Missouri statutes 448 for HOA?

Does Missouri Revised Statutes 448 for condominiums apply to HOA? My HOA allows a simply majority to amend the covenant but statue 448.2-117 refers to 67% as necessary for an amendment. Does anyone know anything about the application of statutes 448 to Homeowners associations.

I'm with Sheila all the way.

Also note that states themselves differ about what they call "HOAs." In CA cvil code, for instance, all are called Common Interest Developments (CIDs) . And those numerous statutes apply both to condo associations and to detached home associations, whether incorporated or not. All are generically termed "HOAs."

Michael,

I refer you to that act[emphasis added]:

Property submitted to condominium law by declaration.

448.020. Whenever the owners in fee simple of a parcel intend to submit such property to the provisions of sections 448.005 to 448.210, they shall do so by recording a declaration, duly executed and acknowledged, expressly stating such intent and setting forth the particulars enumerated in section 448.030.

Therefore, my laymans opinion would be that if your CC&Rs specify all the requirements in 448.030, you may have to comply with this act. If you're not sure, seek a legal opinion from a local attorney who will have access to your governing documents and a more through knowledge of the statute.

Douglas, this recently came up at a meeting at my condo. As you may know, for FHA financing the rule used to be that at least 50% of a condo's units had to be owner occupied. Now, if other conditions are met, for FHA financing the required owner-occupancy percentage has been lowered to a minimum of 35% (meaning up to 65% may be be investor owned or rentals). Some discussion appears at http://fhareview.com/the-guidlines-fhaapprovalguidlines/

Can you explain a plan for limiting the number of rentals that would be fair and pass legal muster?

Update: The Assoc meeting was a bit disappointing. Besides the the 3 board members only two home owners showed up (out of 60 units in total). I also found out the board president doesn't live on the premises but rents his unit to a relative. Since the main topic for discussion was limited rentals I see a conflict of interest.
The other two board members are sweet but rather timid women (but that doesnt mean they cant be tigers).
We finally got around to discussing rental limits and they agreed it was needed but no one had a plan.
Since lawyers are already involved I thought it odd that no potential plans were offered. So I threw out a few ideas of my own. Limiting rentals to about 30%. Units cannot be rented for one year after purchase (to avoid corp buyers). Higher assessments on rented units...etc. The response to my ideas was blank expressions.
Anyway, after brief discussions on other minor matters a young police officer hijacked the rest of the meeting to talk about a neighborhood watch. Crime is ridiculously low (and that's a good thing) so no one saw the need, but he still occupied almost 30 minutes quoting stats.
Frustrating!
I'll update as I learn more.

LOL ... They can be quite interesting. One suggestion I would have is to gather individuals who LIVE on site and do not rent and at your next election try to insure the BOD ends up comprised of mostly those who actually live in the HOA vs. renting units. I have a friend who did that this year in her HOA. She was new to the HOA, saw the issues, and went about fixing. She is now the President .

One problem she found is the BOD comprised of those who rented units did not want to spend money on proper maintenance because that would possibly mean less rental money in their pockets, if dues were increased. If you have someone like yourself who is willing to put forth effort and can give those who physically live in their units reasons to be more active ... you may be surprised and those who may be willing to help.

I thought you threw out some great ideas at your meeting ... I just wanted to make sure that on the one item nobody ended up in trouble.