Do all Board decisions need to be MSC?

I used to be on the HOA board but not anymore.

During one of the HOA meetings, a decision was made by the Board that "Owner (meaning I) reserves to add an awning at HOA's expense in the future" as the HOA did an awning replacement project prior to my purchase of the unit and failed to replace my unit's awning so owes me an awning.

I was there at the meeting and the chair of the HOA clearly said to document this future right on this in the meeting minutes.

Now, the new HOA board says that I'm not entitled to the awning even if the approved minutes was written that way as the decision was not Motion-Second-Carried? I'm not sure if we had MSC but just not documented. However, it seems unreasonable to me that I'm not entitled to it now even though it was documented in the meeting minutes as a fact?

Do all decisions by the Board need to be MSC? Or, the documentation in the minutes with no objections is also a silent approval. I am in contact with two other ex-HOA board members who were in the same meeting. If they all recall agreeing to the awning, would that be sufficient? I'm not sure what to do here.

Can you tell us what the wording IS in the minutes?? Do they say the Association will replace your awning?

There is no legal requirement for a motion-2nd-carried.

In fact, in smaller assemblies, there's no requirement for a second--legal or otherwise (i.e., in Robert's Rules) though we do second motions in our HOA.

I don't think two other who say they agreed with the decision will help you.

Under Board Action Items/Discussion header of the minutes:

"An additional note is for the owner of Suite XXX and if they want to install an awning that was erroneously installed for Suite XXX, Owner reserves the right to do so at HOA's expense."

Other items under the same header has "MSC" approvals but only this item did not have MSC. Therefore, the new Board said they will not honor that previous Board's request.

1. Can new Board over-turn previous Board's agreement?

2. Do I have any legal basis?

This is a small board. There were only five members of the Board and I was one of the Board member. During that meeting, no one disagreed to add this to the meeting minutes. The meeting minutes was approved by the Board at the next board meeting.

Where can I read more on "Robert's Rules."

The previous Board said that the awning was owed to my unit as the original intent was to replace my old and unsightly awning (HOA's responsibility) but the installer made the mistake and installed the awning in the wrong unit. The HOA has since changed the rule that owner is responsible for maintaining awning.

The Board agreed in the minutes that when I request an awning in the future, that they will add an new awning at HOA's expense. This agreement in the minutes was from three years ago. My big lesson learned is that I should not have waited this long to request an awning. I should have added that awning three years ago when the minutes was approved and old Board was still in place.

Please advise what I should do now to have the Board honor what was agreed by the old Board.

Current covenant says that owner is responsible for maintaining the awning.

If a new board is going to overturn the decision of a previous board, it has to be on grounds that the previous board was incorrect, for example the CCRs states the awnings are the responsibility of the owner, not the HOA. They can't overturn because there wasn't a proper MSC.

Why? Unless your association's governing documents require the association's board meetings be conducted by some form of parliamentary procedure (which is 99.999% unlikely), then a simple yes or approved will be enough.

Annual meetings, under California Civil Code §5000(a) must be conducted using some form of parliamentary procedure.

Here is the problem, UNLESSthere governing documents state that the board will be conducting BOARD meeting using Roberts Rule of LaW, then the citation you quoted from Mr. Adams doesn't work.

Did I ever say they couldn't change their mind. NO! They can't cite what you cited as the reason. You also can't change the decision based on you didn't follow MSC or Robert's Rule. You could change your mind if the CCRs, for instance, say the awnings are the full responsibility of the homeowner.

Again, I repeat, unless their governing documents state they are to use some form of parliamentary procedure, citing what you cited is not relevant.

Again, may I remind you the topic is MSC, and the association would not be bound to Robert's Rule unless the gov docs say so!

I am done with you!