Board selling our bus

Was an amendment to the Bylaws or Covenants properly recorded, and does the amendment state that the bus is the property of the HOA and the HOA has the maintenance responsibility for the bus?

Thank you. It was a motion made and seconded in a Board meeting to buy the bus. It is listed as an
asset on our balance sheet, and is the property of the Association. Our monthly fees pay for the driver, the maintenance, gas, insurance, etc.

If the membership of the HOA (and not merely the Board) did not vote to acquire the bus, then the purchase is almost assuredly unlawful, per the covenants, and the current board was right to get rid of it.

You also stated that the Board motioned for the purchase, and it appears the motion passed. I cannot tell what caused the purchase of the bus.

More importantly, I asked you if the governing documents were amended and then duly recorded with the County. This has gone unanswered.

My understanding is that the board has full authority over common area and common elements.
This includes the right to buy and sell.

My suggestion is to enter into a conversation with the board.
Gather people together (zoom works) and talk.

The board may simply be looking at the expense (maintenance, insurance, personnel (driver), etc.) and not the benefits.

MarkM19, I think the question you are trying to answer is: Can a board, by itself, amend the governing documents to add maintenance of a new structure, on account of a [California-based HOA] clause like the one you reference?

I think https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Capital-Improvement provides an excellent explanation. To me, the bottom line from the latter site is: "Any repair or replacement that constitutes a material alteration in the appearance of the development should require membership approval even if the cost does not exceed the 5% restriction." Note the definition of "capital improvement" at the top of the latter site. In my opinion, capital improvement for most-to-all HOAs/condos refers strictly to already existing xyz that has fallen into a state of disrepair but is required to be maintained, pursuant to the governing documents.

Respectfully, I disagree with you that a Board can go around adding material (as the D-S site states) structural changes (or a vehicle such as a bus) without membership approval.

A little from a few state statutes:

Neither the Virginia Condo Act nor the Virginia POA Act says anything about capital improvements.

Florida FS 718 "(3) If a developer holds units for sale in the ordinary course of business, none of the following actions may be taken without approval in writing by the developer:
(a) Assessment of the developer as a unit owner for capital improvements."

Florida FS 720 mentions "capital improvements" once: "If the budget of the association does not provide for reserve accounts pursuant to paragraph (d) and the association is responsible for the repair and maintenance of capital improvements that may result in a special assessment if reserves are not provided, each financial report for the preceding fiscal year required by subsection (7) must contain the following statement in conspicuous type:"

Neither of Texas's two condo acts (pre-1994 and post-1994) speak of capital improvements.

MarkM19, I appreciate your thoughtful and even IMO wise remarks above.

FWIW and to me, I think maybe the general question is: Will Boards disregard their own covenants and, for example, make large purchases that are in fact unlawful and so can cause any number of problems? In my opinion, sure.

I mean on the one hand, for the OP, suppose someone tripped on rubber flooring in this bus. A smart attorney for the victim discovers the purchase was not done pursuant to a members' vote on an amendment, or maybe the amendment was not recorded with the county. Fortunately the HOA has insurance. This attorney has the potential to wreak havoc on the HOA's insurance premiums in the future.

On the other hand, and meant without malice but hopefully as a (truly amateur) sociological observation: Boards disregarding their obligations happens all the time. They are volunteers. Sometimes not-very-competent attorneys even support these volunteers' mis-steps. Is this so awful? Probably not. I think most people are happy in their condos/HOAs.

That many of these happy folks have no interest in what their respective board is doing is not relevant. Folks and condos/HOAs chug along. Mostly the problems in the United States, and in people's day-to-day-lives, are not due to volunteer HOA/condo boards. Volunteer HOA/condo boards are largely well-intentioned. (When egos flare is when they become not well-intentioned?) The OP's Board obviously wanted to help folks. Gosh knows how the OP's Board figured the HOA had the money for this, but this is a different topic.

I would like to point out that in our HOA the insurance policy references a "HOA vehicle" coverage. Which means our HOA can own a vehicle and it be covered. We don't have one of course but we could if we wanted. I would point the OP to their HOA's insurance policy...

Shirely

What % of your owners use this bus service?

With respect, buyers & lenders “join in” with a blissful presumption. That’s of having an opportunity beforehand to ( try to ) know the current common assets. But with reasonable expectation that law-compliant changes can occur.

Here the changes involved ( & may next involve ) a chattel for offsite transportation. The major outcome of its severance would reduce not only some folks’ quality of life but also liability, expense & possible covid -19 superspread .

Maybe it was lawful for the corporation to buy the BUS and use it for offsite stakeholder service .

But if - IF – some sort of unlawful purchase of assets occurred in 2019, then how should things be “made right” ?

Should they even be “made right” ?

Should it even take a judicial reference for example to legitimize the correction ?

1 - I wonder if the 2019 BUS purchase was beforehand run by a lawyer & insurer ?

Unless the BUS can somehow function like a physical maintenance tool for your as-built assets etc - ? like a tractor or snowplow or photocopier for example ? - I am having a tough time grasping that its purchase really came within the scope of your corporation’s lawful powers.

Corporation powers usually stop at the margin of its lawful authority even if its stakeholders choose to do something risky or unsupported by law.

2 - Have the corporation’s auditors & insurers now had a look at this without raising qualifications ? Is this one reason for the proposal to get rid of it ? See next :

3 - If “two wrongs could make a right” and the 2019 BUS purchase was unsupported, what if an owner vote now rejects or falls short of “righting the wrong” ?

4 - I get it that Covid - 19 has isolated seniors bigtime.

I & most of my cross-covenanted neighbours are seniors but fortunately have licences to drive. We have hunkered down & tried stuff like socially-isolated drivepasts for birthdays of those 80 or older. Have cleared some ponds for socially-isolated skating & curling. Have joined to advocate for extensions of fibre-optic broadband. We're busy working on our tractors & firearms . . . .

Good luck with whatever the outcome.