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

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
I volunteered to help the board (for a year) because we had trouble keeping a requirement of 3.
When I leave at the end of the year, and the board can't maintain their 3 member requirement,
does the property management company assume control? I appreciate your feedback.
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By GuyA on 08/20/2022 8:00 AM
I volunteered to help the board (for a year) because we had trouble keeping a requirement of 3.
When I leave at the end of the year, and the board can't maintain their 3 member requirement,
does the property management company assume control? I appreciate your feedback.
No, neither state statutes, your HOA's bylaws, nor case law support the property manager assuming control of what lawfully are board decisions.

The competent HOA attorneys I know have said that the defense of "we're doing the best we can" counts here. Meaning that the courts are not going to agree to appoint a receiver as long as even one HOA member is willing to serve as the Board.

If a Board cannot fill its seats, and the Board continues to make an effort to try to do so, then the board (such as it is) may go on making decisions.

Make sure you formally resign. If you are currently on the board, merely not running for election is not sufficient to ensure you are officially off the board. Let me know if you need an explanation from state statutes for why this is so.
SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964
Posted:
No. Property managers ARE NOT board members! Their primary purpose is to run the association's daily operations under the board's direction. This doesn't mean micro managing - the board makes decisions, such as making changes in the collection policy and the property carries them out, and may also notify homeowners of the change.

Your community has big issues if it can't keep three board members, but sadly this is a problem everywhere, regardless of the size of the board. Propke forget the association is 5gem and their neighbors, as Melissa often says, so if you want the association to do this ir that, you need homeowners willing to work on the board.

Here's what can happen if you don't get enough board members. The last one standing may appoint a homeowner or two, but if they can't or won't serve, that board member can then petition the court to place the association in receivership. That means the court will appoint a receiver to run the association until the homeowners come to their senses and elect a board.

Until then, the homeowners will have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in how the association is run because the receiver only answers to the judge. Assessments will increase a lot because the homeowners will have to pay the receiver's fee (which can be several hundred an hour), court costs, attorney fees, fund reserves and pay the association's routine monthly expenses. Scream if you like, but you'll have no choice but to pay because the receivers primary job is to ensure the association's bills are paid.

Think you can just sell at that point? You can try, but be prepared to take a beating on the sales price. And who would want to buy a home in a community under receivership? Good luck with that.

You can quit and risk this coming to pass or you could what you should have done when you agreed to serve for a year - start looking for your replacement and guide him or her on what's required so he ir she hits the ground running. Better yet, schedule a special homeowners meeting and turn this into a come to Jesus affair, educating them of the "joys" of receivership. Then see who steps up and begin to educate them.

You might also consider staying on for another year or two, continuing to look for a replacement. Consider it a stop-gap measure to prevent your property values going down the toilet because a bunch of incompetent and/or power mad people too charge because mo one else would.

Your move - good luck to you and your neighbors.


If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius
DouglasK1 (Florida)
Posts: 2,046
Posted:
I agree with the others that there is no legal support for the PM assuming control. A board of two is still a quorum, and even if it becomes a board of one, I would expect that your CCRs still say the board is responsible for running the association.

Some PMs might try to assume the role of running the association if there is no effective board, but there is really no legal authority for them to do so unless your CCRs say that.

Escaped former treasurer and director of a self managed association.
JohnT38 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,631
Posted:
Do your governing docs allow a non owner to be a Board member?
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By DouglasK1 on 08/20/2022 8:55 AM
I agree with the others that there is no legal support for the PM assuming control. A board of two is still a quorum, and even if it becomes a board of one, I would expect that your CCRs still say the board is responsible for running the association.

Some PMs might try to assume the role of running the association if there is no effective board, but there is really no legal authority for them to do so unless your CCRs say that.

Well said.
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Since a board needs a quorum of at least two to make decisions on behalf, what is a PM supposed to do if there is only one? I have had it happen twice and both times sent a notice of resignation to the Secretary of State.
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Thanks Augustin for the response and guidance, appreciate it. We're a new board ('19) and without any by-laws for now.
Thanks again!
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Hi Shelia, thanks for the candor. I will be looking for a replacement to be sure. In fact,
your come to Jesus discussion should happen sooner than later. Appreciate it!
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Is your association a corporation, Guy? Most are. IL requires corporations to have bylaws. And also articles of Incorporation, which sometimes help with your type of question. You do have CC&Rs, right? (AKA, declaration, deed restriction, covenants)
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
Ditto the questions KerryL1 asked.

