Board motion to follow CC&Rs fails

It all comes down to perspective and intent. I am not sure of the exact details of this. You may be taking this to the extreme to mean they aren't going to follow the rules. That may not be the case or intent of what they are saying. Like we have a rule in our CC&R's that says "Only white blinds are to be displayed in the front windows". Blinds are INSIDE the home which the owner has control of. The HOA the OUTSIDE appearance. We may say that we aren't going to follow the CC&R's on this because it's just kind of ridicolous. We all agree. So just short of changing and rewriting the entire CC&R's, we choose NOT to make this rule enforceable. I mean who in their right mind is going to force people to put up white shades in their own home?

Not saying this is what is happening in your HOA. However, trying to put this in perspective the the rules of the HOA is what the owners/members want to live by. The rules are changeable by majority vote. Some can take an entire re-write and update of the documents while others can be noted in the meeting notes to be recognized. As long as the membership is in agreement that's what they want. It's kind of a bit flexible culturally.

I believe you are putting too much emphasis on what is happening.

The CC&Rs gives both the members and the Association the authority to enforce the covenants. However, the documents do not require a member or the Association to enforce (as Associations vary, check your governing documents to be sure).

Therefore, just as a member may choose not to enforce a covenant against their neighbors, the Board may choose not to enforce a specific covenant (or more than one covenant). I believe that this is what your Board was specifying and not that they were no longer going to comply with the covenants.

Note: each board is different and one board may chose to enforce something a previous board chose not to enforce.

If you really want to ensure that a covenant is never enforced, then the process would be to amend the covenants to remove that specific covenant.

Hope this helps,

Tim

I agree that the motion by the Board's President is meaningless. The president was trying to make a point about the board being so divided that they can't pass any motions.

The board has decided that it is impossible to amend the builder's CC&Rs. However, rather than taking the steps needed to overcome an apathetic community (mostly banks and 2nd homeowners), the board has informally changed the policies with written "guidelines" that modify the policies. As example, our CC&Rs prohibit overnight parking on driveways. The "Parking Guideline" permits parking on the driveway.

The HOA is in an uproar because they are disenfranchised. It has led to the board being divided, and one member resigning (5 man board). The president (who is the author of the guidelines and lives in a home with a driveway) was frustrated when his new parking guideline wasn't passed. Two board members voted against it. The resigning board member abstained. The two authors voted for it.

Once the vote was complete, the yelling started. The homeowners with driveways were very upset. At that point, the president called for a motion to follow the CC&R policies. Two voted for, two against, and one abstained.

I live on a public street within the association. The public street is specifically excluded in the CC&R from the parking policy. Recently, the city working with the author of the guidelines, has posted no parking signs except by permit on the public street. However, the city isn't planning to manage the permits. They expect the board to manage the permits. Unfortunately, the details for managing the permits were part of the new guidelines that failed.

Now, the city is going to replace the permit required signs with No Parking signs. I live on an island and as soon as the no parking signs go up, I have no place to park.

For years the board ignored the parking provision and everyone was happy. Then, someone decided that house values would go up if cars weren't on the street. Now, the city is mad, the homeowners are mad, and the board is a mess.

Hope this info helps. Happy Holidays!

Thank you for your comments. I am considering asking the board to allow me to pursue an amendment to the parking use provision in our CC&Rs, using Civil Code 1355b. 1355b requires a 50% affirmative vote to modify the provision.

Would you please clarify your point about majority volte not being a sufficient defense? Also, if you have specific case law in California, I would appreciate it.

Lawrence's emphasis is correct, Gary. Don't waste your time getting 50% to vote when you easily may need 2/3 as is our case, or even more. In addition, you'd need to comply entirely with CA Civil Code, e.g., sending ballots in double envelopes, appointing an inspector or inspectors of Election, etc. See davis-stirling.com. The good news if you try everything possible to get enough votes and fail, you can seek a change via the courts. But that sounds like a lot of work!

Sorry you're in this bind, Gary. I'm curious--what size is your HOA?

I believe it is usually best to follow the documents. Our docs state that even if something was not enforced in the past, we would not prevent it from being enforced.

Our documents state a person must be 57 to move into a unit. However, we have allowed people who are only 55 to move in as the federal guideline for a senior community is 55.

Saying that it looks like we are going to need to get an eviction notice and the sheriff to remove an underage person who moved in under the false pretense that (according the to owner) it would be "working" on the unit to prepare it for sale.