Question about quorum requirement

We are getting ready for our annual meeting later this month. At that meeting two BOD positions will be voted on and we will be proposing an adjustment to a By Law issue, which is allowed in the By Laws.

We are small, with only 34 members, a quorum is 51% of the homeowners, so we need 18 members in a perfect world.

Of the 34 HOs, six are delinquent on dues and one has presented a contentious situation by ignoring rules and our request to fix the infraction,no formal legal steps have been taken in the situation but our lawyer is talking with his lawyer.

How does that affect our quorum? Do we still need 18 to make a quorum or is the requirement reduced because of the delinquencies? or by the naughty homeowner?

If owners are delinquent by a certain date before an election, of directors we call them to hearing (which they never attend) and withhold their rights to vote. this is permitted by our Bylaws.

So the number to make quorum -- 25% here--changes. If we had 200 members and 2 may not vote, we need 25% of 198 to make quorum.

You need to check your governing docs about this and if silent there MIGHT be something in HI statutes.

Paula

I should have read your post closer, sorry.

Those delinquent are not in good standing and cannot vote so it does lower your quorum requirement. The pain in the butt one, if current in dues, can vote and is part of making quorum.

34 owners minus 6 dues delinquent make for 28 so 15 needed for a quorum including the pain in the butt one.

As Kerri said it varies. At our Annual Meeting check in, our MC rep takes any member not in good standing aside and informs them can attend but they cannot vote as they are delinquent and informs them how much delinquent. We can count them to establish Quorum.

Paula,

Typically, check your governing documents, quorum is based on the size of the development (number of lots/units).

Quorum is typically not affected by a members standing (voting status/assessment delinquencies).

A member who, for appropriate reasons and procedures, has had voting privileges suspended may still attend the meeting and count toward the quorum. They simply may not vote in some items. I say some because this will also depend on the language in the governing documents.

Voting for Board members (elections) can typically be suspended (following proper procedures).
Voting for budget approval can typically be suspended (following proper procedures).
Voting for amendments might require everyone gets a vote (as the vote is based on % of number of lots). Check your governing documents.

If you can't figure out what your documents say, I would recommend consulting with an attorney (as you don't want a bylaw amendment be called into question).

Tim

As Tim said:

1. Voting for Board members (elections) can typically be suspended (following proper procedures).
2. Voting for budget approval can typically be suspended (following proper procedures).
3. Voting for amendments might require everyone gets a vote (as the vote is based on % of number of lots).


1 & 2. We do not have a defined procedure. At our Annual Meeting our MC plays the heavy and takes the person aside and informs them they are not in good standing. They can attend the meeting and speak but they cannot vote. They also would not be able to run for the BOD. So far, no one had objected.

3. This is also my understanding as verified recently by our lawyer when discussing an upcoming Covenant change.

As Ben noted it can depend on your documents and State Laws (keep in mind your State Laws can supersede your Governing Documents). If you are a Condominium your State Statutes note:

2017 Hawaii Revised Statutes
TITLE 28. PROPERTY
514B. Condominiums
514B-124 Association meetings; purchaser's right to vote.

Universal Citation: HI Rev Stat § 514B-124 (2017)
[§514B-124] Association meetings; purchaser's right to vote. The purchaser of a unit pursuant to a recorded agreement of sale shall have all the rights of a unit owner, including the right to vote; provided that the seller may retain the right to vote on matters substantially affecting the seller's security interest in the unit, including but not limited to, the right to vote on:

(1) Any partition of all or part of the project;

(2) The nature and amount of any insurance covering the project and the disposition of any proceeds thereof;

(3) The manner in which any condemnation of the project shall be defended or settled and the disposition of any award or settlement in connection therewith;

(4) The payment of any amount in excess of insurance or condemnation proceeds;

(5) The construction of any additions or improvements, and any substantial repair or rebuilding of any portion of the project;

(6) The special assessment of any expenses;

(7) The acquisition of any unit in the project;

(8) Any amendment to the declaration or bylaws;

(9) Any removal of the project from the provisions of this chapter; and

(10) Any other matter that would substantially affect the security interest of the seller. [L 2004, c 164, pt of §2]

That's how it is in CA too, Geno.

Janet's citation says what I believe a lot of covenants and state law say. But it's possible that suspension of voting rights might be somewhere else in a document.

There may not be any past due notices after the first. Also, the FL DBPR said in arbitration case 2010-05-7024,

"Accordingly, using the analogous use rights, it has been held that in order to properly suspend a unit owner’s voting rights, an association must suspend the voting rights at a properly noticed board meeting and notify the unit owner in writing of the suspension of his or her voting rights by mail or hand delivery."

Telling someone who shows up at a meeting that they can't vote without going through the proper procedures is pretty close to the definition of a "gotcha" in my book. Even if the past due notices had in big bold letters, "FAILURE TO PAY MAY RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF YOUR HOMEOWNER VOTING RIGHTS", the suspension still has to occur formally at a board meeting.

Nice! Hahaha. I was on this a couple of years ago when we had an owner who was more than 90 days past due on assessments show up at the annual meeting looking for a ballot for the board election. The election supervisor gave him one and I was livid! I kept my mouth shut because I was the new kid on the block. The next day I found that DBPR arbitration ruling online. It goes without saying that my HOA had never formally suspended the owner's right to vote so letting him vote was the right thing to do, legally if not morally. I was really happy that I didn't make a scene at the meeting and embarrass myself. I'm a little more cautious now with things I'm not completely sure of.