💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

DorrinndaF (Michigan)
Posts: 17
Posted:
The Board implemented Policies for our parks and lakes last year - nothing in the BY Laws or the deeds state that they have the authoirity to do this. Are they legally Binding? I have asked the board several times to clarify under whose authority they had to create these and they refuse to give a answer.
Any thoughts ?
DaveD3 (Michigan)
Posts: 796
Posted:
Are you SURE they don't have the authority?
Generally, documents give the board the authority to implement "rules and regulations consistent with the enforcement of the rules herein" (or something of that effect).
So you'll have the restrictions in the officially registered association documents, and somewhere in there will be a line to that effect.
SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964
Posted:
There may also be something in the CCRs - read those too.

Why do I think there's something between "the board implement policies for our parks and lakes last year" and "I asked the board several times to clarify under whose authority they had to create these rules and they refuse to give an answer?" What type of rules have they implemented and what's your beef with them? Did you ask the board for the backstory as to why the rules are being implemented?

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Typically a BOD can set Rules & Regulations without owner approval. The tricky part is they cannot override nor amend the Covenants nor Bylaws with R&R's. As an example a R&R cannot close an amenity down but it can control the hours/days it will be open.

Typically only a BOD (not even a member vote) can change an R&R so often the answer is to replace part or all the BOD then modify the offending R&R.

PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
In your Covenants and Restrictions look for something akin to:

Section 8. Use of Common Area. The Common Area shall not be used in any manner
except as shall be approved or specifically permitted by the Board of Directors


Generally under the 'Restrictions' section.
PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
and

Section 13. Regulations. The Committees of the Association can amend or establish
regulations governing the use of the Common Areas from time-to-time. These reasonable
regulations shall be submitted to the Board of Directors for their approval. Upon approval of such
regulations, copies shall be furnished to each member of the Association. At no time shall these
rules and regulations supercede these Covenants.
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DorrinndaF : The Board implemented Policies for our parks and lakes - nothing in the BY Laws or the deeds state that they have the autho(i)rity to do this. Are they legally Binding ? I have asked the board . . . and they refuse to give a answer.

DorrinndaF (Mich):

1- The bottom line - as noted well by other commenters above- is that you (or your hired legal professional) cannot answer without first reviewing the relevant state law & governance documents to see what powers your community group has - IF it even has any.

Thereafter, you can further research in what way & how much of such powers could be purportedly exercised by the "Board".

2- Respectfully, it's likely if the organization & Board have genuine legal powers, the owners ( not necessarily merely the Board ) could be WELL-advised to adopt Policies or Best Practices fully compliant to the laws & governance documents.

These might be justified to promote consistency, fairness, maybe specifically a Bigger Picture look at the environmental & sustainability etc aspects of the parks & lakes.

3 - It is respectfully unlikely that such groups usually have the skillsets - nor obligation - to try to give you legal advice. There are legal professionals for just that; if you retain one that individual's professional duty will be to you.

4 - I live in a community whose massive common elements & lakefront are NOT subject to any stakeholder governance body with 'vires'.

The common elements are lawfully & literally co-owned purely by 70 sets of private stakeholders whose end user private property titles each come crazy-glued with a pro-rata share of the common lands. It is not owned eg by the 'BW Owners Assn'.

A voluntary organization has peacefully evolved using Best Practices dogma instead of legal 'vires'. Neither is it incorporated nor would such bring such ownership nor 'vires'. This has been generally harmless or benign until periodically the skillset levels are sufficiently 'submerged' or overcome by whomever gets into a position to try to shape opinion. It adopts what it calls Best Practices.

Respectfully Policies or Best Practices are the only tool available in such a scenario. If it's also like yours, maybe no Big Deal.

5 YOUR JURISDICTION QUESTION TO TO BOARD : I too asked your same question as yours, at the final General Owners meeting I attended. All was low-key.

The not surprising low key answer of the longtime Planning Committee head's answer - after the Chair stickhandled the question to coffee break - was this :

That she absolutely had NEVER EVEN HEARD of the professional legal opinion long shown on the Association's own website.

Thus she could not grasp how her 'Rule making' was ulta-vires in a bare co-ownership without any platform for organized governance.

There was no point in asking further if she even grasped the 15 or 20 leading legal precedents about such voluntary no-vires HOAs in such bare co-ownerships in my jurisdiction.

6 - The level of skillsets should respectfully not be over-estimated in a no-vires community. If - IF - such is your scenario, it with respect is not a bad idea to scrutinize closely, learn, fully contribute, pay & work, try to encourage skillsets without making enemies needlessly, prepare quietly for the day you will have to litigate but hope you will never need to. Good luck

Why would anyone rely on such an environment for the legal emnet

BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
erratum : last 12 word sentence fragment should be deleted. Also "Ulta vires' above should be 'ultra vires'
DorrinndaF (Michigan)
Posts: 17
Posted:
Thanks for the replies - interestingly they helped
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Looks like you've rec'd some great replies, Dorrinda. It also is possible, but not likely, that your Articles of Incorporation (if you're incorporated) say something relevant.
SueW6 (Michigan)
Posts: 814
Posted:
Dori - what do you think should be the role of the Board?

If they bylaws say there is a pool, how should the hours be set for its use? Should that be in the bylaws, too, or should the board have the power to set the hours?

You don't say what the Board did for you to think they have done something wrong or overstepped their authority.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here