Removing Directors from Board for excessive absencesy

Started by PaulaR3 • 35 replies • 725 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Our bylaws state that a Director can only be removed by 66 2/3 of the Co-Owners yet a President five years ago requested a motion which was approved by a majority of the Directors to remove directors who had three or more absences in a year. /I don’t think this is legal as I would think the removal of any Director would have to be approved by 66 2/3 of the Co-Owners, The new President says the Board has the authority to remove Directors for excessive absences. Also he wants to require all Directors attend in person and not on the telephone even though our SC Legislature for Non profits say calling in acceptable for attendance at board meetings.

We are a 147 unit condominium project. Now the new President wants to put a restriction on Directors running for election that they if they are a non resident Co-Owner or Second Home Co—Onwer that we need to put a maximum distance they can be from the property location in order to run on the Board. Our former President owned a second home in the project and lived over 3 hours away or 150 miles away. Of course he scheduled meetings on his schedule. A former President went to Florida for 3 weeks and tried to manage from her beech home and another Director go3es to New York six months out of the year. How do other Associations deal with this?

Thanks. Paula

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

This isn't such an unusual rule - my bylaws state that three unexcused absences are considered a resignation.

If your state's laws governing condo associations don't prohibit this, then I doubt that it's illegal. However, I'd recommend putting it in the bylaws rather than making it a rule since bylaws carry more weight. (And seriously, attending board meetings and voting is the number one duty of a director - if they can't be bothered to show up, they should step aside and allow a more interested person take their place.)

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

I totally agree,

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 05/20/2021 1:14 PM
This isn't such an unusual rule - my bylaws state that three unexcused absences are considered a resignation.

If your state's laws governing condo associations don't prohibit this, then I doubt that it's illegal. However, I'd recommend putting it in the bylaws rather than making it a rule since bylaws carry more weight. (And seriously, attending board meetings and voting is the number one duty of a director - if they can't be bothered to show up, they should step aside and allow a more interested person take their place.)

Missed part two about restricting the distances. That's probably not going to fly since all owners have the right to seek election to the board. In practice, living elsewhere can make it difficult to attend meetings, although there are ways to allow people to dial in or log in remotely, and so not a deal-breaker. Homeowners may also choose not to vote for someone who doesn't live in the community because they believe the person won't know what's going - and that's OK since they can choose not to vote for someone for any reason at all. But that's different from outright saying that people living over 250 miles away can't run for the board. One is discrimination, the other is consequences.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Qualifications for directors and grounds for their removal form the Board really must be in the Bylaws. Dismissing due to xx # of absenses is NOT unusual, but the prez can't simply "make a rule."

Any other restrictions this new prez wants that you mention must also be in your Bylaws.

President have no authority whatsoever to make such rule or Bylaws changes on their own. Often seen on this Forum, however, that naive or lazy Boards do let the prez become a dictator. Directors should remember that THEY will be resosnbile or liable is the president goes too far.

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Thanks everyone for the good advice. I agree with everything said.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 05/20/2021 1:32 PM
Qualifications for directors and grounds for their removal form the Board really must be in the Bylaws. Dismissing due to xx # of absenses is NOT unusual, but the prez can't simply "make a rule."

Any other restrictions this new prez wants that you mention must also be in your Bylaws.

President have no authority whatsoever to make such rule or Bylaws changes on their own. Often seen on this Forum, however, that naive or lazy Boards do let the prez become a dictator. Directors should remember that THEY will be resosnbile or liable is the president goes too far.

I agree.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I ahsoud have added. That usually Bylaw amendments require a vote by owners. we have, though, seen form time to time that Boards are permitted to make changes to the Bylaws. What do your say, Paula?

(No "the Board" is NOT the president)

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 05/20/2021 12:18 PM
Our bylaws state that a Director can only be removed by 66 2/3 of the Co-Owners yet a President five years ago requested a motion which was approved by a majority of the Directors to remove directors who had three or more absences in a year. /I don’t think this is legal as I would think the removal of any Director would have to be approved by 66 2/3 of the Co-Owners,

-- What method do the Bylaws provide for amending the Bylaws?

-- Do the Bylaws permit the Board to amend the Bylaws, without a vote of the membership? If the Bylaws may only be amended by a vote of the membership, then I agree with you. To back up your position, see https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c031.php, section 27-31-160. "Provisions required in bylaws; modification of system of administration." It states in part:
===
"The bylaws must necessarily provide for at least the following:

(a) Form of administration, indicating whether this shall be in charge of an administrator or of a board of administration, or otherwise, and specifying the powers, manner of removal and, where proper, the compensation thereof;"
===
If your bylaws can only be amended by a membership vote, and if the present Bylaws provide for only the one method of removal, then the President and Board are attempting to unlawfully amend the Bylaws.

