Internal Dispute Resolution

An IDR request from the homeowner was sent by email to MC about deferred maintenance. The issue had been brought to MC’s attention on more than one occasion in the recent past.

The IDR request was sent by the homeowner to MC by email before an HOA meeting.

The IDR did not show on the Agenda for the HOA meeting.

During the same month, but after the HOA meeting, the deferred landscape maintenance was handled.

However, the following month, an IDR notification letter was received about the maintenance.

The IDR was scheduled with a specific time, date and location without mutual agreement with the homeowner. The plaintiff is the only one that can cancel the IDR as they were the one that brought the action.

MC confirmed by email that the board president and the HOA attorney were scheduled to attend the IDR meeting, despite the maintenance issue being resolved. The attorney for the association is not allowed to attend unless it is know beforehand that the plaintiff is bringing one. If the plaintiff does bring an attorney, the person conducting the IDR can have the meeting rescheduled at which time the association's attorney can represent their client.

There was no board meeting that occurred for the board to deliberate which board representative would attend the IDR. This should happen in executive session.

Can the board president choose themselves to attend an IDR without a board meeting? Yes

Can the MC choose which board director can attend an IDR? No

If either or both is acceptable, how can it be done? The IDR is not a Board meeting.

This is confusing because I thought that the board cannot conduct board business without a quorum and cannot discussion items that are not on the Agenda, with some exceptions? The maintenance was a non-emergency, but rather a hazard and deterioration concern. As this is not a Board meeting, quorum requirements do not apply

Jane

I may be missing something in your narrative but is it possible the meeting with the MC, President, and attorney was what we called in our professional careers "witness prep" prior to appearing to give testimony before a public utilities commission? We would review thoroughly our written and verbal testimony, possible lines of cross examination from opposing counsel, other questions from our attorney based on the cross examination, and questions from the commissioners and staffers.

You certainly would not want to go into an IDR session without understanding the issues, possible lines of discussion, and potential outcomes.

Hi Bill, I appreciate your thoughts.

There is certainly more to this narrative. It was expected that MC understood what Adams Stirling law firm stated in their litigation chart that attorneys were generally not involved in an IDR. Perhaps it would have been more effective to inform MC to refer to previous emails about the deferred maintenance in the certified letter that was sent to MC, but it was assumed that MC already knew such details based on prior complaints from the homeowner.

All in all, the homeowner attempted to seek resolution without each party needing to incur attorney fees. In addition, the homeowner cited to MC, an HOA attorney’s view about the IDR being too polarized and that the meeting itself could be looked upon as a friendly neighbor to neighbor interaction. MC had enough data to suggest, along with an attachment to the certified letter, a guideline for conflict resolution. The letter’s tone was factual and cordial. Efforts were taken to give no cause for hostility on the homeowner’s side of the issue.

It was surprising to me that the IDR was scheduled at a later time without those details that were at one time needed to get the IDR scheduled in the fist place?

Richard,

Thank you for clarifying some things.

I was not aware that the board can make a board representative selection for an IDR without an executive session. In the past, the homeowner had asked during a meeting, whether or not the board had an executive session during a specific time. The homeowner had received a non-mutually agreed upon IDR scheduling that fell during the time period in question. When MC and the chair refused to answer the question and engage in arguments, it was concluded that a board was required to have a meeting to select a board representative to attend the IDR. A simple yes or no would have resolved that concern.