Self Help

I think the feedback will be highly dependent on the specific HOA self-help exercised. Jack, you ought to elaborate on what is being contemplated here. Break-in to a home to get rid of ____? Taking down a tree? What?

For now I will opine: The less the dollar cost of any damages done by the self-help, the lower the chance of a lawsuit.

AugustinD. Thank you for your reply. For almost 20 years several ladders have been leaning from ground to roof on a residence where the roof suffered damage during a storm. The roof is obviously open to the weather and continues to be damaged further every day. No action except warnings has been taken to cause the resident, who is said to have a terminal disease, to correct the situation. I tried to initiate self help when I was on the board years ago because the work needs to be done for reasons which are obvious, but partly in the best interests of the owner and because the failure of the board negatively impacts on out violation abatement generally in the example it sets. . I failed to get self help initiated when I was on the board because I was outvoted primarily because of board concern for potential liability. I maintain even now we should proceed and complain about the issue constantly to the board but still liability is an issue causing lack of action by the board. The issue is even now once again on the board agenda at my request but nothing will be done. I keep telling the board we have an obligation to our other residents and to this owner. I am considering contacting the county to force repair action because of the health hazard after 20 years of mold production caused by the leaking roof.

Respectfully. I wonder if your association's insurer or its attorney will dance for joy about clients applying "self-help" ?

That's whatever "self help" might mean - varying widely from factual situation to situation ? Varying by degrees of consent or acquiescence from the alleged violators ?

1 - Several years ago an American insurance attorney joked about this self-help scenario :

Entering a unit without prior notice nor consent - a possee is looking for unlawful dogs. The possee is made up of one or more gung-ho Directors and an employee.

They find two dogs.

But those dogs are pit bulls.

The lazy shiftless pit bull chills out.

The other hyper one rips the face off the employee and one of the gung-ho Directors. Then the shiftless one REALLY gets going . .

Then amidst this self help carnage there arrives home the unit owner - a member of the N.R.A returning from target practice and survival training . . .

2 - Evans v Casey Davis & Happy Hide-A-way Civic Club Inc. Decision of 14th District Texas Court of Appeals # 14-12-01053-CV Nov 19/13 http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/texas/fourteenth-court-of-appeals/14-12-01053-cv.pdf?ts=1384858347 Details dereliction, failed tenancies at residence with a HOA; June 16/11 demolitions not by City under some public safety municipal By-Law but by the HOA itself under a mere grass-cutting & cleanup Rule, for which it billed the registered owners Evans + $ 80K. Xcrpt:

"M E M O R A N D U M OP I N I O N

When appellants Russell and Terrie Evans allegedly failed to comply with deed restrictions, the property owner‘s association for their subdivision , appellee Happy Hide- A - Way Civic Club, Inc. (the Club), demolished their house and two outbuildings on their property.

The trial court held that the Club was authorized to destroy the structures and granted summary judgment against the Evanses’ claim to recover their value. It also granted summary judgment awarding the Club statutory fines and damages for the cost of the demolition — a total of $83,800 .

The Evanses raise three issues on appeal, but we focus on two of them. In their first issue, the Evanses contend that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment based upon the Club ‘s alleged authorization to destroy the structures because the Club failed to establish as a matter of law that it had such authority.

Because we agree that the deed restrictions, bylaws, and statutes upon which the Club relies DID NOT AUTHORIZE t authorize demolition of the structures, we sustain the Evanses‘ first issue.

In their third issue, the Evanses argue that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment awarding the Club damages. We agree because the summary judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that the Club notified the Evanses of its intent to sue for fees and costs as required by statute Because we sustain these two issues, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. ..."

3 - If - as you say - "self help is well established in the procedures in our declaration and in state law", then maybe it might be no big deal to get public security officials or a court order to address wind dangers or child allurements from upright unsecured ladders . . .

4 - Respectfully, take a hard look at some of the shenanigans & warped skillsets reported by some of the commenters at this site & others. Are those appropriate for self-help ?

JackB8,

-- Is this house with the leaking roof a stand-alone home, with no owners having adjoining walls (like in a condo or townhome set-up)?

-- What part of the situation is, say, an eyesore?

-- My concern is that you are proposing fixing the roof and then billing the owner. What if the owner is broke? I think you need to be very clear about what violation is occurring and the grounds for needing to correct this violation.