RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
Please see rtbaileyphd.com/src/recording.html and let me know what you think. I would especially like to hear from lawyers and title officers.
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
Proposal for HOAs to save on recording fees
Started by RichardB28 • 17 replies • 1808 views
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RichardB28 on 10/21/2014 10:01 PM
Please see rtbaileyphd.com/src/recording.html and let me know what you think. I would especially like to hear from lawyers and title officers.
Please see rtbaileyphd.com/src/recording.html and let me know what you think. I would especially like to hear from lawyers and title officers.
Richard,
If I understand correctly, your proposal is that an association could save money on the costs of recording by filing a single sheet of paper that includes links to websites where the documents are maintained. While it is probably legal (meaning that the recorder will accept and record the paper and you will not get arrested) I think this creates more problems than it solves.
One reason for recording CC&R's, for example, is to provide indisputable evidence of what the document states. By directing everyone to a website, the issue will always be whether the content of the website is an accurate statement and unaltered from the original. That is, does it say the same thing today as it did twenty years ago when I bought my property? You would be reducing recording costs at the expense of endless litigation.
When documents are recorded, the recording agency is a neutral party lacking motive to alter any part of any document. Most states impose criminal penalties upon public employees who willfully alter recorded documents. By putting the document on a website, control of the content never falls under the aegis of the recorder. The content remains in the hands of those who may have a motive to alter the text. This provides fodder for lawyers who will run up enormous bills dickering over the accuracy of the document.
Then there is the issue of keeping the website going. Once a document is recorded it remains a public document forever, even if later documents negate some or all of the terms of the original. This means that if you wish to enforce the terms of a document recorded as you propose you would have to maintain the website forever. It would seem to me that the cost of hosting a website for the next several centuries would far exceed the costs of recording the entire document in the first place.
To the best of my knowledge your proposal remains untested from a legal standpoint. I have no idea whether a court would even accept the idea that a party has recorded notice by pointing to a website instead of simply recording the actual notice itself. The statutes in my state provide that a recorded document may reference another recorded document but is silent as to referencing unrecorded material. A valid argument could be raised that by allowing the inclusion of referenced recorded documents the legislature chose to not include references to unrecorded documents under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another).
Bottom line is that the benefit of paying less for recording documents is not outweighed by the costs of web hosting and potential litigation.
JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,001
Posts: 1,001
Posted:
DOH
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
Great answer by LarryB13 above. Let me add 2 cents :
Our jurisdiction - like many others - has seen the rise of online services/"cloud" storage services and document issuing services that purport to spit out timely estoppel or status type certificates - howsoever labelled - including for consumer purchase deligence. The potential timeliness and adequacy issues could be biggies when ultimately tested. But many condo associations - perhaps no longer having to directly worry about such - might someday under this emerging environment have even less motivation to comply as to adequacy or timeliness of content. ( 'Just blame the cloud guys! ')
Looking wider at the 'anecdotals' from some parts of the whackier wilder world of HOA/POA lands, how edgy should the storage and retrieval process be allowed to get ? Some POAs have brought forth dubious claims to "vires" from shaky claims such as 'the developer forgot to register" or "lost in governance changes" or "during the 19th century our forbears lost their stone tablets given to Moses" . . . or whatsoever.
However dubious would be the integrity of onsite HOA/POA self-storage, how safe would they be amidst mere corporate shells, vulnerable not to fire etc but corporate M&A mergers & acquisitions, bankruptcies, asset disputes etc ? Tried merely getting your documents & software cleanly back after terminating your management contract despite the wording in the PM contract itself ?
Records demands are prime targets for dissenters, and most condos here are legislated to keep twin sets of Minutes : officially general release and 'sanitized' privacy or privileged that might record 'in camera' events. Board Minutes also face these. How much of the overall corporate record could safely be entrusted ?
As noted by LarryB13 a further issue is deliberate sabotage, contractual denial of access or ongoing fraudulent revisionism. If Bill Gates and the Pentagon can be hacked, just how safe are anyone's digitized corporate records ?
