HOA adding 'Articles' to benefit Board member

BACKGROUND:

Area is primarily a seasonal environment on Lake Ontario. ALL but five residents (out of 25-30) are seasonal. Out of the 5, only 4 are association members and they are also 3 of these 4 Board members.

Residents joined the HOA under the agreement and premise to purchase property, owned by the HOA, adjacent to their own and with the promise that should the association dissolve, the members will be able to purchase/receive the remaining property adjacent to their own.

ISSUES:

Current issue is Board went ahead and spend thousands of dollars to have main private road re-paved. It was never brought up for a vote and subsequently the 'motion' was never passed and approved. This did not stop the Board. A Board member paid out of pocket and now has demanded the members reimburse him. A daughter of a member came to a meeting and informed the Board they could not demand reimbursement due to not following the stated HOA bylaws. That was at the annual meeting in 2012. NOW, in 2013 the Board insists on passing an 'Article' demanding 'back payment' (specifically what the Board member took upon himself to pay) and any money moving forward. This creates future problems as the Board will bill the members for snow plowing when only 4 members and 1 non-member benefit. The rest of us go up in April/May, closing our cottages down for the season Sept/Oct, depending on weather. (Note: Not all residents are members, but all residents benefit.)

QUESTION:

Can our HOA create an Article to circumvent/back door their insistance all dues/invoices, etc are paid within 90 days OR face losing the right to your adjacent property should the HOA dissolve and then make it retroactive so it includes the money the Board member wants to be reimbursed (which is the sole reason why the Article is being created in the first place)?

You didn't post what prevented repayment, usually repairs are a Board's prerogative. However to amend and change articles usually requires at the very least a 51% majority of homeowners vs 4-5 seems like a loosing proposition for them.

This is simply a consequence of owning property in a vacation area.
If the CC&Rs require that the Association maintains the common area and if the roads are part of the common area (i.e. not city/county maintained) then the Board is simply fulfilling their obligation. It actually wouldn't matter if no-one lived on the property full time.

I understand that you believe that you shouldn't have to pay for something that you are not benefiting from. However, the Association needs to be in compliance with their own documents.


If the roads were plowed every year, then I suspect that the issue isn't really just the plowing.


Sounds like those members need to be removed from the board. Of course, this will require the non-resident owners, like yourself, to step forward and serve on the Board.


Who has the authority to amend the documents (just the Board or does it also require membership approval)?

If the expenditure was not authorized, such a statement followed by the actual payment may likely be challenged in court. Of course, a court case will require time, energy and money. The members bringing the case will not only be responsible for their legal expenses but also for their share of the Associations legal expenses.

Again, it sounds like the non-resident owners need to get together and become involved in the day to day business of running the Association and vote these people out of office.


Too many unknowns to answer that question.
You need to ask an attorney who will have access to the actual documents, the minutes of the meeting where the decisions were made and has knowledge of the applicable NY laws.

If only 4 homeowners are members does this mean the association is voluntary? And if voluntary, couldn't you withdraw membership and no longer pay? I suppose it all boils down to what your documents state in regards to the amendment process, as well as fines, etc.