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.
Just curious. Our local HOA said they'll be deep root feeding the trees because the flooding from Harvey leeched the nutrients from the soil. Of course I went out and fertilized the lawn and will take care of our trees. But not all home owners or HOA's do this.
So I wondered if your area was impacted by Harvey. For some it's costly.. . .
Keys to unlocking your rights with HOA - Houston Chronicle I think what this is saying is you send a certified letter requesting the information then when they fail to respond or refuse you get the Justice of the peace to send an order to comply.
Keys to unlocking your rights with HOA - Houston Chronicle I think what this is saying is you send a certified letter requesting the information then when they fail to respond or refuse you get the Justice of the peace to send an order to comply.
Thank you. As was pointed out above, I have a condo association, not an HOA or POA. I thought that was just semantics, but apparently it isn't, and I find far more on HOAs and POAs than condo associations.
Just curious. Our local HOA said they'll be deep root feeding the trees because the flooding from Harvey leeched the nutrients from the soil. Of course I went out and fertilized the lawn and will take care of our trees. But not all home owners or HOA's do this.
So I wondered if your area was impacted by Harvey. For some it's costly.. . .
Blessedly we were not. Thank you, though, for the q! I'm sorry that you are.
There is a difference between voidable and void.
There is no limitations period on void. The fact that something was recorded does not make it valid or immune from challenge.
Coming back to this comment because I am back on being interested in this part. I don't see any problem with the newest by-laws after reviewing the differences. They are really minor. One amendment was necessary to comply with HUD.
I found the one he says is the most problematic - that the board can waive dues and such on a whim, and this allowed the most recent board to write off a bunch of dues they shouldn't have.
Well, the amendment says no such thing. I like the amendment. Before it, homeowners had no redress if they fell on a hard time and go behind on dues. This amendment does not allow their dues to be waived, but they can write a letter and explain a hardship, and the board may vote on granting relief from late fees and interest, but not dues. I see no problem here.
It also (and this is more likely the part he doesn't like) allows for the cancellation of debt that is deemed uncollectible. This is after all methods of collection have been attempted, and the most recent board did have to write debt off.
As a for instance, when a unit is foreclosed on by the bank, having the first lien, we cannot get anything from it for the back-dues we are owed. We have to write it off.
I can't figure out if he truly believes that he can show damages from not only the most recent board, but also the people who signed this amendment in 1990, of if he is blowing smoke. It was a campaign promise that there is 'missing money' and he's going to find it and get it back via suits and liens and for extra measure, prosecute for fraud, sue attorneys for these past boards, and turn them all in to the State Bar Association.
He sure seems serious, listing out in detail all the people and the supposed offensives. October financials are not out yet, but the prior two months a total of 9K was paid to a litigation firm. Attorney fees for us usually run 10-15K for an entire year.
Also, it would seem that all this about by-laws is a smoke screen. What a great way not to follow any. To claim they are invalid! What doesn't add up is that how this whole conversation started was over seeing financials. Even if we went by the originals, which he claims are the only valid ones, they also say we may view the books. And it wouldn't matter if none of them said it. It's state law!
To your point, if you are reading, what is the benefit to voiding those by-laws? All it would erase is the amendment regarding dues write-off, and take the ability away from the board to give people a break on late fees/interest, which they are not REQUIRED to under the amendment. They could just say 'no' everytime if they want to. And they also are not required to write off debt deemed uncollectible. It's just an OPTION.
Clearly there is no cause of action against the signers of that amendment, not in a civil suit, as there aren't any damages from it. I guess if he can prove that 51% owners did not vote for that, he has fraud or contract violation or something. I really doubt fraud took place. I wasn't here in 1990, but all the time I have been here, my vote for everything has been sought. In person, if I didn't respond to mailings.
I just don't 'get' any of this. Their goal is to write new ones anyway. And for us to vote via a 'fraud-proof' website. Well, that is another quagmire, in order to change the voting system, the by-laws first have to be changed to allow such. Right now they say in person or by written proxy. So this would be a two-step? Seek signatures to change by-laws, and THEN change to this website voting (which is stupid, we have a lot of older people here who don't even have internet).
Here is the humdinger, though: they are going to seek proxies from their supporters for carte blanche. People aren't even going to read the proposed new by-laws. They will just sign proxies granting the power to them to decide how to write them.
Coming back to this comment because I am back on being interested in this part. I don't see any problem with the newest by-laws after reviewing the differences. They are really minor. One amendment was necessary to comply with HUD.
Not sure what that was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
I found the one he says is the most problematic - that the board can waive dues and such on a whim, and this allowed the most recent board to write off a bunch of dues they shouldn't have.
