Dues paid by percentage

You've been very lucky that in the past 28 years, no owner has sued the association and prior boards for failure to abide by the documents. By not following them, the prior boards breached their fiduciary duty and could face some legal liability. Allocating ownership and assessments by percentage of square footage is not unusual, especially in condo associations. Lots of condos have units that are of different sizes. Probably your voting should have been handled the same way.

You need to talk to a very knowledgeable association attorney to see if you can get those past indiscretions approved by the owners and to help you get back on the path to legal righteousness.

Joe

Sorry Joe I did not see your post, I never thought of that but might have had I experienced it as I question a lot.....

Knowledge is great and I can't get enough of it...but it is the only thing that will govern our condo's and the only way it can be fair for everyone.

How I know so much about paying by percentage in the case of the one bedroom units is that at every meeting, there is one owner that keeps bringing it up, that it is not fair, because they use all the common areas and wants to change it.

I bet some of you know that feeling.

What I mean by the difference in dues and assessments are that we pay $165 per month per unit - regardless of the square footage and the assessments are "special" assessments that come up now and then (more often now!), like for a new roof or painting the building. Should the dues of $165 now be by percentage owned? There are 7 units that are smaller (same sq ft) and 3 that are larger by 175 to 300 square feet. Their "special assessments" will be more, but should their monthly dues be more also?

Thanks for everyone's response. We've had a lot of people moving in and out in 28 years and they're just now figuring out that this is serious and we need to get our act together. I believe they thought it was just one big happy family before and since there really weren't any assessments that were coming up, no one really cared. The building is well kept, but things are starting to need repair and we want to make everything legal and fair. The last 3 assessments were split evenly and this really is NOT fair.

Yes, you're right. I'm going to get a big fight over this. But, we were thinking about getting a lawyer to look over our ancient Declarations, ByLaws, and Rules/Regs anyway. There are some things in there that just contradict each other and we'd like it a bit more clear. So, this will be a good excuse to point it out that we are legally bound to do this from this day forth. Thanks!

Our maintence fees are figured by percentages, our votes are figured by percentages and assessments are figured by percentages.

JudieA

With all do respect. Perhaps I’d feel differently “if” I owned/lived in a condo. However, I don’t feel its “fair” to assess condo/homeowners based merely upon square footage! That has absolutely nothing to do with, my use of the amenities or that of general maintain and operation of the building itself.

Assessing by square footage wouldn’t be any different than assessing homeowners based on the cost of their house (like me) or gender, religion or personal preferences. IMHO

I have one of the largest houses offered on a private, wooded (prime) lot in a cul-de-sac all of which was built with a day light basement with many upgrades. My wife and I may have used the amenities 15 times throughout the year, at most, yet there are members residing in our community that have substantially smaller houses with children (that use the amenities frequently) and according to your theory (and others), they should pay according to there square footage of the house they live in?!

HMMMMMMMMMM maybe I don’t have any clue because I’m not a condo owner. How is that fair? Just because I’m able to afford a larger home I should be “penalized” for such. COME ON!

Hypothetically, lets say “They” own/live in the smallest condo in the building, but still receive and brand new roof, the great landscaping, everything that is listed in your budget. “they” will be contributing the least, and will be benefiting the most. I’d be all for that too.

I only see how that would be beneficial to those who DON’T have the largest condo, but DON’T necessary have the smallest either. That philosophy makes all the sense in the world, to them.

I suggest assessing all members of the community the same regardless of the size of their condo, (unless otherwise state in your governing documents.

I mean “if” you are at a loss for whether to assess members upon use, then that would be a completely different and rational assessment. However to monitor something/someone of that degree would be very difficult although it sounds great in theory it would be nearly impossible, not to mention being “fair”.

Assessments/dues are assessed to support the expenses of the association as a whole, not individually

Certainly keep us informed as much as possible. I would seriously consider NOT moving forward with that suggestion.

Chuck W.

Chuck, for your information there are single family homes, which are built in separate sections within different price ranges, which are assessed differentially based (approximately) on the average value of the homes in their section. For example: 3 sections consisting of lower, medium, and higher priced houses; 3 related assessment amounts, one amount for each section; 3 assigned weighted votes based on the amount of their assessment. What is fair is based on your CC&Rs and any amendments approved by the owners.

