BettyO1 (California)
Posts: 104
Posts: 104
Posted:
If the president refuses to produce documents that the civil code specifies members are entitled to, is the property management company obligated to do so?
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
FredS7
Posts: 922
Posts: 922
Posted:
If there is a requirement to produce particular documents, that requirement binds the association. The management company receives direction from the association and (if acting properly) will do whatever the association tells them to do. Seems to me your beef is with the president and/ or the board.
If you make the management company and/ or the board aware of your request they might influence the president.
If you make the management company and/ or the board aware of your request they might influence the president.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,734
Posts: 13,734
Posted:
A caveat to this is be aware of possible TIME issues. Meeting notes for the latest meeting are NOT available after a meeting. They have to be ratified and accepted at the NEXT meeting. So don't demand meeting notes a week after a meeting. Those are NOT official notes at that point. Plus if the next meeting they don't accept them or make changes, that's yet another meeting before the notes are official.
Our financial information was generally a month behind. We would get January expenses/collections and discuss them at February meeting in the OPEN. (Except for Collections which was for Board members ONLY). That means that is another set of documents that the timeline will be a month off or so for review.
I also sometimes find people who want documents that really do not exist. It's something the HOA does not monitor or keep. The HOA is NOT under the responsibility of doing all the work for you. They may provide you separate documents but the information you want would combine multiple resources. It's up to you to combine those.
I am all for OPEN information and sharing documents. We made copies available for review all the time if asked. It's just people have to understand the context of those documents which are mostly "hind sight". Attending a meeting where those issues are discussed will give you better insight and context of what is what.
Keep in mind that the HOA is NOT responsible for supplying PUBLIC documents. Those would be the CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation. It would be a "courtesy" if they did provide those as they considered PUBLIC or the responsibility of the seller to the new owner. The other documents like By-laws, ACC, and financials are HOA documents. Those are for members only.
Our financial information was generally a month behind. We would get January expenses/collections and discuss them at February meeting in the OPEN. (Except for Collections which was for Board members ONLY). That means that is another set of documents that the timeline will be a month off or so for review.
I also sometimes find people who want documents that really do not exist. It's something the HOA does not monitor or keep. The HOA is NOT under the responsibility of doing all the work for you. They may provide you separate documents but the information you want would combine multiple resources. It's up to you to combine those.
I am all for OPEN information and sharing documents. We made copies available for review all the time if asked. It's just people have to understand the context of those documents which are mostly "hind sight". Attending a meeting where those issues are discussed will give you better insight and context of what is what.
Keep in mind that the HOA is NOT responsible for supplying PUBLIC documents. Those would be the CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation. It would be a "courtesy" if they did provide those as they considered PUBLIC or the responsibility of the seller to the new owner. The other documents like By-laws, ACC, and financials are HOA documents. Those are for members only.
Former HOA President
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
Have you followed the requirement for requesting records or other documents? In writing, etc.? See davis-stirling.com.
Is it your PM who keeps all the files and distributes records, etc.? Our PM keep those files and gives records to owners who request them. This doesn't go through the Board. Our contract with the MC states they aren't obligated obey board directives that break the law.
What records does you president refuse to give to you? What are the reasons for withholding them according to your prez.
Is it your PM who keeps all the files and distributes records, etc.? Our PM keep those files and gives records to owners who request them. This doesn't go through the Board. Our contract with the MC states they aren't obligated obey board directives that break the law.
What records does you president refuse to give to you? What are the reasons for withholding them according to your prez.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,230
Posts: 14,230
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BettyO1 on 11/06/2014 7:32 AM
If the president refuses to produce documents that the civil code specifies members are entitled to, is the property management company obligated to do so?
If the president refuses to produce documents that the civil code specifies members are entitled to, is the property management company obligated to do so?
What documents are you looking for?
Thanks
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
Betty, Melissa must be talking about Alabama because by statute in CA, any owner may have a copy of the draft minutes of open board meetings after 30 days of said meeting. "Draft" should clearly be stamped on such draft minutes.
