Drywall Repair after plumbing repair - HOA or me?

ReidD, so far, I am homed in on the covenant as follows:

"In the event any portion of such connection... is damaged or destroyed [yada], then in such event such connection, facility, or line shall be repaired and restored by the Board of Directors, such repair and restoration to be paid out of assessments levied in accordance with this Declarations equally against all Owners".

In other words, and like the Board said, it's only the damaged utility itself that the association repairs. Anything that had to be removed here to get to the damaged utility appears to be on the unit owner.

I admit I cannot explain the use of the word "facility" here. But the word "facility" does not to me mean what you suggest it means. Maybe someone else will have more to say.

I think the board's mention of exterior walls maybe was trying to convey that the Association is not responsible for the interior walls of units.

If you keep reading here (or as you may know already), you will see that disputes about who is responsible for what in a condo association arise often. The covenants can be a challenge to parse. But at the end of the day (and hopefully not at the end of litigation), and precisely as you appear to understand, the bottom line is what the covenants and state statutes say. I think California statutes defer to the Declaration on this situation, but maybe someone else here knows more.

Let's see what others here at hoatalk think.

What Augustin and Sheila said.

I agree that you should read your documents closely. But here is the rule of thumb in my community:

For *maintenance* issues, which is what we're talking about here, the association repairs the items that they are responsible for, and the unit owner repairs the items that are defined as part of the unit. If your CC&Rs say that the drywall is part of the unit, then the unit owner has to repair the drywall while the association repairs the leaking pipe.

This can change if there is an *insurable event*, although it will depend on the kind of insurance your association carries. An insurable event is something that is sudden, unpredictable, and could not be prevented through prudent maintenance. For example, if a storm rips part of the roof off, resulting in water damage to the unit below, then the association's insurance may pay for drywall repairs if the association is carrying "all included" insurance. The section about insurance in your CC&Rs will say what kind of insurance your association has to have. Not all condo associations carry "all in" insurance - some insure only the common elements, and unit owners are responsible for repairs to all parts of their units.

I asked our insurance agent if it makes a difference if there is negligence, and he said no. It is strictly who pays for what according to the CC&Rs.

Also note, your insurance on your home (HO-6 policy?) may cover the cost of repairs in this particular case, so it would be worth calling your insurance agent to see what they say.

Our multi-story condo building is the same. HOA fixes the leak, Owner pays to fix the drywall. It is NOT a "facility" nor an exterior wall, which is common area and is the obligation of the assn. to repair. In our HOA, there would be a difference if the HOA is negligent.

Our HOA insurance would not pay to repair this, the Owner's HO6 policy would. But the deductible might not make it worthwhile to claim this damage, and Reid's rates might go up.

Reid's HOA insure might be such that it would pay, but, again if he's stuck with the deductible, as he would be in my HOA, probably not worth it.

I agree with Bill. Also, if the damage to the drywall was caused during as a result of the associatoin accessing the common element to make a repair. I believe the association has to repair the damage they caused during access.

Forgot to mention that if the damage to the OP's unit resulted from work done on the common elements, then his HO6 policy may cover the cost of repairs. Talk to the pros.

CathyA3

I will provide a second example, which is not a construction defect but a common element breakdown:

Another client had to initiate an extensive mold remediation project due to rain water leaks from common elements (gutters not properly relocated upward to roof edge when TPO roof installed resulting in a Niagara Falls scenario when it rained) into common elements (interior of exterior walls) which went unnoticed or ignored by the Board for years. Mold remediation required removal/replacement of drywall and some framing members to access the mold. Again, owners are responsible for drywall and paint, again the association paid to replace the drywall and paint as the association removed the drywall to access the interior of the walls.

Had we told the owners to file a claim with their HO-6 carriers for these damages, there would have been a palace revolt.

I am not wrong. If the repair on the common property or HOA and the contractor does not do this type of work who then pays?

Interesting.

I think the difference in the two situations is that the association had to open the drywall in the examples you mentioned, but they didn't have to in the examples I mentioned. I can see why they'd be handled differently.

The only example I'm familiar with where the association had to get into the wall involved my current unit, where mold resulted from improper grading of the area which trapped rain water along the side of the home (and which I'd complained to the builder about when I moved in, and which he'd attempted to fix). In this case, I threw a hissy fit and got the builder to pay for all repairs.

