A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the unwritten rules?

Started by PaulL12 • 61 replies • 1028 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the unwritten rules?

For example:
1) management tells homeowners parking is patrolled 24/7 and any vehicle caught in violation 24/7 will be towed on the first offense. But in reality, parking is patrolled only from 11PM to 6AM and vehicles will not be towed until their second offense. Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the real patrol hours and polices?
2) swimming pool hours are posted as closing at 11PM, but the gate remains unlocked until 12 midnight and no enforcement is done for that area until 12 midnight. Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the real enforcement hours and real gate closure hours?
MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501
Posted:
No
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/19/2022 10:38 AM
Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the unwritten rules?

For example:
1) management tells homeowners parking is patrolled 24/7 and any vehicle caught in violation 24/7 will be towed on the first offense. But in reality, parking is patrolled only from 11PM to 6AM and vehicles will not be towed until their second offense. Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the real patrol hours and polices?
2) swimming pool hours are posted as closing at 11PM, but the gate remains unlocked until 12 midnight and no enforcement is done for that area until 12 midnight. Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the real enforcement hours and real gate closure hours?

Paul,

California has some of the strictest statutory requirements. You have a right to inspect and receive copies of CIC records, including policies and procedures. You should also expect your Board and management to be transparent about the operational execution of your written governance. Do you have a right? There's an implied right for members of a nonprofit corporation organized as a common interest community to "have the truth."

Regards,
Steve
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
As long as the Board is not selectively enforcing, I do not see a serious or offensive problem with the board doing what you describe. After all, don't these policies go towards promoting more compliance, and using a carrot instead of a stick?

Also isn't it possible the Board could enforce the hours the rules give?

If I were on your board, and the majority of the directors liked the current rules and policies of enforcement per the examples given, then respectfully I think I would roll my eyes at anyone fighting the board about this.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Is there any written policy about parking & towing? Or about pool hours?

What management "says" and what written policies there are certainly should not be in conflict.

Maybe try this: At the next open board meeting's open forum, ask the Board to tell you the towing hours policy and where you can read it. If you're permitted a second question, ask why the posted pool hours are not enforced.

Btw, these don't seem like major issues. Is there. something else about your PM or HOA that's bothering you?
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Paul,

on nummber one, unless the car is parked in a fire lane, vehicles can not be towed without notice and due process.

on number two, as long as the gate remains open until midnight, that is what can be enforced. If the pool closes at 11, lock the gates at the same time.

Unwritten rules CANNOT be enforced.
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 10:45 AM
No

Sorry Michael, this is NOT Washington. If you're going to enforce unwriiten rules, the owners have the right to know.
SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964
Posted:
THIS AGAIN????? Is there anything other than parking in your community that interests you?

The lot may be patrolled 24/7, but the main problem could be ovvernight parking. There are unauthorized folks that have a habit of keeping their cars in another lot for days on end, and so the patrolling starts at 11 pm, perhaps to give people with guests time for the guests to leave if they don't have a parking permit. I seem to remember you had another conversation when you were complaining about that too.

During the day the lot may be fairly empty because people are doing things with their cars like working, going to school or on vacation. Patrolling doesn't necessarily mean the car will automatically be towed.

Ditto for the swimming pool - if your pool area has a shower and locker room, people may need time to shower and put their clothes on before leaving. And as they say, usually nothing good happens at midnight - that's when people may sneak in and use the pool or vandalize it.

Did your friends (the same ones who don't seem to pay attention to the sign in the parking lot) get tagged for being caught in the pool at 2 am? Did you get hit with a fine because of it?
If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Ah, yes, Shelia. Thought Pauls' parking "issue" seemed familiar.
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/19/2022 12:04 PM
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 10:45 AM
No


Sorry Michael, this is NOT Washington. If you're going to enforce unwriiten rules, the owners have the right to know.

"unwritten rules" don't fly in Washington State, either That said, a lack of strict enforcement often does not absolutely waive the right to enforce strictly (and most declarations / CC&Rs contain language to this effect), but that's really getting into a different matter.

I wish we could upvote posts here...
MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/19/2022 12:57 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/19/2022 12:04 PM
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 10:45 AM
No


Sorry Michael, this is NOT Washington. If you're going to enforce unwriiten rules, the owners have the right to know.

"unwritten rules" don't fly in Washington State, either That said, a lack of strict enforcement often does not absolutely waive the right to enforce strictly (and most declarations / CC&Rs contain language to this effect), but that's really getting into a different matter.

