MATERIAL ADDITION TO COMMON ELEMENTS

Hello, i'm in texas, our condominium is goverened under 81 and the added 82 provisions that apply to all condominiums.

straight from our declaration..

20. additions, alterations and improvements of limited common elements.
there shall be no additions, alteratons or improvements of or to the general and limited common elements requiring an expenditure by the association in excess of $25,000 in any one calendar year without prior approval of 51% of the owners. such limitation shall not be applicable for replacement, repair , maintenace or restoration of any common element.

The board decided to have cameras installed throughout the property. They checked with the attorney who told them they didn't need to get approval for camera installation.

I agree with that. However, the total cost of the system is over $30,000. This triggers the requirement in the declaration for any addition to the common elements.

I notified the board of this when I realized the cost exceeded what was allowable.

Can the individual board members be held personally liable for acting outside of their authority and approving an addition to the common elements in excess of 25,000 without the required owner vote.

The point is, the board continues to take action outside of their authority. or fails to take ensure that the common elements are being maintained. doesn't the legal liability protection from d &o insurance only cover vboard members who acted within their authority.

How long has it been since the documents have been updated? I mean now a days $25K does not get you what it may been 5 years ago. Are there a large number of members who would vote down the installation of cameras? Is it just the cost that bugs your not the work that is being done?

For me, the camera install would most likely be approved not just by the board but a majority of the owners too. The price/cost issue may be null and void if that is what it will cost.

So I don't see a real problem here as it benefits all not just a few.

Mellissa, I have a problem with the board continueing to act outside of the documents. If the documents need to be changed. there is a protocol for that. The baord cant just ignore the protections and limitiations provided in our documents.

In all honesty, the cameras may be a good idea. it was the board's choice not to involve any feedback from owners and residents regarding the locations of cameras. Also, the board failed to adopt the security camera policy that was provided by our lawyer, it was never sent to owners.

the policy suggested by our attorney was actually pretty good. But one of the board members(who is the acting property manager) wanted to change her recommendation to allow him to monitor live anytime he wanted.

Obviuosly, there would have been objection by owners and residents to live monitoring. The failure to communicate with owners or accept suggestions or feedback for their consideration is part and parcel to the way they operate. They really don't care what anyone else thinks.

Kerry,

I think they should be personally liable for the ammount spent. that's the way normal businesses work.. I can't just go spending my clients money without authority. If my client gives me money to purchase incidentals , I can't go purchase a major item that exceeds the credit limit i was given and claim i thought they would approve.

People always ask questions in a form to try and solicit the answer they desire.
It's human nature.

When I was working, there was one individual who would ask everyone the same question in different ways until they got the answer they were looking for. Then they would point at that individual and say that this person said we could do it.

You say that you think that the board should personally cover the funds.
I pointed out earlier, that this likely won't happen as the issue was procedure and the funds were spent for the betterment of the Association (vs. personal gain).

Of course, nobody knows for sure how a court will rule until the court rules.
How many thousands of your money are you willing to spend on principal to find out what the courts might rule?

If the answer is less then 100K, as you need to take into account appeals, then you might want to spend your energy elsewhere.

I also like to see where there would be any owners voting down the project for security cameras...

Tim,

Your response in greatly appreciated.

when i read this eople always ask questions in a form to try and solicit the answer they desire.
It's human nature.

I almost dropped my coffee.

I understand that people may do that and it's human nature. but when a board of managers of an condominium association has fiduciary responsiblities and limitations as prescribed by the governing documents. doesnt the requirement to put their personal oppinions and biases aside mean anything.

I mean, anyone serving on a board is required to be familiar with the governing documents and their meaning. Everyone knows that a lawyers answer always depends on the question.

this issue has come up several times. Owners will bring up a valid objection or concern about actions the board has taken or not taken that are outside of our documents. The board will agree to consult with the association attorney. But owners are not permitted to have input or even review the question that was asked. This process wouldn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.

So if you had been elected to the board what decision would you have made?

I would have insisted that before the work began, the actual final bid was presented to the board. If the ammount was more than the limit set by the declaration , the owners need to approve it.

No final proposal or bid was ever reviewed and approved by the board. The property manager(board member) proceeded with the original proposal without making the changes the board insisted on first.

What in the world are "property manager rules," Melissa?