Homeowner that is breaking CCRs

What's your role in your HOA, Anya? Owner? Property Mgr.? Board member?

Is there some sort of rule or covenant against this type of home business in you AOA? If so, what do they say about enforcing rules? They will tell you your next step. If they say nothing about enforcement, do GA statutes help you? Or maybe your local statues prohibit them?

My role is president, treasurer and secretary I run Community all by myself. In our CCRs it says no business at all he is breaking five rules and it does not say anything else besides that.

This could be a rare acception but one has to wonder if your 'board' is even legit since there is only you.

Please confirm: Have you attempted to appoint a second director? Then after there are two directors, the two of you vote to appoint a third director; and so on until hopefully all seats on the board are filled. I believe any competent HOA attorney would say filling seats on the board should be your first priority.

It's unlikely - giving the scofflaws a perfect reason to fight any attempt to deal with violations. One could argue that what the OP is doing is a more serious violation of the law (ignorance being no excuse, etc, etc,).

I think the ONLY thing the OP can lawfully do at this point is to appoint a second director and get the board squared away before even thinking about violations.

If there is only one Board member, there is no quorum and there is no Board. I guess that a violation letter can be sent to hope they stop, but enforcement stops at the hearing stage since a Board would need to be present at the hearing. Do you have a management company? What are they saying?

Can you find 2 other owner's to serve on the Board and not go into receivership? Focus is needed on getting a Board together, not violations.

Been there. We had a board of 2 of 5 for many years. Thankfully all of our maintenance needs were met without receivership.

I think this will hinge on how you read the section I bolded. Does it mean one-helf of the votes of the board of directors *as it currently exists* (ie. 1 person) or *as it is defined in the bylaws* (a minimum of 2 persons in a 3-person board)?

I've always heard it interpreted as the latter, and a single director cannot legally transact business. On the other hand, this interpretation doesn't leave an association that's down to one board member a legal pathway forward other than receivership - seems unlikely that this was the intention of lawmakers.

Beats ms...

I hear you. The phrase "the presence of persons entitled" is what got my attention (maybe yours too). Who are the 'persons entitled to cast votes of the board of directors'? To me, this means only the directors currently on the board. At present, this is exactly one person.

Still, I understand your own takeaway.

I do not remember seeing (appeals court) case law on the point. Maybe because appealing a court's order appointing a receiver does make sense. After the receiver is appointed and the increase in assessments hits the membership's bank accounts, the membership should straighten things out enough pronto to ask the court to get rid of the receiver. Or the receiver will make the application to the judge.

As well, a little "Come to Jesus" talk with a HOA attorney, telling the membership 'to step up, suck it up, and serve on the board, or you and your neighbors will pay a fortune' could lead to a new board sooner rather than later.

I am going to stick with the counsel from my favorite HOA attorney where I am: If even one reasonably competent person is willing to run the place as a volunteer, a judge will not appoint a receiver. My take: If one competent person is willing to run the HOA/condo per the covenants (including seeking additional directors), then seeking a receiver ties up the courts unnecessarily; costs taxpayers for court time; and burdens a HOA/condo greatly with the costs of the receiver.

On the other hand, it seems like I have read of courts ordering the appointment of receivers in other states without giving the order much thought at all.

Do you have liability and D&O insurance? I sure hope so!

No it had nothing to do with what I expect. I asked the question because the HOA seems to have not been run properly and apathy is rampant. This made me wonder if they even bothered to get insurance? If they didn't my advice to the OP is to resign, hire a mover and get the hell out of there. Hopefully my instinct on this is wrong and it's not an issue. There is no way I would serve on a board without protection.

Did I miss the post of what is going on in the garage to qualify it as a "business" and what the danger is? I mean keeping paint in or other chemicals in your garage is a "danger'. Unless one is selling oxygen tanks out of their garage, any person's garage can be considered a "danger".

Case in point about sticking her neck out:

* What do the governing documents say about fining, if anything?

* Has the board enacted a fining schedule which has been publicized to the community? (I'd bet not.)

* What do the governing docs and/or state law say about due process for dealing with violations - eg., is the alleged violator entitled to a hearing, and what is the timing on that?

This is the kind of stuff that can trip up a duly-elected board and land the association in court, and that's trouble the OP doesn't need.