I wish we could upvote posts here...

The OP wasn't referring to enforcing rules that were not written down. That's not allowed anywhere.

He was referring to whether the entity enforcing the rules had to tell homeowners when the rules would be enforced.

That is akin to asking the City Police which hours are least staffed by officers, so you have the best chance of not getting caught. No city will tell you that, and no HOA needs to inform owners what hours the rules will actually be enforced.
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 1:54 PM
The OP wasn't referring to enforcing rules that were not written down. That's not allowed anywhere.

He was referring to whether the entity enforcing the rules had to tell homeowners when the rules would be enforced.

That is akin to asking the City Police which hours are least staffed by officers, so you have the best chance of not getting caught. No city will tell you that, and no HOA needs to inform owners what hours the rules will actually be enforced.
I think the above is rather well-said.

Thumbs up.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
Soooo is there a difference between paying and not paying homeowners? They are still members right? Just may not be considered in "good standing" to run for office. I did not know one had to pay for their "rights" in a HOA over any other member...
Former HOA President
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 1:54 PM
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/19/2022 12:57 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/19/2022 12:04 PM
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 10:45 AM
No


Sorry Michael, this is NOT Washington. If you're going to enforce unwriiten rules, the owners have the right to know.

"unwritten rules" don't fly in Washington State, either That said, a lack of strict enforcement often does not absolutely waive the right to enforce strictly (and most declarations / CC&Rs contain language to this effect), but that's really getting into a different matter.

I wish we could upvote posts here...


The OP wasn't referring to enforcing rules that were not written down. That's not allowed anywhere.

He was referring to whether the entity enforcing the rules had to tell homeowners when the rules would be enforced.

That is akin to asking the City Police which hours are least staffed by officers, so you have the best chance of not getting caught. No city will tell you that, and no HOA needs to inform owners what hours the rules will actually be enforced.

But, 1) management tells homeowners parking is patrolled 24/7 and any vehicle caught in violation 24/7 will be towed on the first offense, is a lie.
AdamL1 (UnitedStates)
Posts: 559
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/19/2022 3:29 PM
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 1:54 PM
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/19/2022 12:57 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/19/2022 12:04 PM
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 10:45 AM
No


Sorry Michael, this is NOT Washington. If you're going to enforce unwriiten rules, the owners have the right to know.

"unwritten rules" don't fly in Washington State, either That said, a lack of strict enforcement often does not absolutely waive the right to enforce strictly (and most declarations / CC&Rs contain language to this effect), but that's really getting into a different matter.

I wish we could upvote posts here...


The OP wasn't referring to enforcing rules that were not written down. That's not allowed anywhere.

He was referring to whether the entity enforcing the rules had to tell homeowners when the rules would be enforced.

That is akin to asking the City Police which hours are least staffed by officers, so you have the best chance of not getting caught. No city will tell you that, and no HOA needs to inform owners what hours the rules will actually be enforced.


But, 1) management tells homeowners parking is patrolled 24/7 and any vehicle caught in violation 24/7 will be towed on the first offense, is a lie.

I think, for me as a dues-paying homeowner.....if I'm paying for 24/7 patrol and only actually getting 3hrs a day, I would not be happy. Sounds like a shitty contract...
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/19/2022 2:29 PM
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/19/2022 1:54 PM
The OP wasn't referring to enforcing rules that were not written down. That's not allowed anywhere.

He was referring to whether the entity enforcing the rules had to tell homeowners when the rules would be enforced.

That is akin to asking the City Police which hours are least staffed by officers, so you have the best chance of not getting caught. No city will tell you that, and no HOA needs to inform owners what hours the rules will actually be enforced.
I think the above is rather well-said.

Thumbs up.

Michael and Augustin, you two make a pair in this thread! Here in Washington State, we have a Public Records Act. We can, in fact, know the staffing of police by shift simply by filing a public disclosure request, or possibly even reading the local paper. Seattle Times and other news outlets cover this type of public information frequently.

CICs are just as open as government entities and agencies subject to the PRA. Try again...

Regards,
Steve
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/20/2022 9:08 PM
CICs are just as open as government entities and agencies subject to the PRA.
?

Homeowners' associations and condo association are not subject to anything like the strict laws regarding record disclosures as state, municipal, and county entities.

