Conflict of Interest!

Hopefully, this not too hard to follow. I have tried to write this clearly but it is a tangled situation. Thoughts or comments welcome and appreciated.

Is it just me or is something wrong with the very real situation below?

Board member “A” while violating a covenant is allowed to vote on changes to that same covenant. (the changes passed! and then our lawyer shot it down)

Board member “B” who has violated the same covenant wrote the changes that were voted on.

Two days later Board member “B” met with the HOA legal counsel on behalf of the board to discuss taking a resident to court for repeatedly violating the same covenant rule.

Now it gets worse Board member “A” argued and fought about receiving notification of his violation. Now “A” is off of the board (term expired) but…another member resigned and the majority of the current board wants to bring “A” back to serve out that term!

Back to “B” he recently violated the same rule twice, no notice sent by the board and “B” is still one of the contacts with the attorney. “B” was questioned directly by a homeowner about his violations at recent meeting and “B” refused to answer.

As a board member who has followed the rules, worked to do things that are in the best interest of the [community] I am beyond frustrated and that only grows when other homeowners are being cited for violations.

Amending covenants normally requires the approval of a high percentage of owners. The board lacks power to amend the covenants by itself. Your attorney has no authority to prevent your board from doing anything; all he can do is offer his advice.

Who has proven that "A" and "B" have violated the covenant? Where is it written that one who violates a covenant loses his right to vote to abolish a covenant?


Same question: Who has proven that "B" has violated the covenant? Where is it written that one who violates a covenant may not speak with the attorney?


Same question: Who has proven that "A" has violated the covenant? Where is it written that one who violates a covenant may not serve on the board?


Same question: Who has proven that "B" has violated the covenant?

If the association takes no action and someone feels that there is some conflict of interest or that the covenant should be enforced, they have several options. The least expensive option is to simply vote them off the board. A more expensive option is to enforce the covenant through a civil action, in which case "B" will have no choice but to answer questions and his violation will become a matter of public record.


When the covenants are violated so often that even two board members stand accused, maybe it is time to revise the covenants instead of waging war on the neighbors.

The rule concerns trailers, travel and work,... States not allowed.

We knew A and B violated the rules because we could see the equipment.They had them parked in the their driveways for multiple days. Some have had them for longer violations.

I agree on the having the rule reviewed and changed properly to reflect the community.

Because changing covenants typically is a legal issue, our Board places a proposed change in front of our HOA's attorney to make sure that the proposed change is legal and not in any conflict with existing covenants, state statutes, or local ordinances. It is an expense to pay an attorney for that but it means that we do not waste our time and money with mailing proposals and proxies, establishing a quorum, etc for a covenant change that will ultimately be deemed "illegal" by an attorney or court of law.

A deed restriction is only good if it can be determined to have been breached and then enforced. My HOA has added some stupid restriction that would require a great deal of time and effort and money to enforce. We now have a Board complaining that people aren't following their new crazy restriction but the Board is also not able to do much about it because of the time and effort it will now take them to prove their case.

LOL- just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it is a great idea. It my case, not only did the Board (and the few owners who passed the amendment- barely passed btw), create an amendment that is difficult to enforce, they also imposed restrictions on the Association as an entity. Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Unfortunately, some people really don't look at the bigger picture and weigh out all of the possible scenarios before they pull the trigger on their "idea".