Do management companies, in Texas, typical handle all aspects of violations - will a board be absent that responsibility after hiring one?

This question deals with a small POA (56 lots and 45+/- homes as several families own two lots) in Texas that is self-managed. It is considering a management company. The main benefit that current board is advocating in its push to hire a management company is for the management company to handle violations (I would like to stay only on the subject of violations related to management companies in this thread please – not other benefits.)

Most to all board members are of the opinion that the management company will handle all aspects of violations, relieving the board from that responsibility. I do not think that is the case but I do not know so I am asking here: I assume unless violators quickly complied, the board would have to get involved – for example, the board would have to decide how to handle any arguments/protests or refusals to comply. My view is that if a management company issues more violations than are issued currently, which I assume would be the case with active patrols, it will be more work for the board, not less.

So how much of the violation process does a management company, in Texas, usually handle? And what responsibility, if any, would the board still have in regards to violations – will it be work the board can now ignore?

Thanks that is a concern of mine, as when a management company consideration first started, the proposal they are advocating was had a processing fee of $100 per violation that as I recall is charged to association not violator, so even if teh violator complied, the association would be billed $100.

I recommend that you read your governing docs (covenants & restrictions, bylaws, etc.).

In most community associations, correcting violations is one of the board's duties. Your bylaws may also state that the board can delegate their duties. However, the buck stops with the board: it is ultimately responsible for what happens on its watch and will be accountable for the actions of the person(s) to whom they delegate their duties.

So will be up to the board to communicate their expectations. Different board members have different ideas about how hard nosed to be about violations. If you ignore them altogether, your community will go downhill; however, nobody enjoys living in a police state. There is a middle ground in there somewhere, but reasonable people can disagree about exactly where that middle ground is.

How much independence you give to the PM will depend on how well you've communicated your expectations, how well that person takes directions and how experienced the person is, and how much oversight the board has time to give. In other words, there's no hard and fast rule - it will depend in part on the personalities and skills of the persons involved. Even a very experienced PM who knows their stuff can't just be turned loose - it's unfair to everyone involved and can lead to undesirable outcomes.

Are you on the Board, Roger? (sorry if I missed that.)

Max has a property managing company in CA, so I'm surprised he wouldn't share twitch you what his firm changes for your specific needs.

Should be share "with" you--especially at Thanksgiving time!

No, I am not on the board but I communicate with people on the Board and have attended meetings were the topic was discussed.

No argument here - I do not want one, but the board is pushing it and for the main, possible only reason, being violations. They have said as much: to paraphrase, "we (board) are taking so much grief about violations that we want a management company to handle them." So, now I want to find real-world examples on whether that is the case or not.

So back to question please: either management companies completely handle violation, allowing the board not to have to get involved, as my board thinks, or the board would still have to handle decision making on violation and/or deal with protests and non-compliance as I assume. Which?

No, the board isn’t absolved of all responsibility for violations if they hire a management company. They will only be delegating the admin work.

Where CCRs are vague, it is the boards responsibility to define. For example, the CCRs might say that yards must have a “neat and tidy appearance” or “trash cans removed promptly” - the board defines what neat or prompt is.

The board must vote to levy fines (if your docs give you the ability to fine.)

The board must vote to self correct or sue, if the violation goes unresolved.

The board must hear any appeals.

These are duties you cannot delegate to a manager. You can only assign them the job of looking for violations, sending the letters, and getting yelled at by angry people who get letters.

I agree except for the part about defining vague CC&Rs. You cannot use guidelines or bylaws to amend or clarify CC&Rs (at least not in Texas). In Texas if the CC&Rs are ambiguous the courts have to rule in favor of "the free use of land." In other words, they have to rule in favor of the homeowner.

Do you think a manager has a responsibility to be familiar with the law and advise boards when they are potentially doing something that can get them in legal trouble? Obviously, you cannot give legal advice, I'm talking about just passing on information.

Here are some articles that might be of interest (apparently it became an issue in FL):

Community Association Managers Beware: Unlicensed Practice of Law 2016 from an attorney


Florida Supreme Court Adds Clarity to Activities That Constitute the Unlicensed Practice of Law by Community Association Managers 2015 Attorney blog

Do HOA managers often practice without a license? 2012 FL Bar Association

Florida Supreme Court Opinions and motions. Those without a legal background (such as myself) may have difficulty going through all of this.

I agree that anyone, especially in an official capacity, should be careful about crossing the line of "practicing law" without a license. Based on the articles you cited, it sounds like what usually gets people in trouble is creating documents, specifically, managers creating legal documents for HOAs. Florida and Texas seem to have similar laws in that respect. In Texas, creating a legal document for another is, by statute, practicing law.
What I was suggesting is that a manager has an obligation to be familiar with the law and to advise their clients to follow the law. This is based on my training as a former Certified Manager of Community Associations. I do not think that crosses the line of practicing law. I would compare it to a driver’s education instructor telling someone to stop at a stop sign. It may be legal advice but it is based on facts and within the instructor’s professional duties.

I'm sorry for all the repeats. I'm not sure why, but half of my comments are missing when I hit submit.

I agree that anyone, especially in an official capacity, should be careful about crossing the line of "practicing law" without a license. Based on the articles you cited, it sounds like what usually gets people in trouble is creating documents, specifically, managers creating legal documents for HOAs. Florida and Texas seem to have similar laws in that respect. In Texas, creating a legal document for another is, by statute, practicing law.

What I was suggesting is that a manager has an obligation to be familiar with the law and to advise their clients to follow the law. This is based on my training as a former Certified Manager of Community Associations. I do not think that crosses the line of practicing law. I would compare it to a driver’s education instructor telling someone to stop at a stop sign. It may be legal advice but it is based on facts and within the instructor’s professional duties.

Sounds like some attorneys in Florida have their knickers in a twist.

Sounds like some attorneys in Florida have their knickers in a twist. Sound more like a turf war between the attorneys and the CAM's.

One knows when it is not neat.

These posts sound like the person that wants the Title (BOD Member, etc.) but does not want to do any of the work associated with it.