TX HOA Board showing discrimination in how CCRs are applied...

I live in neighborhood in TX. The legislature voted changes to TX law which directly affects how HOA can operate--some HOAs including mine have gone through bylaw revision to adhere to new changes. BUT the law did not require some aspects of bylaws to change unfortunately.

Case in point--HOA Board meetings are open to the HOA members and must have 24 hr notice--not lot of time.
The law mandates that all records are open and that HOAs should have a website and post minutes there...sometimes when it suits our Board they do that--sometimes they don't...

Case in point--
Non-regular meeting of the HOA Board was called for 3rd week in May--with minimal notice.
The reason was not posted with the notice.
At the meeting the Board voted to raise our HOA dues the maximum allowed w/o open HOA vote...30%..legal yes, but underhanded since the purpose was not posted with the notice
And since that meeting--no mass emailing although they have the capability...no posting to the HOA website in over a month...no posting to the HOA Facebook page...
mainly because they don't want people to know before they send out the yearly dues letter at the end of September...
they are probably hoping homeowners won't even notice the increase or won't have time to object and do anything before their dues are delinquent...

2nd reason the meeting was called was to discuss and put homeowners on notice that the roof on house they are constructing is not within the CCR guidelines...CCRs call for a "weathered" look to shingles (meaning brown/black shingles and a certain mfg)...this house which has had the roof up for 3 mo or more has an upgraded shingle with a green/brown color...it has a higher profile and looks "thicker" so it does stand out from other roofs on the court where house is being build. But the house is very attractive and has a front door facing the street--unlike the last house built in my neighborhood that has a front door facing the driveway of the house next door and definitely violated the #1 provision of the CCRs...and the ARC didn't even realize that design REQUIRED a variance to be constructed in that manner.

Two points--two or three members of the HOA board, including the president and a member of the Architectural Review Committee live within sight of that "green roof" and have seen it every day since it was installed and never made any complaint about the roof's appearance until recently.

The reason they have now is likely that the neighbor next to that lot/house who is former HOA president and prior head of the ARC fought to prevent that house from being built...refused to grant a variance needed even though other homes in neighborhood had variances of greater change from the CCR norms. He is also the one who approved the house with front door facing sideways...so he doesn't care about how bad design influences other homes in neighborhood...he just didn't want to have a house on that lot blocking his view...which he said to other members of the HOA at times...

From comments made at prior Board meetings that I did attend, I think several people on the current ARC have no clue about how to read architectural plans to ensure they do meet CCR guiidelines. I am not even sure they did look at the complete plans for the "freen roof house" vs just the platte for how the house fit on the lot, since the variance requested dealt with the setbacks along the side yards...The house WAS approved by the ARC and the Board entire I believe...and the ARC meetings themselves are never documented with minutes as far as I can tell.

The second point is that since our neighborhood was started, homes have been re-roofed and there are probably 10-12 homes with roofs that don't meet the CCR standards for the specific style/mfg of roof material. One house in particular that has been re-roofed for about a year is dubbed the "Red Roof Inn" by neighbors because of the strong red color to the roof---definitely not a weathered brown/black appearance. This homeowner did not get ARC approval prior to putting those shingles on. I know that for a fact from statement by Board members.

The HOA Board/ARC know this homeowner is not in compliance. I was told by one of the Board members that the decision to basially ignore what was done was because they did not have enough money to make the person change the roof--since I guess they know he is not going to do it voluntarily.
Apparently there was never any message from the HOA board or the ARC to any of these other homeowners about their roofs not being in compliance----only to the ones building the house next to the former HOA president.

Tomorrow there is a called Board meeting (announced via email to HOA members a couple of days ago and posted on the HOA website) to proceed with filing forms necessary under state law that detail the HOA's process for fining homeowners not in compliance with bylaws/CCRs and a homeowner's redress proceedures...

When I emailed one of the HOA board members about why they were doing that, she said it was because people were parking boats and campers in violation of the CCRs...which a couple of people have done...but the real reason some of us suspectthis meeting is happening is to start the train of evidence against the homeowners with the green roof...

Our Board is getting advice from an attorney who has a prior relationship with the original developer of the subdivision, with one member of the current HOA Board and the former HOA president who was involved in the last general election which had to be redone 3 times...some of us don't put much confidence in his impartial assessment of the situation. OR how this Board presents information to him. from conversation I had with him regarding one of the failed elections, I know some information was deliberately misrepresented which made a direct difference in the opinion he offered the Board.

I am very much concerned that what this Board is doing borders on failure of fiduciary responsibility--being that they apparently were not concerned about any roof color except one house's and then not until one specific person made a complaint...one person with a grudge...The person who is head of the ARC is his next-door-neighbor and has been in daily sight of the house with the green roof...

According to HOA bylaws, even if general members attend this Board meeting we have no vote in proceedings. And because of what the attorney and the Board want, any comments HOA members make at the meeting do not appear within the minutes posted on the website or preserved for history...which leaves a real hole of accountability/accuracy to me...but which they obviously want to avoid so no one can see any dissention/disagreement from members of the HOA or point to for claims of lack of reasonable foresight.

IS what this board is likely to do--censure/fine owners of one property in particular vs any owners who might be in non-compliance for similar failure -- crossing the line between what is deemed prudent behavior and what is personal/vindictive?

And how can you make a law retroactive basically--
I read on one attorney's web site that the HOA's bylaws, CCRs, and other polcies had to be on file with the local county by JAN of 2012--to be public record and enforceable...

our new bylaws were on file, and the CCRs had been on file--but this new policy for handling fines/grieveances was not on file then...and is only going to be on file AFTER they have this meeting...after they have told the homeowners they are not in compliance...
If they are going to make one owner adhere to CCR policy regarding roofs don't they have to make ALL homeowners adhere--

I just can't believe that they are allowed to pick and choose who they decide are in violation--especially after approving their plans and then ignoring the roof for 3 months...