Recently into 6 weeks of unwarned "cloud" limbo went a local health service professional's total online environment. During that time months of appointments were suddenly scrubbed . Imagine the chaos. Her claim against America's leading hard & software corporation, is that its new product rollouts caused that limbo and chaos.
Whatever happens in a a 3rd party cloud environment, is that offsite risk within your HOA's or condo's comfort zone ?
Bob D ( not in New York but nearby )
Our jurisdiction - like many others - has seen the rise of online services/"cloud" storage services and document issuing services that purport to spit out timely estoppel or status type certificates - howsoever labelled - including for consumer purchase deligence. The potential timeliness and adequacy issues could be biggies when ultimately tested. But many condo associations - perhaps no longer having to directly worry about such - might someday under this emerging environment have even less motivation to comply as to adequacy or timeliness of content. ( 'Just blame the cloud guys! ')
Looking wider at the 'anecdotals' from some parts of the whackier wilder world of HOA/POA lands, how edgy should the storage and retrieval process be allowed to get ? Some POAs have brought forth dubious claims to "vires" from shaky claims such as 'the developer forgot to register" or "lost in governance changes" or "during the 19th century our forbears lost their stone tablets given to Moses" . . . or whatsoever.
However dubious would be the integrity of onsite HOA/POA self-storage, how safe would they be amidst mere corporate shells, vulnerable not to fire etc but corporate M&A mergers & acquisitions, bankruptcies, asset disputes etc ? Tried merely getting your documents & software cleanly back after terminating your management contract despite the wording in the PM contract itself ?
Records demands are prime targets for dissenters, and most condos here are legislated to keep twin sets of Minutes : officially general release and 'sanitized' privacy or privileged that might record 'in camera' events. Board Minutes also face these. How much of the overall corporate record could safely be entrusted ?
As noted by LarryB13 a further issue is deliberate sabotage, contractual denial of access or ongoing fraudulent revisionism. If Bill Gates and the Pentagon can be hacked, just how safe are anyone's digitized corporate records ?
Recently into 6 weeks of unwarned "cloud" limbo went a local health service professional's total online environment. During that time months of appointments were suddenly scrubbed . Imagine the chaos. Her claim against America's leading hard & software corporation, is that its new product rollouts caused that limbo and chaos.
Whatever happens in a a 3rd party cloud environment, is that offsite risk within your HOA's or condo's comfort zone ?
Bob D ( not in New York but nearby )
RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
LarryB,
Thanks for the analysis. Things to note:
1. WA state case law is this:
1.1 "the law retains a duty on a buyer to beware, to inspect, and to question"
1.2 "Notice to a purchaser of real estate that parties other than the seller (or encumbrancer) have a claim of interest in the property need not be actual nor amount to full knowledge, but it should be such information as would excite apprehension in an ordinary mind and prompt a person of average prudence to make inquiry" Note in particular "need not be actual" and "nor amount to full knowledge".
2. You cannot expect your 20 year old CC&R's to be the same today. In your 20 year old CC&R's there will be a change clause. The law requires a buyer to beware, to inspect, and to question. So the law requires you to beware that your 20 year old CC&Rs have a modification clause and to question if there have been updates. As a result, a judge would never hold the HOA to the CC&Rs from 20 years ago, but would hold any owner to the latest version.
3. A title officer has informed me that my approach is very similar to one used in commercial real estate. This is recording memoranda of leases and not the entire leases. Evidently the memoranda contain instructions on how the reader can find the whole lease. Whatever case law exists for lease memoranda would apply to my approach since it is essentially the same thing.
4. Your arguments about authenticity also apply to the current practice. How can you prove that once the board or owners approve a change, that the secretary, prior to going to the recorder's office, did not change the documents in some nefarious way?
5. The authenticity issue is easily solved. Once the governing document is approved by the board, they compute a SHA-2 message digest (an elaborate checksum used to authenticate top secret military documents) and put that in the separate certificate of adoption that the board members sign, date, and have notarized. The authenticity of any digital copy is then verifiable by computing its SHA-2 message digest and comparing it against the digest in the original signed and notarized certificate of adoption. This approach would be even more reliable than the current practice. Free software to compute these digests is available on the Internet.
6. The MS Word digital copies would also be protected from modification by a password known only to the board. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_password_protection.
