Home sells during election month - who has the right to vote?

Our annual meeting is next month, but we started voting a couple of weeks ago. People can cast a paper ballot at the clubhouse or vote electronically. In the mean time, several homes have sold or are about to close. Is it safe to assume that the owner on the day of the annual meeting is the one who is eligible to vote? So, for instance, if somebody cast a vote electronically last week, then closes on their home next week, their vote should be tossed out?

None of this is discussed in or bylaws.

The ballot count does not occur until the annual election. By law only owners' ballots count. What you wrote is completely reasonable. Hopefully no one argues with it.

While your reasoning, along with Melissa's & Elle's makes sense, your state's corporation codes likely has the correct legal answer for you. The heading in Calif. Corporations Code §7611 is "Record Date and Eligibility for Voting."

Our Bylaws do have a requirement. "Section 2.2. Voting Requirements. Subject to Section 2.1 above, only members as at the date of distribution of written ballots (or the record date for voting in such election if different from the date of distribution) shall be entitled to receive a ballot or to have their ballot counted in any election...."

The Board votes every year to establish a record date, which is about two weeks before the annual meeting. Establishing the record date as when the ballots are distributed is ridiculous because in CA it's now a long time before the actual election. If someone becomes a member after the record date, they may, of course, attend the annual meeting.

I'd say you count ballots of whoever is an owner on the day of the annual meeting (even looking at time of day if the home closes on the day of the meeting). If the home closed prior to the date/time of the meeting, you toss any votes that the previous owner sent in and provide the new owner with a ballot. Doing it any other way could result in two votes cast for a single lot, which is clearly wrong.

Probably. :-) I'm going by our attorney's instructions when we were voting on our amendments since the voting period was open until we had a decision one way or the other or we concluded that a particular amendment neither passed nor failed (not enough "no" votes to fail but not enough "yes" votes to pass). Since a number of homes were sold during the open voting period, we had to pull votes from those who'd sold and send voting materials to the new owners.

Sure, this can be done other ways. But I still believe that if you end up with multiple votes per lot/unit, you're probably doing things wrong.

Did you learn the answer for Delaware, David?

So how does one deal with owners not on site the day of the meeting?

Curiosity got to me. Delaware's Corporate Code. title 8 213: "Fixing date for determination of stockholders of record.
"... the board of directors may fix a record date...which record date shall not be more than 60 nor less than 10 days before the date of such meeting. ...such date shall also be the record date for determining the stockholders entitled to vote at such meeting ...

"... If no record date is fixed by the board of directors, the record date for determining stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at a meeting of stockholders shall be at the close of business on the day next preceding the day on which notice is given, or, if notice is waived, at the close of business on the day next preceding the day on which the meeting is held."

I suspect that every state's corporation codes has a similar section or article.

We've never had the situation come up, but I would think the electronic vote would count because it was submitted before the sale was completed. It could take some time before all the paperwork gets processed, so the previous owner might still be listed as of the annual meeting date.
I don't see a new owner swooping in to cast a bite because he or she is likely focused on - moving in.

As a practical matter, it might be better for current owners to refrain from voting. It would be OK to submit a proxy to help establish quorum, but beyond that, voting for board members and other issues is best left for the owners that remain. Give the meeting information to the new homeowners so they can decide if they'd like to attend. It would be a great way to meet people and become acquainted with current community issues.

I saw that subtitle, but neglected to read it. Good job, Elle. It seems DE HOAs aren't required to have a "record date" unless their Bylaws, Certif. of Incorp. or CC&R say so.

So, David, take a look at your Certif of Incorp. to make sure there's nothing there. You also might want to see if ballots are irrevocable in DE. Perhaps you may not legally "throw out" ballots that were submitted by deeded owners, no longer on title, no matter how "logical" or " reasonable."

Since "record date" seemed to be a new phase for anyone who responded early, looking into whether it's typical or just a Cali thing interested me. A day or two ago, I did look around at various states and see that HOA gov. docs or boards establishing a record date by which someone must be an owner to vote is very common. Most say to establish it if not already required, between 60 & 10 days before the election tabulation meeting.

WHAT date an HOA establishes doesn't matter to me. What does matter on a larger scale is that such a date, which certainly should go out with ballot materials, can prevent some very unhappy voters because all voters know exactly what to expect. I.e., I think it's best for the HOA overall to avoid confusion, bad feelings & conflict that can be simply resolved with a board motion & vote long before an election. Too late for David's HOA, I think.

I think my HOA's 2 week record date is pretty good. I do think that making it the day of the vote tabulations can cause confusion among votes submitted by owners legitimately before they closed escrow and votes submitted by a new owner, who, of course, must show proof--bring a deed to the meeting? Other issues are a new owner wanting a ballot and the one who distributes them--a PM or elections inspectors?-- says, "but that address already voted." And then the fight starts.

Many years ago, my spouse & I left NC to move to Chicago in August. We kept our NC voter registration and didn't register in IL because we were strongly opposed to the US senate candidate in NC (initials: JH) . We also thought that his opponent was a much better human. We didn't know anything about the candidates in our ward or in IL.