AM I NUTS???

What they did in v
Increasing the yesrly dues is allowed under bylaws.
But the fact that I am sure they knew prior to the meeting what they would do yet failed to announce purpose of meeting or why raising dues is necessary is what I find suspect. Plus not announcing their actions timely just clouds the motive and necessity.
According to our legal bylaws the HOA board are the only allowed votes at the meetings.

Parking boats/trailers on driveways in front of fences and open view of street is a violation of CCR --- they werent parked on street itself ---although that is not allowed for more than 24 hours either

They just dont follow their own policies with any throughness or transparency.
Most homeowners just don't seem to care so people who do are very frustrated and swimming upstream.
They think they are indemnified against a personal lawsuit because HOA pays for insurance. But my understanding is that policy covers them until they breach fiduciary responsibility.
But they would still use HOA money defending themselves if they were sued.

Not necessarily.
If the state laws are updated, that doesn't mean that every HOA is automatically mandated to operate under the revisions made. The deeds and bylaws are specific to each HOA and unless the state requires it, they MAY be updated if the HOA chooses.

As for the OP's concerns about the discriminatory actions relative to the appearance regs being selectively enforced, the HOA is opening themselves up to a discrimination lawsuit. That's one thing that boards seem to forget, everyone needs to be treated equally under the rules. Pick & choose which rules apply to who and it can turn into a mess in a hurry.

Deviations to appearance regs should be few and far between and limited to grandfathering prior construction (relative to the rules being written) or to things required due to the features of a particular lot (i.e. Having a front facing garage instead of the mandated side facing would be in order if the lot had a swamp or cliff that physically prevented adherence to the rules)

There is nothing I could located within TX statutes that describe fiduciary duty or responsibility specifically for Associations. There are TX statutes that identify it for other situations, but not for Associations.

IF your Association is incorporated, then Texas Business Organizations Code would apply. Within that code, Sec.A22.221 (scroll down), there is a general set of standards for Directors. Perhaps that will help.

The Community Association Institute (CAI) does have a power point presentation, available here, on financial management that has a section on fiduciary duties that may be helpful.

HOA-USA, under their resource tab has some free articles that may also help.

Both CAI and HOA-USA are subscription sites but do have limited free resources.
Community Associations Network, a sponsor of this site, is free and may have additional material.


The Attorney works for the Association, at the direction of the Board. The Board of Directors makes the decisions and cites people for violations. The attorney does not.

If the Board asks the attorney to write a letter about covenant violation to xyz member, the attorney writes the letter and submits a bill for this service to the Association.

The issue of selective enforcement is an issue with your Board not with the attorney or management company.


Associations are covered under civil laws. Civil disputes are handled through the court system if the parties involved are unable to resolve the issue themselves.

Be aware - Similar to a police officer issuing a ticket for speeding, claiming that others were speeding at the same time doesn't nullify the fact that you were speeding. Therefore, claiming that others are also in violation, at best, will force the Board to cite everyone else for the violation in addition to you. It won't excuse you violation if it exists.


Yes. This is because this process is the procedure you agreed to follow in your contract (CC&Rs). Even if the CC&Rs doesn't specify a grievance procedure, it likely authorizes the Board to adopt one.

I'd like to go back to some of your original statements:

how can you make a law retroactive basically--

When I had a similar issue, I did a lot of research and discovered that grandfathering is not automatic. There are grandfather clauses for governments (Federal, State, County, etc.) but they do not apply to private organizations. Therefore, unless there is an actual grandfather clause in the State Statutes for Associations (some have them to a small extent) or within your governing documents, then something that wasn't a violation in the past could become a violation as the rules change.

Many boards will address this when they adopt new rules. It appears that yours did not. When this happens, the issue might need to be resolved in the courts which at best is only a 50/50 chance.

The law mandates that all records are open and that HOAs should have a website and post minutes there...sometimes when it suits our Board they do that--sometimes they don't...

Note: since your post talks about roofs, I am of the expectation that you are not in a condominium when writing this reply.

Access to records are covered under section Sec. 209.005 of the Texas Residential Property Owners Protection Act. I saw nothing in that section which requires or recommends an Association to maintain a website. Having a website can certainly be beneficial but it's an option. Being an option, it's the boards decision as to when or what is posted on the site.

Perhaps the individual doesn't have the time to devote to maintaining the site. If this is the case, perhaps you could offer your services to help maintain the site.

I just can't believe that they are allowed to pick and choose who they decide are in violation--especially after approving their plans and then ignoring the roof for 3 months...

Boards, just like members, are granted the authority to enforce the covenants. Typically, this is where the language in the contract (the CC&Rs) stop. Having the authority doesn't require or mandate the board, or a member, to actually enforce a perceived violation. Enforcement is typically optional. This is why many governing documents contain language that failure to enforce a covenant in the past does not prevent enforcement in the future.

Was there a time line associated with the approval?
Was the roof built exactly to the plans with zero deviation from them?
Does approval require inspection after the job is completed?

These questions show the possibilities as to why something approved might be in violation. Example: if there is a timeline and the roof wasn't completed in time - the approval need to be requested for again.

If you disagree with a decision of your board I have the following suggestions:

1) Keep emotions out of the issue - when your passionate about something it's easy to have emotions blind you to different perspectives. Therefore, it's important to keep emotions in check so you can see all perspectives and make informed decisions.

2) Read and understand your governing documents and applicable State laws.
Here is a link to an old thread on this site on how to read a statute.

3) Attend board meetings. This way, even if you disagree with decisions of the board, you will have a better understanding as to why things are done.

Hope this helps,

Tim