7. Regardless of the recording method, the HOA would have a website where the documents would be posted. So the website cost is not an issue.
8. Given the case law terms "need not be actual" and "nor amount to full knowledge", the possibility of litigation seems remote to me, and the possibility of losing seems to be near absolute zero.
9. The approach is not absolutely permanent. The board could always go back to current practice or even adopt something more advanced.
Thanks for the analysis. Things to note:
1. WA state case law is this:
1.1 "the law retains a duty on a buyer to beware, to inspect, and to question"
1.2 "Notice to a purchaser of real estate that parties other than the seller (or encumbrancer) have a claim of interest in the property need not be actual nor amount to full knowledge, but it should be such information as would excite apprehension in an ordinary mind and prompt a person of average prudence to make inquiry" Note in particular "need not be actual" and "nor amount to full knowledge".
2. You cannot expect your 20 year old CC&R's to be the same today. In your 20 year old CC&R's there will be a change clause. The law requires a buyer to beware, to inspect, and to question. So the law requires you to beware that your 20 year old CC&Rs have a modification clause and to question if there have been updates. As a result, a judge would never hold the HOA to the CC&Rs from 20 years ago, but would hold any owner to the latest version.
3. A title officer has informed me that my approach is very similar to one used in commercial real estate. This is recording memoranda of leases and not the entire leases. Evidently the memoranda contain instructions on how the reader can find the whole lease. Whatever case law exists for lease memoranda would apply to my approach since it is essentially the same thing.
4. Your arguments about authenticity also apply to the current practice. How can you prove that once the board or owners approve a change, that the secretary, prior to going to the recorder's office, did not change the documents in some nefarious way?
5. The authenticity issue is easily solved. Once the governing document is approved by the board, they compute a SHA-2 message digest (an elaborate checksum used to authenticate top secret military documents) and put that in the separate certificate of adoption that the board members sign, date, and have notarized. The authenticity of any digital copy is then verifiable by computing its SHA-2 message digest and comparing it against the digest in the original signed and notarized certificate of adoption. This approach would be even more reliable than the current practice. Free software to compute these digests is available on the Internet.
6. The MS Word digital copies would also be protected from modification by a password known only to the board. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_password_protection.
7. Regardless of the recording method, the HOA would have a website where the documents would be posted. So the website cost is not an issue.
8. Given the case law terms "need not be actual" and "nor amount to full knowledge", the possibility of litigation seems remote to me, and the possibility of losing seems to be near absolute zero.
9. The approach is not absolutely permanent. The board could always go back to current practice or even adopt something more advanced.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Richard,
Typically a change clause (amendment procedure) requires that amendments to the CC&Rs be recorded to be valid. Therefore, any changes would still have to be recorded.
The cost of the website does come into play. Associations are not required to maintain a website. It's a good idea, but it is not a requirement. Your process would require that a website be maintained. Therefore, the long term cost of that requirement (along with any security issues associated with websites) must be considered in the risk-benefits analysis of your plan. You can not simply look at short term costs.
For example: we maintain our own website. Costs to maintain the website utilizing volunteer labor, about $80 per year. The cost to record our CC&Rs: $21 (10 pages plus cover sheet).
Typically a change clause (amendment procedure) requires that amendments to the CC&Rs be recorded to be valid. Therefore, any changes would still have to be recorded.
The cost of the website does come into play. Associations are not required to maintain a website. It's a good idea, but it is not a requirement. Your process would require that a website be maintained. Therefore, the long term cost of that requirement (along with any security issues associated with websites) must be considered in the risk-benefits analysis of your plan. You can not simply look at short term costs.
For example: we maintain our own website. Costs to maintain the website utilizing volunteer labor, about $80 per year. The cost to record our CC&Rs: $21 (10 pages plus cover sheet).
RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
TimB4,
Thanks for your comments.
Our Bylaws have no recording requirement, but the CC&Rs do. I think we would be covered by this language: "The above web pages and links therein to any other pages on www.whateverestates.org are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth within this notice even if modified after the date of this notice."
The website cost really is not an issue. We would have the website for numerous other reasons anyway, so the incremental cost is 0.
