Deliquent viting rights

Rob

Our Bylaws say in order to vote, one must be a member in good standing. A member behind on their dues is not, I repeat not a member in good standing.

Good for you for asking here.

Because of what the CCRs say, in my opinion and experience a bylaw cannot then lawfully restrict voting rights based on being delinquent in HOA dues.

I trust you understand the legal hierarchy of governing documents and can maybe even cite where SC law establishes this hierarchy.

For future reference, is this a condominium?

It is considered to be not in good standing when behind in dues. You may look that term up.

In Calif "lack of "good standing" does not take away an owners' voting rights: "Voting Rights. As of January 1, 2020, a member's voting rights can no longer be suspended. (Civ. Code § 5105(h)(1): a ballot cannot be denied to a member for any reason other than not being a member at the time when ballots are distributed.)" https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/S/Suspending-Privileges

The language of being "in good standing" means nothing if not in the CC&Rs or, more likely the Bylaws.

What exactly DO your CC&Rs say about voting rights, Rob? I cited mine and...was easy to find.

HOA boards are permitted to adopt reasonable rules and regulations. What do you find unreasonable about a rule that says if you are not current with assessments you can’t vote on HOA matters?

If you can’t afford to live in the HOA, sell and move. Your HOA is not a charity or a loan company.

Twenty years ago when the covenants and bylaws were silent about suspension of voting rights, from specific experience, my favorite HOA attorney said pretty much the above. Today, my impression is HOA attorneys no longer agree on this.

As has been noted, some state statutes even prohibit the suspension of voting rights //for any reason//. So evidently many people think it is in fact not reasonable to take away this basic right of owners that affects their ability to, say, go after a rogue board.

What do I find unreasonable? Well, let's start with the hierarchy of the permissions. Federal Law/State Law, CCRs, Bylaws, Rules & regulations / Policies.
The CCRs give us the right to vote. IF there is nothing in the CCRs that gives anyone the right to restrict that right, then NO bylaws or rules can suspend that right.
If I owe federal taxes I do not get by rights to vote for congress or president suspended.
Why do so many people believe they can suspend voting rights over money when the same document gives them the right to act as an HOA also give us the right to vote in one?

I do not believe this is saying that owners have the right to vote under any circumstances. I think this is merely saying that owners of multiple lots get more than one vote, as long as the owners are eligible to vote.

The CCRs being silent about voting restrictions is not a bona fide conflict with the bylaws' voting restriction. The CCRs are silent about a lot of things that the Bylaws then turn around and address. "Silence" in the CCRs does not trump a bylaw.

If the board is saying what I say, then you would have to threaten to take this to court and possibly follow through with the threat.

What is the exact wording in your CC&Rs about members' voting rights, Rob?

CCRs take precedence. If the Bylaws say you cannot vote and the CCRs say you can, then there is a conflict.
The CCRs win. You get to vote. It is not silence in the CCRs.

Are you speaking from a position of legal experience and can sight case law in SC on this?

Well ,as a practical matter, I don't think anyone who's delinquent should have the right to vote for board members or run for a spot because board members are responsible for managing the community's assets, including setting budgets and ensuring that the bills are paid in full and on time. Why shoukd you have a say in who makes those decisions when you're not even complying with your legal responsibility to pay your share of assessments that pay for the association amenities and services you receive as a member of the association?

That's not the same as voting to amend the bylaws or CCRs, although I'd go ballistic if someone suggested an amendment to let people vote regardless of delinquencies. When some people can't or refuse to pay, those who do risk having their services limited because there's less revenue to work with and they indirectly have to subsidize those homeowners because vendors don't adjust the bills because X number haven't paid but services were provided to 100% of the homes.

If you want to subsidize people, go ahead and pay their assessments- good luck in getting your money back. If you're delinquent and want to vote, pay what you owe or STFU and sit down. You should have read the documents before buying your home and could have asked questions at that time.. elsewhere you said your documents do have some restrictions against delinquent homeowners, so why are you surprised by this?

Yes, I know this sounds harsh but having spent 10 years on my board, five as treasurer and remembering how my colleagues and I wrestled with keeping things going while having to spend time and money chasing deadbeats, you can miss me with your gobbledygook.

At latest two of us have asked Rob to cite the exact wording in his CC&Rs on Owners' voting rights--- and for some unknown reason, he refuses.

Rob, your replies to various posters are unclear because your don't tell us to whom you're responding.

Whatever anyone's opinion, any owner on record may vote on any HOA matter in CA by statute. Perhaps in other states too?

