Quote:
Posted By MaxB4 on 06/17/2021 10:08 AM
Yes, the site mentioned does say that based on a New Hampshire court case a California HOA Board might be able to close down an amenity on their own. What the opinion left out which is mighty important is the Board and outside community jumped through hoops to get a consensus. I don't think the cae would have been reversed if they had not gone through those measures.
Just saying: I think what the davis-stirling.com site should have mentioned, but instead left out, the fact that, in the New Hampshire appeals court decision, the HOA had successfully amended the covenants (by direction of the trial court) to allow it to close amenities with approval of a council of sub-association like entities. From http://home.sandiego.edu/~jminan/landuse/Schaefer%20v%20Eastman%20CommunityAssociation.pdf:
ECA amended article VII of the declaration to include the following provision: “The Board shall have authority to ... (g) close any amenity with **755 the approval of two-thirds of the Council. In reaching this judgement the Board may take into account, among other factors, the cost of preserving, maintaining, and/or improving the amenity *190 and the extent of Owner usage it receives.” The amendments became effective on January 20, 2001. On March 23, 2001, the board, following the process established by the amendment, requested the council's approval of the board's decision to close Snow Hill ski area. On April 14, 2001, the council, also following the process established by the amendment, voted forty-five to nine to approve the closing of Snow Hill ski area.