Thanks for your comments.
Our Bylaws have no recording requirement, but the CC&Rs do. I think we would be covered by this language: "The above web pages and links therein to any other pages on www.whateverestates.org are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth within this notice even if modified after the date of this notice."
The website cost really is not an issue. We would have the website for numerous other reasons anyway, so the incremental cost is 0.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Richard
One of the common cries in an HOA is I was unaware of whatever. No matter how and what transpires, when push comes to shove, I want a hard copy signature that says they received the whatever.
A web site that exists today, even with an electronic signature, might well not be here a year from now.
Granted as time moves on a hard copy signature might be antiquated but would you care to be the first to legally argue such?
One of the common cries in an HOA is I was unaware of whatever. No matter how and what transpires, when push comes to shove, I want a hard copy signature that says they received the whatever.
A web site that exists today, even with an electronic signature, might well not be here a year from now.
Granted as time moves on a hard copy signature might be antiquated but would you care to be the first to legally argue such?
RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
JohnC,
I don't know what signature you are talking about. Under current practice our HOA does not get any signed documents when a buyer closes a sale. This proposal does not have anything to do with getting signatures or preventing signatures from being obtained.
I don't know what signature you are talking about. Under current practice our HOA does not get any signed documents when a buyer closes a sale. This proposal does not have anything to do with getting signatures or preventing signatures from being obtained.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Richard,
You keep discussing your Association. Those who are responding are discussing Associations in general. When you look at the big picture, the cost issue for a website does enter into the equation.
You believe you found a way to save Associations money. You appear to dismiss the potential issues posters have raised. Therefore, my suggestion would be to seek a legal opinion on the issue from a local attorney who is versed in property laws.
You keep discussing your Association. Those who are responding are discussing Associations in general. When you look at the big picture, the cost issue for a website does enter into the equation.
You believe you found a way to save Associations money. You appear to dismiss the potential issues posters have raised. Therefore, my suggestion would be to seek a legal opinion on the issue from a local attorney who is versed in property laws.
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Richard,
As I suspected, the citation to the authority you rely on has been taken way out of context. Hudesman v. Foley, 73 Wn.2d 880 (1968) 441 P.2d 532 did not involve recorded documents at all.
The issue in Hudesman was that a seller entered into a real estate sales agreement with one party who needed to secure financing, then found another party who agreed to pay cash knowing that the other agreement was on the table. This was nothing about recorded documents; the escrow instructions at the heart of the dispute would not normally be recorded.
I think we can also agree that since this case was decided in 1968 that the Internet was not a consideration in this case.
For those curious enough to read Hudesman v. Foley, it can be found at:
http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1968/39082-1.html
As I suspected, the citation to the authority you rely on has been taken way out of context. Hudesman v. Foley, 73 Wn.2d 880 (1968) 441 P.2d 532 did not involve recorded documents at all.
The issue in Hudesman was that a seller entered into a real estate sales agreement with one party who needed to secure financing, then found another party who agreed to pay cash knowing that the other agreement was on the table. This was nothing about recorded documents; the escrow instructions at the heart of the dispute would not normally be recorded.
I think we can also agree that since this case was decided in 1968 that the Internet was not a consideration in this case.
For those curious enough to read Hudesman v. Foley, it can be found at:
http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1968/39082-1.html
RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
TimB,
Hudesman v. Foley (1968) was quoting Glaser v. Holdorf (1960), which was quoting Paganelli v. Swendsen (1957), which was paraphrasing Daly v. Rizzutto (1910). More recently Ellingsen v. Franklin County (1991) quoted the subject rule in Glaser v. Holdorf (1960).
It was not taken out of context. You just need to understand what the context is. The context is "What are the requirements on 'notice' such that the buyer's duty to investigate further is triggered?" The courts are talking about any type of notice to the buyer. This could include actual observation, statements made by agents, inspection reports, and other public records. It would also include recorded documents. The courts do not care about the source of the notice. See this in Paganelli v. Swendsen (1957), which was paraphrasing Daly v. Rizzutto (1910):
"It [notice] need not be actual, nor amount to full knowledge, but it should be such `information, from whatever source derived, which would excite apprehension in an ordinary mind and prompt a person of average prudence to make inquiry.'"