Happy to agree to disagree.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
So your saying it does not matter if your paying homeowner or not to have access? Wow. How less entitled one seems when you drop off the whole "Paying member" thing...
Former HOA President
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2022 7:10 AM
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/20/2022 9:08 PM
CICs are just as open as government entities and agencies subject to the PRA.
?

Homeowners' associations and condo association are not subject to anything like the strict laws regarding record disclosures as state, municipal, and county entities.

Happy to agree to disagree.

Augustin, here in Washington State, we have our own PRA for CICs vis-a-vis our statutes. Another recent thread discusses confidentiality. The list of records that can be withheld from disclosure is SHORT. While WUCIOA does not apply to every CIC in WA State, many of its provisions are generally accepted by legal professionals to offer a reasonable standard where older CIC statutes are silent.

As member-based nonprofit corporations, CICs are subject to an intense amount of disclosure requirements in general. You're welcome to disagree all you like.

RCW 64.90.495(3)
(3) Records retained by an association may be withheld from inspection and copying to the extent that they concern:
(a) Personnel and medical records relating to specific individuals;
(b) Contracts, leases, and other commercial transactions to purchase or provide goods or services currently being negotiated;
(c) Existing or potential litigation or mediation, arbitration, or administrative proceedings;
(d) Existing or potential matters involving federal, state, or local administrative or other formal proceedings before a governmental tribunal for enforcement of the governing documents;
(e) Legal advice or communications that are otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, including communications with the managing agent or other agent of the association;
(f) Information the disclosure of which would violate a court order or law;
(g) Records of an executive session of the board;
(h) Individual unit files other than those of the requesting unit owner;
(i) Unlisted telephone number or electronic address of any unit owner or resident;
(j) Security access information provided to the association for emergency purposes; or
(k) Agreements that for good cause prohibit disclosure to the members.

Regards,
Steve
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
SteveH35, of course nationwide statutes provide for owners to have the right to inspect a good deal of their HOAs/COAs records. The problem is that when a HOA/COA does not want to share records, it takes a lawsuit.

By contrast for municipalities, counties, the state, and even the federal government, free options exist to force the government entities hand.

One of the leading complaints here at hoatalk is that a HOA/COA will not share records.
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2022 8:13 AM
SteveH35, of course nationwide statutes provide for owners to have the right to inspect a good deal of their HOAs/COAs records. The problem is that when a HOA/COA does not want to share records, it takes a lawsuit.

By contrast for municipalities, counties, the state, and even the federal government, free options exist to force the government entities hand.

One of the leading complaints here at hoatalk is that a HOA/COA will not share records.

Augustin, we agree on that point. One of my favorite new quotes:

The only way to punish a Board or a management company is to sue them. Most people are not going to do that. Most of the time there are no provable damages. There’s no measurable harm. There aren’t really any consequences for not doing the right thing.

Given other cases against CICs here in WA State, I have great certainty that a successful suit against a CIC withholding records that should otherwise be disclosed would result in the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff. That may not be enough comfort for someone to initiate a lawsuit, but that's also why CICs are strongly encouraged to adopt alternative dispute resolution practices.

Regards,
Steve
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/21/2022 8:19 AM
Given other cases against CICs here in WA State, I have great certainty that a successful suit against a CIC withholding records that should otherwise be disclosed would result in the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff.
Only if covenants or statutes require an award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff seeking records. Which it turns out for records access, is increasingly more common.

Improving records access is certainly on the radar of Florida, Texas, California and some other legislatures, based on somewhat recent stricter statutes regarding HOA/COA records.

Washington looks rather weak on the point, though: There's no mandatory requirement to award attorney fees. This means the American Rule (each side pays their own attorney fees) is likely to prevail.
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2022 8:35 AM
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/21/2022 8:19 AM
Given other cases against CICs here in WA State, I have great certainty that a successful suit against a CIC withholding records that should otherwise be disclosed would result in the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff.
Only if covenants or statutes require an award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff seeking records. Which it turns out for records access, is increasingly more common.

Improving records access is certainly on the radar of Florida, Texas, California and some other legislatures, based on somewhat recent stricter statutes regarding HOA/COA records.

Washington looks rather weak on the point, though: There's no mandatory requirement to award attorney fees. This means the American Rule (each side pays their own attorney fees) is likely to prevail.