Also in CA, the seller must provide the buyer with a copy of the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation prior to the close of escrow. (it has nothing to do with them being "public" docs.) The common practice is that Seller asks the HOA to send a copy to the escrow or title company office. But Betty clearly is an owner and her CC&Rs probably are on her HOA's website or are easily a valuable from her PM.
We do not give the "financials" to owners who request them until the Board has approved them, so, Melissa's correct on this one.
Owners may not review contracts in formation, only Board approved contracts.
But, help us out, Betty; what is it you seek? Remind us: are you on the board?
Also in CA, the seller must provide the buyer with a copy of the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation prior to the close of escrow. (it has nothing to do with them being "public" docs.) The common practice is that Seller asks the HOA to send a copy to the escrow or title company office. But Betty clearly is an owner and her CC&Rs probably are on her HOA's website or are easily a valuable from her PM.
We do not give the "financials" to owners who request them until the Board has approved them, so, Melissa's correct on this one.
Owners may not review contracts in formation, only Board approved contracts.
But, help us out, Betty; what is it you seek? Remind us: are you on the board?
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
member-entitled documents :If the document request has been outright REFUSED, what were the President's stated grounds of refusal ? Or has instead the request has been ignored by the President ?
Particularly when the request might be seen as part of a 'fishing for sin' expedition, the requests should literally & exactly comply with what an applicable statute requires : eg service by registered mail or affidavited personal service or whatever. If the grounds of the request have to be stated ( as provided in some condo law ) use the terminology exactly : eg "for purposes reasonably related to the purposes of this Act" as opposed to " so that your criminal wrongdoing can be litigated" etc . Even hinting at litigation or private unit confidence or employee confidence may invite withholding.
Our jurisdiction ( ? uniquely ? ) legislated a $500 penalty collectible in Small Claims for records withholding , but few have been able to succeed to get that penalty.
One frustrated requestioner did so, but the $500 award was later clawed back in subsequent, arguably unrelated civil litigation.
Over a period of 2 decades of litigation, our jurisdiction's condo law records disclosure has travelled from "open book" to "you may be sorry you asked for that!". Some judgments have approved the withholding of unit owner's names/mailing addresses if non-resident, although names can be retrieved in land titles records to commence Director recalls. As the "Open Book" began to somewhat close here, one infamous case exposed an owner's demands for 1800 separate records ! Almost shut the operation down (fishing for sin). The judgment denounced expecting management to "submit to interrogatories".
Particularly when the request might be seen as part of a 'fishing for sin' expedition, the requests should literally & exactly comply with what an applicable statute requires : eg service by registered mail or affidavited personal service or whatever. If the grounds of the request have to be stated ( as provided in some condo law ) use the terminology exactly : eg "for purposes reasonably related to the purposes of this Act" as opposed to " so that your criminal wrongdoing can be litigated" etc . Even hinting at litigation or private unit confidence or employee confidence may invite withholding.
Our jurisdiction ( ? uniquely ? ) legislated a $500 penalty collectible in Small Claims for records withholding , but few have been able to succeed to get that penalty.
One frustrated requestioner did so, but the $500 award was later clawed back in subsequent, arguably unrelated civil litigation.
Over a period of 2 decades of litigation, our jurisdiction's condo law records disclosure has travelled from "open book" to "you may be sorry you asked for that!". Some judgments have approved the withholding of unit owner's names/mailing addresses if non-resident, although names can be retrieved in land titles records to commence Director recalls. As the "Open Book" began to somewhat close here, one infamous case exposed an owner's demands for 1800 separate records ! Almost shut the operation down (fishing for sin). The judgment denounced expecting management to "submit to interrogatories".
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
the above is not about New York condos
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
Without checking, Bob, I think there also is a $500 fine in CA for unreasonable withholding of records.
We owners do have to provide the "purpose" in writing for seeking home & mailing address lists of owners. But I don't think for other requests--not sure.
In CA, we may only request records that go back in time only a year or two. Again, I'm not going to look it up now. We may not ask the Board or PM to compile records, e.g., how many owners have been called to a hearing for a noise violation in the las two years?