Note here the phrase "from WHATEVER source derived". That would certainly admit the use of the Internet as a source even though the statement was originally made in 1910.
The courts like to come up with general rules that can be applied in a variety of situations. That way they are not barraged with an endless stream of minor variations in the actual facts. The rule I quoted is one of those.
Hudesman v. Foley (1968) was quoting Glaser v. Holdorf (1960), which was quoting Paganelli v. Swendsen (1957), which was paraphrasing Daly v. Rizzutto (1910). More recently Ellingsen v. Franklin County (1991) quoted the subject rule in Glaser v. Holdorf (1960).
It was not taken out of context. You just need to understand what the context is. The context is "What are the requirements on 'notice' such that the buyer's duty to investigate further is triggered?" The courts are talking about any type of notice to the buyer. This could include actual observation, statements made by agents, inspection reports, and other public records. It would also include recorded documents. The courts do not care about the source of the notice. See this in Paganelli v. Swendsen (1957), which was paraphrasing Daly v. Rizzutto (1910):
"It [notice] need not be actual, nor amount to full knowledge, but it should be such `information, from whatever source derived, which would excite apprehension in an ordinary mind and prompt a person of average prudence to make inquiry.'"
Note here the phrase "from WHATEVER source derived". That would certainly admit the use of the Internet as a source even though the statement was originally made in 1910.
The courts like to come up with general rules that can be applied in a variety of situations. That way they are not barraged with an endless stream of minor variations in the actual facts. The rule I quoted is one of those.
RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
TimB,
Sorry, that last post should have addressed LarryB.
This one is for you:
Did you really think "Whatever Estates" and whateverestates.org is referring to my own HOA? Of couse not. Those terms are meant to impart the idea that I am taking about HOAs in general. Also note the title of the topic, which is "Proposal for HOAs to save on recording fees" and not "How can my HOA save on recording fees".
Yes, Tim, I am discussing Associations in general.
I am not dismissing potential issues that have been raised. I have adjusted my sample document at http://www.rtbaileyphd.com/src/recording.html based on this discussion. E.g., see the material about the SHA-2 digest, which I added in response to LarrB13's concern about document authenticity.
Moreover, I can and should be able to point out the weaknesses in any of this constructive criticism just as well as the community can point out mine. That is the whole idea of the HOATalk forum, right?
Sorry, that last post should have addressed LarryB.
This one is for you:
Did you really think "Whatever Estates" and whateverestates.org is referring to my own HOA? Of couse not. Those terms are meant to impart the idea that I am taking about HOAs in general. Also note the title of the topic, which is "Proposal for HOAs to save on recording fees" and not "How can my HOA save on recording fees".
Yes, Tim, I am discussing Associations in general.
I am not dismissing potential issues that have been raised. I have adjusted my sample document at http://www.rtbaileyphd.com/src/recording.html based on this discussion. E.g., see the material about the SHA-2 digest, which I added in response to LarrB13's concern about document authenticity.
Moreover, I can and should be able to point out the weaknesses in any of this constructive criticism just as well as the community can point out mine. That is the whole idea of the HOATalk forum, right?
RichardB28 (Washington)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
Also the SHA-2 digest does not have anything to do with human signatures. It is just computed from all the bytes in a file.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Richard,
I did not mean to offend. I was simply pointing out my perception of the discussion.
I believe that we will simply have to agree to disagree.
I did not mean to offend. I was simply pointing out my perception of the discussion.
I believe that we will simply have to agree to disagree.
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Richard,
The context was that Smith, the cash buyer, claimed he was an innocent party when the record showed that he had some knowledge that there was already another offer on the table. What the court ruled was that for Smith could not prevail on his claim of innocence because he did not verify that the other buyer had backed out. The court imposed no duty to examine recorded documents, probably because a contract to buy is not normally recorded. Smith learned of the other contract through conversations with the seller and the seller's agents, not through recorded documents.
I fail to see how this a duty to orally verify that the first offer is off the table equates to a license for HOA's to record notices that state, in essence, the real notice is located in some other place.