Augustin,

What on earth are you talking about? The requirement does not need to be *MANDATORY* to be *LIKELY* ... 3 of the 4 CIC statutes in WA State are clear about the ability for the Court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. In WA State, for cases seeking what I would call "reasonable relief" to enforce the statutes and likewise to enforce the governing documents (where those documents reference a similar award of attorneys' fees), Courts tend to provide this to plaintiffs in CIC cases.

RCW 64.38.050
Violation—Remedy—Attorneys' fees.
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter entitles an aggrieved party to any remedy provided by law or in equity. The court, in an appropriate case, may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party.

RCW 64.34.455
Effect of violations on rights of action—Attorney's fees.
If a declarant or any other person subject to this chapter fails to comply with any provision hereof or any provision of the declaration or bylaws, any person or class of persons adversely affected by the failure to comply has a claim for appropriate relief. The court, in an appropriate case, may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

RCW 64.90.685
Action to enforce right granted, obligation imposed—Court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs—Alternative dispute resolution allowed.
(1) A declarant, association, unit owner, or any other person subject to this chapter may bring an action to enforce a right granted or obligation imposed under this chapter or the governing documents. The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
(2) Parties to a dispute arising under this chapter or the governing documents may agree at any time to resolve the dispute by any form of binding or nonbinding alternative dispute resolution.

Regards,
Steve
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2022 8:35 AM
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/21/2022 8:19 AM

Washington looks rather weak on the point, though: There's no mandatory requirement to award attorney fees. This means the American Rule (each side pays their own attorney fees) is likely to prevail.

Oh and Augustin, I forgot to post what is perhaps the MOST pertinent statutory language about disclosure. Since CIC states are silent in this regard, I suspect this provision controls for incorporated CICs in WA state.

RCW 24.03A.230
Court-ordered inspection. (Effective January 1, 2022.)
(1) If a nonprofit corporation does not allow a member who complies with RCW 24.03A.215(1) to inspect and copy any records required by that subsection to be available for inspection, then the court may summarily order inspection and copying of the records demanded at the corporation's expense upon application of the member.
(2) If a nonprofit corporation does not within a reasonable time allow a member to inspect and copy any other record to which the member is entitled under RCW 24.03A.215(2), then the member who complies with RCW 24.03A.215 (3) and (4) may apply to the court for an order to permit inspection and copying of the records demanded. The court may inspect the records in question in camera and determine the extent of required disclosure, if any, in light of RCW 24.03A.215. In making that determination, the court shall consider the probability and extent of potential harm to the corporation or any third party that may result from inspection, and the probability and extent of benefit to the corporation or the member.
(3) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, then it shall also order the nonprofit corporation to pay the member's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred to obtain the order, unless the corporation proves that it refused inspection in good faith because it had a reasonable basis for doubt about the right of the member to inspect the records demanded. If the court denies the majority of the request for inspection and copying, it may order the member to pay part or all of the nonprofit corporation's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
(4) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, then it may impose reasonable restrictions on the use or distribution of the records by the demanding member.

Regards,
Steve
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/21/2022 10:08 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2022 8:35 AM
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/21/2022 8:19 AM
Given other cases against CICs here in WA State, I have great certainty that a successful suit against a CIC withholding records that should otherwise be disclosed would result in the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff.
Only if covenants or statutes require an award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff seeking records. Which it turns out for records access, is increasingly more common.

Improving records access is certainly on the radar of Florida, Texas, California and some other legislatures, based on somewhat recent stricter statutes regarding HOA/COA records.

Washington looks rather weak on the point, though: There's no mandatory requirement to award attorney fees. This means the American Rule (each side pays their own attorney fees) is likely to prevail.

Augustin,

What on earth are you talking about?
Google on the American Rule. Doh.
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By SteveH35 on 05/21/2022 10:30 AM

(3) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, then it shall also order the nonprofit corporation to pay the member's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
I agree that this Washington nonprofit corporate statute section guarantees attorney fees to a successful plaintiff seeking corporate records.
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/19/2022 11:03 AM
As long as the Board is not selectively enforcing, I do not see a serious or offensive problem with the board doing what you describe. After all, don't these policies go towards promoting more compliance, and using a carrot instead of a stick?

Also isn't it possible the Board could enforce the hours the rules give?

If I were on your board, and the majority of the directors liked the current rules and policies of enforcement per the examples given, then respectfully I think I would roll my eyes at anyone fighting the board about this.

The problem is overenforcement (as well as threat of) for problems which don't even exist. This inconveniences those who are not in the know, while those who are in the know understand these are empty threats.

