One member paying the dues of another member to receive their proxy vote

Leave it alone.

Is it more important to have everyone current or the fact that you suspect someone is "buying" votes?

I think the answer is "yes". Even if "buying a proxy" was illegal it's not your business how an owner came into the posession of a validly given proxy. If the proxy is valid it should be counted.

One vote per lot is typically the ratio of voting in most HOA's. How does everyone not have the same vote? Little confused there. For me, let them pay away the debts of non-paying members. If they fall for it, then so be it. Their vote is their vote to do what they want with it.

I will say that I would be suspicious of this person's motives for paying of so many debts of owners. That does have a certain smell to it. What it is, not quite apparent at this time. The HOA can't be part of the agreement between those owners. So finding out what the terms are for the pay-off would have to be voluntary to reveal. Which would be interesting to find out the intent.

My gut feel is this person's well intentions aren't. It's not necessarily the voting. My concern is what they want with that much voting power. What would it benefit them to have it? Do they want to be on the board or control it? How does the payoff of debt play into all of this? Seems there is more to this story and intent than is being revealed.

There was an arbitration case in Florida where a group of owners conducted a raffle. The price of a ticket was giving them a proxy. The association contended that that amounted to an illegal lottery and that the proxies were invalid. The association lost when the arbitrator ruled that even if it was an illegal lottery, the Division of Business & Professional Responsiblity had no jurisdiction to enforce the state's gambling laws. The proxies were completely valid and that was the only thing that mattered.

Is there anything in writing regarding the payment of A by B?

Has there been a public pronouncement, verbally, about this, by A or B that would allow someone to sign an affidavit?

Is there a payment audit trail? Check or credit card payment?

I think, at one point, with enough evidence, this could be contested ...expensively.

Buying votes has never been between two people ....it is way worse than unethical.

To ignore it is shortsighted.

What’s next?

Neither the board nor the directors nor officers have any legal standing to interfere between a proxy giver and a proxyholder. There's no exception for white knights. It's nobody else's business.

LET THEM PAY!!!! It does not matter who PAYS as long as the HOA receives their money!!! My Mom, my Brother, my Sister, etc. could pay my HOA dues for me “IF” I had ever fallen behind (which will not happen) but used as an example. This is an example of a beyond stupid question ...

I realize Brent, the OP, is from South Carolina, and the answer he's looking for will be found somewhere in that state's laws.

In Florida that proxy, if it's filled out correctly, is valid. Have a look at this Petition for Arbitration, Case No. 2009-01-2882, heard by a Florida DBPR arbitrator. The issues are not exactly the same but the reasoning and logic behind the decision spring from the same statutes where the validity of proxies is concerned. In particular, have a look at pages 8 and 9 where this Final Order says:

"Respondent argues that proxies must be verified in order to avoid fraud, and that the legislature has only provided minimum requirements for the form of proxies. On the contrary, the legislature specified requirements for a proxy “to be valid”, including detailed information, the date signed and signature of the person executing the proxy, and it set limits on the use of the proxy. Use of such a proxy is not merely an option but a “right”, unless otherwise provided by the legislature or governing documents. The only choice for an association is to amend the documents to prohibit proxies or to accept proxies executed according to the legislated instructions. A homeowners’ association may not impose rules or limits on a proxy the legislature has already declared to be valid.

Although the requirement for verification may seem attractive to avoid fraud, the legislature chose not to limit homeowners with such a requirement."

(emphasis added)

No other statute or governing document gives anyone the power to declare themself "Protector of Rights". Busybody boards and board members need to step off their soapboxes and follow the law. Which, again, is certainly going to be different in South Carolina than it is in FL. A proxy can be rejected if it appears defective (the board does not get to define "defective"). Otherwise, you have no choice but to accept it.

And yes I have a paper trail. He called me and told me he was going to buy their votes. He emailed me asking the amounts they owed on Facebook and said in writing he was going to pay them off. I’m waiting on the checks written by him to the POA in the amounts they owed.

We only have a few thousand in the bank. How are we supposed to secure a lawyer and pave the roads? I don’t have the money to do anything but send notices to these people.

