most states there is no right to run for office or to vote in an HOA corporation election. The board or its managing agent decide who gets to run or to vote. The board members that provoked the litigation in our subdivision actually wrote themselves into the bylaws and specifically provided that only people they approved of were permitted to run for office. The residents called the "elections" "[s]elections" to highlight the Stalinesque nature of command and control that the board attempted to assert over other owners and their properties. This is not an "isolated instance". You can find similar schemes implemented all over the place. Frequently the HOAs will have the same management companies or advisors so it isn't difficult to ascertain that the vendors are frequently behind many of these schemes. Once they find a board that is amenable or supportive of the vendors' activities, the vendor wants to keep that board or like-minded individuals in control of the subdivision. "

I have no damn idea what happens in other states, but in COLORADO, which thread we are on owners have an undivided right to vote for members of the Board of Directors as provided for in their CC&R's. You are dead on WRONG in that regard. Even our builder had the right to vote the way he wanted with the units he owned--and he fought us with his votes all the way.

HOA management companies can make recommendations for using certain vendors, but the Board of Directors makes the choice of vendors to use for everything. Boards will typically surrender choice of vendors on small repair items where there is no time for the Board to meet and review approval. But on expensive items we demanded a minimum of three bids--sometimes four or five.

A good HOA operates openly. We had monthly meetings on a regular schedule and ALL homeowners had a right to show up. We reserved a time each meeting for homeowners to bring up their issues. The ONLY closed Board meetings involved the necessity to discipline a homeowner for an infraction. That was for their protection and they were welcome to share anything they wished from such meeting with any other homeowner. Closed meetings were normally held before or after our regular board meetings and cursory minutes were kept of those. All our minutes and financial affairs were published on a website for all homeowners to review prior to coming to our meetings.

But your foolish advice--and I dont say that lightly-because it is highly foolish---to sue boards over any infraction is going to cost any listener to that advice, dearly. Associations can and have recovered their attorney costs from lawsuits--even when those lawsuits were dropped just prior to going to court (Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Assn.) They have won cases where residents sued for liability for negligent operation of a common areas, and of course they have won against homeowners who knowingly violated building restrictions.

It's not a matter of "constitutional law", the courts again and again, have ruled it a matter of "contractural law." That's why HOA's who operate within Federal and State guidelines are so frequently are ruled in favor of by many courts. It IS a corporation, and anyone who thinks in this country that individuals are going to be generally favored over corporations in courts of law is definitely in Oz Land.

So my advice, as opposed to your FIGHT'EM every time, philosophy, is to find other ways to accomplish your goal---by talking with Boards, by replacing them if necessary, by amending CC&R's (hard to do, but not impossible). Your advice is going to get somebody financially hurt. You love your opinion a hell of a lot more than you care about your neighbors.

I dont know and don't care what "horrible" thing an HOA did to you. If they violated Federal or State law, then the HOA deserved to be sued and to lose. But, most of us in HOA's KNOW UP FRONT what we are doing when we buy into one. We know we have to abide by the contractural "rules" (CC&Rs) that we KNOWINGLY sign, when we close our homes in an HOA. And HOA's are growing by leaps and bounds. You've got about as good a chance of halting their growth as you do winning the powerball. In fact, your chances are probably better with the powerball.

So folks who have been reading this diatribe between an HOA hater and an HOA realist (not necessarily an HOA lover), think for yourselves before you try launching lawsuits on an HOA. You stand a much better chance of accomplishing your goal with a reasonable approach using the CC&Rs in your community. Don't let IC's hate lead you into a disaster.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-06-2012 at 05:20 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,142 posts, read 5,450,196 times
Reputation: 4020
Default The power and spread of HOA's

[LEFT]According to the Community Associations Institute:[/LEFT]
  • An estimated 50 million Americans live in association-governed communities. Some 1.25 million people serve on community association boards, with another 300,000-plus serving as committee members.
  • About 6,000 to 8,000 new community associations are formed every year. This includes condominiums, cooperatives and planned communities. It is estimated that more than four in five housing starts during the past 5-8 years have been built as part of an association-governed community.
  • The estimated real estate value of the homes in all community associations is about $2 trillion, approximately 15 percent of the value of all U.S. residential real estate.
  • Estimated annual operating revenue for U.S. community associations is $30 to $35 billion.
And this is why, IC, you will NEVER stop HOA's from proliferating. It's why people should learn how to live within them, and make them work for the greater good of everyone.