We owners do have to provide the "purpose" in writing for seeking home & mailing address lists of owners. But I don't think for other requests--not sure.
In CA, we may only request records that go back in time only a year or two. Again, I'm not going to look it up now. We may not ask the Board or PM to compile records, e.g., how many owners have been called to a hearing for a noise violation in the las two years?
JonD1
Posts: 2,310
Posts: 2,310
Posted:
Hopefully Betty will be willing to provide some more details with which more informed opinions can be offered.
Circumstances can play a role in what documents are requested and what the response might be.
To say I requested documents and they refused leaves to many required details out.
Circumstances can play a role in what documents are requested and what the response might be.
To say I requested documents and they refused leaves to many required details out.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
Correction: meeting minutes, however, must be kept forever!
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
very interesting comments about California & New York (and glad there is someone able to input about New York about which I know zilch).
Bitter disclosure defences being raised by some condo Boards here, have included hiring the most expensive condo lawyers in the country to fight against disclosures even in whacko, rinkydink small claims venues. When pro se/SRL self-represented litigant records seekers get slam-dunked by well-prepared professionals, there tend to emerge bodies of precedent that tend to narrow scope for records requesting. ( Even with precedent nomimally disavowed, lots of deference gets paid. Withholder-friendly outcomes get paraded around )
Valid grounds to withhold have included "not specific enough". How about :"We are clairvoyant and know magically that you are planning to litigate !" . . .? Bob D ( not in new york)
Bitter disclosure defences being raised by some condo Boards here, have included hiring the most expensive condo lawyers in the country to fight against disclosures even in whacko, rinkydink small claims venues. When pro se/SRL self-represented litigant records seekers get slam-dunked by well-prepared professionals, there tend to emerge bodies of precedent that tend to narrow scope for records requesting. ( Even with precedent nomimally disavowed, lots of deference gets paid. Withholder-friendly outcomes get paraded around )
Valid grounds to withhold have included "not specific enough". How about :"We are clairvoyant and know magically that you are planning to litigate !" . . .? Bob D ( not in new york)
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
What kinds of requests, i.e., what kinds of materials do owners want, BobD, that get HOA boards' undies all in knots in your part of North America?
BobD4 (New York)
Posts: 997
Posts: 997
Posted:
( not new york)
HOAs : Lacking any specific HOA law here, there is no legislated HOA disclosuring requirement unless it happens to have evolved locally or been covenanted site-specifically. No HOA I have belonged to, has had any such site-specific obligation to disclose.
CONDOs : But your reference to a $ 500 California withholding penalty suggests that our jurisdiction’s CONDO disclosure wars/consumer due process may be fought over similar secrets here. Besides fishing for sin ( foul-ups, theft, discriminatory enforcement etc ) the bitterest have been demands for owner personal contact data during run-ups to Director recall initiatives ( “requisitions” here ) and post-electoral access to actual proxy-votes ( alleged proxy vote malfeasance).
The “no names” protocol here precludes identifying the parties. Judicial dicta are excerpted :
1992 M v WNCC#23 “The Open Book” dictum : orders release of photocopies denied to an owner researching parking control records & expenditures;” . . . the affairs and dealings of the corporation and its board of directors are an open book to the members of the corporation, the unit owners.”
2001 YCC#60 v B : Nightmare demands for 1800 separate records /information of ALL types brings condo administration to its knees : “. . .The unit owner’s rights do not include the right to make written interrogatories and then complain when answers are not provided or not provided in what the unit owner considers a timely manner. To the extent that * * * has demanded access to INFORMATION (as opposed to access to RECORDS), she has exceeded any right under the Act, Declaration or rules.”
2008 - 2012 : M.L. v MTCC #932 Fighting one-sided against a top condo litigator up to the top appeals court several times M.L. sought electoral proxies, owners lists, lobby repair data etc . In one struggle he is hit for $ 45,000 ( later cut in half on appeal ) including for harassment and “conducting a campaign by siege against the management office and directors.”. His personal costs are unknown . A veteran legal observer detects that the courts recognize a contextual right for condo management to assess the validity of each request by request, and including to withhold individual owners’ names & contact addresses.