Well, the amendment says no such thing. I like the amendment. Before it, homeowners had no redress if they fell on a hard time and go behind on dues. This amendment does not allow their dues to be waived, but they can write a letter and explain a hardship, and the board may vote on granting relief from late fees and interest, but not dues. I see no problem here.
As a practical matter those "late fees" are typically generated as a windfall fee for management companies and their contracts are designed to prevent such fees from being "waived".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
It also (and this is more likely the part he doesn't like) allows for the cancellation of debt that is deemed uncollectible. This is after all methods of collection have been attempted, and the most recent board did have to write debt off.
The board always has the ability to decide whether to try to pursue collection of debt. Sometimes it is not worth trying to pursue and in no circumstances should a board authorize pursuit of debt collection for the primary benefit of the management company. There are a number of reasons debt may not be collectible including bankruptcy, foreclosure, and statute of limitations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
As a for instance, when a unit is foreclosed on by the bank, having the first lien, we cannot get anything from it for the back-dues we are owed. We have to write it off.
and....so?
The declaration is going to provide that the condo assessment lien is junior to any first mortgage lien. Otherwise lenders would never provide money for borrowers to buy condos. In addition, the secondary market for condo loans would disappear given that the GSEs are not interested in buying loans secured by property where the condo (or HOA) can simply tack on "debt" and foreclose to divest the GSEs of their security interest in the property. The condo and HOA vendor industry is very concerned about keeping federal monies and federal lending programs in place to ensure more potential victims continue to buy condo property and HOA-burdened property. Without the lien subordination provision the market for condo and HOA loans would dry up overnight. That would be a good thing as far as I'm concerned but it would make it very difficult for current owners to sell and get out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
I can't figure out if he truly believes that he can show damages from not only the most recent board, but also the people who signed this amendment in 1990, of if he is blowing smoke. It was a campaign promise that there is 'missing money' and he's going to find it and get it back via suits and liens and for extra measure, prosecute for fraud, sue attorneys for these past boards, and turn them all in to the State Bar Association.
There may well be missing money. Embezzlement and outright theft are rampant in condo and HOA projects. Evan McKenzie runs a blog related to a book he wrote years ago called "Privatopia". The blog can be found at The Privatopia Papers
He seems to update the blog less frequently these days but stories about condo and HOA theft and embezzlement make regular appearances. The condo/HOA attorneys are often aligned with the management company and they typically belong to the same trade group which promotes its members' interests not its members' clients' interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
He sure seems serious, listing out in detail all the people and the supposed offensives. October financials are not out yet, but the prior two months a total of 9K was paid to a litigation firm. Attorney fees for us usually run 10-15K for an entire year.
If he is engaging legal services on behalf of the condo corporation then the condo corporation will be paying for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
Also, it would seem that all this about by-laws is a smoke screen. What a great way not to follow any. To claim they are invalid! What doesn't add up is that how this whole conversation started was over seeing financials. Even if we went by the originals, which he claims are the only valid ones, they also say we may view the books. And it wouldn't matter if none of them said it. It's state law!
The trade group that many of these management companies and attorneys belong to is known as Community Associations Institute. That trade group has lobbied against access to books and records for years. If not outright denial of access they lobby for expensive barriers that benefit the management company, not the condo corporation and certainly not its involuntary members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
To your point, if you are reading, what is the benefit to voiding those by-laws? All it would erase is the amendment regarding dues write-off, and take the ability away from the board to give people a break on late fees/interest, which they are not REQUIRED to under the amendment. They could just say 'no' everytime if they want to. And they also are not required to write off debt deemed uncollectible. It's just an OPTION.
I do not know enough of the situation to comment. However, I am currently involved in litigation to have a number of individual bylaws invalidated. The board promoted bylaws that i) extended board member terms; ii) put up barriers to members calling for meetings of the members; and iii) attempted to impose pre-suit mediation before a homeowner could file suit against another member, the board members, or the management company. None of this was beneficial to members - it was all about regime building for incumbent board members. The pre-suit mediation did not apply to the HOA corporation or the management company and the management company is not otherwise a "member". So they wanted to create more time and financial barriers to members going to court and prevent members from otherwise sharing information with each other. The board only wants its version of facts to be disseminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
Clearly there is no cause of action against the signers of that amendment, not in a civil suit, as there aren't any damages from it. I guess if he can prove that 51% owners did not vote for that, he has fraud or contract violation or something. I really doubt fraud took place. I wasn't here in 1990, but all the time I have been here, my vote for everything has been sought. In person, if I didn't respond to mailings.
