Board approved exteroir painting rescinded 6 months later

An application for an exterior re-paint was submitted and approved by the ARC in writing in February.

Now the board has sent a denial letter stating the approval is void due to the color not being in harmony, six months after the house has been painted.

The board is requesting that a different color be chosen and re-painted.
They are "willing to share the cost of re-painting of the exterior"

Any advise on how to respond to this?

Thank you,
James G.

The following statement is solely based up the assumption you paid for the entire repaint back in Febuary.
If the Board is recinding their approval letter six months post painting, I personally would not object to the house being repainted to a color "more Suitable" and acceptable to me ( My wife and I). However, If I incurred the cost the first time after the approval, the Association would have to bear the finacial burden this time.
If they try to argue the fact, I would point out, that I acted in good faith and with a written approval, signed by the board.
If they try to leverage you, and if it were in a court room. I do not believe any Judge would rule against you as you did infact act in good faith and only proceeded after written confirmation was given.
I do not think any attorney would go to court and represent the association in a situation like this.
Make them pay for thr repaint. Contact 3 contractors and submit three bids on the repainting.

Thanks for the response.

I did paint for the entire re-paint in February.

I have no problems with a re-paint if the board is willing to incur the full costs. But From the wording in the letter, the board is willing to "share" the cost, it seems like they want me to pay for the re-paint.

Since the board is denying the request after an approval was given.
Any advise on how to word my response to request that the board pay the full cost of the re-paint would be appreciated.

I am a firm believer in whoever makes the mistake should pay for the mistake. [Bruce]

Bruce, I totally agree. Someone should be responsible for this problem. But, who? Should owners pay for this mistake? Or, should the insurance kick in in this instance?

Let’s assume, Mr. Jones builds a $50K addition to his house and six months later the Board decides they goofed and offers to pay ½ to rebuild it. Now your homeowners pay $25K? What if the association has only 25 houses? That would require $1K assessment per owner.

Would you pay $1K to rebuild that addition?

"Would you pay $1K to rebuild that addition?" Petunka

That is the American way isn't it. Our government makes mistakes and our citizens foo the bill.
That is the standard example all governments seem to follow, including the HOAs. Right, wrong or indifferent, that is how it is. That is the reasons we vote politicians in and out of office, based upon their performance to manage our needs.

Is it fair. No, but you have to take the good with the bad. In the example you gave, it is bad. In the case of this home getting repainted, it is bad.

Now, to answer the wording. Assuming you have a written and signed approval for. I would respond similar to the manner you wrote here.
To whom it may concern,
I submitted the ARC form to repaint my home in accordance with the _____ Home Owners Association documents. You responded with the form signed and approved.
I received a letter to rescind said approval six months after I completed the painting on my home, at no cost to the association. I do not feel and or can not financially afford to repaint my home in entirety or partially. However, if the board deems my home needs to be repainted to conform, I have no objections to the board funding the re painting of my home with a mutually agreed upon color by me and the board.
Attached is a copy of the original approved form along with 3 well recommended and qualified contractor bids.

Something to that effect would open the dialogue for future discussions.

The approval was in writing.
The denial letter does refer to the previous approval, their wording was that having reviewed the "approved exterior house color" "The approved house color was not in harmony with the community color themes".

The form that was sent back with the letter still shows the original approval date, but with "voided by the BOD" next to the original notes.


Thank you for this Charles, I will incorporate some of this in my response to them.

I am not saying James should not be compensated but I do question the process and the responsibilities issues.

I realize I swim against the stream here, but I do not believe the BOD has the authority to make deals or, to negotiate with owners to pay for any expenses it is not authorized to cover. This is really not a good thing in any instance. Plus, what if a certified audit is performed and the CPA says ‘no good’? What will happen then? Does anyone know?

Should not the D&O insurance cover ‘incorrect decisions’?

Is this color a new color or an existing one on their color scheme? Sometimes they can no longer reproduce colors at the Paint store after a certain amount of time. Which means you may have painted your house the approved "Mountain blue" but that "mountain blue" is no longer the original configuration of the original. Plus each paint manufacturer uses different names for their paints. It's always best your HOA sticks with one paint manufacturer such as "Glidden/Behr/Sherwin Williams". That way if they have to update their color scheme, the company will have it on record.

There's also some colors that come off really bright when first painted. They will fade out and fit the color scheme after some weathering. We had a person who wanted to paint the house "Plum" which is an approved color with a few houses painted that color. However, when he first applied it, the paint looked COMPLETELY different. We verified it was that "Plum" color by every means possible but when applied it came out "Purple". Luckily, the owner decided to just skip that color and try another one. It only cost about 20 dollars to do a few test runs at that point.

Do some research and see if it's the approved colors were from a different manufacture and different mix. Did you just submit the name of the paint or did you show them an example prior to painting? Next time make sure you do an example just to make sure it matches. Plus I would also try to find out on your behalf if these approved colors do indeed exist and that you haven't just gotten a color the manufacturer changed. This would help you and future residents.

Most D&O insurance covers the legal costs of defending against a lawsuit, including allegations of "incorrect decisions" and other specified things. Unless someone is suing the board over their erroneous approval of the paint color, D&O insurance wouldn't apply.

I suppose that James could sue if the Board started fining him for a covenant violation, but that doesn't seem likely to happen here.

There was no approved color list and a sample sheet for the paint color was obtained at the store and sent with the application.

That sample color was the one I used to purchase the paint and received approval for.

Bottom line, I would not spend a red copper peeny to re-paint my house. If they want it re-painted, they would foot the bill. Period. The approval, as you describe it, is a legal and binding contract. You did due your dillegiance. If they want to take it to court, then I am sure, their attorney would recommend to leave well enough alone, as I would recommend to them.
Not to say, they may try to give you CC&R violation letters. And if they try to lien on your property, consult FLA Statutes 720, and the rebuttal process is very straight forward. Ultimately, they have to prove that yopu are in violation, which is not going to happen if they use the reasonable and prudent man theory. Which, is what Florida statutes are supposed to be based upon.

You paid 100% of the original paint job and they are offering to 'share' in the cost of the repaint. Since it doesn't specify a % and you are willing to have a repaint, just advise them that their % share for the repaint is 100% and yours is 0%. If they refuse then it is their choice. You will be viewed as having been even more than reasonable if they take it further and they could open themselves up to punitive damages on top of other costs!

To me this is pretty simple, you have three ways to word it:

1. The request was submitted and approved by you per our documentation and at this time I have no intention nor am obligated to change the color

2. The request was submitted and approved by you per our documentation and if the association would like to pay the full cost to repaint with a contractor of my choosing I am open to that discussion.

3. The request was submitted and approved by you per our documentation and if the association would like to share the cost to repaint with a contractor of my choosing I am open to that discussion.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me unless there is more to the story.