The CCRs take precedence ... when there is a genuine conflict. I would say that most laypeople do not understand when a genuine conflict (in the eyes of the courts) arises. The "conflict of the laws" (including contractual documents such as CC&Rs and Bylaws) is an enormous subject, all to itself, for law students (at least one whole course) and lawyers.

I am not an attorney. I have personally observed several lawsuits where interpretation of covenants was key. For years I have been reading HOA case law where interpretation of covenants, bylaws, state statutes and case law was key.

I am happy to cite SC case law just as soon as you quote exactly what the covenants say on this point. Or if you want to examine case law yourself, perform searches like the following:

"covenants" "association" site:https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/

and

"covenants" "association" "conflict" site:https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/

I assume you posted your question because you wanted to see how sound your reasoning is. People here cannot make a good judgment here without seeing the actual covenant.

I would also want to see anything and everything that the CC&Rs say about the bylaws.

I would caution against taking one sentence in the CC&Rs, even verbatim, and assuming that it's the entire answer.

For example, our CC&Rs contain a similar sentence saying that every unit owner has one vote. However, there is additional language farther down stating that "the board shall suspend the voting rights of any owner not in good standing' until the owner has paid all outstanding amounts. The word "shall" in that sentence means it isn't optional.

From what I've heard over the years, my CC&Rs are not unusual in this respect.

I'll also repeat that a competent lawyer could settle the question on whether a delinquent owner has any chance of fighting this legally and whether it's worth the expense of taking it on.

Yes. That was not the topic though. The topic is about specific words or lack there of in the CCRs.

The CCR's quote:
"Voting Rights and Meetings. On matters of Association business submitted to vote of the membership, there shall be (2) classes of membership.
Class A. Every person who is an Owner, with the exception of the Declarant, shall be a Class A Member. Class A Members shall be entitled to one(1) vote per Lot. No more than one vote per Lot may be cast by Class A members, regardless of the number of Owners of a given lot.

Class B. The Declarant shall be the sole Class B Member."

"Unless otherwise provided herin, all voting matters shall be declared by a simple majority vote. Requirement for a quorun shall be as provided by the Bylaws. The Members shall meet as provided by the Bylaws."

RobW5, do the covenants talk about suspending other rights of owners, like use of amenities (but with no mention of suspending voting rights)? If so, this Florida case law says the board cannot suspend voting rights:

https://cases.justia.com/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2021-3d19-0617.pdf?ts=1622646650

The argument in the above case is a "unius est exclusio alterius" argument. It makes sense.

I wondered if Calif. is an anomaly, but I see that some, maybe all, HOAs in Washington State may:"... (x) Suspend any right or privilege of a unit owner who fails to pay an assessment, but may not:...(ii) Suspend a unit owner's right to vote..." sorry -- I lost the complete citation.

Old post - note Rob never responded after March. Sometimes that means people don't like the responses they're getting or they resolve the problem another way (maybe he did read his documents, paid his delinquency and went on to vote). Hope it worked out for him.

That's like saying if you are behind on your federal taxes you can't vote and you should move to another country. sounds ridiculous to me
Pretty sure all of this pay to vote crap laws stem from when slaves got the right to vote and the racists made it hard as heck to have that right.

Oh, I also see Dean is talking about "rules." But generally materials about HOA voting is in the Bylaws.

In the United States, there have been historical instances where certain states or jurisdictions implemented laws or policies that restricted voting rights based on various criteria, including tax delinquency. However, such laws have generally been challenged and overturned due to constitutional principles such as equal protection and the right to vote.

For example, in the past, some states imposed poll taxes or property ownership requirements as prerequisites for voting, which could have indirectly affected individuals with tax debt. However, these practices were effectively nullified by constitutional amendments and federal legislation such as the 24th Amendment, which prohibited the imposition of poll taxes in federal elections, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to eliminate discriminatory voting practices.

Currently, in the United States, there are no federal laws that specifically prevent people who owe taxes from voting. Additionally, states generally cannot disenfranchise individuals solely based on their tax status. However, it's worth noting that voting rights and related laws can vary by state, and some states may have restrictions on voting rights for individuals convicted of certain felonies or who are currently incarcerated.

Sorry to be off-topic. I need to correct my above: The ability of non-propertied white men to vote in the USA varied a lot by states/colonies, with some earlier than 1830 and at least one, not until the 1850s. earlier on white men were denied the vote in various places if non-tax payers, or Jewish, or... or....