The owner was also on the phone when this member called me. They are good friends apparently.

Please confirm: Do your HOA's governing documents say that the owner of the one house on a lot has one vote, while the owner of 20 vacant lots has 20 votes?

If so, then yes, the 20 vacant lot owner has the right to exercise his or her proxy the way he or she wants. Geno's right to cite some case law on the completion of proxies. I have seen other case law (when an issue arose about proxies where I am). A board may not place more restrictions on proxies than the governing documents state. My take is that's become pretty much a nationwide rule.

Janet, is that really necessary? I am sticking with 'the only stupid question is an unasked one (assuming the person asking has made a little effort to research the situation).' It's not easy being a volunteer director of a corporation with massive infrastructure needs, especially with apathy naturally running rampant.

I think this is a real problem. An owner has a right to give another their proxy (assuming it is allowed in your governing documents) just as a politician can vote however they want. However, if someone pays a politician to vote a certain way, that is bribery and is a crime. Whether the crime or bribery in NC applies to people who aren't public officials or not, I don't know, but the same principle applies. It's corrupt even if it's not illegal.

Before someone argues the point, I realize politicians get donations all the time for the expectation of a certain vote but they are usually smart enough to make it hard to prove it was a quid pro quo.

Some discussion of vote buying in corporate America --

-- 2005 article on vote buying done by Hewlett Packard in 2002 in merger effort:
https://hbr.org/2005/06/shareholder-votes-for-sale
"Buying votes? It may be illegal in politics, but in the corporate arena, it is a legitimate, if controversial, strategic tool."

-- 2001 article: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/washlr76&div=28&id=&page=

-- 2011 academic article: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~wolinsky/Paper/shares&votes.pdf
Article abstract notes the courts did not always approve vote buying in corporate America

-- 1979 article on vote buying among corporations owned by shareholders:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3173&ccaselrev

The lottery decision in Florida, DBPR Case No. 2008-06-5770, mentioned the similarities to the civil elections of public officials. It notes a 1916 Kansas case about vote-buying by a candidate for public office. It said purchased votes should not count and anyone purchasing votes should not be allowed to hold office.

The arbitrator's decision, however, relied on shareholder rights as put forth by corporate law.

In the Florida case, an owner solicited proxies and said anyone who gave him a proxy would be entered into a drawing for cash prizes. He got 84 proxies (85 but one was disqualified). The HOA refused to accept the proxies at the election saying the method used to gather them was in violation of Florida's Gambling statute, FS 849.

From the arbitrator's decision:





Many people want to apply the same standards and laws that pertain to the civic elections of public officials to HOA and Condo elections, but it's a false equivalence. Your board members are not your "representatives" because a corporation is not a representative democracy. You're electing directors of the corporation, not a city council.

I do not see as black and white. The courts frequently call HOAs "quasi-governmental." They use this governmental aspect of HOAs to justify certain decisions. One example is when a HOA seeks to penalize a member for violating covenants. The courts require that the HOA provide "due process" to the member. This explicitly refers to the "due process" protections of the U.S. Constitution's 5th and 14th amendments. Why do the courts require HOAs to provide due process? The courts say the reason is that much of what a HOA does is governmental.

In my view, a HOA member is electing a government. It is a government which can have an enormous impact on one's day-to-day life. By contrast, the typical for-profit corporation does not have nearly the same impact on a shareholder's day-to-day life. For example, the publicly traded company Pepsi Cola cannot tell a shareholder what curtains he or she can hang; how to maintain his or her front yard; or that the member has to pay it money because Pepsi's factories' infrastructure is aged and failing.

As far as buying votes for a HOA election: If the outcome of a vote on an issue is not important to Member X, I am not seeing sleaze in Member Y buying Member X's vote. The purchase represents Member Y's high interest in the outcome, and perhaps for excellent reasons. I guess people could argue that this leads to whoever has the most money controlling a HOA's destiny. My counter is that if the wealthy ones destroy the place, people will vote them out of office. The members control the destiny of the HOA.

To me the greater abuse is incumbents using HOA resources to promote themselves and their side of issues in elections. I have seen incumbents pay the HOA attorney to attack non-incumbent candidates. This happens far more often, and it's hard to fight.

