Surprise!! You owe us money..

The roof should have been the responsibility of the HOA to fix/repair and the homeowner to replace the flooring, possibly through their homeowners insurance.
If the HOA should be involved in would be handled between the insurance companies.

Saying that.. the HOA did NOT argue the floroing was thier responsibility.. and in fact it was confirmed by the associations HOA atty.

Let me see if I understand this:

1) Roof leak caused flooring damage
2) Association acknowledge responsibility but chose to address themselves vs. through insurance.
3) Board researched and approved floor type and install.
4) 2 days before install the question was raised if the board was replacing or upgrading.
5) Emails between member and board members occurred.
6) Installation of approved floor was done.
7) Board, reconsidering their approval thinks it's an upgrade and sent a bill for the difference between replacement and upgrade.
8) Member went WTF?

As others have said, this is a lesson learned to let the insurance companies handle these issues.

If the original floor was not available, then a comparable product would have been authorized by the insurance. This is what should should have been decided.

My advice, consult an attorney to see how to reply and have the attorney reply for you.

My knee jerk reaction would be that if the Board feels that this is an upgrade, they may remove it and putting in the original or comparable product at their expense. However, we do not know the details, understandings and possible agreements made through e-mails sent in step 5 above. Thus my advice to for the member to consult an attorney. Take all the e-mails and minutes of the meetings surrounding the issue to the attorney.

My concern.. the flooring installed.. was completely on a detailed work order they approved in executive session and email..

There was NOTHING new or added to the APPROVED order.. the baord themselves decided this was an upgrade.. the flooring is different..
high end laminate.. damaged and removed replaced wth hybrid vynil. There was NO surprises.. and the insurance company for hte HOA or owern woudl not cover the damage due to knwon neglect of the property.. the roof is 30++ years old..

I found out as I revived the board packet from last month.. It was made in executive session.. And is part of the minutes.. Yes I have missed the last several meeting due to other.

The note 'minutes read... A discussion was had , iit as decided the flooring installed was an upgrade and the board is asking cents for square foot reimbursement..

Nicole

As a Board member, you are going to have to take this case on your own. I suspect you have just a Board of three and the decision to have you pay the difference of the upgrade was done while you were away. That happens.

Here is the problem IMO. In California, items that require action MUST be on an agenda or action CANNOT be legally taken. If they followed the Open Meeting Act, you would have known this subject was going to be discuss. As I have said in previous other posts, I don't have a problems with some discussions via emails, BUT the Board on which you serve is taking ACTIONS WITHOUT A MEETING. These are not decisions that should be taking place in Executive Session.

If the root cause of the problem is maintenance of the complex, has it been address and resolved? You bear responsibility for the damages that were caused. If not resolved, remember, El Nino is predicted to be bad in Southern California.

Was the floor installed an upgrade to the damaged floor? You as a Board member, you should know a member would have to pay the difference. If the Board does things on their own, things like this will happen.

Yesterday I finally got a bill from the HOA for a pretty penny on an amount they feel is above what they approved. Once again, I have emails form the bardo with 3 out of the 4 approving this in it's entirety in July of this year. One of these board members does not support the bill the board majority has decided to provide me. NOTHING has changed since this last post. It's just been months since they approved it and it must of just been recognized they didn't bill yet.

I have consulted my attorney who feels this is not ok. He stated the will submit a letter to the board on my behalf outlining all details including the emails where this was approved. I have email proof that one of the back peddlers said they never saw the bid until after the flooring was done or going to be done. I have an email 6 weeks before installation with that very bid and materials used.. APPROVED by ths it board member, yet she says she never saw it, I have one that approved it and also back pedaled. The final among is near 6K. If they approved the amount, the type and materials used.. With no variance I can not understand how they can bill for something they know nothing about.

No flooring expert looked at my floor before or assessed its value. Prior to removal
I provided 3 bids with all the foot work nothing being done by my HOA...

No flooring expert looked at my replacement flooring to assess it before the board approved it. NOBODY on that board is a contractor and neither is our management company. Shortly after my flooring was installed, the manager emailed the board saying they will discuss this at a meeting to see if it's an upgrade.. This is where it all started... It was from the management company.. It's been stressful and frankly I see this going legal, and I hate that.
Hopefully a letter from an atty is all that is needed. I also have an email from the board members who approved it a few days before installation asking questions one would of asked when reviewing the bid the month before... Saying it an upgrade? It was the very same product they approved, but this seemed to have fallen in deaf ears.

This was approved as it was.

