What elements constitutes an inactive HOA

You need to read your governing documents. This will indicate how a special assessment (which is what the painting of the foyer would be) is approved and assessed.

I would say that the HOA has been active (if payments were being made) but ran informally.

I would also contact the police and, as a member of the Association and quasi member of the Board, file embezzlement charges on your previous neighbor based on your "confirmed facts"

Keep in mind that, unless you are filing bankruptcy and include the Association payments as part of your debt, you are still personally responsible for all assessments until the Bank actually files paperwork (which banks have been known to drag their feet on after foreclosures) claiming actual ownership of the unit.

Then, I would still say that there is an active association. It is being ran very informally and, in my opinion, improperly. However, it is operating and the bills are being paid.

BTW, who's name is on the bills you receive that are divided into three equal parts (a owner of a unit or the Association)?

TimB4: Thank you Tim. What a great forum. I got all my answers. The water bill is still in the name of the previous owners as this was never switched over. This hasn't been a problem because we all pay collectively. However, the electric bill is in the name of the Association and unit #2 (embezzler) recently made a request to the electric company to mail the bill personally to him. Big deal, we all go online to see the balance anyway. Lastly, the condo insurance was opened by unit #2 (embezzler) and even though he opened it with his other account (car, etc) the name on that bill appears to be that of the association.

JohnC46: This is a horror show indeed. I happen to be a lawyer but specialize in Domestic Law. Since the unit owner upstairs knows I am a lawyer, I think he is scared to push me to pay other fees, even though he has tried. The only reason I haven't reported him with the embezzlement charge is that I will no longer be owner in the next two (2) months and I don't want to stir the pot. Just to clarify, the unit upstairs went into foreclosure in February 2013 which is when the embezzler came into ownership. However, my unit #1 is the only unit in foreclosure at the present time.

I will hold out patiently until I move out and as a lawyer I managed to only communicate with all unit owners in writing. Needles,to say, I have built up a plethora of information in the event they cry foul after I leave (i.e. outstanding bills).

Interesting, here in Illinois with so many foreclosures, people end up buying these properties directly from the Banks and they are forced to pay the outstanding dues otherwise they can't complete the sale. What's worse, there is case law to uphold this and consequently many new purchasers will have no choice if in fact they want the property.

Thank you all and I thank God I am soon getting out of here. I will never again consider any property that involves an HOA. This is in fact a nightmare!!

JohnC46: John, why tsk.. tsk.. tsk..? I do in fact claim to be a lawyer. Did you read my previous post? I specialize in Domestic Law and not in Real Estate. The fact that the HOA is not active is not due to my actions alone. It takes the effort of all unit owners involved. Again, this is why I have gotten everything in writing. I thought this forum was to help others and that is exactly what TimB4 did in answering my questions. On the other hand, it appears you are here to judge others. tsk...tsk..tsk!!

Beatrice V (Illinois) asks :

1- "What elements constitutes an inactive HOA?"

It actually sounds that what you referred to as a "condo" has been pretty active but not in conformity with your venerable Illinois Condominium Property Act 765 ILCS 605/ which was a pioneer. Best check but I think it is distinct from your state's Common Interest Community Association Act 765 ILCS 160/

Condo Property Sections 14.5 Distressed etc via possible court receiverships to section 16 Removal from the Act's provisions, may be where as a lawyer you may (?) see this going. But merely 2 of 3 units going underwater may not literally trigger any of this automatically as Tim notes. Have you ( or the unit 2 owner upstairs ) considered hiring a torch from Detroit ?

At least one nice thing is that as a lawyer the experience may have brought you closer to God ( " Thank you all and I thank God I am soon getting out of here. I will never again consider any property that involves an HOA. This is in fact a nightmare ! ! ")

2 - At law school was Condo Law a brief item along with incorporeal hereditaments ? Straying out of one 's specialty must have risks.

In Feb 2015 a 63 year old Asian Canadian lawyer lady was hit for the latest of 501 criminal charges after merrily funnelling / releasing to the now absconded developer, over $15 M in buyers' deposits held in trust for the unbuilt Centrium Condo project in North York Toronto.

The developer immediately fled to Korea with the +$15 in deposits leaving the lawyer explaining to shrieking Asian Canadian buyers that she did not understand trust funds ( ie the insanity defence ? ).

Will John C 46 be surprised to hear such ? . . .

Tim: I did resign but returned to see if there were additional posts. There is one utility bill in the name of the Association but this fact alone does not convince me that the association is active. Back in 2006 we did procure an EIN and I gave this number to the embezzler to open up a new Bank account. We already know what he did with that money and it wasn't used for its intended purpose.

At present the EIN hasn't been used in a few years so I don't know if it is still valid; We do have the required by-laws but again there has never been a meeting, named officers, a bank account (for the past two (2) years), reserves etc. The mere fact that there is a utility bill would probably serve to prove there is an association but not to prove that the association is active otherwise.

We do have insurance on the building and this month of August it is my turn to pay the monthly on that one.

I can tell you in a legal setting, if a court of law was presented with the facts, they would look at "the totality of the circumstances" to determine if the association was active. It is a fact that there is an association, that by-laws were set up and recorded, that there was a bank account opened at one point and then closed seven (7) years later, that there are no elected or named officers and lastly that there has never been a meeting to make pertinent decisions.

Based on my initial inquiry, I was not sure whether the association even held any validity but after your response I now know that they do have legal validity. However, to be in the active status, there appears to be more needed on the part of the owners collectively to make decisions. In that regard, Henry upstairs cannot unilaterally tell me that he will paint the foyer and then hand me a bill. That decision needs to come from a majority including the downstairs unit owner whom is never around because he works out of state. Since I only have two (2) months left until my ownership of the unit is relinquished, I will continue to pay my share of utilities and insurance but I refuse to pay for additional projects without the proper protocol as defined by the By-laws. Especially in light of the individual making that request (the same person who spent the monies to open up the new Bank account).

I am also keeping everything in writing with all unit owners to further point out the fact that there are no monies outstanding on my part that will come back to haunt me. I do have every intention of informing the foreclosure attorneys for the Bank (I happen to have a very good rapport with them) that this guy has $1,700.00 required to open up a Bank account as this information will be needed to pass on to the new owners that end up purchasing the unit after I leave.

Thank you again for all your information and I hope that my scenario will help others determine the elements of an active or inactive association.

Beatrice Good luck sincerely. Sorry if any of what I said looks like anything but sharing the irony in a positive way.

Correction : I notice in Beatrice V's reply to Tim, that she /the buckshee arrangements require NOT 100% approval vote/consent but majority 2 of 3 units.

Within that same comment, the reference to topfloor "Henry" handing her a unilateral foyer-repainting bill, may only be rhetorical.

Howsoever the buckshee arrangements define "inactive" or allow it, I don't clearly see how "inactive" status might otherwise trump what the lender can do to her next, nor handcuff the rights of the other unit owners to start conventional governance.

Unknown is how long ago was her law school. Maybe no client ever brought her a 'real property' issue.

But for 9 years she has been amidst some sort of ad hoc arrangement with only 3 units involved.

"Inactive" to her in that buckshee situation, may mean something different from "inactive" under MRTA or comparable sun-setting provisions under her jurisdiction's registry act. MRTA could not be her scenario if the development is only 9 years old. She may not understand that.

Even an attorney spouts a gem of wisdom occasionally.