Thanks for the quotations from the Florida proxy-lottery case. It's a good read.

Anything this mister-buyer-of-votes brings forth at a meeting of the members has to be substantively on the agenda. This is because of legal notice requirements. The purpose of the legal notice requirements are to inform people of the topics so they can decide whether to attend. Hence if someone raises an issue spontaneously at a meeting, and those not attending were not legally noticed of this, then it is unlawful to have the discussion and a possible vote on it. If there is a meeting that is dedicated specifically to votes on the issues to which you referred in the first post, he cannot raise other issues.

(If anything is hankering to have a discussion of topics not on the agenda, they could to it informally after the regular meeting, without Minutes recording it, time and space allowing.)

Do your governing documents say something like proxy holders may only vote on motions and not otherwise participate? If not, what I am seeing on the net is he can make a motion representing himself and then second it via his proxy for another. Discussion is supposed to follow, then a vote.

The other issues aside, unless he's ON the Board he cannot vote you out as prez. Only the Board can vote for officers. Read your bylaws, Brent.

I don't think he can use a proxy to second a motion he makes at a members meeting. I b believe this is from Robert's Rules of Order where only members of the body holding the meeting can make & second motions. Easily might be wrong though.

I agree, Augustin--you said it better than I.

Jennifer , plea give us the exact language whereby Owners can remove officers. It's well known that owners can vote out directors via recall. But officers???

In my HOA and I think per CA Corporations code, only the Board can vote out officers, e.g prez, treasurer,

Oh, sorry, on a re-read here I realize I used the word officers rather than directors, and that is all I needed to clarify. Sorry! But for the purpose of the OP, the point I think is can this man with the proxies vote him away, and I believe the answer is yes. If he has a replacement to vote in.

The man with the proxies cannot say 'You're still on the board, but no longer President', but being able to remove him entirely is even worse, is it not?

I AM starting to wonder about this language for my association given that it says the BOD can remove and replace officers at will, not directors. I've been thinking of the terms as interchangeable when I read that paragraph, I guess, and others here have been too.

I just re-read that, and for the BOD to remove and replace, it only refers to officers, not directors. Hm. This I really need to know.

So if the BOD 'removes' an officer, they can still stay on the board and cast votes, they are just stripped of whatever rights and duties assigned to their position as Pres, VP, whatever?

I feel the same way. Lesson learned about revealing information. This individual wants the hoa gone. He wants his friend a home builder who is not licensed contractor to be able to build and do whatever he pleases to our neighborhood. He also does not like us trying to prevent damage to our roads by not renewing agreement to allow public school buses to drive on our private roads. He doesn’t want his kid to walk 1/4 mile to the bus stop.

So he is pulling this play is the best I can think of it.

I am not doing bare minimum. I have spent my own time and money making this meeting, printing these forms, and taking calls from all over the country on my lunch break. I take abusive calls from this individual and have them show up at my house demanding this or that.

Because of this person I have agreed to reschedule the meeting, send a new form, and again spend my time printing and making envelopes. We don’t have a secretary because they resigned. The VP and me are on our own. We aren’t lawyers. I’m 34 years old. I haven’t lived in retirement villages that have million dollar HOA budgets.

I’m looking for help with hope.

I certainly did not mean you are being sneaky or whatever. As I said, I was wondering why the question was phrased as 'Do I *have to*'? when it seems you'd WANT to make it as easy as possible for people to vote, seeing as how you want these things passed, and I presume you need a healthy % of the people to get by-law changes.

As to the matter of people not knowing anyone, they can designate you or the VP or a rep from a MC if you have one to vote in their stead.

This way, people who can't come to the meeting but want to vote, you are making that possible. You'll want to allow them to mail or email it or drop it off, whatever they wish to make it the easiest for them.

The proxy can be structured to allow people to designate whomever to actually make the selections for them, or they can make their own selections but designate you or whoever to be present and cast the votes for their selections.

I've seen it done two ways here: Two forms, perhaps that cuts down on confusion. This form is for this way, and that form is for that way.

This year it was combined onto one form.

I'm sorry about this crazy situation with this guy.