board seeking clarity on association issue

For routine matters yes, but likely confidential (not disclosable to homeowners) if the information involves current or potential litigation since that would breach attorney-client privilege. In other words, if you or others have threatened to bring a lawsuit against your HOA, don't expect to see what the HOA attorney has had to say to the board.

LaskaS, I know what you mean when you indicate you suspect the COA attorney was not given all the facts. I have seen this happen before. In one instance and with regard to a particular matter, the COA attorney at my former COA declared, in frustration, that the COA manager had not given him the whole story. Once the COA attorney had all the facts, he changed his position swiftly.

But a few realities here, from my experience:

-- An attorney's opinion on a matter that is a dispute, or potentially a dispute, between the HOA and another party is 100% protected by attorney-client privilege.

-- Ane reason for this protection is that the Board has the lawful right not to go with the attorney's recommendation. The attorney might very well say, 'This course is what I recommend, because of such-and-such case law. But if you want to do xyz instead, the case law to which I just referred is not dead on applicable here, and I can defend this other position, using ____. Here are the pros and cons of each course that you may want to consider...'

-- An adverse party (meaning the party who has the dispute, or may have a dispute) with the COA should certainly not be allowed to see what the COA attorney is advising. Why? Because the adverse party could then potentially use the advice against the COA.

-- A board can, if it wishes, release an attorney's opinion to the COA owners. But the board legally has every right to refuse to release it. I would expect most of the time a Board is wise to refuse to release the opinion.

-- Importantly you quoted TPC section 82.1141. This does not apply to COAs established before 1994. I believe I recall your COA was established before 1994.

-- Even if your COA was established after Jan 1, 1994, TPC section 82.1141 still permits the board to refuse to share with you the attorney's opinion.

-- You can get on record certain facts by sending a letter, certified mail, return receipt requested to the Board. Some may take this a step further and cc the attorney, or even write the attorney directly. I do not support cc'ing or writing the attorney, except perhaps in extreme instances where the safety of life and property is at risk. If an attorney receives such a letter from an owner, then it's possible the attorney may bill the COA for the time the attorney spends reviewing the letter and possibly responding to it. In my view it's below the belt for an COA owner to write the COA attorney.

-- You can also advertise your concern about how the facts were presented (or not presented) to your neighbors via mass mailings, campaign flyers and the like.

augustine thank you for your explanation.

this is actually not about an adversarial anything.

here are two instances I am referring to.

1st. There was water damage inside a unit caused by a roof leak. As soon as the association was notified, they had the roof leak fixed. I had done a a ton of research and found a clear as day explanation. which stipulated that in the absence of negligence and for an event that was not insured. the association is responsible for the fix. the owner is responsible for the damage inside the unit. (thus, that's why owners should have insurance). At the time, the manager(also a board member) convinced the board to pay the damages. I reiterated the information i found and gave the board the source. The property manager did end up paying the owner for new flooring. Now 5 months later, I've been notified that the board did seek a lawyers opinion(after the fact) and the attorney responded with the same information that i had originally offered.
In this case, 6 months later, the board now has the lawyers opinion and so that is how we are going to handle this from now on. In this case,, the lawyer provided the board with the proper interpretation of who is responsible for what and when. that's not adversarial . that's clarification.

2nd Several times over the last 2 years. (when I was on the board) I objected to something the board was attempting to do. Mostly acting against their authority,
I was yelled at and called and belittled when I brought up objections. I would then write my objection in an email to the board and cc the attorney. On at least 3 occasions. the board changed course. It must have been because the attorney called them and said, hey you can't do that. But the board would never share with me the actual attorney communication so I could understand exactly what was asked . I know that the board would not have changed course unless the attorney called the board member contact and said, hey you're wrong. The problem is the board contact was contacting the attorney without board approval. He said that since he was the appointed contact. he could contact the attorney when he thought it was necessary. Obviously, this is incorrect. Contacting the attorney is an escalation of an issue that costs money. But I was ignored. 5 out of 6 things I vehemently objected to and the board went out of their way not to refer to the documents. If they were significant and would affect the long term operations and transparency of the association I protested in writing and cc'd the attorney. The board ended up changing course, but wouldn't give me any access to the attorney's opinion. The attorney was providing information to the board that was based on the way they asked the question. When the attorney was given all of the relevant information, the attorney's comments and opinions changed.
I was on the board but when I requested access to the communication after the fact, I was ignored.

3rd.. the board is going to install security cameras.. I brought up that before the board installs the cameras, there needs to be a clear written policy for the association regarding access to the videos and where the cameras were going to be, and most importantly, I wanted to ensure that a single board member could not monitor or surveil residents without the board approving it and another board member being there.

a couple of board members agreed with me. But when they contacted the attorney all they asked for was a camera policy to protect the association from liability. UGGGGGG.
One of the friendly board members forwarded me the proposed policy. It does not address my concerns at all. When I told the board member, hey this isn't good at all. He said, well it's good enough for me. So here is the issue, security cameras ie. surveillance cameras can be useful but can also be abused. In my opinion a policy should be created by the board(and give consideration to owner comments and concerns) and then sent to the attorney for approval or suggested additions. Instead, the board just asked the attorney to send them over a camera policy.
The attorney did tell the board they would have to adopt it and file it with the county. But again, the one protection that i agreed with.." no board member or employee should use the cameras to surveil residents.
The board member who is manager, who i was most concerned would use the cameras as surveillance to try and find violations, apparently convinced the board that he should be able to monitor and view goings on to ensure that violations are not happening.
In this case, the attorney was consulted. But the board didn't bring up any owner protections or concerns. Only their own liability.

all three of these things involved consulting the attorney to get clarification or explanation or determination of association business and or board actions.

By the way, in the second example above. the attorney ended up billigns thousands of dollars based on the individual board members contacting the attorney and the attorney then went to work on a wild goose chase. because the board member had given him incomplete information.

all in all, The board does not seek to learn the documents and understand them. they basically make decisions based on their opinions. Then take action. if anyone objects they contact the attorney and get an opinion that is self serving and it's obvious they were trying to protect their unauthorized action after the fact.

-- You legally have no right to the attorney opinions.

-- You are trying to push people around who have an opinion that is different from yours. In my opinion, your approach is, for the most part, not going to be effective.

-- You say an election is going to happen soon. Why don't you just wait and see what happens with the new board?

Laskas, I try to remember first, there are a lot of asses in the world, and second, 'but for the grace of god, there go I.'

Keep citing those laws. Good luck with the election.