I will use a very generic example.
Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/19/2022 11:05 AM
Is there any written policy about parking & towing? Or about pool hours?

What management "says" and what written policies there are certainly should not be in conflict.

Maybe try this: At the next open board meeting's open forum, ask the Board to tell you the towing hours policy and where you can read it. If you're permitted a second question, ask why the posted pool hours are not enforced.

Btw, these don't seem like major issues. Is there. something else about your PM or HOA that's bothering you?

I will use a very generic example.
Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
I was using those as an illustration because they can be tied to an easily measurable metric. This may help it make more sense.

Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?
MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 8:23 AM
I was using those as an illustration because they can be tied to an easily measurable metric. This may help it make more sense.

Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?

The easy answer is the Board should enforce the rules as written so there is no confusion. If they want to allow 12x of whatever is prohibited, change the rule to allow that.
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/23/2022 8:33 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 8:23 AM
I was using those as an illustration because they can be tied to an easily measurable metric. This may help it make more sense.

Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?


The easy answer is the Board should enforce the rules as written so there is no confusion. If they want to allow 12x of whatever is prohibited, change the rule to allow that.

The other members of the board do not want to change the rules. They don't seem to be concerned that some people are in "the know" and others aren't.
MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501
Posted:
I am not sure how I am supposed to fix that problem? I am not on your Board.

You can:

1) Move
2) Join the Board
3) Encourage others with like minded concerns to join the Board
4) File a lawsuit

Complaining here won't fix anything.
SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964
Posted:
Are you suggesting that people should ignore the rules because the board will only enforce them between this and that time? Have you actually sat out in the parking lot for 24 hour straight to see if patrols are coming by every hour on the hour to check for violators?

I agree it's best that the rules be enforced as written, but I also know there's something called setting priorities. Sometimes certain problems are more serious than others and so I would expect the board to enforce everything as necessary, but perhaps place a bigger emphasis on whatever is causing more issues.

I seem to recall you are on the board and they aren't listening to you (probably because you’re always harping about parking). And now you’re concerned about “overenforcement.” Says who? Have dozens of homeowners come to you with similar complaints? If so, have you encouraged all of them to come to the next board meeting and express their concerns? If you think people aren’t “in the know” about enforcement, you could just photocopy a statement listing the "unwritten rules" and pass them out to everyone in the building. You want the board to change course, you'll need to get people on your side. If you've spoken to some people and they don't seem concerned, respect their opinions and bring it up again with there's an emerging problem (not necessarily involving your friends).

If not, all of this sounds like you’re trying to fix a problem that isn’t there – which was the case with the parking (when you complained about that, your argument was something about underutilization).
If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Have you b brought up your example of mysterious rules, etc., at an open board meeting during open forum, Paul?
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/19/2022 10:38 AM
Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the unwritten rules?

For example:
1) management tells homeowners parking is patrolled 24/7 and any vehicle caught in violation 24/7 will be towed on the first offense. But in reality, parking is patrolled only from 11PM to 6AM and vehicles will not be towed until their second offense. Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the real patrol hours and polices?
2) swimming pool hours are posted as closing at 11PM, but the gate remains unlocked until 12 midnight and no enforcement is done for that area until 12 midnight. Do dues paying homeowners have a right to know the real enforcement hours and real gate closure hours?

Paul,

Disclosure aside (much of which is obligatory in the CIC environment), I will agree with other responses that the strict enforcement of these rules at the exact times stated in your R&Rs or handbook should not be at issue. If the gate isn't locked until midnight...what's the big deal? If you only have parking patrols at certain hours, that probably contributes to lower operational costs, right? Would 24/7 patrols really be something the community supports?

Where I think you would have a stronger argument is the lack of any kind of enforcement and/or inconsistent enforcement, neither of which appear to be the case here.

Regards,
Steve
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MichaelT21 on 05/23/2022 9:53 AM
I am not sure how I am supposed to fix that problem? I am not on your Board.

You can:

1) Move
2) Join the Board
3) Encourage others with like minded concerns to join the Board
4) File a lawsuit

Complaining here won't fix anything.

I am on the board. Being on the board does not help if the other board members aren't interested in serving the community. I would assume the state where you live, a quorum is required as opposed to unanimous.
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/23/2022 9:57 AM
Have you b brought up your example of mysterious rules, etc., at an open board meeting during open forum, Paul?