-- To be blunt: Do you believe that pushback from owners should determine a board's decision on what the COA will pay when damage to xyz occurs? Or should the Declaration, state law and insurance companies do so?

-- I do not think either of your scenarios have meaning here unless you quote what this condo's governing documents say.

-- You make it sound like the law rejects the concept of no-fault auto insurance. The law does not. Why? Because the point of no fault insurance is to reduce the amount of litigation and so the added cost of attorney's fees that otherwise, would cause insurance premiums to be higher. In my opinion some COA Declarations are written, at least to some extent, with this same philosophy in mind.

-- It seems to me a board trying to apply its sense of ethics to a situation, instead of considering the contractual terms (e.g. the Declaration) to which all owners agreed when they bought into a HOA, is a recipe for more disputes, not less. When other owners question paying for John Doe's unit's repairs, I think a board (or its attorney) has to be able to quote back the Declaration, state law, and possibly what the insurer says. I think the main point of the Declaration and state law is to try to keep people on the same page.

-- I am bearing in mind the {tree root-sewer line damage} scenario that comes up a lot here for COAs. The scenario I have in mind is where all the trees are common area trees. The COA maintains the trees. The COA has instructed owners to keep their hands off the trees. The COA has had repeated notice of damage to sewer lines occurring from the common area tree roots. Two long-time hoatalk members here assert that, where the Declaration says that owners are responsible for this sewer line from the floor of their unit to X point in the under ground piping, and the COA is responsible for all repairs downstream of X, the COA is not responsible for tree root damage upstream of X. A well-known Arizona HOA/COA law firm (practicing in several states IIRC) studied the Declaration and state law and declared that the COA caused the damage, so the COA must fix all of it, including repairs to the flooring of the house because sewer line backups occurred inside the house. (At one point the COA attorney did nod to the fact that the attorney fees the COA would pay to resolve this would quickly exceed the cost of the COA simply repairing all damage, including that inside the unit. Indeed, the prior COA attorney had already racked up attorney fees in excess of what the affected owner requested to fix his unit.)

-- I am sure all of long-time posters here have plenty of anecdotes on these points. As some (a majority) in this thread have said, let the governing documents, state law, an attorney's opinion here and there and the insurers sort things out.

Oh but is it "damage"? Or is it creating access to what they are responsible for? Everyone says the HOA is responsible for a "Pipe in the wall". Well it doesn't say how it gets to the pipe is covered...

I had to have plumbing work done in a wall. No access point except to cut a hole in the wall. The plumber told me straight out that they do NOT put the drywall back. They just repair the broken pipe in the wall. That is either on me to do it or hire someone else. Plus they are not drywall experts. Would you not want one of those? If so, then ask the HOA or insurance if that is considered part of it.

Note: When the tree limb fell on my power line. Insurance would not pay for the removal of the limb or cutting it off. It just so happen the expense equaled my deductible. When the power company came out. Guess what they did? They did NOT fix it. Instead they took the power line off my house. Rolled it up and put it on the pole across the street. Told me they do NOT fix power to the house. All they do is make sure whomever does the work meets their inspection criteria. I spent a week without a power line to my house in 110 degree weather...

WI think the above summarizes the OP's query. I think the above is also what good COA attorneys are stuck with addressing, based on the Declaration's wording, state law, et cetera.

It also turned into one of the main points of LaskaS's recent thread. (I do not reject LaskaS's contention as false. I do not know one way or the other.)

Ultimately I think this is a property line and covenant dispute. I bet property line disputes have been going on ever since this country was founded. And before this, for a long time in Britain. (I know: Doy.) Covenant disputes have been going on for nearly as long.

RTFGC

You do know how water works right? It trails along a pipe. Plus where was your water draining into? The pipe the HOA had cracked. It does NOT mean they pay for your repairs. They pay for their own. Your issue caused the issue to be found.

additionally,

apparently , the board did consult with the attorney this past week.

all expenses to maintain and repair the water lines, gas lines, electric lines and drains inside the walls are common expenses paid for out of monthly assessments to all owners.

Turns out, the initial leak that i discovered in response to my downstairs neighbor telling me their bathroom ceiling was bowing and leaking water was in fact not my responsiblity to fix.

we'll see how the board is going to respond when i ask for them to reimburse me for the repair cost...

plus, they certainly aren't going to be able to stick any owners with the $70 charge to turn off the water, when it turns out that they were the ones responsible for the repair in the first place.

Old thread opened by a spammer.