HOA only giving 6 days notice for meeting

If it goes out today and everyone gets it tomorrow (assuming you don't have any out of town homeowners), I don't see a problem. You also have to factor in Sunday where mail isn't delivered and sometimes weather - as I write this, the northeast and Midwest are about to be socked by a snowstorm, which may affect deliver of any mail, depending on how bad it gets. That's why I would have sent it out earlier this week, but getting it 7 days in advance isn't necessarily bad (anything less than that IS a problem).

Does that make the meeting invalid? That might depend on what type of meeting it is - a special homeowners meeting or annual meeting should have more notice than 10 days in my opinion, but if the board usually meets on the same day and time every month (e.g. 3rd Wednesday of the month at 6pm), people should already know when that meeting will be held.

It's an annual homeowners meeting.

Bylaws section 2.5:

Notice of Meetings
Notice shall be delivered not less than 10 nor more than 60 days before the date of such meeting.

Is this important, Jeremy?

I would expect that only way to make the meeting invalid would be if someone where to sue. I would assume that is not very likely to whether the meeting meets the technical requirements, it will proceed to occur and the results will be considered as fact.

It doesn't matter that people show up, it matters if everybody who wished to show up did because there was proper notification as per the CC&Rs. There are HOAs where you could have a meeting with a days notice, and the loud rabble would show and carry the day.

I'm trying to look for a citation re. elections being thrown out by Florida's DBPR for insufficient notice but haven't found anything yet. I don't have the time tonight to look further so for now I take that part back.

Is it Florida Statutes 720 or 591? Just a few digits to nitpick over.

It's legal notice spelled out explicitly in the statutes. Following the law as one is required to do isn't nitpicking.

Interestingly enough, putting the wrong year on an annual meeting notice has been ruled trivial and inconsequential when it's an honest typo, given that such notices vary very little from year to year and it's easy to make a mistake. I think not providing the correct notice by a clear deadline is a willful violation, not a typo or honest mistake.

There have been board member recalls that have been certified because the notice of the board meeting to consider the recall wasn't given within the 5 days called for by the statute. In one case that notice was given on day 6 and the board forfeited its chance to contest the recall vote because 5 days does not mean 6.

And, again ... these are volunteers ...

Our Pres was two days late this year ... he’s 84 yrs old ... take him to court?

Willful? Really?

Wait a MINIMUM of 10 days? Well 6 days meets that doesn't it? What is the big deal? Honestly, need to tell us why it's such a big deal? It's a meeting to make decisions. Make it or not.

Melissa, if a letter is delivered 6 days before the annual meeting, and the bylaws say the letter needs to be delivered at least 10 days before the meeting, then no it doesn't meet the criteria.
Everyone that wants to attend should have the opportunity to do so.

Again- only if someone objects at the meeting would it be an issue. (Waiver of Notice)

Geno according to your post the clock starts when the noticed was delivered to the post office. If that is the case and they delivered when they said they would they met their obligation.

People will attend a meeting in 6 days just as much as they will in 10. People who want to be at the meeting will make arrangements to be when scheduled or request notes. If your excuse is going to be "The attendance is low because of improper notice" then that is what your already attributing the problem to. So no matter what any one says it's going to be that as a reason. It can't be "apathy", weather, health issues, or work schedule. Nope it's just going to be "Not enough notice".

So stop this kind of thinking. Attributing things when they haven't even existed yet. I just quit my job over a boss who would do this. Attribute reasons company was doing bad due to people not following procedures. It was their job to make sure we followed them. However, the issues were much more than that. (The procedures were outdated and no time to read them). The focus of the needs of the customer/employees were being ignored.

The same thing applies to HOA's. Attributing the fault is one thing, person, or board is lacking the focus on the overall picture. If people want to go to the meetings, they will whether or not notified in the "legal" time line.

Having enough meetings over time lead me to that conclusion. It's like going to the dentist. Do you always make your appointments for teeth cleanings or when your tooth hurts? If they give an option for an appointment in 6 days for your cleaning or 10 which one do you take? Which one for the sore tooth? 6 or 10?

I said IF everyone received the letter the next day, it wouldn't be a problem, and I stand by that. I also said I would have sent it earlier in the week because when bad weather is in the forecast, one has to anticipate possible delays (which would affect out of state owners more than local ones). I know Jeremy said he hadn't yet received the letter, but no one knows if that holds true for everyone else. This shouldn't be a huge issue - when the letter shows up, I would notify the board and express concern that a six-day notice is cutting it close, so how about rescheduling it (or at least the elections) for the same day and time next week, to ensure everyone has received it? Or I'd make that suggestion at the meeting, asking why the letter went out late to start with. Personally, I find that people make time to do the things that are really important to them so whether I got a 6, 10 or 30-day notice, I'd probably go anyway, but that's just me. In this case, there won't be a problem if enough people show up to make a quorum so elections can be held.

(By the way, Jeremy, did you even ask why the letter was being mailed so close to the meeting date when you found out when it was being sent? If so, what was the response?)

Here’s a possible scenario:

President calls meeting to order.

“Mr President! Point of Order!”

“The chair recognizes Mr Green”

“Mr President, I didn’t get the notice of this meeting within the number of days required in our CCRs. Therefore I call this meeting invalid and illegal to hold.”

“Mr Green, the letters of notice were postmarked on _____. The day before the meeting is the date ______.

Therefore .....

1. The Notice requirement was met. The meeting continues on at this time.

Or

2. The Notice timeline was not met. A motion to adjourn the meeting to another day and time will be accepted at this time. (Motion and Vote taken) This meeting is now adjourned.