assessments

Will,

Welcome to the forum.

I did find HB 2472 which was approved by the Governor and became the Kansas uniform common interest owners bill of rights act in 2011. Is this the Bill you are referring to?

Although that Statute requires the Board to adopt a budget and may adopt special assessments, it does not specifically specify that the Board may set assessments. It could be argued that the Boards ability to adopt a budget does not allow the Board to supersede the governing documents on the rate of assessments. Therefore, if the rate of assessments are set at $60 per lot, the Boards budget needs to be based on that assessment rate OR consider a special assessment to make up the shortfall.

Will, please note, I am not an attorney. I do not work in the legal profession. If you would want to see if my proposed argument is valid, you need to consult a local attorney. The attorney would have access to more information than I do. The details of the information that is not available to me may very well nullify my proposed argument.

With all that said, you should know that when developments are first being built, the developer tends to artificially keep assessments low. Depending on the number of lots and what your Association must maintain, $60 per year (in my opinion) is an unrealistic assessment. My Association, that has 130 lots, minimal amenities (just 2 playgrounds) but must maintain about 1.5 miles of roads, has an assessment of $936 per year. It has been averaging 2-5% increase per year.

As for your specific questions, without seeing the actual governing documents, no one on this site can really give you a good answer. Similar to my argument about assessments, what is contained in the information that we don't have access to could nullify any advice provided.

My suggestion would be to take a full set of your governing documents, spend a few hundred dollars and consult an attorney for the answers you are currently seeking.

Tim

John,

Interesting. I went back and re-read Will's initial posting. It does say members are now being charged by the Lot vs. by the member.

In reading the State statute, the only things I could find about this is:

58-4602 definitions [emphasis added]:

(a) "Assessment" means the sum attributable to each unit and due to the association pursuant to the budget adopted under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 58-4620, and amendments thereto.

58-4620. adoption of budget; special assessments. [emphasis added]:

(a) The board of directors shall propose and adopt a budget for the common interest community at least annually. Notice of any meeting at which a budget will be considered must be given to unit owners at least 10 days prior to the meeting date and, in accordance with subsection (g) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 58-4612, and amendments thereto, a copy of the proposal must be made available to any unit owner who requests it. At any meeting at which a budget or budget amendment is considered, in accordance with subsection (d) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 58-4612, and amendments thereto, unit owners must be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposal prior to the board taking action.

58-4603. provisions mandatory. [emphasis added]:

(a) Except as expressly provided in this act, the provisions of this act shall be mandatory and apply notwithstanding contrary provisions in the declaration or bylaws of a common interest community and shall not be varied or waived by agreement.

Now, per US Legal.com [emphasis added]

Notwithstanding means despite something; not prevented by; in spite of the fact that. For example, it may be said that the postman always makes his appointed rounds, notwithstanding the weather.

Conclusion, and please note that I am not an attorney and do not work in the legal profession:

An argument can be made that once the budget is adopted, assessments that are then set based on the budget are to be made against each lot (per the definition of Assessment in the law).

Unfortunately, to find out if my argument is valid, you will need to consult a local attorney who will have access to all of your governing documents and, perhaps, have a legal ruling through the courts.

BTW, to flip this around, If your paying for assessments on 17 lots, you should also have 17 votes for anything before the membership for a vote (1 vote per lot).

Will, you ask if a unit can be more than one lot. Here is the definition of a unit from the statute identified by Tim:

58-4602.(n) "Unit" means a physical portion of the common interest community designated for separate ownership or occupancy.

As Tim suggested, I would be looking at the plat or any other documents that show or "designate" the unit. If the 17 lots together were designated for separate ownership or occupancy, then that should settle the legal argument. Try to find anything in writing in any of the original documents.

If it is not in the original docs, can you divide your property and separately sell the lots? Can you build 17 houses on the 17 lots? If so, the lots might be units since the lots can have separate occupancy. Does the local zoning mandate that houses have a minimum acreage so you can't build on each of the separate lots? Any HOA rules for not building on the separate lots? Maybe you should formally write to the board for permission to build a house on each of the 17 lots and see what they write back. If the lots cannot be set up for separate occupancy, then they are not units IMO.

Larry,

In this case the Bill is the law.

Even though it is called the "the Kansas uniform common interest owners bill of rights act," the bill was adopted and became law in 2011. I provided links earlier in the thread.

Apparently, there was much discussion about the bill when it was moving through the legislature and, even though it is now law, it is still referred to as HB 2472.

See
Your Carefully Crafted HOA Documents, Now Rewritten by the Kansas Legislature a 2010 article by the The Journal of the Kansas Bar Association, October 2010