2014 S v TSCC #1591 Small Claims Court rejects demand for AGM Minute-taker’s draft Minutes (“work in progress”) not only refusing $ 500 penalty but conversely and discretionarily awarding total $2,000 against the requester himself , later reduced on appeal to $650.
2014 S v TSCC #1591 Small Claims Court rejects demand for AGM Minute-taker’s draft Minutes (“work in progress”) not only refusing $ 500 penalty and conversely awarding $2,000 against the requester himself , later reduced on appeal to $650.
Love to hear the California outcomes.
HOAs : Lacking any specific HOA law here, there is no legislated HOA disclosuring requirement unless it happens to have evolved locally or been covenanted site-specifically. No HOA I have belonged to, has had any such site-specific obligation to disclose.
CONDOs : But your reference to a $ 500 California withholding penalty suggests that our jurisdiction’s CONDO disclosure wars/consumer due process may be fought over similar secrets here. Besides fishing for sin ( foul-ups, theft, discriminatory enforcement etc ) the bitterest have been demands for owner personal contact data during run-ups to Director recall initiatives ( “requisitions” here ) and post-electoral access to actual proxy-votes ( alleged proxy vote malfeasance).
The “no names” protocol here precludes identifying the parties. Judicial dicta are excerpted :
1992 M v WNCC#23 “The Open Book” dictum : orders release of photocopies denied to an owner researching parking control records & expenditures;” . . . the affairs and dealings of the corporation and its board of directors are an open book to the members of the corporation, the unit owners.”
2001 YCC#60 v B : Nightmare demands for 1800 separate records /information of ALL types brings condo administration to its knees : “. . .The unit owner’s rights do not include the right to make written interrogatories and then complain when answers are not provided or not provided in what the unit owner considers a timely manner. To the extent that * * * has demanded access to INFORMATION (as opposed to access to RECORDS), she has exceeded any right under the Act, Declaration or rules.”
2008 - 2012 : M.L. v MTCC #932 Fighting one-sided against a top condo litigator up to the top appeals court several times M.L. sought electoral proxies, owners lists, lobby repair data etc . In one struggle he is hit for $ 45,000 ( later cut in half on appeal ) including for harassment and “conducting a campaign by siege against the management office and directors.”. His personal costs are unknown . A veteran legal observer detects that the courts recognize a contextual right for condo management to assess the validity of each request by request, and including to withhold individual owners’ names & contact addresses.
2014 S v TSCC #1591 Small Claims Court rejects demand for AGM Minute-taker’s draft Minutes (“work in progress”) not only refusing $ 500 penalty but conversely and discretionarily awarding total $2,000 against the requester himself , later reduced on appeal to $650.
2014 S v TSCC #1591 Small Claims Court rejects demand for AGM Minute-taker’s draft Minutes (“work in progress”) not only refusing $ 500 penalty and conversely awarding $2,000 against the requester himself , later reduced on appeal to $650.
Love to hear the California outcomes.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,734
Posts: 13,734
Posted:
Let me make this clear. It is NOT an "Alabama thing". NOT all states require the seller to hand over the documents at closing. One issue is if someone buys it at foreclosure or pays straight cash for a home documents such as CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation are not handed over. They then considered "PUBLIC" documents to protect all parties except for the buyer. It is just a "courtesy" for the HOA to make these documents available like on a website, mailed, or made available. The HOA can even charge for the copies. It is an extra expense for them to provide. I don't make these rules, I just live by them.
Meeting notes are kind of subjective until they are accepted. Not sure I would want meeting notes that are not official. They won't hold up very well if they are not official.
All in all, it is important to know what records you want and why. Are you witch hunting or do you have a real issue? That's what matters.
Meeting notes are kind of subjective until they are accepted. Not sure I would want meeting notes that are not official. They won't hold up very well if they are not official.
All in all, it is important to know what records you want and why. Are you witch hunting or do you have a real issue? That's what matters.
Former HOA President
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
Since the OP is from CA, Melissa, speculation about what goes on in other states and what is or is not a "courtesy," does not apply to her question. She clearly already is an owern.
