Definition of freeholder

Susan,

Welcome to the forum. For those who may be unaware (and I had to look it up myself to be sure), a freeholder is one who has title to the property and not simply a contingent or expectant estate or right of occupancy (as in being the spouse of a freeholder).

So, as I understand it, unless your name is on the deed, you are not a freeholder of the property and, based on what you posted, are not considered a member of the Association. It is fairly typical in Associations that membership is defined by who's name is on the deed.

One way around this is to place the property in a trust and list both you and your husband as trustees. Another way is to simply amend the title and add your name.

Susan. My HOA Board has a Treasurer who is not a legal HO. His wife owns the property, he is not on the deed. For me personally, this is an issue since it opens up the possibility that a renter could get on the Board, and they simply do not have the concern when they don't own the property. I want him removed in spite of the fact that he is a lovely, honest man. He simply doesn't meet what is required in the ByLaws.

These are all great posts. Thank you so much.

I can see where a renter might not have the same care or interest in a property as an owner would. But I believe an owner's spouse would be likely to have much more care and concern than a renter.

That said, it sounds like a QCD is in order, to take care of this immediate issue.

Should read:

What is wrong with allowing members to decide at the ballot box who will serve on the board?

Agree and disagree Larry.

Still one vote per household no matter how many names on the deed. Otherwise, someone could put 100 names on a deed and take control of the HOA.

Agree with your comment about never having enough people to serve.

The "freeholder" language in Susan's "summer resort" statute was obviously intended to distinguish between owners and renters. I would modify bylaws to allow spouses to serve. There may be some objections, but a good person who is willing to serve is always hard to find. Even though a statute is involved, the HOA would be within its rights to change the bylaws because the Michigan courts have already found that the term "freeholder" in the statute is too ambiguous.

At least not yet or none we are aware of..........LOL

Ohio took care of it by statute:

5311.08 Unit owners association.

(A)

(1) Every condominium property shall be administered by a unit owners association . All power and authority of the unit owners association shall be exercised by a board of directors, which the unit owners shall elect from among the unit owners or the spouses of unit owners. If a unit owner is not an individual, that unit owner may nominate for the board of directors any principal, member of a limited liability company, partner, director, officer, or employee of that unit owner.

Wouldn't make sense John. Would put too much power in one household. Would fail challenge as being non-democratic.

Yes John they could and I too believe it is a bad idea, not only from the appearance of collusion but for the potential stress on the marriage. We had a couple who both ran for the Board, he was a long time member and was re-elected while she was passed over. It wasn't until he stepped down that she was elected. While they both could run, the homeowners held the ultimate veto power.

Whether both a husband and wife may or should serve as trustees is a great topic, but is not the problem here.

There is an AG Opinion that states each freeholder is entitled to one vote, so that part is covered. If both husband and wife are listed on the deed, they each get one vote.

The question here gets back to the definition of freeholder. Is a spouse not on the deed a freeholder? For at least ten properties in our sub, the mortgage is in the husband's name only, and the deed is in the husband's name only. For the most part these are older couples.

What the quote above says is that the term "freehold" in the statute is ambiguous. Back in 1929, legislators could get away with vague statutes like yours.

But modern statutes are usually written with a definition section. Regardless of what the term means in other contexts, the definition section of the statute can define the term differently or more specifically than common usage.

When a court like the one described above rules that a provision violates due process, that's the death knell for that provision. In the case from the Michigan Review, the election provision was found deficient. Although it doesn't address your issue, the court's opinion is that the term "freehold" is problematic because it's too vague.

If there is an AG opinion that states that each freeholder is entitled to one vote, can you direct us to where we can find that opinion. I question whether the AG opinion is exactly as you describe.

Actually, I think I found the opinion you cited:

WHITMAN v LAKE DIANE CORPORATION

Ahh, I just realized (and I should have realized it earlier) that this issue is dealing with resort owners (I interpret this to be timeshares but could be wrong). Similar to mobile home parks, the rules are very different than HOA/COAs and I don't have a solid enough understanding to really offer more than I have (and other then the definition, the rest could be wrong - well heck, per the ruling it's possible that the definition isn't applicable).

Tim is right. It's different than an HOA or Condo. More like a cooperative, which has a very different structure.

Based on what the AG opinion letter says, the solution to your problem Susan ought to be simple. You can have your spouse grant you a life estate. That give you the right to live in the RE for the rest of your life.

Per the AG's letter opinion, someone who has a life estate is a freeholder. So that's all you need to become a freeholder.

You can record the life estate that your spouse grants you at the local recording office. It should be relatively inexpensive to file and there shouldn't be any transfer tax involved.

For voting purposes, it seems like you will be better off with a life estate than having your name on the deed. According to the AG letter opinion, spouses have to share 1 vote but a titleholder and a life estate holder each gets 1 vote apiece. Personally, I think the arrangement is ridiculous, but if you want to play within the rules stated, that's what you should be able to do.