Yes I have. The response of the other board members is to gaslight me.
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
@SteveH35

Perhaps I did not articulate the situation well enough.
Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 12:55 PM
@SteveH35

Perhaps I did not articulate the situation well enough.
Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?

Ok. That's possibly an issue of selective enforcement as well and yes, certainly sounds like an "unwritten rule" that's not OK.
MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501
Posted:
I dunno.

Our HOA says that we send accounts to foreclosure after 90 days. In reality, we only send the accounts to forelcosure attorney after 180 days.

Is that an unwritten rule? Is that unfair to homeowners who pay on day 89 when they could wait until day 179 instead?
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 8:19 AM
The problem is overenforcement (as well as threat of) for problems which don't even exist. This inconveniences those who are not in the know, while those who are in the know understand these are empty threats.

I will use a very generic example.
Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?
I presume you came here for a reality check. If so, then I think this is a good use of this forum's space.

From where I am sitting, your arguments sound too much like hairsplitting.

I do not believe this forum has any compelling language to use to ask the board to publish exactly when it will and will not enforce rules.

I think what's more important is that the board majority has spoken. Now the board majority is giving you grief. Is it possible the majority is giving you grief because you refuse to accept their decision?

When a board majority has made clear they disagree with a director in the minority, I think the option one should not exercise is continue to argue at board meetings about the point in dispute. Such a director has other options to pursue correction of a board acting incorrectly (in the minority director's view). I think you should consider those other options and decide, once again, whether this is a battle worth your time and possibly, money (for an attorney, ultimately?).
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/23/2022 2:30 PM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 8:19 AM
The problem is overenforcement (as well as threat of) for problems which don't even exist. This inconveniences those who are not in the know, while those who are in the know understand these are empty threats.

I will use a very generic example.
Let's say the rules state you will be fined if you have more than 10x, but they don't fine people unless they have as much as 15x - yet it will be more convenient for many if they can have 12x. Then those who know that enforcement doesn't start until it reaches 15x receive a benefit that those who don't know do not. Make sense?
I presume you came here for a reality check. If so, then I think this is a good use of this forum's space.

From where I am sitting, your arguments sound too much like hairsplitting.

I do not believe this forum has any compelling language to use to ask the board to publish exactly when it will and will not enforce rules.

I think what's more important is that the board majority has spoken. Now the board majority is giving you grief. Is it possible the majority is giving you grief because you refuse to accept their decision?

When a board majority has made clear they disagree with a director in the minority, I think the option one should not exercise is continue to argue at board meetings about the point in dispute. Such a director has other options to pursue correction of a board acting incorrectly (in the minority director's view). I think you should consider those other options and decide, once again, whether this is a battle worth your time and possibly, money (for an attorney, ultimately?).

How would it be fair for some to have up to 15x knowing they won't be penalized, yet others won't exceed 10x because they erroneously believe they could be penalized? Is such lack of fairness in the best interests of the HOA at large?
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Kerry

This is the type of post the quote was meant for.

"[Home] should be a place you want to escape to, not escape from." - Laura Castro Trognitz
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 7:57 PM
How would it be fair for some to have up to 15x knowing they won't be penalized, yet others won't exceed 10x because they erroneously believe they could be penalized? Is such lack of fairness in the best interests of the HOA at large?
I do not think your quantification of the alleged "disparities" is accurate.

Did you make a motion and then the board majority voted you down? Now you want to motion again? And you have no new arguments?

Why don't you circulate anonymously what you think the enforcement actually is vis-a-vis what the rules suggest?
PaulL12 (California)
Posts: 116
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/24/2022 7:08 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 7:57 PM
How would it be fair for some to have up to 15x knowing they won't be penalized, yet others won't exceed 10x because they erroneously believe they could be penalized? Is such lack of fairness in the best interests of the HOA at large?
I do not think your quantification of the alleged "disparities" is accurate.

Did you make a motion and then the board majority voted you down? Now you want to motion again? And you have no new arguments?

Why don't you circulate anonymously what you think the enforcement actually is vis-a-vis what the rules suggest?

When I make a motion, the other board members typically straw man my motion and shoot that down. When I realize they didn't fully understand the motion and I try to clarify, they insist there is no room to discuss further.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/24/2022 9:05 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/24/2022 7:08 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 7:57 PM
How would it be fair for some to have up to 15x knowing they won't be penalized, yet others won't exceed 10x because they erroneously believe they could be penalized? Is such lack of fairness in the best interests of the HOA at large?
I do not think your quantification of the alleged "disparities" is accurate.

