Ineligible Voters vs. A Super-Majority Vote

It depends on what context. Are you talking elections or document changes? One can be ineligible to cast a vote but still run for office. They just can not vote for themselves and who is going vote a person like that in? In context of documents, the vote may not be ineligible as it takes an owner vote does not say in good standing.

ditto

for a covenant amendment the 67% is usually of the TOTAL membership

period

it matters not what 'you would allow'

it matters what the covenants actually SPECIFY

delinquencies only apply to corporate operation issues

I should have stated our situation more clearly, JohnB. Our governing docs do not allow delinquent owners or owners with active violations to vote no matter what the topic. They would be ineligible. In CA, Our Board would have to call them to hearing, etc. prior to terming them ineligible

In NpS's case and if her were here, he'd just need 67% of eligible voters, let's say 95. He would not need 67% of the total membership.

From what i've seen, the 67% is usually not of members present or of ballots cast, but of either all members or all eligible members (AKA "voting power").

We don't have eligibility requirements for someone to serve as director except ownership in our HOA, so such individuals could run to be directors even if they could not vote. But that was not the O.P's question.

It's a hypothetical about an amendment - so we can assume that it involves a HO vote. Let's say the specific language is poorly worded and unclear beyond that.

Good point by Kerry

We (our lawyer actually) had to turn to SC Articles Of Incorporations for an answer/ruling on a Bylaw change we wanted the Declarant to make before turnover.

We wanted to change our Quorum from more then 50% to more then 20%. Our attorney said SC Articles of Incorporation said that in order to do so, more then 50% had to vote YES for the change. Not just vote, but vote YES in order to change such. We are working on that now.

Early on I often confused things like you need 50% of owners to vote and the majority of those voting win:

112 owners (our case), 56 must vote, 29 of those 56 voting YES win

Versus 50% of owners must vote in favor of:

112 owners, 57 of them must vote YES to win.

Major difference (29 of 112 versus 57 of 112) based on a "simple" word or two in your docs.

In most associations, votes are allocated with one vote per lot or per unit. In some condos, votes are allocated by the percentage of square footage each owner owns. In my rural association, we have one vote per acre. How votes "are allocated" among owners should be addressed in the declaration.

Nothing in the quoted Pennsylvania statute would indicate any intent to alter the percentages based on membership status in the association or to defer to the quorum that the association may use for other purposes. There is no mention at all of an association in the passage cited.

there are TWO types of voting:

Covenant issues (amendment to actual covenant)

Corporate issues: (amendment to bylaws, directors, budget, etc.)

How to amend the Covenants will be found IN THE COVENANT ITSELF and is a distinct and separate matter from any corporate issues.

I think if you attach anything different that affects a persons property title and do not allow them an opportunity to vote one way or another is potentially asking for trouble. CCR's are attached to property titles and certain changes can affect the value and marketability of the property. When it comes to CCR's every owner should have a vote and should not be denied. If denied ... The question then is are you taking away their potential "Constitutional Right" to protect their property?

Unfortunately, not a skill that's easy to find sometimes.

Sorry thinking is definately required for a hypothetical situation as there are no documents for you to read John . How much reading comprehension did it take to understand OP is discussing hypothetical thoughts not actual situation.

Well 67 is 67% of 100, so assuming it's one vote per unit, I would think it wouldn't matter about the 5 who can't vote because you have another 95 who can. You just have to get 67 of the 95 to vote in favor.

In our association, delinquent homeowners can't serve on the board or vote in Board elections, but they can vote for changes to our bylaws or CCRS (currently we need 75% for the CCR revision and 10% for the bylaws). As you might guess, getting 75% to vote for anything can be a problem (that's why we haven't been able to get our CCRs updated and it took almost 2 years to get the 75% to vote to close our pool for good).

If your documents aren't clear, you may have to work with an attorney to clean up the language and then have the homeowners vote on that. Maybe you can start with clarifying whether delinquent homeowners can vote or not and reducing the percentage for approval to 51%. As I said in a recent thread on a similar topic, reducing the percentage shouldn't take away anyone's right to vote, but if they feel strongly one way or another, they need to get off their ass and vote!

I can live with delinquent homeowners voting for issues other than serving on the board or voting for people who do, but if I had my way, delinquent homeowners wouldn't vote on any association issue because money is always going to be involved in a direct or indirect way (and if they're not paying their fair share, why should they have a say on anything?), but when I was treasurer of my HOA, I found virtually all of them aren't involved in Association business anyway, so we really didn't have to worry about them...

NpS:

Food for thought ... Keep in mind the PA State Statute says percent of votes "allotted" and does not reference anything about eligibility. I would contend to deny anyone the opportunity to vote yea or nay "if they choose to participate" could open a door for potential lawsuit. To me it is not worth opening that door and the potential expense it could involve. Most dead beats do not participate or vote anyway so why not just follow the state law to be safe.

I agree it should be difficult to amend CCR's. No matter which section whether you utilize the state percentage of 67% or smaller in the governing docs you still have the issue of it would be pursuant to "votes allotted" in the association. The CCR would only be able to have a lower percentage under section (iii).

While it started as hypothetical question, it evolved into a practical solution. As I stated in my last post, the next time we amend our CC&Rs for some other reason, I will propose that we tack on an amendment that sets the bar at 67% of our non-delinquents. I think that's the fairest solution for all concerned.

Np,

Am I missing something? Section (iii) says you can have a smaller percentage if all of your units are nonresidential, as in shops, factories, warehouses.

Did anyone ever tell you that you have a diabolical mind Tim?

Anyway, after Jeff set me straight, I am abandoning any thought of making changes. Thx for your comments.

Having typed this, I'm reminded of an incident that helps illustrate how the language used is important and, if it's too generalized, it can be taken advantage of.

Many years back, there was an issue in the Navy that made the news. To be honest, I don't remember what the issue was but it was a large enough of an issue that everyone in the Nave was discussing it. Word came from above that Naval personnel should leave the issue at the door when they are at work.

Well we had an old salt of a Chief who immediately called an all enlisted meeting. Told everyone present that word from above is that we leave the issue at the door. He then promptly walked over to the door, shut it, turn to the crew and calmly stated "They never said which side of the door, now is the time to discuss it."

So, be careful in the language you choose when proposing amendments to any of your governing documents. Expect loopholes to be taken advantage of and try to identify them prior to having the amendment adopted.