Reopening Violations

I think current policy is forgive and forget. Which may need a bit of twerking. It may need to change to fill me once, fool me twice, the third time we hold the previous fools against you. Do not get rid of the history as it effects the future or current.

Since there's no mention of what to do with repeat violators, you could start anew, otherwise, there's a chance that they'd claim accelerated enforcement is selective enforcement. Then again,, they'd have to explain why they're poking the bear again.

For this notice, I would remind them of tbe previous violation and how it nearly led to legal action by the board. The board wouldn't want a repeat, but that will happen if they don't comply 8mm3diately. Copy the association attorney and offer appeal rights.. if they don't take advantage, turn this over totge attorney and prepare for legal action..

You should also develop a policy for repeat violations. Check your documents to ensure the board has the power to adopt additional rules that don't overstep the CCRs or bylaws. you can debate and adopt tge po,icy in an open board meeting and send copies to homeowners with an effective date, say, 30 days from the date of the notice.

With that policy,, I'd accurate everything. For example if you give 30 dzys to comply, reduce it to 20, maybe less, depending on the violation (you should specify). They will still have appeal rights, but this time, I'd mandate legally binding arbitration. Both sides split the costs, and the lower must reimburse the winner. They refuse, go to court and ask that tge associationbe reimbursedfor its attorney fees and legal costs if it wins.

Wow. Thanks for the quick feedback--very helpful!

I will look into whether the HOA wants to revise one or more of their policies to clearly address reopening violations of the same nature within "x" months, and the attorney the same.

I have other Associations whose policies clearly state what do do about recurring issues after the original is closed. Makes it very clear cut.

Thanks again for all your insight.

I’m in Texas. Our PMC handles violations and such. They have a policy where if a violation occurs, is “cured”, and then recurs within a 6 month window - it’s considered a continuation of the initial violation.

I’m not an especially big fan of this. It can be (and has been) used to ‘pile on’ someone over trivial stuff. Like: someone’s lawn edging earns them a “courtesy letter”. They try to step up their game, but several months later they get dinged again for lawn edging. Only this time it’s not a courtesy letter. A person can get trapped in a kind of never-ending hell over this stuff.

And while I’m sure there are situations where this makes sense, frankly our biggest problems stem from people who (for instance) leave a huge gnarly Halloween decoration up in their yard all year long, or *never* cut their grass, or continue to put food out for wild animals (which attracts all manner of feral critters). And despite complaints from their neighbors and a steady stream of fines, they don’t stop.

All that said, I can’t answer your question and can only offer a data point for your consideration.

WRT the situation described: I feel naive asking this, but what advantage would you get by re-opening the previous violation?

Bill