enforcing Rules and Regulations

Wondering if other HOAs face this issue - when a self managed HOA Board is reluctant to enforce violations of the stated rules because a majority of board members doesn't want to risk offending an owner by requiring compliance with a rule (from the bylaws and/or Declaration!) that has to do with aesthetics.

An owner placed a large (4'x6') flag representing his UW sports team on a patio wall of his building. The bylaws and Declaration specifically address (in different sections) (a) not decorating exterior walls and (b) not hanging rugs, laundry, etc., on a patio wall - in each instance without approval in writing from the Board. The Board voted not to ask the owner to remove the flag because they didn't feel they would be able to decide which things were ok to hang and approve and which things were not ok to approve.

Two owners complained to the Board about the flag, stating it looked tacky and not appropriate (and citing the appropriate bylaws/declaration language); they were told the complaint could not be given to the owner unless the two owners were willing to have their names made available to the owner in question. The owners complaining were upset that the Board appeared to not be willing to enforce the clearly stated rules and regulations and that the Board was in effect stating that no complaints would be heard unless the names of those complaining could be given to the person against whom the complaint was made.

How do other HOAs handle this delicate situation of making complaints? These owners were willing to give their names to the Board to make the complaint; they didn't feel comfortable having their names shared w/ the other owner against whom they made the complaint. They felt targeted and implicitly encouraged not to complain about things which were obvious violations of stated rules.

Is this a common issue with self managed HOAs and how do other HOAs handle the issue?

I also hate when people tell you that you must reveal your name if you file a complaint against them. I don't think it really matters the source as long as there is valid verifiable complaint/violation. However, there are those type of people who want to know everything and why. They think they need to know the name of who accuses them which is an excuse to intimidate people in my opinion.

It is hard being a board member and to be confronted with this quandary. You are not only a board member but a homeowner/neighbor to everyone as well. So you can imagine how uncomfortable it is to have to approach your good neighbor the "Jones" and tell them to put their dog on a leash. No one wants to be THAT person. Even though you are doing your job as a board representative.

What I found to be a solution is multifold. First, if you submit a letter of complaint to the board then I feel it should be read at the meeting. If it is an OPEN meeting, then you read it in front of EVERYONE. However, we NEVER EVER used names but the Lot # ONLY. We did not accept letters from those who did not include that information. You have to realize in an OPEN meeting situation that ALL business is transacted in front of all the members so a letter is part of the business. The board is to act NOT the rest of the owners. They can just see the board is going to take or not take action and why.

The other way we handled things is to send out violation letters quoting directly from the rules. No flowery language just the facts. According to section X.XX.Y "You can not put up a sports flag etc...". We would then tell them to attend a meeting to address the issue, comply, or tell them if we removed it, we would send them the bill for correcting the issue. If you have a fining schedule, then you can state the fine and rate of it instead. We did not do fines.

Keep in mind can ONLY do this to the owners and NOT the renters. The owners are HOA members NOT the renter. So address your violations to the owner for actions.

Big issues in my community. I am a board member and I am frustrated beyond belief with mine. Self managed as well. Early on (before I moved here) letters were sent, then attorney contacted, some taken to court. Over the years things have changed nothing done to one person was visiting homes (voted to stop, safety. At on point I took on the role with board approved/legally reviewed letters, documented everything had board votes before sending. When things got tough the majority of the board stepped back and left me holding the bag. So, I stepped away. The next person who stepped did the same with documenting, using board approved/legally reviewed letters, board votes, he even had to send letters to some board members. When things got tough the majority of the board did what was done to me plus let the perception that he was solely responsible for the letters. Homeowners publicly ripped the guy apart in an open meeting and the President let it happen.

Fast forward I can't tell you what this board is doing and I am on it. At least one member is supposedly knocking on doors,...but he won't provide details. No complaints have really been fixed or answered. I recently heard that some community members feel they were disrespected and marginalized because they received letters about their violations. Furthermore, the majority of the board does not want to write or sign compliance letters. Taking the lets be a friend/buddy approach I guess.

However, we are supposedly moving to adopt more of the UCIOA. The current draft for our community includes documenting issues, documenting contacts, writing letters, issuing fines. Everything they say they don't want to do.

As far as the person making the complaint signing it, that should not be necessary.

I do wonder about the rules that have an aesthetic component (my term). we've run across this issue before where a judgment about correct/incorrect, ok/not ok, aesthetic nuisance or pleasing detail is involved. Some of the board members lean heavily on these kinds of rules and choose not to act for fear of irritating owners - (if I can't put anything above the fence line, are you going to make me take down my hanging geranium?!, etc.) I was hoping others have been able to more easily walk around these kinds of rules. This board tends to err (obviously) on the side of making everyone happy, which of course, ironically, makes many unhappy.

Lorraine,

The board has the discretion to choose which battles to fight and which to walk away from. If they choose to do battle with an owner over a trivial matter, they will do so at risk of consuming an unlimited amount of money to be paid by all members. Conceivably, the board could be placed in a position where at some future time they must tell owners to live with the leaky roof because all their assessments have gone to pay for the flag fight. There is no upper limit on what a legal battle may cost.

The two alleged complaining owners also have the discretion to fight this battle at their own expense and have apparently chosen not to engage. Instead of fighting their own battle at their own expense, they ask the board to not only fight the battle at the expense of everyone else but also to keep their names out of it. An owner unwilling to take a stand on an issue has no right to expect the board to take a stand for them.

You appear to have some poorly written rules scattered in multiple places. I will not try to second-guess the board but if you and others are unhappy then, as always, your solution lies at the ballot box.

Kerry

I did read her comment. The flag could also be on a flag pole mounted to the wall. To me that is not decorating. I feel the issue is where the flag is from. She could have said a flag was placed on the patio wall.

When a board takes on an owner over a petty matter, there is no telling where it may lead. Maybe the guy will take the flag down without a fight or . . . maybe the entire alumni of UW will jump to his defense and drag this thing all the way to the Supreme Court. Is it worth taking that risk? The OP's board apparently does not feel that they have a strong enough case to take that chance.


Because it is their fight. No one else seems to be in their corner.


Actually, most condo owners purchase with the unrealistic expectation that someone else will take responsibility for everything for them.

The board's job is to exercise it's judgment to maintain the property in good condition. In this case the board has done just that. If owners are not satisfied with their board's judgment the proper thing to do is to elect a new board, which won't happen because those who expect others to take responsibility are not likely to take the responsibility to elect a new board.