Also is this a condominium association?
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Hi Douglas, thanks for reaching out. I did hear the Property Management group say that they needed 3 except the CCR's don't indicate that, and we do not have any HOA bi-laws. Appreciate your help.
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Hi John, good question. From what I read in the CCR's, you have to a lot owner. Thanks for responding back.
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Thank you John.
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Hi Max, thanks for your input. Do I understand you correctly...you've been in a position of being the only board member left and you had to send notice to the Secretary of State? Isn't a resignation letter to the Property Management Company enough?
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By GuyA on 08/22/2022 10:45 AM
Hi Max, thanks for your input. Do I understand you correctly...you've been in a position of being the only board member left and you had to send notice to the Secretary of State? Isn't a resignation letter to the Property Management Company enough?

No, I own a management company. I have had to step away from HOA's where only one person was on the Board. The only legal decision that one board member can make is adding board members, period.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Guy,

If no one is willing to serve on the board, then the remaining member should petition the court for receivership.

Receivership is not a great option. The Assessments will likely increase to pay the court chosen receiver. The receiver works for the court, not the Association and, with the courts permission, can impose special assessments to get any work done they deem needed.

My suggestion is to explain to the membership this potential reality and I would expect you get volunteers.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By TimB4 on 08/22/2022 5:18 PM
Guy,

If no one is willing to serve on the board, then the remaining member should petition the court for receivership.

Receivership is not a great option. The Assessments will likely increase to pay the court chosen receiver. The receiver works for the court, not the Association and, with the courts permission, can impose special assessments to get any work done they deem needed.

My suggestion is to explain to the membership this potential reality and I would expect you get volunteers.

As Tim says. Avoid receivership if at all possible.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
If in receivership, I believe no lender will lend money to a unit buyer.
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Hi Kerry,
Thanks for the response. Yes, we are a corporation, with CCR. We do not have bylaws - Guy
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Max, I appreciate your response, thanks - G
GuyA (Illinois)
Posts: 21
Posted:
Well put Tim, thank you - Guy
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
I see that IL corporations require bylaws. Is it possible they've been misplaced? How the heck do you know what officers your HOA must have or how many directors, or the distinction among different types of meeting without bylaws?
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
For the archives, from the Illinois Nonprofit Corporation Act:

805 ILCS 105/108.10 (from Ch. 32, par. 108.10)
Sec. 108.10. Number, election and resignation of directors.
(a) The board of directors of a corporation shall consist of three or more directors.


Then again, I do not see any penalty under the statute for not having three directors. I expect this statute section is of course enforceable in court. Practically speaking though, a petition to a court to fill the board seats, when three people are not willing to serve as directors, may lead to a judge's putting the HOA in receivership.

What would I do if I were the one person willing to serve on the board? Two folks here seem to want to force receivership, even with exactly one, and only one, person willing to serve on the board.

I would talk to the insurance company and see whether I am still covered, as the sole director on the board. If the insurance company growls and says, "You have two days to get two more directors, or the insurer will have to suspend your insurance under xyz provision," then I'd put out a notice to the membership explaining the situation. If no one stepped up, I'd resign for my own legal safety. I'd continue to communicate with owners about the risk here.

I would not seek receivership. Why? Because I am not persuaded that I, as a single director, have any legal authority to say anything on behalf of the corporation in my capacity as the only director. The only remaining capacity is in my capacity as an owner. I say: Let someone else apply for receivership. I would rather resign from the board and keep communicating, trying to rally two others to step up and serve with me.

I kind of doubt an insurance company would drop its insurance of the common areas until it ceases to be paid. Neither a corporation nor a corporation's contracts dissolve in a case like this. The corporation legally still exists.

Which brings us back to what the management company (MC) should do. The MC still has a contract, but without a board to oversee the MC, the MC perhaps (probably?) has legal grounds to terminate the contract. If I were the MC, I'd certainly be talking to the insurer and maybe my own attorney.

MCs are going to do what they're going to do. I think I'd hope the MC would stick around and give the HOA a chance to get things together.

MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
You don't need three directors, you need a quorum of three to conduct business, which would be two. As a management company, could I continue? Maybe for a while. I could pay utility bills to keep the lights on and the gates open. I have emergency funds limits to handle emergencies. I have resigned from 2-3 associations where they couldn't get a board and I just file a form RA-100 with the Secretary of State.
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:35 AM
You don't need three directors, you need a quorum of three to conduct business, which would be two.
This is not what the Illinois statutes say. I looked at both board quorum requirements and requirements for boards in Illinois. Nothing in the Illinois statutes' quorum requirements applies to this situation here. The only relevant requirement is the one I quoted about how the board "shall" have at least three directors.
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 11:38 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:35 AM
You don't need three directors, you need a quorum of three to conduct business, which would be two.
This is not what the Illinois statutes say. I looked at both board quorum requirements and requirements for boards in Illinois. Nothing in the Illinois statutes' quorum requirements applies to this situation here. The only relevant requirement is the one I quoted about how the board "shall" have at least three directors.