I know that the amount they are asking for is actually low, but it's the principle. If it goes legal does it just go to small claims for non payment or I there something that can be done civil? I feel harassed and the stress of this whole process has been insane. My husband tripped on the old damaged flooring and fell, he wasn't injured but could of been... It was actually proposed by the board to delay flooring installion until next year when the roof was done etc. of course this was kicked out there days before is installation again.
Ideas? It can not be a motion as indicated above, it was not approved with first and second and rather is documents as a "discussion
Amongst the board.

The amount is just short of $1000.

The roof repair has not only not been done, here it is 4 months later.. And no bids.

The board has historically been a group of hard to get alongs. I strive to get along but at the end of the day.. Our board president will do anything not to agree with me. I have one comrade on the board with me who notices this. He is one of the two males on board. Whole th acting president pathetically says anything yes too.. So when I was in a position to present inrformation.. I would have my other comrade do it and present it as his idea.. She'd go along and she has yet to prove me wrong on this method. However this is my won issue , not my comrades. I was told that they board discussed this, ( although once again nobody there is a flooring expert, not contractor ) fan felt the flooring that was placed was an upgrade. Based upon discussion. The bid and work approved have not changed, but thier minds did. Our management company also initeated the idea as stated above.

NicoleO1(Cal)

1- Respectfully, what makes you certain that your pre-existing flooring had been merely "standard", or within contemplation of what the Declarent/common builder had installed at date of construction.

Or else was now defined in a standard unit by-law ?

2- Was there no release of your claim documented in the course of this DIY self-remedy ? I can guess that the whole thing was done as informally as a traffic accident where a victim party later may suffer from the informality of not filing reports . . .

3 You cite that "The roof repair has not only not been done, here it is 4 months later". Do you mean to say that rain water periodically still breaches the roof ? That really would be corporation negligence, just like an ignored but ongoing series of pinhole leaks in water lines.

Respectfully, even if a roof is a decade past its design life or reserve fund lifespan, it MAY not necessarily be negligence without an initial leak. A first-ever failure of some kind, may not be negligence. The visible condition & other indicators may undermine a first even defence.

Or are you saying that your documents or state law make the corporation a guarantor responsible "absolutely", no defence of dilgence.

4 Before you fight this "on principle", you might also consider whether or not the new flooring has revitalized the value of your unit.

It avoided your sucking up alternatively an insurance deductible if you had claimed against your own insurer for some sort of damage caused without involvement by the corporation.

Unfair it is in some ways, but respectfully do you need the hassle over $1,000 ?

Thank you Nicole.

As I had suspected there existed some "tension" in your relationships with other board members.

I would like to have a chance to review the calculations the board worked through in determining your now due share of these costs.

I would agree with Bob and the possible costs of litigating this matter through the courts.
Here the going rate is $250-$300 per hour.

My concern the faulty roof has not yet been addressed. To cover the expense of repairing the floor damage before making the needed repairs to the failed roof is operating at a level of ignorance quite commonly found today.

IF this matter finds its way to court I would require your attorney address with the court the needed roof repairs and make them part of any resolution.

Nicole

Correct me if I am wrong. You stated that you have emails fro 3 of the 4 Board members approving the bill.

There are two thing potentially wrong here. If, this wasn't an emergency, no vote can be taken by email. If, for some reason, this was an emergency, ALL Board members must content in writing and the vote MUST be unanimous and more importantly, that vote must be put into the minutes of the next Board meeting.

The vote and the bill at this point are VOID.

Happy New you a to you all too!

You know I do!! I have copies of everything.
It's really a shame that I have had this happen. It really makes me be a tad concerned about decisions moving forward and how much this group pays attention to anything?? . Horrible way to learn a lesson, horrible way to stress another board member out. I have shared my story with others in our complex who also have work pending from HOA damage leak... I dont' want anyone else to be a victim of the back peddling board, and moving forward I will ask for it in writing that the board will not come back and ask for any addiotnonal monies on a bid , action already approved if it affects me again and neighbors advised the same. This isn't confidential as it's my issue.. My bill.. I am freely sharing so it wont' happen again

No I did not sign any waiver except if the flooring is to have further damage form leaks until the roof is replaced. That is all. However, the flooring is water resistant.. And garuantedd not to sustain damage per manufacturer policy. However the arms lengthy agreement you are talking about I am sharing with other owners who have been victim of a poorly maintained roof this year.

I am not sure how a board can agree upon installation of the presented item.... Then change thier mind after it was installed.. That is what happend.. I have bonfied proof of this. Now, if the board made an error and not only approved this not once but twice.. Then change their mind. I am going to go with the advisement of my atty at this point.. Small claims of not what kind of board back pedals after few months later and installing of approvied large scale item like this?

Discussing the few board members regarding this had proven to be a bit interesting. I am not allowed to vote obviously, but there was a lot of discussions regarding this and our management input.

While I live in Florida I am curious about one thing. Are you all talking about a condominium or a home in a development? The key word being HOA.

I guess I am confused by what you are saying.

First and foremost. My own insurance company was contacted. They came out, inspected and flat declined the claim because the reason is the HOA neglected to maintain a roof that is 10 years beyond its life and is leaking like a sieve.

I then contacted the HOA insurance who essentially said the same thing. Rain water from a poorly maintained roof is the issue of the and not a valid claim due to neglect and improper maintenance.

Not much to go on in the article other than this: "It’s a curious area of the law. Although the water has come from the outside and entered your unit, the courts have ruled the result of ice dams is, essentially, a force of nature for which the association is no more responsible than mosquitoes or ants getting into your unit in the summer."

Nicole, doesn't your property mgr. try to collect on common Area insurance claims? In our HOA, Owners don't contact HOA insurance, our HOA does via our PM.

Put another way: has the HOA insurance ONLY been in contact with you? and in writing? Or has your HOA instance rep contacted your HOA via your PM or perhaps the board prez?

She did file with her insurance company, who filed against the HOA insurance. Both said NA DA.

Sounds like the HOA insurance is saying the association was negligent in its maintenance. How much responsibility, as a Board member, does the OP have?

That is the question.

Richard

Not to reread it all, but I thinks Nicole's insurance company said no so she went after the HOA's insurance company. I do not think her insurance company did anything but say no to her. Had that been me, my lawyer would be after my insurance company or if the end result was not worth it to me ($$$$$) than at least I would change insurance companies and be sure the next one covered me.

John

According to Nicole, she contacted first her insurance, and then the HOA insurance.

As the owner of a management company, the first thing I do when taking on a new property is fill out an HOA Responsibility checklist, which is a two page excel spreadsheet identifying HOA/Owner responsibilities based on a thorough review of their CCRs.

When Nicole's call would have come in, I would have had her first contact her insurance company. I would send her a copy of the HOA declaration page for the HOA insurance along with the agent's name and phone number. If both insurance companies refused payment, then the HOA attorney would have been brought in to mitigate.

I have been doing this since 2011 and have NEVER had to bring an attorney in to litigate these types of matters.

I can see more than a few have not read this entire thread.

#1 MY own insurance will not cover the cost of replacment of flooring because this is the fault of a neglected roof.

#2 The HOA insurance will not cover this as it is due to a neglected roof.

NO I was no ton the baord when this was suppose to be replaced. Etc..

The flooring was replaced and paid for but the HOA. I have proof of approval. The flooring was installed. NO ISSUE there.

Last month I got a bill form our HOA indicating that after my flooring was installed the baord felt it was an upgrade and damanded a partial reimbusment. THIS IS THE ISSUE. I have my case, bids and proof of approved bids being reviewed by my own atty as a favor. He feels they are in the wrong and with further investigation I will present his findings at our next baord meeting.

Nicole

I am assuming you reside in a condo, therefore what the HOA was required to pay for the flooring was standard flooring, not an upgrade. You HO-^ policy should have covered the upgrade, that is one of the purposes of the policy.

Has the roof been fixed?

Were any of the current Board members around while the roof was being "neglected"? If so, I would have your attorney discuss litigation on behalf of "other" owners who might be or soon to be in your same boat. They may be personally responsible if the insurance company has said in writing that the damage was caused by actions they took or not took to properly maintain the roof.

I also wonder why, if the insurance knows you aren't properly maintaining your building, why are they continuing to insure your HOA and take your money? Something doesn't sound right.

I think KevinK7 summed it up well. The board wants to un-ring the bell.

To the OP

If this had been a regular homeowner in your community, would this have been handled in this manner? The association's obligation as per their insurance policy, if it would have paid out, would be to replace the floor with standard and have the homeowner paid for the upgrade either out of their pocket or through their insurance.

Maybe someone told them they erred. It wouldn't be the first time a Board changed their decision, nor will it be the last. The OP is responsible for the upgrade.

The HOA would have a leg to stand on, because, as Nicole stated, the Board improperly voted on the issue by email, when it wasn't an emergency. I think it's called a do-over.

There are many more issues, but that will do for now.