You do not need to respond to me any further on this issue because I am done with this thread.
The context was that Smith, the cash buyer, claimed he was an innocent party when the record showed that he had some knowledge that there was already another offer on the table. What the court ruled was that for Smith could not prevail on his claim of innocence because he did not verify that the other buyer had backed out. The court imposed no duty to examine recorded documents, probably because a contract to buy is not normally recorded. Smith learned of the other contract through conversations with the seller and the seller's agents, not through recorded documents.
I fail to see how this a duty to orally verify that the first offer is off the table equates to a license for HOA's to record notices that state, in essence, the real notice is located in some other place.
You do not need to respond to me any further on this issue because I am done with this thread.
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
There are merits in the concept of 'notice by reference', but the widest condo law usage may be unit specific legal 'snapshots' and require much more than 'one size fits all'. Trees could be saved absolutely where used for such disclosuring as ('censored'/releasable) Minutes, proof of corporate insurance coverage, and possibly Reserve Funding plans etc. if compliant with specific condo law provisions.
But could it replace much of conventional hardcopy documents functioning as legislatively straitjacketed status disclosuring or estoppel certificates used as part of resale diligence ?
Like many others our jurisdiction prescribes a consumer-protecting, rigid estoppel format that DOES include many notices by reference or allow a precis.
But its rigid prescribed Reg contains a minimum 7 page format that on completion may have swollen by unit specific 'snapshot in time' data/unit specific data, to more than a hundred hardcopy pages.
Our prescribed format expressly requires for each certificate a hardcopy signature authorized to execute ( and executing) on behalf of and binding the condo corporation. Some jurisdictions may allow electronic signatures. Thus much of the estoppel disclosure is unit- specific and a snapshot locked in time. This could not be eliminated without changing laws, and probably should not.
But the concept could be incorporated if compatible with existing legislated/prescribed estoppel formats, (and in mine it seems to be so in principle). ( We have never called it estoppel incidentally) Bob D (not in New York but nearby)
But could it replace much of conventional hardcopy documents functioning as legislatively straitjacketed status disclosuring or estoppel certificates used as part of resale diligence ?
Like many others our jurisdiction prescribes a consumer-protecting, rigid estoppel format that DOES include many notices by reference or allow a precis.
But its rigid prescribed Reg contains a minimum 7 page format that on completion may have swollen by unit specific 'snapshot in time' data/unit specific data, to more than a hundred hardcopy pages.
Our prescribed format expressly requires for each certificate a hardcopy signature authorized to execute ( and executing) on behalf of and binding the condo corporation. Some jurisdictions may allow electronic signatures. Thus much of the estoppel disclosure is unit- specific and a snapshot locked in time. This could not be eliminated without changing laws, and probably should not.
But the concept could be incorporated if compatible with existing legislated/prescribed estoppel formats, (and in mine it seems to be so in principle). ( We have never called it estoppel incidentally) Bob D (not in New York but nearby)
NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216
Posts: 4,216
Posted:
IMO, the idea is a ho-hum.
As Buyer or Seller, anyone has a right to a fixed description of obligations and responsibilities as of the transaction date.
When the Seller owned the property, the HOA may have had a specific claim of deficiency against the Seller - but that claim may not extend to the Buyer or to the purchased property if the Buyer is not adequately notified in advance. The HOA's only recourse may be against the Seller.
The proposed solution blurs this distinction between Buyers and Sellers. It wrongly assumes that the legal requirements for notice to Sellers and notice to Buyers are one and the same.
As Buyer or Seller, anyone has a right to a fixed description of obligations and responsibilities as of the transaction date.
When the Seller owned the property, the HOA may have had a specific claim of deficiency against the Seller - but that claim may not extend to the Buyer or to the purchased property if the Buyer is not adequately notified in advance. The HOA's only recourse may be against the Seller.
The proposed solution blurs this distinction between Buyers and Sellers. It wrongly assumes that the legal requirements for notice to Sellers and notice to Buyers are one and the same.
Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
🎯 You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- ✓ Ask follow-up questions
- ✓ Share your experience
- ✓ Get expert advice
- ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here