Of course, your welcome to show statistically how many HOA's are disbanded each year and we will can see how well your course of action is working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,142 posts, read 5,450,196 times
Reputation: 4020
Default Want to Disband Your HOA? What do attorneys think?

[LEFT]Things You'll Need


  • Copies of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) regulations

  • Real estate attorney

  • Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contact for your state

  • Communal contract to share attorney's fees

nstructions

    • 1 Have a clear understanding of what your homeowner's association does. If you disband yours, every resident will become equally responsible for overseeing or paying for landscaping, pavement repair, security, waste disposal, snow removal and myriad other communal services included in the original covenant between residents and the association. Once the HOA is disbanded, there will be no common law to govern the property and associated structures, so you'll want to have another organization in place to pick up where the HOA leaves off.

    • 2 Meet with all members to comb through your CC&Rs. Think of your property's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as the skeletal structure that keeps the community erect and functioning; the rules and documents that legally dictate how the association operates and the limits to which individuals may modify their residences. Every member of your housing neighborhood was required to sign a CC&R on the day the property closed and this subjugated their individual rights to the rulings of the association. Whether you live in a townhouse, condo or subdivision, restrictions governing what you may and may not do were set according to association rules. Only sanctions that conflict with federal, state or local law may be challenged.

    • 3

    • Try to restructure the homeowner's association by majority rule before you make a final commitment to dissolution. With a super-majority of votes on behalf of the members, a plan for re-configuring the association and a community commitment to making certain new guidelines and restrictions are more egalitarian and equitable and can also save your association a lot of time and money. If at all possible, find a way to restructure the HOA without having to take the drastic step of disbanding it.

    • 4 Contact your state's Housing and Urban Development office and speak with someone about your unique situation. They can give you valuable information about your legal standing and rights. Every state is different. For example, in North Carolina, an HOA dissolution requires 80% of the membership as set by the state's General Assembly if the association was formed after 1999, but if it was chartered before that year, only 67% of homeowners are required to pass the termination vote. This complex arrangement is just one state's guideline; find out specifically what your state requires to do the job.

    • 5 Seek the help of a real estate attorney once a majority of HOA members agrees that there is no other recourse but disbanding. Schedule a community meeting with the attorney and advise all homeowners of the date and time since it is critical that all voices be heard at this important meeting. Send a copy of your CC&Rs to the attorney beforehand and have residents sign a statement saying that they are willing to help pay their share of legal fees incurred as a result of exploring HOA dissolution with a lawyer. Without this agreement, things are very likely to get contentious.

    • 6 Make a community commitment to address all of the reasons residents took this radical step. Once residents are again in the driver's seat, the new board may even begin to have some compassion for the folks who had previously been seen as dictators. It's an enormous responsibility to govern a community--one that looks decidedly different once you're in charge.

Read more: How to Disband a Homeowner's Association | eHow.com


Folks, don't let HOA hater, IC fool you into thinking it is easy or even BETTER to dissolve an HOA. It will cost you a tremendous amount of time, effort to gain agreement, money to file documents, and increase your individual outlay of maintenance money as you would no longer have an organization to negotiate with contractors for lawn care, snow removal, or street/streetlight repair.

The right thing to do is to change it. He can't even give you ANY reasonable statistics on how often HOA's are "disbanded" or what the result has been.

Legal case history defending HOA's from unreasonable demands by homeowners, or by homeowners who wish to defy the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions they signed when the moved into the community is very, very strong. People do win in court against HOAs--IC says he did, but he sure doesn't sound like a happy winner and I'm wondering why. Most people who won big, bankrupted members of the Board of Directors, etc, would just pocket their "millions" and move out of the community they had been in and forget about it. It's a burr under IC's saddle.

I think this didn't go nearly as well for him as he would lead you to believe. Just too much hate in there.
And when you start saying ALL HOA's are evil, ALL Homeowner Management Companies are leeches, well, it reminds me of places I've been where "All blacks are---", All Jewish people are---" All Mexicans are---" whatever. It doesn't smack of truth. And that is not a defense for those HOAs who do improperly dictate to their members. Because ALL HOA's are not fair and sensible, but multitudes are and serve their members well.

And that's why, regardless of perceived injustice by an HOA, the people who live in the HOA community have to be fair and sensible themselves.