Quote:

The new President says the Board has the authority to remove Directors for excessive absences. Also he wants to require all Directors attend in person and not on the telephone even though our SC Legislature for Non profits say calling in acceptable for attendance at board meetings.

Wrong.

If the President keeps this up, ask for the condo attorney to opine.

Quote:

We are a 147 unit condominium project. Now the new President wants to put a restriction on Directors running for election that they if they are a non resident Co-Owner or Second Home Co—Onwer that we need to put a maximum distance they can be from the property location in order to run on the Board.

If such a restriction is not in the Bylaws or covenants, then no way no how is this legal.

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

We are having our Annual Meeting next month. I believe this should be added to the By-Laws and the Annual Meeting would be the perfect time to amend the bylaws which would require 66 2/3 vote by the Co-Owners. Seems like prior Presidents have made “rules” about excessive absences by Directors. I don’’t understand why a Director wants to serve on the Board but yet doesn’t want to attend meetings. Everyone who serves on the Board has other commitments but still serve and attend meetings.

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback. It is greatly appreciated.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Paula

Our Bylaws permit removal of a BOD Member if they miss 3 meetings in a row without an excuse.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Are you sure, Paula, that amendments to your Bylaws require approval of 66+% of all voters? That's more typical of CC&Rs.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 05/30/2021 9:25 AM
Are you sure, Paula, that amendments to your Bylaws require approval of 66+% of all voters? That's more typical of CC&Rs.

In my SC HOA it is 66+% of all owners voting yes for a Covenant change. For a Bylaw change it is 51% of all owners voting yes.

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Our bylaws state:

Article XV Amendments to bylaws

Section 15.1 Amendments to Bylaws - These bylaws shall be amended in accordance with the Master Deed and by vote of sixty six and two thirds percent of the Co-Owners of any meeting, of the Council of Co-Owners dully called for such purpose.

Our Master Deed for the Horizontal Property Regime has not been amended since it was recorded in 1980. The HOA President’s attorney who specializes in contracts not HOA’s says the Master Deed is our covenants and for amendments they can go in the bylaws and a court would use the most recently recorded document which will be the bylaws. Is that correct? He said we would need 66 2/3 of Co-Owners to approve the amended bylaws.

I am the Secretary of the Board and been on the Board for 4 years. One other Director and I have had to keep the Board following the bylaws and Master Deed. The current President has only been on the Board for a year.

Thank you,

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Hopefully we will only need a majority to amend the bylaws. Thanks.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Well...it appears your were right the first time--you'll need 66+% of owners to approve the amendment.

Meanwhile, do not let the prez be a dictator. Boards govern HOAs not presidents.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 05/30/2021 12:28 PM
Our bylaws state:

Article XV Amendments to bylaws

Section 15.1 Amendments to Bylaws - These bylaws shall be amended in accordance with the Master Deed and by vote of sixty six and two thirds percent of the Co-Owners of any meeting, of the Council of Co-Owners dully called for such purpose.

Our Master Deed for the Horizontal Property Regime has not been amended since it was recorded in 1980. The HOA President’s attorney

One sec.

Who is paying this attorney?

Did you mean "the HOA attorney"?

Because the HOA's funds (representing for the greater part by far the money the membership pays to the HOA by way of monthly, quarterly or annual assessments) do not pay the HOA attorney to represent solely the HOA President. The HOA attorney represents the HOA corporation; sometimes a board majority; and never just one director (when the board has more than one director).

Quote:

who specializes in contracts not HOA’s says the Master Deed is our covenants

True, as far as correct legally terminology is concerned. And it's important to understand that in a bona fide conflict between covenants and, say, bylaws, the covenants trump the bylaws.

Quote:

and for amendments they can go in the bylaws and a court would use the most recently recorded document which will be the bylaws.

If I am understanding correctly what you posted, my response is: Uh uh. Nope.

This might help introduce you to Master Deeds vs. Bylaws in South Carolina Condos, from the SC Horizontal Property yada Act:

SECTION 27-31-170. Compliance with bylaws, rules, and regulations; remedy for noncompliance.

"Each co-owner shall comply strictly with the bylaws and with the administrative rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as either of the same may be lawfully amended from time to time, and with the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the master deed or lease or in the deed or lease to his apartment. Failure to comply with any of the same shall be grounds for a civil action to recover sums due for damages or injunctive relief, or both, maintainable by the administrator or the board of administration, or other form of administration specified in the bylaws, on behalf of the council of co-owners, or in a proper case, by an aggrieved co-owner."

