Wait! HOA’s can choose who has to follow the rules or not?

I thought everyone had to follow the same rules? I guess I was wrong in assuming that. If you look at past post you can see my fight with my HOA over solar. They were making it extremely difficult to install solar to a point where legal had to get involved. I did get it installed but I ended up missing out on the summer months of sunlight. I was the first one so I have to take one for the team.

Well, the HOA let another owner install solar following none of the rules. In fact, they did not have to submit an Architectural Application. The rules are still in palace because another owner is going through the process of installing solar. I am happy the work that I put in is making it easier for them, but they still have to follow the rules. Is it proper procedure that only select owners have to follow the rules?

Would it be wrong for me to request my Architectural Application fee back, to remove my HOA from my insurance, and increase the tilt on my panels? Or at least not have to submit another Architectural Application? I want to get two more panels installed before Net Metering 3.0 happens.

One of the questions is how do you know they did not submit an Architectural Application or not following the rules? All of the Architectural Applications are online and discussed during meetings. And the angle is 6% max.

If your HOA charged you a fee and did not charge others the same fee, then yes they should refund the fee you paid.

If others did not submit an Architectural Application for the same project, then this is an example of select enforcement. It's not allowed.

You'll want to speak with your board about the problem before you do anything else.

the "Selective Enforcement" discussion is interesting and is one that I still can't seem to get a solid understanding of.

Yes, nearly all HOA docs have language and terms in it that say something like "failure to enforce one thing does not mean the HOA is voiding all future enforcement" and blah blah blah, thus protecting them against selective enforcement...and it is a contract that you agreed to, to allow them to selectively enforce something

However, there are plenty of court cases that deal with selective enforcement.

How does one square this? Most articles and websites coach that an HOA effectively abandons a CCR if there's inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious enforcement.

I'm wondering if there's much definitive case law and precedence around the concept of selective enforcement.

https://www.hopb.co/blog/simply-unenforceable-hoa-covenants-and-how-they-can-go-too-far
- A validly enacted restriction is binding on homeowners “unless the restriction is arbitrary, imposes burdens on the use of lands it affects that substantially outweigh the restriction’s benefits to the development’s residents, or violates a fundamental public policy.” Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo. Ass’n., 8 Cal. 4th 361, 386 (1994).
- a covenant that fails any of these criteria will be unenforceable.
- a restriction that is arbitrary or places burdens on homeowners that are significantly greater than the potential benefits stands a strong risk of being found substantively invalid.
- Other examples of legislative statements of public policy include protections of religious displays (see, e.g., Tex. Prop. Code § 202.018(b); (765 ILCS 605/18.4) and California’s statutory guaranty that homeowners can keep at least one pet. Cal. Civ. Code §4715. A restriction that conflicts with these types of state laws is substantively invalid and therefore unenforceable.
- Even a validly enacted, substantively sound covenant can be nonetheless unenforceable if the HOA’s enforcement is procedurally improper, or is conducted inconsistently or for an inappropriate purpose. In general, a board’s exercise of its enforcement powers must be “procedurally fair and reasonable,” and its decisions must be made in “good faith … reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious.”
- If the court finds that the association’s enforcement efforts have in fact been arbitrary or inconsistent, the covenant or restriction will be unenforceable.

of course, the ideal state is to rigidly enforce the CCR's, but the problem statement is about what happens when they are not rigidly enforced. If they are selectively, arbitrarily, capriciously enforced.

I think most all stories of 'selective enforcement' could easily be backed by a history and obviousness. Just an example in my HOA: the CCR's say no basketball hoops in front yard (from 1995). Driving through the neighborhood, i'd estimate there's about 30% of homes have basketball hoops in the driveway....yet I was told that I was not allowed to install one because the CCR's say no. Seems like a clear cut case of selective/arbitrary/capricious enforcement.

I haven't heard of anyone getting a violation letter and definitely no fines issued (there's no 'enabling' mechanism in our CCR's and ID law does not allow fines to be issued unless the CCR's explicitly say that fines can be issued), and definitely no variances issued either (especially because our CCR's says that any variance must be filed with the county clerk.)

I'm not sure what you mean. My goal, as stated in my previous comment was to better understand selective enforcement and then gave an example, just like the OP gave an example of solar panels.