I have no idea but unless some type of tolling due to fraud is applicable a statute of limitations would likely bar recovery against the individuals. Statute of limitations does not apply to declaring the bylaw(s) void if the amendment was void rather than voidable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
I just don't 'get' any of this. Their goal is to write new ones anyway. And for us to vote via a 'fraud-proof' website. Well, that is another quagmire, in order to change the voting system, the by-laws first have to be changed to allow such. Right now they say in person or by written proxy. So this would be a two-step? Seek signatures to change by-laws, and THEN change to this website voting (which is stupid, we have a lot of older people here who don't even have internet).
Here is the humdinger, though: they are going to seek proxies from their supporters for carte blanche. People aren't even going to read the proposed new by-laws. They will just sign proxies granting the power to them to decide how to write them.
And they will probably get them.
Proxies are dangerous and the proxy system is abused. Some states outlawed them for that reason. There aren't many types of "nonprofits" that spend their time almost exclusively accusing and suing members. In short these organizations work against their members instead of for them. Giving the board of such an organization a blank check to vote against the interests of the member is either foolish or a sign that members really do not understand. Typically, however, the proxy is a proxy for voting on them. The board (with the advice of the "management" company and aligned attorney) will decide how to write them.
and....so?
The declaration is going to provide that the condo assessment lien is junior to any first mortgage lien. Otherwise lenders would never provide money for borrowers to buy condos. In addition, the secondary market for condo loans would disappear given that the GSEs are not interested in buying loans secured by property where the condo (or HOA) can simply tack on "debt" and foreclose to divest the GSEs of their security interest in the property. The condo and HOA vendor industry is very concerned about keeping federal monies and federal lending programs in place to ensure more potential victims continue to buy condo property and HOA-burdened property. Without the lien subordination provision the market for condo and HOA loans would dry up overnight. That would be a good thing as far as I'm concerned but it would make it very difficult for current owners to sell and get out.
Right, well he has a problem with that amendment, not me. I don't see how we can change that. And further, there is no reason to go and sue the people that signed that amendment. Or try and charge them and their attorneys with fraud for creating the amendment.
Quote:
Proxies are dangerous and the proxy system is abused. Some states outlawed them for that reason. There aren't many types of "nonprofits" that spend their time almost exclusively accusing and suing members. In short these organizations work against their members instead of for them. Giving the board of such an organization a blank check to vote against the interests of the member is either foolish or a sign that members really do not understand. Typically, however, the proxy is a proxy for voting on them. The board (with the advice of the "management" company and aligned attorney) will decide how to write them.
Well, they gave them proxies that gave up their voting rights for 9 months. Irrevocable. Crazy to sign if you ask me, but they signed them.
There may well be missing money. Embezzlement and outright theft are rampant in condo and HOA projects. Evan McKenzie runs a blog related to a book he wrote years ago called "Privatopia". The blog can be found at The Privatopia Papers
He seems to update the blog less frequently these days but stories about condo and HOA theft and embezzlement make regular appearances. The condo/HOA attorneys are often aligned with the management company and they typically belong to the same trade group which promotes its members' interests not its members' clients' interests.
I'm sure that it is but they can't find any missing money after having access to everything since May. Because there isn't any missing money. So now, he's lashing out about these non-collectibles imo to save face and still claim 'missing money' which was a hallmark of his campaign.
As I said, he has now shifted to suing people long, long gone for things that make absolutely no sense. When I pointed out that these suits are frivolous, and won't result in any money for us, just money paid BY us to pursue stupid things he said yes, YOU WILL PAY for voting for the wrong people all this time. THAT WILL TEACH YOU A LESSON.
I'm sure that it is but they can't find any missing money after having access to everything since May. Because there isn't any missing money. So now, he's lashing out about these non-collectibles imo to save face and still claim 'missing money' which was a hallmark of his campaign.
As I said, he has now shifted to suing people long, long gone for things that make absolutely no sense. When I pointed out that these suits are frivolous, and won't result in any money for us, just money paid BY us to pursue stupid things he said yes, YOU WILL PAY for voting for the wrong people all this time. THAT WILL TEACH YOU A LESSON.
I was like dude, crazy-town.
If you are referring to condo assessments,liability for the debt is both in personam and in rem. That means they can go after former owners (person) and foreclose (property) on current owners to collect amounts allegedly owed by former owners. However, it seems unlikely that many would have been able to finance a purchase if there were outstanding amounts owed at time of purchase. So something is a little off. Probably the board member....
If you are referring to condo assessments,liability for the debt is both in personam and in rem. That means they can go after former owners (person) and foreclose (property) on current owners to collect amounts allegedly owed by former owners. However, it seems unlikely that many would have been able to finance a purchase if there were outstanding amounts owed at time of purchase. So something is a little off. Probably the board member....
He's not referring to that. He's referring to prior board members who enacted the amendment, purportedly changed the by-laws without 51% approval, and their attorneys. Yeah, he's more than a little off, and his daughter is the paralegal for the litigation attorney that is now representation for the association.
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.
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.