The Bylaws and Master Deed are two different legal documents. For certain topics, the Master Deed will have somewhat greater legal power than the Bylaws.

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Thank.

The Attorney is not the HOA attorney but the attorney representing the President.

So if I understand you correctly, the revisions to the bylaws should have been done to the Master Deed and not the ByLaws. So i the Board recommends the Master Deed be amended to address absences by Directors and not the BylLaws. And if we amend the Master Deed it would have to have the 66 22/3 majority. Amended bylaws require a majority of Co-Owners. We have following Section 33 of the SC State Legislature for non-profits which it sounds we should be following Section 27. Is that correct?

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

This discussion is getting sidetracked quickly.

The CCRs or Covenants is a completely different documents to the Bylaws.

The CCRs will have restrictions on what homeowners can and can't do with there property and/or common area, as well as what responsibility for maintenance each party (HOA and homeowners) has on homeowner property as well as the common area. It will discuss and and set assessment and delinquency policies.

The Bylaws on the other will discuss how the corporation runs, how board meetings and annual meeting are run, how and who is eligible to be elected or appointed to the board. It will discuss how many directors are required, what officers are needed, when the election is to be held. It will also outline, if any, the qualifications of the directors, in this case, do they have to be current on assessments or fine, do they have pending litigation against the HOA, how many meeting are they allowed to miss before they have vacated their seat, and so forth.

This is where qualifications are amended and placed into the Bylaws. Each governing document will have it own approval process and percentage. In this case, any reference to the CCRs is irrelevant.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Paula

From our Bylaws:

Section 5. Removal of Directors and Vacancies.

Any director elected by the Voting Members may be removed, with or without cause, by the vote of Voting Members holding a majority of the votes entitled to be cast for the election of such director. Any director whose removal is sought shall be given notice prior to any meeting called for that purpose. A director who was elected at large solely by the votes of Voting Members other than the Developer may be removed from office prior to the expiration of his or her term only by the votes of a majority of Voting Members other than the Developer. Upon removal of a director, a successor shall then and there be elected by the Voting Members entitled to elect the director so removed to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term of such director.

Any director elected by the Voting Members who has three (3) consecutive unexcused absences from Board meetings or who is delinquent in the payment of any assessment or other charge due the Association for more than thirty (30) days may be removed by a majority of the directors present at a regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present, and a successor may be appointed by the Board to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. In the event of the death, disability, or resignation of a director, a vacancy may be declared by the Board, and it may appoint a successor. Any director appointed by the Board shall be selected from the Voting Members of the Association and shall serve for the remainder of the term of such director.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 05/30/2021 1:41 PM

The Attorney is not the HOA attorney but the attorney representing the President.

I am going to play the annoying pedant as follows:

When an attorney communicates to anyone, exactly "who" is the client is extraordinarily important. It is also a matter that the courts extensively "regulate" (read: Courts will sanction attorneys for playing games with non-clients). Why is this important? Because it determines on whose behalf the attorney may lie (sic). Or for those one or two attorneys who are maybe reading this forum, who the client is determines on whose behalf the attorney is required to advocate zealously, at times being a pit bull, and certainly never taking the side of any non-client, unless perhaps it is in the client's interest.

I do not know WTH this attorney is doing. I can say that your board and you must assume that everything coming out of his mouth has a decent chance of being a lie. Why? Because the law // requires // this attorney to advocate zealously for his/her client. In this case and so far, the client is the individual who happens to be the HOA/COA president.

Your board should demand that this attorney make a clear statement about whom he (she?) represents.

If you want me to quote the South Carolina Rules of Professional Ethics for attorneys on the subject of "attorneys representing organizations," and their obligation at times to clarify whom they represent, I can. Just ask.

Related aside: I see HOA/COA attorneys either pretend that they represent individual members, or mislead individual members into thinking that the member should take what is called "legal advice" from the HOA/COA attorney. HOA/COA attorneys absolutely do not represent individual HOA/COA members.

Quote:

So if I understand you correctly, the revisions to the bylaws should have been done to the Master Deed and not the ByLaws.

The South Carolina Horizontal Property condo act yada says in part:

===
SECTION 27-31-160. Provisions required in bylaws; modification of system of administration.

The bylaws must necessarily provide for at least the following:

(a) Form of administration, indicating whether this shall be in charge of an administrator or of a board of administration, or otherwise, and specifying the powers, manner of removal and, where proper, the compensation thereof;
===

Hence adding a section to allow removal of a director who has missed x meetings would mean an amendment to the Bylaws.

Quote:

Amended bylaws require a majority of Co-Owners.