Chuck,
I appreciate your logic but dispute the validity.

Lots of people belong to clubs, golf, social, private, restricted, unrestricted, equity, non-equity.

You pay fees for the services rendered, not all pay the same. Likewise in a condo, you pay fees for the services rendered, you would not want to sell all units (air space), for the same amount.

Chuck,
You are welcome. That's why we are here for each other, to make things somewhat clearer.
Condos typically are buildings housing 3 or more units, usually sharing common walls and roof etc, inside and out. Some are 2 or 3 or 100 stories high so they share almost all structure except interior features, therefore they have to share the expenses of the entire structure.
Now, picture a Trump building and someone owns the entire upper floor and I have the bottom unit shared with 10 other units. Now you understand why the percentage system is a nescessity.
Donna

I forgot to add, those that don't believe this is true, try carving your unit out of the whole and move it and your share of the land down the street.

Robert,
I have never seen where common area such as entrances, pools, clubhouses, landscaping, parking and the areas where all share the same amenities, is apportionment charged. Not saying that it cannot be done but I know of none doing that. All pay equal for these areas. It can be a Treasurers nightmare but that's the way it goes in condo living.

Robert,
Giving you a headache, aren't I. Why is the seawall apportioned? Some houses are built there? Can all residents use that area or are the walls just protecting those houses.
Donna

Love it Robert. A good laugh and reminds me of an old song -
cigarettes, whiskey, and wild wild women
they'll drive you craze
they'll drive you insane

Of coure today one must be more politically correct -
cigarettes, whiskey and wild wild men and/or women

Charles,
Let me try to be a little easier to understand.
All units within the building are responsible for the roof, walls and any other part of the structure, except their own interior walls, which they are individually responsible for.

The roof and all exterior is considered (1) one entity, therefore it is shared by all, no matter where they(owners) are located within the building. The roof covers all of the units, not just the top floor. If the roof leaks, the water will run down to the lower units too.

What we are trying to say is that if a certain unit has 1000 feet and another unit has 500 feet, they are charged according to the amount of square footage that they have within the building. Total cost of the maintenance divided by square footage gives what they call apportinant cost or in other words, your fair share according to how much of the space that you share.

Judie,
I do not know or understand the concept of voting by percent. Anyone else ever heard of such a thing? It's always been one vote per each parcel that you own.

Joe,
Good explanation Joe.
I would add an example. Suppose the condo burns down to the ground. You are paying equal payments in the ten unit condo. You all get the same money back from the insurance company. This condo sits on ocean front, or lake front or whatever. You have ten stories, all units alike, all same square footage. First floor looks out on parking lot, second floor looks out on aa lawn, third floor look out on pool, fourth floor looks out to a bottom of ski slope, get the picture. Tenth floor has a panoramic view of everything. The tenent paid 1 mill for his place, the bottom guy paid 250k for his. How do you distribute the insurance money? This is a simple explanation and apportionment it not simple but if you and your neighbor pay the same assessment, and the assessments and fees are dedicated to the protection and upkeep of the Real Property, which in a condo, means, anything that has value....anything that does not belong to owners, which means the building or anything else in or on the condo property. Owners can not sell any property, it belongs to all owners and when tou sign your sales agreement , you sell that right to live there, your buyer owns the same thing you sold him, that right to occupy that space at whatever price he is willing to pay. But that apportioned value does not change with your sales price and if you are paying the big bucks you can bet your patute you are going to get your fair share if the Property and what is left of the real property if anything.

What an interesting thread.....

I have two condo's in Mass and both vote by percentages, but good question , I will ask the attorney why if and when we get one....also as I said before, they are assesed and thier condo fees are by percentages .

One Condo are two bedrooms, all face the ocean, two floors, but two are one bedroom with bigger decks......no fireplaces and they pay 1/2.

The other condo , the one that still has the developer involved , are all different sizes and configurations and sq footage. But they still vote by percentage, maintence by percentage and assessements....they are figured out by sq footage into the percentage......of ownership. In case something happens and it burns down or any other situation.

Buy good queston .

Does any of that make sense?