But, if I remember right, BettyO sometimes asks a question, we ask her questions, but then we don't hear from her again. She may even have asked this question previously.
But, if I remember right, BettyO sometimes asks a question, we ask her questions, but then we don't hear from her again. She may even have asked this question previously.
BettyO1 (California)
Posts: 104
Posts: 104
Posted:
Document can be minutes, approved contract, etc. Question is a general one, regarding management company's legal obligation to me documents available to which members are entitled but the board may not want the member to have.
JohnB26
Posts: 899
Posts: 899
Posted:
The Management Company's only obligation is DIRECTLY to the BOD.
The BOD is the entity obligated to provide any documents required to be available by statute, NOT the 'manager'.
Having stated the above FACTS:
It would behoove the BOD to instruct the manager to provide any REQUIRED documents as part of their 'scope of work'
HOWEVER
The documents request really should go to the HOA, Inc's 'registered agent' or equivalent.
(which may, or may not, be the management company)
Ain't the corporate world grand ?
The BOD is the entity obligated to provide any documents required to be available by statute, NOT the 'manager'.
Having stated the above FACTS:
It would behoove the BOD to instruct the manager to provide any REQUIRED documents as part of their 'scope of work'
HOWEVER
The documents request really should go to the HOA, Inc's 'registered agent' or equivalent.
(which may, or may not, be the management company)
Ain't the corporate world grand ?
JonD1
Posts: 2,310
Posts: 2,310
Posted:
The PM works for the Board at the direction of the Board.
The PM is obligated to perform their contracted duties not override the actions of the Board or the Board President.
As to document requests when you ask only in general terms without giving details it suggests there is more to this story than you are willing to provide. Sounds like you wish to go around the Board and get what you demand from the PM.
Sounds like for some reason you have conflict with the Board and my guess (as you are unwilling to be more specific) the document request is just part of your issues with the Board and the President.
The PM is obligated to perform their contracted duties not override the actions of the Board or the Board President.
As to document requests when you ask only in general terms without giving details it suggests there is more to this story than you are willing to provide. Sounds like you wish to go around the Board and get what you demand from the PM.
Sounds like for some reason you have conflict with the Board and my guess (as you are unwilling to be more specific) the document request is just part of your issues with the Board and the President.
JonD1
Posts: 2,310
Posts: 2,310
Posted:
The PM works for the Board at the direction of the Board.
The PM is obligated to perform their contracted duties not override the actions of the Board or the Board President.
As to document requests when you ask only in general terms without giving details it suggests there is more to this story than you are willing to provide. Sounds like you wish to go around the Board and get what you demand from the PM.
Sounds like for some reason you have conflict with the Board and my guess (as you are unwilling to be more specific) the document request is just part of your issues with the Board and the President.
The PM is obligated to perform their contracted duties not override the actions of the Board or the Board President.
As to document requests when you ask only in general terms without giving details it suggests there is more to this story than you are willing to provide. Sounds like you wish to go around the Board and get what you demand from the PM.
Sounds like for some reason you have conflict with the Board and my guess (as you are unwilling to be more specific) the document request is just part of your issues with the Board and the President.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,519
Posts: 14,519
Posted:
I think JohnB is correct. You need to make your written request to the registered agent for your HOA. In ours, it's the property manager. Your written request needs to include the purpose for each type of record you request.
Read your contract with your MC. If similar to ours, it states that the MC is not obligated to follow Board directives that oppose state laws or your own governing documents.
But, Betty, I would put your request in writing to both the board and to the PM.
The question remains: why won't the president give you the records that you want??
I cannot say whether or not it's "legal" for the PM to withhold the records that you say you're entitled to.
Read your contract with your MC. If similar to ours, it states that the MC is not obligated to follow Board directives that oppose state laws or your own governing documents.
But, Betty, I would put your request in writing to both the board and to the PM.
The question remains: why won't the president give you the records that you want??
I cannot say whether or not it's "legal" for the PM to withhold the records that you say you're entitled to.
🎯 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