I trust this is a typo. Above you posted:

Quote:

We have following Section 33 of the SC State Legislature for non-profits which it sounds we should be following Section 27. Is that correct?

Title 33 = South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act

Title 27 = South Carolina Horizontal Property/Condo Act yada

Your condo is subject to both the SC Nonprofit Corporation Act and the SC Horizontal Property Condo yada Act. When bona fide conflicts between the two statutes arise, the Condo Act will trump the Nonprofit Corporation Act. I am looking at the Nonprofit Corporation Act right now. With regard to amending the Bylaws to allow a Director to be removed after x absences, nothing leaps out at me as being a concern. If you see something in the Nonprofit Corporation Act that bothers you, please quote the section. See https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t33c031.php

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I think I must have originally read this wrong: Paula's Bylaws state: "These bylaws shall be amended in accordance with the Master Deed and by vote of sixty six and two thirds percent of the Co-Owners of any meeting, of the Council of Co-Owners dully [sic] called for such purpose."

But I'm not sure WHAT it says. What is the "Council of Co-owners?" Does that mean all co-owners? Or a sub-set of owners who are not member of the board of directors? And does it seem to say you'd need 66.67% of all owners? or just those who attend the meeting?

Do note that the meeting must be "called" for that purpose. That means you can't just tack this on to the annual meeting.

Why does the Prez have an attorney? Does the prez have some sort of issue with the HOA? If so, why hasn't the Board voted the prez ouT of that office?

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

SC is a state whose laws, Rules and Regulation, etc. lean towards business owners/corporations (such as an HOA) so most of SC's Rules and Regulations read..so..and..so..so..unless the Corporation Bylaws say otherwise.

While I have experience and beliefs, we have to operate our HOA according to our Covenants, Bylaws, and our Rules and Regulations. I often quote from our Docs simply to show alternatives but more importantly, show how we must operate even when we do not like ours.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 05/30/2021 3:01 PM
I think I must have originally read this wrong: Paula's Bylaws state: "These bylaws shall be amended in accordance with the Master Deed and by vote of sixty six and two thirds percent of the Co-Owners of any meeting, of the Council of Co-Owners dully [sic] called for such purpose."

But I'm not sure WHAT it says. What is the "Council of Co-owners?" Does that mean all co-owners? Or a sub-set of owners who are not member of the board of directors? And does it seem to say you'd need 66.67% of all owners? or just those who attend the meeting?

From the SC Horizontal Property Act, definitions section:

"(d) "Co-owner" means a person, firm, corporation, partnership, association, trust or other legal entity, or any combination thereof, who owns an apartment within the building;

(e) "Council of co-owners" means all the co-owners as defined in subsection (d) of this section; but a majority, as defined in subsection (h) of this section, shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, constitute a quorum for the adoption of decisions;"

I agree that the rest (66.67 of all Owners? Or 66.67% of those in attendance?) needs some parsing.

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Thank everyone for sharing information. I am going to push for a. HOA attorney to advise us.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I think, Paula, the your HOA attend also needs to advise your Board about whether the president might have a conflict of interest re: having his own attorney IF their relationship involves the HOA.

Thanks for defining "council of owners," Augustin. I think the confusing part is "... Co-Owners of any meeting, of the Council of Co-Owners..." Seems it should read "...Co-owners at any meeting of...." Not sure if Paula mistyped this or if the odd comma is in the original Bylaws."

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Our last article in our bylaws which was recorded on May 3, 2017 state that These bylaws shall be amended only in accordance with the Master Deed and only by a vote of sixty six and two thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Co-Owners at any meeting of the Council of Co-Owners duly called for such purpose, following written notice to all Co-Owners and to their mortgagees appearing on the records of the Council of Co-Owners ……The remainder talks about the removal of walls requiring 75% of Co-Owners.

Also regarding the membership list which is referred to in the SC Legislature Title 33,Section 33-31-1601 (c) it is my understanding that we only need to provide Co-Owner name, unit number, mailing address and total units owned. Our President’s attorney specializing in Contracts (not the HOA’s) says we have to provide telephone number and email address. The Section only mentions the name, address of all members, in alphabetical order by class, showing the number of votes each owner is entitled to cast. Has there been an update or is there another reference regarding phone numbers and email address in the SC Legislature. We have only provided the information that the SC Legislature requires us to provide.

Thanks for the assistance.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 06/04/2021 2:05 AM
Our President’s attorney specializing in Contracts (not the HOA’s) says we have to provide telephone number and email address.

The only opinion that should matter to the board is the HOA Attorney's opinion. For the Board to take the advice of another party's attorney is a violation of the board's fiduciary duty.

When you post the opinion of the HOA attorney, then there may be something to discuss here.

