Master vs Sub, any examples of a sub breaking away?

Mostly a theoretical topic, but looking to explore the idea of a sub HOA breaking from a Master HOA. I'm in a 21-member gated sub-HOA culdesac within a Master HOA. Reading through the 30year history of minutes, there's often the topic of separating from the Master for the usual reasons, like why are we paying for two HOA's when the Master HOA doesn't manage/maintain anything in our subHOA. Most recently, the Master HOA has very publicly made statements to the tone of "the sub HOA's can go eff themselves and do what they want...the Master HOA doesn't owe them anything" and "the sub HOA's can do what ever they want with their CCR's, we don't care and have no interest in meddling with their business."

I know, I know...the unofficial statements by the current Master HOA leadership is not legally binding, but this is a great crescendo of feelings brooding in the neighborhood.

Wondering if there's any examples, case law, precedence I can read up on about a sub-HOA breaking free...

Yes, read your CC&Rs, and if your sub-association has their own attorney, you may wish to consult with them.

Frequently sub-associations actually are dependent on the master whether they know it or not. For example, if the community entrance and main street are in the master and the sub is paying an annual assessment for their share of the maintenance costs, then the sub can't break away - how do they plan to get to their section of the community if they can't use the entrance/streets? Ditto with shares amenities such as recreational facilities. Ditto for shared water, electric and sewer lines.

Typically subs pay two assessments: one for their share of the master's expenses plus one for expenses for their section only. If this describes your situation, then you almost certainly can't break away.

I strongly suspect many residents in the sub could use some education.

Yea, this is what I'm trying to navigate. Yes, our street and gate are within the main street of the master, but the sub does not pay anything for 'their share' of the master costs and the master does not pay their share of the sub's costs. We have several small landscaping plots that are fully owned by the sub-HOA that we pay our own contract to maintain, as well as pay to maintain our own gate. Our 21-member street often wonders why we are paying both the Master HOA dues and our own HOA dues if the master does not maintain our property.

I'm not sure I follow about shared utility lines, as those are all public access and provided throughout the entire city. These are all SFHs.

a few more details.

- the Sub HOA pays two sets of dues. First to the Master HOA and the Second to the SubHOA.
- both HOA's are very simple and not complex. All detached SFH's. A single entrance off main street to the entire neighborhood. A few strips of grass and landscaping, standardized mailboxes, sprinklers and general common area maintenance, a small kids playscapes.
- the sub HOA has a gate off the main drag, with several small strips of land specifically in the sub-HOA name and a gate.

Even though the sub HOA pays dues into the Master HOA, the master HOA does not landscape/maintain/take care of the grass and flower beds in the sub HOA, nor do they maintain the road surface.

if the SubHOA did not have a gate, how would this situation look? Would the Master HOA maintain these parcels? It would be just like any other street in the HOA.

The gate (present or not) does not define the physical limits of the Master HOA's authority and responsibility.

It seems to me that the gate itself becomes the only relevant expense to the Sub-HOA.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: it seems to me that we are operating pretty much as two separate entities already....and the Master has publicly shaped the conversation that they have no interest in doing anything for the Subs....and the master is not maintaining our landscaping or street...hell, not even the mailboxes...

I know that there is specific legal/governing docs details that need to be reviewed, but the argument that "you have to drive past the master HOA street" doesn't seem to hold much water.

Adam

Hypothetical. If I was to drive to your house would I use any thing provided by the master such as streets, landscaping, signage, etc?

Also does the Master offer any amenities to the subs?

as far as I can tell, the street is public. It's maintained by the city, with no signs saying "private" or similar. The Master HOA owns a few strips of grass and landscaping along the neighborhood road and intersection corners.

I would not assume they are city maintained and would definitely check this out before bringing this subject up if that is your plan. Replacing roads are terribly expensive and your assessments may be needed to fund the Reserves for roads. Outside of this issue, I understand why you would explore if breaking off makes sense.

I just called the county and verified that all the streets are owned and maintained by the county except for the section behind the gate.

So again, I don't really put much weight in the argument that driving on Public streets and looking at the pretty HOA flowers means you are using the Master HOA services.

Anyway, I'll need to dig into the governing docs to read up in more detail.

Thank you for the advice. I've done all of that.

There's 4 small plats that were deeded to the Sub HOA ... these are small patches of grass and landscaping. the Sub HOA pays for these wholely. Our own landscaping budget, our own property taxes, etc.

Yes, there's a budget for the entire master HOA, not specifically earmarking where our $21000 goes. The budget is quite simple. Landscaping & Lawn Maintenance, legal, management, utilities, accounting service. All very basic.

The point I'm making is that none of that $21000 from our sub HOA is being spent on our sub HOA landscaping and lawns, we have our own set of governing documents, our own management, our own accounting. For all intents and purposes, we are separate.

I'm looking to see if this topic has any examples to look to. Has any other HOA been through this?

AdamL1, I googled as follows:

master sub association site:justia.com

At least one example of a sub suing the master because the sub felt the assessment by the master was not appropriate came up:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv23302/386588/72/

Keep in mind that the district court ruled on a technical issue. The district court did not rule on the substance of the Sub association's complaint. One could do some more research and maybe try to get a copy of the complaint the sub filed with the court along with any motions made subsequently, especially motions that whittle down the dispute to the main issues, like motions to dismiss various parts of the original complaint.

Maybe there's some useful info in some of the other hits that come up for the justia.com site search.

I searched justia.com for "de-annex" and then "de-annexation." Only one of the three or so hits was useful. See

Vista Ridge Master Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
2013, Colorado

https://cases.justia.com/colorado/court-of-appeals/12ca0967.pdf?ts=1462305694

Note how the court considered the Colorado HOA statute and the HOA's governing documents in determining whether the de-annexing was lawful. Note how the Colorado HOA statute has a specific provision about withdrawing from a HOA under certain conditions. The Idaho HOA statute has no such provision.

I think the only way to withdraw a lot or lots from an Idaho HOA would be through a massive amendment of the Declaration.

Around 2015-2021, Idaho attorney Jeremy Morris and his wife got into a dispute with their HOA about their Christmas decorations (a massive affair opened to the public, until the HOA said stop). The Morrises asked for de-annexation and other things. IIRC a federal district court judge issued a terse decision on the request for de-annexation several months ago, denying it.

no, only a section discussing the ability to annex other property.

Sound advice. They may well be receiving services they will have to begin paying for on their own.

Someone drowns in the river in the back of one of the OP's sub-association's homes, due to some kind of negligence in caring for the common area that abuts or includes the river. (Be imaginative about the negligence. I am certain the victim's family's attorney will be.)

Whose insurance is available to pay for a settlement? The Sub's insurance? The Master's insurance? Both?

And you should realize that intelligent feedback is impossible without seeing the sub's and Master's CCRs, what the common areas of Master and Sub are, and more.

You have not identified anything that would allow a judge to rule that the supermajority vote needed to amend the two CC&Rs and so allow de-annexing is not tyranny of the majority.

What you have identified is that you refuse to force the Master to spend in the manner that the CCRs prescribe. This is your real remedy.

This is an old thread. Start a new one for better answers. Thank you.