Can you conduct business with just two directors?
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:42 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 11:38 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:35 AM
You don't need three directors, you need a quorum of three to conduct business, which would be two.
This is not what the Illinois statutes say. I looked at both board quorum requirements and requirements for boards in Illinois. Nothing in the Illinois statutes' quorum requirements applies to this situation here. The only relevant requirement is the one I quoted about how the board "shall" have at least three directors.
Can you conduct business with just two directors?
Where only two directors are on the Board, and where the directors wish to be in compliance with Illinois statutes? I say no.

But again, unless I were concerned about personal protection from liability for ____, I would not be the one to torpedo the association by seeking receivership.
JohnT38 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,631
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 11:52 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:42 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 11:38 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:35 AM
You don't need three directors, you need a quorum of three to conduct business, which would be two.
This is not what the Illinois statutes say. I looked at both board quorum requirements and requirements for boards in Illinois. Nothing in the Illinois statutes' quorum requirements applies to this situation here. The only relevant requirement is the one I quoted about how the board "shall" have at least three directors.
Can you conduct business with just two directors?
Where only two directors are on the Board, and where the directors wish to be in compliance with Illinois statutes? I say no.

But again, unless I were concerned about personal protection from liability for ____, I would not be the one to torpedo the association by seeking receivership.

Where chronic apathy is a problem I'm not convinced receivership is a bad thing. Sometimes people need a kick in the ass to wake up. If the owners don't want to step up and fill the minimum amount of Board seats then they get what they deserve.
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 11:52 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:42 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 11:38 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 11:35 AM
You don't need three directors, you need a quorum of three to conduct business, which would be two.
This is not what the Illinois statutes say. I looked at both board quorum requirements and requirements for boards in Illinois. Nothing in the Illinois statutes' quorum requirements applies to this situation here. The only relevant requirement is the one I quoted about how the board "shall" have at least three directors.
Can you conduct business with just two directors?
Where only two directors are on the Board, and where the directors wish to be in compliance with Illinois statutes? I say no.

But again, unless I were concerned about personal protection from liability for ____, I would not be the one to torpedo the association by seeking receivership.

So, we stop all business, unless one of two things happens, 1) The Board appoints a replacement, 2) Some owner(s) steps forward.

You know, there are some regular posters here that will not appoint a qualified candidate because they, in their opinion, would not make a good director.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Guy,

I was actually in this situation a few years ago.
I took the following steps to keep from going into receivership.

1) Inform the membership of the need for volunteers and potential receivership.
2) Have the current board pass a motion that I (being the remaining board member) could renew contracts and issue checks for normal expenses and emergency expenses without additional approval.
3) I made plans to appoint my wife and adult child onto the board (thus giving us a 3 member board on paper with me doing the work).

Fortunately, I never had to do steps two and three because step one had individuals step up and volunteer. Many were at the last minute and from the floor (as was allowed in our governing documents).
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 12:39 PM
So, we stop all business, unless one of two things happens, 1) The Board appoints a replacement, 2) Some owner(s) steps forward.

You know, there are some regular posters here that will not appoint a qualified candidate because they, in their opinion, would not make a good director.
If I were the only person willing to serve, then I think whether all business would cease would depend on a lot of things. Probably the best first step would be a call to the HOA attorney (assuming one exists and there were funds for an hour's consultation).

As to your second point, true. But nor do I want boards to appoint someone who was incapable of understanding the governing documents; knee-jerk style wants the HOA terminated (without having given any thought to the frequent legal reality that this is not possible); and so on.
MaxB4
Posts: 3,513
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 08/24/2022 3:03 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 08/24/2022 12:39 PM
So, we stop all business, unless one of two things happens, 1) The Board appoints a replacement, 2) Some owner(s) steps forward.

You know, there are some regular posters here that will not appoint a qualified candidate because they, in their opinion, would not make a good director.
If I were the only person willing to serve, then I think whether all business would cease would depend on a lot of things. Probably the best first step would be a call to the HOA attorney (assuming one exists and there were funds for an hour's consultation).

As to your second point, true. But nor do I want boards to appoint someone who was incapable of understanding the governing documents; knee-jerk style wants the HOA terminated (without having given any thought to the frequent legal reality that this is not possible); and so on.

Problem is, based on experience, it's the people who DO know the governing documents that they (management companies and attorneys) don't want on the board.
AugustinD
Posts: 1,027
Posted:
MaxB4, I agree this happens far too often.

"There's no justice in politics."

🎯 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