What if a spouse is not a member?

Let’s assume a couple lives in the community for many years but only the wife is on the deed. Technically, her husband is not a member of the association. Does anyone have a provision in the by-laws to allow a spouse, who is not on the deed, to be treated as a member?

This issue will really depend on how strict the Association is or the governing documents are.

If there are no limiting qualifications for who can serve on the Board, then being a member or not won't technically matter. If your Association allows proxies you can consider the spouse a proxy. Unless the Association is actually taking the time to check deeds, no one will even be aware of the issue.

As an example:

My Association has one member suffering from an illness. The adult child explained the situation and asked that we address things to him. Even though the adult child is not on the deed, the Associations deals with the adult child. The Association has zero knowledge if this person is on the deed or not. Honestly, we don't care. The Assessments are being paid and the property maintained. If anything were to go to legal, the Lawyer would verify the owner of the property anyway prior to filing a lien.

Granted, if someone ever wanted to challenge the results of a vote, it may or may not come into play. This hasn't happened yet. When it does, I suspect that the Association will no longer accept the word of an individual and spend time and/or money to maintain copies of the deeds for all lots.

Tim

Petunka,

I believe that Melissa was expressing a personal viewpoint of having two or more members from one household serving on the Board at the same time. Personally, I agree with that viewpoint.

I know that it's certainly legal to have them serve on the board at the same time (unless the governing documents say otherwise). However, it can cause additional issues from membership perceptions of the situation. Issues could relate to the officer positions as having one member serve as President and their spouse (who is also a member) serve as Treasurer could easily cause perception issues. Issues could relate to any new resolutions or guideline approvals. Even if it is legal, the issues caused by the membership perception might not be worth it.

Tim

I understand your point.

Most of the documents I've seen have zero qualifications for Directors. Therefore, anyone could serve (member or not).

I haven't read FL law, does it specify that "only" members are allowed to serve or that members are "eligible" to serve? If it's only stating that they are eligible it might not preclude non-members from serving. It's possible that this was put in place to prevent eligibility requirements from excluding certain members. Again, I haven't read FL law.

Typically, the term "member" is defined within the articles of Incorporation with the definition repeated in each document. Therefore, it's possible that it would require a change in any document that carried the definition.

A bylaw amendment treating spouses who are not on the deed as members can have it's own issues. Just because the Association wants to treat them as members does that make them legally obligated as a member is? It also doesn't address where one spouse dies and the other finds a lifelong companion but doesn't marry or place them on the deed for financial reasons.

If the issue is about serving on the Board or in a committee, then this is the only thing that might need to be addressed (that is if there are any qualification requirements that would exclude non-members).

My Association has zero requirements to serve on the Board. A few years ago I took a petition around the development to add requirements, I discovered that limiting it to members only would have drastically limited the available volunteers. I chose to not go forward with the petition. If membership apathy is the issue, perhaps removing the requirements is the way to go rather than creating new ones.

Tim

The1 -

In my opinion, that would be a correct interpretation. Our documents define owner the same way and a member as being the registered owner or owners.

I suspect that the strict enforcement of the term caused some issues when it was first implemented. It probably also causes additional work to verify the deeds, etc. As I stated, our Association hasn't gone to the strict interpretation of those terms. Although it can cause some potential future issue if a vote is challenged, I'm personally glad that we haven't gone to that extreme.

Will,

Why does everything have to take on a different color? First you do not seem understand the question I asked. Second, I am not advocating that both husband and wife should serve on the Board at the same time. I only said there is nothing in the HOA law to prevent both husband and wife to run if they are both members. If the members do not want both of them to serve, do not nominate them/do not vote for them. And yes, only one member can vote at members’ meetings regardless how many people are on the deed or, if owned by a corporation or some other entity. (FL Condominium law is different and the FL legislature may change that HOA provision also;).

Well then lets looks at it another way then, if as I described before holds true. That one member per lot and as you are stating that only the wife is on the deed, then how could the spouse be considered a member if he doesn't have an interest in the property. I do not own where you own nor am I on any deed , does that make me a member too!

This conversation seems hopeless, am sorry to say.

TheI

What error? We can certainly vote to somehow ease the requirements and allow a non-member to run for the board but telling the people to ‘suck it up and fill out a quick claim’ is, to put it mildly ,rather a juvenile approach. Keep in mind that someone else’s finances are none of your business.

An association is a membership, to be a member you have to be an owner of the property, to be considered an owner you need to be on the title. Being on the title means you have vested interest in the property and the association. Why would you let someone who does not have vested interest in the property have a say in how the association should be run? In theory it may sound like an ok idea if there is a husband or wife not on title that want to be on the board but you open youself up to other possibilities like renters that think they should have the chance to be on the board.
I am not sure what finances have to do with this? Unless you are refering to the filing fee? But if they don't want to pay that then the parties could fill out the quick claim deed and give a copy to the association. Technically once the deed is filled out the other party is on title and for the purpose of the association it does not have to be filed with the clerks office. You can get quick claim deeds at any office store for about $10.

TheI

There are renters and then there are “renters”. As an example, an established Association of say 25 years, and a renter who has rented for the past 25 years and who will probably continue to rent. Might not that person make a good Director?

As another example, someone who has owned their Home, Condo Unit, for 25 years, but for Estate Planning reasons has deeded their property to a son or daughter, but continues to reside in “their” home or Condo Unit. Although now no longer a member of the Association “on paper”, might not that person make a good Director?

Just because “the Documents” allow someone who is not a Member/Owner to serve as a Director, that person still needs to be “elected” to serve.

Many couples put the title in his or her name, for family estate and tax reasons or, have prenupt agreements, etc.

Lauren, under Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation act it is NOT required to be members of the corporation or Florida residents, to serve or the board, unless the corporation documents so require. And, our docs provide that only members can serve on the board.

Tim, yes, a pool of those members who are willing or able to serve is rapidly shrinking in our community. Hardly ever the Nominating committee finds more than five people to serve (required) and consequently all five are automatically elected. There is no competition.

Ellie, yes, allowing one non-member to serve on the board is certainly the best suggestion so far. The only hiccup is that our membership could reject it. Many argue that any tenant, representing an investor who owns multiple units, should not be on the board. About 35% of all units are leased and about 20% of all units are owned by one investor (a lot of voting power). I am concerned that this number may go up.

No one, I know, seems to object to the spouses – who are not title holders- be given the same rights as members. Also, some people seem to think that these couples should be allowed to attend all meeting together, as a family, that is. In a nutshell, the community is trying to find a way to ‘treat’ them as members. Can it be done ‘legally’? I do not know, yet. Thank you all for your suggestions and responses. I hope we’ll work it out, somehow.

Tim,

Thnak you, but this may not work because the definition of ‘member’ would not be in harmony with Florida laws because only the owners are 'members'. But, you gave me an idea. Perhaps, we could introduce a new definition of ‘a family member’ who may not be a title holder and include an additional requirement that such family member must actually reside in the named property as Florida resident. Now this could include spouses, kids over 18 years, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts all of whom would qualify as long as they live with the title holder.. LOL. Nothing wrong with that. Well, I'll keep on thinking.

Tim, this is what happens when someone reads one article and does not fully understand what it really means. I do not wish to discuss this subject anymore.