[/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,142 posts, read 5,450,196 times
Reputation: 4020
Default Lies about Mangement Companies and Insurance

IC quote:
"There are a number of problems with the claims about insurance above. The quality of the insurance isn't always there. Oftentimes the board delegates its responsibilities to the managing agents. More frequently the management companies usurp authority over things like choosing insurance coverage for the HOA corporation and getting control of the bank accounts. One should not be surprised that the management companies choose a coverage plan that is financially rewarding for the management company rather than protective for its client HOA."

NO insurance agent in any state in America can "financially" reward a management company for selecting them to insure one of the management company's clients. Anyone may pose that question with their state insurance commissioner's office. Agents can have their license lifted for such an unprofessional act. The only way an management company may "choose" an insurance company for an association, is if the Board of Directors of the Association request the management company do that, they cannot usurp it, except illegally. Even then, signature on an application is normally required of a member of the HOA Board of Directors unless they have made the unusual and, in my opinion, irresponsible decision to provide the HOA management company with a power of attorney to do such things.

D&O insurance is very, very effective in protecting Boards of Directors that operate within the CC&R's they are duty bound to enforce. I served not only on an HOA Board of Directors, but on the board of directors of the Association of Insurance Compliance Professionals for three years, two of those as National Treasurer. Do not listen to an HOA hater with no professional insurance experience who is trying to mislead you with regard to the protection afforded Boards of Directors by a financially stable insurance carrier. As a North Carolina attorney claims "---every HOA should obtain directors’ and officers’ liability insurance (usually referred to as D&O coverage”). It is relatively inexpensive, and will provide a defense for any lawsuits or claims brought against board members and pay any damage awards or judgments. "
Charlotte attorney Michael Hunter represents community and condominium associations for the firm of Horack Talley.

IC, I can keep going night after night, with legal case histories, with legal opinions of attorneys, with FACTUAL advice to help folks make the best decision that will not bankrupt them or embroil them in years and years of legal battles. And I will do so, if necessary. Because you are attempting to hurt people, not give them advice they can use to make a reasonable decision.

And if you really want to make it a battle, I'll chase down every thread where you have misled and confused people and provide them with the information they need to make successful appeals in their HOA cases. LEGAL CONFRONTATION is the last option, the least effective, the most expensive, and potentially has the greatest chance for a really bad outcome for a homeowner in an HOA.

And, by the way, I'm retired and really don't have anything to do but research.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-06-2012 at 11:49 PM.. Reason: example
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2012, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,142 posts, read 5,450,196 times
Reputation: 4020
Default Colorado case of HOA vs Homeowner

[LEFT]"What would you do if an owner made the following comments about your board?[/LEFT]

"Wannabe dictators." "Almost totally corrupt." "Colorado's poster child for corrupt homeowners associations." "Ranch psychopaths." "Sycophants." "Ranch BoD is getting a little nervous about somebody catching them with their fingers in the cash register?" "The President of our HOA ... appears to be the most inept, incompetent 'mouthpiece' that any cabal in existence has probably ever experienced."

Those rants were posted online by a Colorado homeowner, Jan Jackson, against her association, The B Lazy M Ranch. Jackson also accused the board of numerous civil and criminal violations and even asserted that one board member had a serious and dangerous mental and emotional disorder.

The association's board of directors did nothing while Jackson made venomous remark after venomous remark against them. But when Jackson sued the association claiming that a special assessment violated the association's covenants and that the covenants had also been improperly amended, the association sprung to life and counterclaimed against Jackson, asserting that her continuous, derogatory rants amounted to libel.

Smackdown at the Ranch

In 2007, a Colorado judge found that the B Lazy M Ranch's special assessment and covenants were proper, and he smacked Jackson for her behavior. The judge held that Jackson's comments were false and libelous and ordered her to pay the association $10,000 in damages, along with the bulk of its attorneys' fees. He also prohibited Jackson from publishing further statements that mentioned the B Lazy M Ranch and ordered her to contact all the Web sites on which she had posted statements about the association to request that those comments be removed.

A Colorado appellate court struck down the trial judge's injunction prohibiting Jackson from publishing new comments about the association but upheld the rest of the trial judge's findings. On June 22, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear Jackson's final appeal. That means the $10,000-plus judgment against Jackson stands, but she is again free to criticize B Lazy M Ranch. The association is also free to bring another lawsuit against her if she again crosses the line from opinion into libel."

Readers can find how good Homeowner Associations should be run by visiting HOALeader.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top