And stop calling this attorney the "President's attorney." This attorney has no special powers insofar as the position of HOA president is concerned. This attorney represents one member of the HOA. Call this attorney "John Doe's attorney."

Everytime you call this attorney "the President's attorney," you make it sound like the attorney has the legal right to give legal advice to the HOA. Not so.

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 06/04/2021 2:05 AM
Our last article in our bylaws which was recorded on May 3, 2017 state that These bylaws shall be amended only in accordance with the Master Deed and only by a vote of sixty six and two thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Co-Owners at any meeting of the Council of Co-Owners duly called for such purpose, following written notice to all Co-Owners and to their mortgagees appearing on the records of the Council of Co-Owners ……The remainder talks about the removal of walls requiring 75% of Co-Owners.

Also regarding the membership list which is referred to in the SC Legislature Title 33,Section 33-31-1601 (c) it is my understanding that we only need to provide Co-Owner name, unit number, mailing address and total units owned. Our President’s attorney specializing in Contracts (not the HOA’s) says we have to provide telephone number and email address. The Section only mentions the name, address of all members, in alphabetical order by class, showing the number of votes each owner is entitled to cast. Has there been an update or is there another reference regarding phone numbers and email address in the SC Legislature. We have only provided the information that the SC Legislature requires us to provide.

Thanks for the assistance.

This is case law, WORLDMARK, THE CLUB v. WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORP.(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1017

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513

Posted:

Quote:

This is case law, WORLDMARK, THE CLUB v. WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORP.(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1017. If a member wanted to challenge whether email addresses should be given, they would need to read the decision and why the case was brought in the first place. Association also need to make sure that the intention of the member requesting such information be held to use it in the manner for which the decision was granted.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Paula said:
These bylaws shall be amended only in accordance with the Master Deed and only by a vote of sixty six and two thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Co-Owners at any meeting of the Council of Co-Owners duly called for such purpose, following written notice to all Co-Owners and to their mortgagees appearing on the records of the Council of Co-Owners

Our docs call for %'s of all owners not a % of owners at a meeting.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

But Paula's quite is ambiguous. We cannot tell if it means 2/3 of all eligible voters, or if it requires 1/2 of voters who attend the meeting.

Not sure why JohnC's wording matters.

PaulaR3 (South Carolina)
Posts: 42

Posted:

Our last article in our bylaws which was recorded on May 3, 2017 state that These bylaws shall be amended only in accordance with the Master Deed and only by a vote of sixty six and two thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Co-Owners at any meeting of the Council of Co-Owners duly called for such purpose, following written notice to all Co-Owners and to their mortgagees appearing on the records of the Council of Co-Owners ……

Also regarding the membership list which is referred to in the SC Legislature Title 33, it is my understanding that we only need to provide Co-Owner name, unit number, mailing address and total units owned. Our President’s attorney says we have to provide telephone number and email address. The Statute does not mention that. As Secretary of our HOA, I have been protective of the email list I maintain for our Co-Owners. The President who is using his personal attorney to dictate that we must provide the email and phone numbers.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 06/05/2021 1:36 AM
Our last article in our bylaws which was recorded on May 3, 2017 state that These bylaws shall be amended only in accordance with the Master Deed and only by a vote of sixty six and two thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Co-Owners at any meeting of the Council of Co-Owners duly called for such purpose, following written notice to all Co-Owners and to their mortgagees appearing on the records of the Council of Co-Owners ……

Also regarding the membership list which is referred to in the SC Legislature Title 33, it is my understanding that we only need to provide Co-Owner name, unit number, mailing address and total units owned. Our President’s attorney says we have to provide telephone number and email address. The Statute does not mention that. As Secretary of our HOA, I have been protective of the email list I maintain for our Co-Owners. The President who is using his personal attorney to dictate that we must provide the email and phone numbers.

Paula

66+ % at the meeting is not 66+ % of all owners.

Look at it this way. 200 units but only 30 show up. 66%+ says as few as 20
can make a change. 20 controlling 200.

AugustinD
Posts: 3,698

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PaulaR3 on 06/05/2021 1:36 AM
OThe President who is using his personal attorney to dictate that we must provide the email and phone numbers.

For the archives, since I think there is a literacy problem with the OP: It is the Board dictating that it has to take advice from an attorney who does not represent the HOA. And the Board and you are incredibly wrong in letting an attorney, who does not represent the HOA, tell the Board what to do.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 06/05/2021 7:57 AM
Posted By PaulaR3 on 06/05/2021 1:36 AM
OThe President who is using his personal attorney to dictate that we must provide the email and phone numbers.

I agree.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement