Any Tips for Finding a Good Lawyer?

Look up court cases with HOAs and see who represented those fighting the HOA.
Talk to the attorneys who won.

As a first step, I advise listing everything that you both (1) want; and (2) believe the law says you are justified in having. This is so you can be as clear and concise as possible when you start emailing and calling attorneys. I also recommend writing down how much (1) money; (2) time; and (3) invasion of your life; you are willing to give up to get these things.

The reason clarity and conciseness will be important is so you do not get the brush-off from an attorney, because the attorney thinks no real case, from which he or she can make money, exists.

In many cities in the last several years, just finding an attorney to do a consult seems extraordinarily difficult. Brace yourself for leaving a lot of voicemails; sending emails; and some very short but polite exchanges with attorneys who, while they have the expertise, are too busy for something that sounds like relatively small potatoes. In California, I think anything below $8000 of billable hours is going to be small potatoes.

Many attorneys in the last several years will turn down owners (in HOAs and COAs) because they have done some work with the HOA or COA.

Consider running your list by this forum, asking for //constructive// opinions on which items should stay on the list and which should go, and why?

Here you go, with thanks: [email protected]

One person's opinion

To get some prospects, talk to your friends and neighbors (your former ones, not the current bunch!), and also check with your local bar association. In addition to Tim's suggestion on talking to folks who've fought the HOA and won, you might also check with the bar association to see if your prospects have any complaints against them and how they were handled. Getting complaints is part of life, but what you want to see are people who responded and if the problem was resolved without people running to court (and keep in mind some people complain about their attorneys because they didn't like what they were told - and the attorney turned out to be correct)

Lawyers charge (a lot) for their time, so you need to know if there will be a charge during that first meeting. If you end up hiring him/her, ask what the general approach will be and how much that will cost (e.g. drafting and sending nastygrams, phone calls to and from opposing counsel, research, addressing phone calls/emails/faxes and texts to and from you, etc.) Some attorneys will charge a specific price and roll up the services that are covered, then ask for more money as the case progresses, so you need to know how the billing will work. This is also why when you do throw down in court, be sure to ask that all legal expenses and attorneys fees are awarded to you if you win.

Since you're going after your HOA, bring your documents with you to the meeting so the attorney will know what to look at (and saves you time n photocopying and dropping it off). Hopefully, you've kept some sort of journal documenting this saga - who said what and when, any supporting documents, etc. Organize your own thoughts so you don't veer from one topic to another during the consultation (remember, you're paying for it, so going on and on about nothing can be costly).

Ask about arbitration - yes, I know you tried the IDR and the board rep told you to "sit on it and rotate" after a fashion, but in a formal arbitration, both sides should sign a legal agreement to comply with the settlement, whatever that is. If your neighbors want to continue to be contrary and defy that, it'll cost them (some people have far more money than sense, so if they want to give it to you, that's fine).

Keep an open mind - if the attorney says you don't have a case at all, make sure he/she answers all your questions as to why. You might not like what's said, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. And you can always change attorneys.

Remember, attorneys charge (a lot) for their time, so make sure you have a good reason to contact him/her because you'll get charged for every phone call/fax/text, etc. During your first meeting, you should get an itemized list of services and how often you can expect an update on your case. Our HOA attorney has a client portal where you can log on and see what's going on, so you'll see when phone calls were made, summaries of phone conversations, etc.

It's unfortunate, but not surprising your fight with your neighbors has come to this point - in another conversation, I suggested that you ask them to offer you a buyout so all of you can move on. I know you don't want to and perhaps lawyering up will resolve this once and for all, but if it doesn't, I really think you may want to consider this - if nothing else, it'll make THEM consider if it's worth aggravating you further because you haven't backed down, and have a good chance of winning. Again, some people aren't interested in resolving a problem, they want to be RIGHT and who cares how much it costs in drama. Good luck in whatever you choose to do.

PS: There are only four of you, so you really don't need a property manager. A bookkeeper and perhaps hiring a handyman service for routine tasks should suffice

Liz, definitely ok to contact me. When I started all this, I didn't know what to do. Now if I can help others to make the process easier, it makes all the trouble worthwhile. As you probably know, small claims cases aren't published so I went through dozens of published cases (unpublished ones are not usually quoted in court) looking for my particular legal issues. I subscribed to Casetext for a long time but a lot of the information is free by searching your subject along with "Casetext." Pay attention to the cases where "Discussion" starts - that's where the court explains the legal basis for its decision.

Just know whether you go small claims or superior court, your relationship with neighbors will never be the same. We have some who hate us and others who thank us but there are many more neighbors than you have. Bottom line is you decide what needs to be done. We won't let the opposers spoil our enjoyment of living here. If some of the neighbors can't see the elephant in the room (bad board), they can be miserable on their own.

Yes, a lot like grade school.

The "one person" sounds just like our chairman. They actually believe it is not necessary to follow the law. They think they can impose their personal choices onto their neighbors. But you have all the power because you have the law on your side. There's no way he can overcome that. You are a threat to him and his ego and his "plan" for your community. Our board never listened to me personally or in correspondence. Even after court rulings, they defied the court rulings. Don't listen to anyone who suggests that YOU should move. Remember you can have bad neighbors anywhere. This is another example of why HOAs are awful, unnatural and anti-social. People were never meant to have such control over their neighbors.

Liz

Are you assuming if you find a PM the other owners will vote to hire them?

In my area, the local BAR association has a referral service. You call and speak with one of their 'counselors' and tell them what is going on and then they will try to match you up with an attorney who practices law in that field. The cost was $45, and they would then set up time for you to call the attorney to discuss your situation.

Another alternative, the local BAR also offers arbitration or dispute resolution for a fixed fee for a certain number of hours.

Good ideas. Thanks for posting them.

Not to mention that a manager makes no economic sense for a tiny HOA.

This thread is a good example of how association members who just want to mind their own business and live in a community they expected would act according to the governing documents they signed at purchase try every conceivable thing to AVOID going to court.

So you think some of us are superior? Funny. I find people who label other people are the very things that person is. We assign other attributes to people of which we are. If you say someone comes across "superior" then it is what you feel. Otherwise I feel someone maybe experienced and trying to help you see what others see you as...

It is no wonder no one gets along with you in your HOA. Have to say the word Superior sums it up.

It cuts both ways. E.g. some owners are known to harass boards with false claims of violations of statutes or covenants.

Thank heaven for you, Terri, you make me laugh

Yeah yeah Terri. I get it that your brain is presently wired to resist any statement that goes against whatever thinking you formulated some time ago.

But at least you are here, asking decent questions at least some of the time, possibly re-thinking some of your thinking.

Getting back on topic:

LizD3, ask any California attorney you interview if she thinks the purpose of the corporation as stated in the Articles of Incorporation can be overriden by purposes stated in the Declaration. If the attorney says yes, do not hire this attorney.

Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong", any HOA conflict that results in legal action will probably hit every owner in the pocketbook, and many of those owners will be "innocent bystanders" (as much as anyone in an HOA can be viewed as innocent).

When an owner lawyers up, they're stating outright that they're OK with this, and that their issue - whatever it is - is more important than others' finances. Said owner needs to be prepared for others to disagree with this viewpoint.

Mother Superior Cathy you are correct. Once one lawyers up or threatens to, it becomes their issue is more important than anyone else. It is a passive aggressive move to threaten to sue. It is an aggressive move to actually sue on your own. If a group has same issues then you may have a point and a way. If it is just you then it is you...

Come on; ease up. For one, HOA/COA fair housing disputes are often just one person or one family. When such a person or family prevails, characterizing this person or family as "passive aggressive" does not make sense, AFAIC.

If at the OP's condo someone say has monopolized common area parking spaces, without approval of the owners as required in the governing documents, this is an instance for which I can understand lawyering up makes sense. And yes, the plaintiff in such an instance is saying this issue is more important than others' finances. So what? A board (or in the OP's case, three other owners) refusing to comply with the covenants may also be saying their position is more important than others' finances.

I know. It's common for people to come here and be vague, no? In my opinion often this is understandable. The person maybe does not want others at her/his condo to figure out that she/he is posting at hoatalk. This forum's members regularly urge conciseness. Then many of us end up asking for more details anyway. Because without the details, the responses end up having all manner of conditionals attached to them and are long and complicated. (I am trying to cut back on my own verbosity and am not really succeeding.)

Some new folks may not understand some HOA principles, that the long-time regular posters know like the back of their hand. The new folks may be overwhelmed with how much vocabulary they have to master to make themselves understood. E.g. "officers" vs. "directors." The difference is significant. Yet many newbies think they are one-in-the-same. Changing neural thought patterns is not always an instantaneous process.

Also, I think it is important to respect people's privacy, especially if it seems the likelihood is high they are going to court and so they need anonymity here. I profane any of the regulars here who try to finger any newbie who shows signs of having posted here under a different screen name. For goodness sake, a lot of folks do end up in court and do want some objective advice, and completely understandably in anonymity.

Such are my thoughts.

The OP wisely IMO asked for tips for seeking a competent attorney. Hopefully the search is underway.

If boards don't want to get sued they should behave themselves.

I'm going to remind everyone of something I've observed: the number of times that owners who've sued their association ended up moving out afterwards because their neighbors hated their guts and life got unpleasant for them.

Too many people seem to have a simplistic notion about this stuff: they'll file their lawsuit, the board will clean up their act, and it will be sunshine, daisies and little tweeting birds thereafter. And the financial hit will magically disappear.

In my view, that's naive. If I'm going to file a lawsuit, it will be because the problems are so serious that they justify *all* of the crap that's coming down the highway as a result and - importantly - they can't be solved any other way. Problems such as criminal behavior (eg. embezzlement). There are few things that rise to this standard in my book, mainly because I'm willing to tolerate or walk away from a problem if that's overall the best of the achievable options.

Others' mileage obviously varies, and I wish them joy of it.

In the OP's case, where the membership consists of a mere four owners, I did almost say this aloud. This is because I agree that this and CathyA3's remarks about the financial costs with a four-owner COA are critical to remember.

If I were an owner in a COA of a mere four owners, it would take some pretty egregious behavior to justify lawyering up against the COA. This is because the chances are pretty good (though not guaranteed) that statutes, covenants and case law would require me to pay for 1/4 of the association's attorney fees, along with my own attorney's fees.

On the other hand, one good letter from an owner's attorney to the COA might knock some sense into the other owners. It just depends on whether there is room for debate about covenant violations and how much people want to pay attorneys. (Sadly if the other three owners, representing the board majority, consult an attorney, it seems to me guaranteed that pre-litigation, I would be stuck paying for 1/4 of the association's attorney fees.)

I also think about how covenant disputes have been landing in court for over 150 years. The lawsuits can go on for years.