Multiple property owner

Christine,

If every lot gets a pass do you actually need another pass? Does your second property have a tenant in it that would need a pass?

Every lot should be treated equally and in that case, you should have a pass for the other property but as you have said, the committee wants passes given out to individuals only. Seeing their point means to me that if someone owns 10 properties, why should they get 10 passes. I see that. Is it equal treatment according to each lot? No! it isn't but unless your governing documents state that every lot gets a pass, it just might be up to the discretion of the committee on how the passes are given out.

Section 2. Common Properties. Subject to the provisions of these Covenants, as well as
any Bylaws and rules and regulations of the Association, and any charges established by the
Association, every Class “A” Member shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to
any property.

My question now what defines a Class A Member which both properties are, the property or the individual?

Awwww Glen,

You should have known that I may have worded it wrong. Let me clarify myself. If there is a unit with someone living in it, aka renter, of course they should have a pass for their use. I fight tooth and nail for my tenant's rights.

I really was trying to say (and I did a poor job of it) say, someone owns 10 lots, perhaps empty lots, do they need 10 passes? I am totally in agreement that 10 lots, 10 votes and 10 other perks but this seems to be a committee trying to save passes, at least that is what I read on it. Are we still on the "share a brain program" now?

Its very possible there are restrictions on empty lots, not houses. Do lot owners pay the same dues as lots with houses? You will need to look through your docs or ask the HOA to cite to rule why they are denying you.

I would guess that there is a definition of Class A member somewhere in the docs. If so, you go by that. One example I found does separate member from lot indicating that a member gets 1 vote per lot, so a single "member" may get multiple votes. IF this is your association's definition and the pool access is worded "per member" vs. "per vote" or "per share", then I think you're stuck paying if you want the second.

Personally, I think it should be one pass per lot or vote rather than member, but your governing docs supercede my concept of what is fair.

Ugh, that doesn't read like it helps your cause to me. It speaks to owners being members, not lots.

You also indicated that the pool committee hands out passes per household. First question is if they have any supporting documentation of their policy. Next question is whether you own two housing units or one unit on a double-sized lot. If they can prove that it is indeed per house, and you have a single home, regardless of number of lots they seem to be within their rights.

Again, I agree that if you pay a double share of the common costs, it is not outrageous for you to receive a double-share of their benefits, etc. But as another spelled out for me, what's binding is the law. Fairness is more a matter of opinion and not necessarily represented by the law.

I'm curious what else it says. It looks like you changed from giving the definition to stating your case after "one (1) vote". Based on that far alone, you should only have one vote, but I'm guessing there's more that indicates why you have 2 votes. If there is nothing, that may be a point in your favor. Also, is there any similar section on assessments/regimes and other liabilities?

What I've read so far indicates to me (again, non-legal interpretation) that ACCORDING TO THE RULES one member is an owner of one or more property (1 mem = 1+ properties) and a member gets one vote. I don't see anything that ties # of lots to shares in anything. In practice, you've indicated that's how it usually playse out, but so far I don't see anything IN THE RULES supporting it.

But make sure before you fight on these points, you read things objectively. Fairness doesn't matter. What's written does. If you expose a hole in the wording that 1 member = 1 vote, but there's no definition indicating 1 member = 1 share of the liabilities, it MIGHT turn out that they interpret that you only get one vote now but still pay 2 shares of the expenses. Is it fair, no. Is it right, no. But if it's how the docs are written it could still happen.



This sounds like they had the right to make the ruling they did, which brings you back to discrepancies in member v. lot.
I feel like my membership on the lot is being denied amenities.

It's the empty lot thing that bothers me. If no one is living on the lot who are they giving the extra passes to ? Sounds to me like the committee wants to keep the pool and it's amenities from becoming "public".
However, IMO unless there is something specific in the rules and regulations (" subject to the rules and regulations") that prohibit it and the owners are paying equal dues on all properties then they deserve an equal number of passes for each unit/lot.

Hi Christine:

We are not attorneys but only individuals sharing experiences. What the HOA needs to realize is if an individual is paying assessments for more than one lot and therefore more than likely eligible for the extra pass ... to charge them for an extra pass potentially would not hold up in a court of law if challenged. A court possibly would take issue with charging assessments and denying benefit for assessment charged. If you can purchase another pass then potentially they are not preventing public use as someone else noted above and which was a good point. They should exercise more prudent judgment regarding the situation. Good luck ...

I just want to thank everyone for all of their input now I have to decide where I want to go from here.