Did you make a motion and then the board majority voted you down? Now you want to motion again? And you have no new arguments?

Why don't you circulate anonymously what you think the enforcement actually is vis-a-vis what the rules suggest?


When I make a motion, the other board members typically straw man my motion and shoot that down. When I realize they didn't fully understand the motion and I try to clarify, they insist there is no room to discuss further.

Paul

The proper procedure is a Motion is Made. If Seconded, then it is discussed and voted on. If no Second, it dies then and there.
AugustinD
Posts: 3,698
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/24/2022 9:05 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/24/2022 7:08 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 7:57 PM
How would it be fair for some to have up to 15x knowing they won't be penalized, yet others won't exceed 10x because they erroneously believe they could be penalized? Is such lack of fairness in the best interests of the HOA at large?
I do not think your quantification of the alleged "disparities" is accurate.

Did you make a motion and then the board majority voted you down? Now you want to motion again? And you have no new arguments?

Why don't you circulate anonymously what you think the enforcement actually is vis-a-vis what the rules suggest?


When I make a motion, the other board members typically straw man my motion and shoot that down. When I realize they didn't fully understand the motion and I try to clarify, they insist there is no room to discuss further.
PaulL12, are you keeping in mind the reality of the dynamic here? A majority of your board may very well have its ego invested when it comes to motions by you. Meaning reason will not work. They vote against you because they do not like xyz about you. This xyz has nothing to do with whatever reasons you present for voting for a particular motion. It's a herd dynamic. And one often cannot change it. I think one either learns from this reality or keeps tilting at the proverbial windmill. Your choice.
SteveH35 (Washington)
Posts: 339
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/24/2022 9:27 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/24/2022 9:05 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/24/2022 7:08 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2022 7:57 PM
How would it be fair for some to have up to 15x knowing they won't be penalized, yet others won't exceed 10x because they erroneously believe they could be penalized? Is such lack of fairness in the best interests of the HOA at large?
I do not think your quantification of the alleged "disparities" is accurate.

Did you make a motion and then the board majority voted you down? Now you want to motion again? And you have no new arguments?

Why don't you circulate anonymously what you think the enforcement actually is vis-a-vis what the rules suggest?


When I make a motion, the other board members typically straw man my motion and shoot that down. When I realize they didn't fully understand the motion and I try to clarify, they insist there is no room to discuss further.
PaulL12, are you keeping in mind the reality of the dynamic here? A majority of your board may very well have its ego invested when it comes to motions by you. Meaning reason will not work. They vote against you because they do not like xyz about you. This xyz has nothing to do with whatever reasons you present for voting for a particular motion. It's a herd dynamic. And one often cannot change it. I think one either learns from this reality or keeps tilting at the proverbial windmill. Your choice.

Paul,

Augustin's point is well said. I suggest leaning in, at the right time and in the right way(s), about critically important issues where you can make your stand and receive homeowner support. There are ways to remind your fellow directors that they are required to serve the best interests of the community above all else.

Regards,
Steve
BarbaraT1 (Texas)
Posts: 821
Posted:
This thread has, like so many, gone all over the place.

Enforcement of anything is never going to be 100% equal, 100% of the time because it's done by human beings who are fallible, and have limitations.

If Bob is outside repairing his car/setting off fireworks/burning trash/breaking a rule on a Wednesday at noon just as the compliance inspector happens to be driving by to see it he'll get a violation. If Jim does the same thing a day or a week or an hour later when the compliance inspector isn't there, he won't. That's unfair. But what is the solution? Don't bother enforcing any rules, or hire enough people to be in front of every house 24/7 in the name of fairness?

The unwritten rule for everything is that if nobody notices or knows you broke the rule, there will probably be no consequences.

What matters is intent.

Is the intent that the pool hours or parking rules be observed, but the laws of time, space, physics, budget and human fallibility don't allow completely equitable enforcement all the time? Or is the intent that certain people have to follow the rules and some don't?

MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501
Posted:
I'm really confused.

The thread started out that the OP wanted to know when the rules would actually be enforced.

Turns out, the OP is on the Board.

So, he should know when rules are enforced, or he should be empowered to inquire with the entity enforcing the rules.

If he wants all homeowners to know, he can tell them.

Not sure what the OPs issue is.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement