Perpetual noise complaints - can a BOD recuse themselves?

Hello - I'm searching high and low for an answer to this question. I serve on a condo HOA BOD and we have an ongoing noise complaint issue. Owner #1 lives below Owner #2 and claims disturbance weekly. As a bod, we have warned and fined #2 a number of times but #2 denies disturbance and has witnesses to back him up. We held a hearing with both parties and #2 made a promise to be mindful of noise, another complaint came through from #1 two days later. We have recommended that #1 call the police to report disturbances with every complaint but he feels that would be a waste of officer's time. As a BOD, we recommended mediation and even offered to pay for it but #1 has refused mediation. I feel that after months of back and forth and in light of the refusal of mediation, we have exhausted our resources. My question is - is there a time that the BOD can excuse themselves from further involvement in a he said/he said situation?

IMO, unless there are others involved, this is a neighbor to neighbor dispute. Most CCRs grant an easement of quiet enjoyment and a disruption might be deemed a nuisance, which is also in your CCRs.

It sounds like the Board has taken the necessary steps as some might require in cases like this and the alleged offending party refuses to mediate. If you have legal counsel, I would have them write letters to both parties that further actions needs to go through the courts. These can get very costly for an association. Where I lived it left a legal tab of $250K.

Thank you, It is actually the complaining party that has refused mediation but continues to send complaints followed by demands to know 'what action the board will be taking' in response to the complaint. Do you think that our council needs to be the one to write the letters? Do you see any potential harm if they come directly from the BOD?

With something like this, I would invest the $300.00 to have your counsel write the letter. I am not a fan of attorney, but it might sit better IF the association were ever dragged into this.

NicolleT Minnesota : 1- Respectfully the question is actually for you : what is the standard of duty to obtain compliance IF ANY - within your governance documents ?

The question would have been :" what does the Minnesota condo statutes express - If ANY - to be the Board's duty to obtain compliance / halt disturbance?" I can't find it in either Minnesota condo statute, but I wonder if the site specific documents address that specifically.

The next questions would be the adequacy & speed of your investigation. Do you know if the disturbance exceeds reasonable levels ?

2 In 2013 a lawyer owner in my jurisdiction obtained a $40,000 legal award & a finding of statutory oppression against her urban highrise condo Board.

Under an express statutory duty to use reasonable efforts to obtain compliance, it under-complianced for 4 years an illegal Bollywood dance studio introduced into the unit above after illegal removal of carpet. It even retaliated against the victim.

Ultimately the dancers moved & the lawyer owner further but unsuccessfully - sought a fullscale Contempt of Court penalty against the Board ( cost her $20 K ).

The general condo owners have to have sucked up at least $100,000.

3 So what - IF ANY - is expressed as a corporation duty to obtain compliance within the governance documents 9 and possibly within Minnesota condo statutes ?

If there is none, how comfortable is the Board just writing letters that might be getting just laughed off by a possible disturber ?

Good digging to find that blog by attorney Beth Grimm who has just receievd 7 reolied to Nicolle's question.

Will I ever see a condo law statute that obligates governancers to deliver & guarantee the silence of the tomb ?

But will I ever see a condo law statute that exempts Board compliancing efforts unless there are two or more complainer units ?

Probably not to either. But sending letter after letter to some incorrigible disturber, is like a story about Do Not Remove tags on beach mattresses.

If a state law and/or body of judicial treatment indicates that bona fide reasonable compliancing efforts are required of the Board, wouldn't one expect credible hardcopy proof of investigation & adequacy of compliancing attempts

eg "we attended at reported frequency of usual disturbances. We reviewed the complainer's logs of being disturbed. We inspected the alleged source unit to see for example if carpeting had deteriorated / been replaced with hardwood or cheaper noise isolators ? " " We reviewed the applicable Building Code of date of construction, as evidence of deficient noise isolation. . . . . We explored the magic noise decibel device. . . . .

We thereafter made a proven attempt to trigger M&A if required pre-litigation by law or governancing documents. . . .

Then - IF required by condo law or governancing documents - we sought a judicial compliancing order hopefully legislated to allow 100 % legal costs recovery if granted. . . . .

OR having fully complied with legislated/contracted compliancing duty, we then passed the issue back to the complainer if instead legally/contractually permissible. "

Literally deconstructing Nicolle`s description of the scenario, her Board has investigated enough to draw a conclusion that it should write letter(s)to the alleged disturber. They fined.

She relates some degree of confession by the alleged disturber.

Refusing mediation the complainant may have enough acuity to recognize that mediation is unlikely to succeed with incorrigible flat out scofflaws. ( But of course this may or may not be the case here )

In some jurisdictions like mine, a next step court appointed arbitrator - able to proceed ex parte or without participation by the accused - may award an enforceable outcome.

One notorious noise scofflaw here in 2008 was hit by almost $80 K in Board-generated arbitration & further appeal costs. The sociopath had stripped out carpet & installed hardwood without Board approval. The jerk ignored orders to halt high levels of noise. He ultimately narrowly lost a deficiency defence on appeal that the highrise`s noise isolation standards were barely above Building Code at date of construction. The Board had recognized an express statutory duty and hired one of the country`s top condo lawyers to kick sense into the scofflaw.

Respectfully, Nicolle`s issue returns to whether letters & mediation recommendations satisfy the literal burden of whatever might be in her state`s law & body of judicial treatment or ultimately in her site-specific governance documents to the extent that such might be valid. Fines may not be working there.