Voter Certification now required.

New board just sent this out. I don't understand how difficult it is to have a printed list of unit owners from the deed records and to verify at the meeting like we have for all prior years.

Can they keep you from voting if you don't file a Voter Certification? I don't see how they can suspend the right to vote. Governing documents do not mention any such thing or requirement.

Here's the notice:

Important Notice to Homeowners

Dear Homeowners,
We hope this message finds you well. As part of our commitment to transparent and
effective governance within our community, we are reaching out to inform you of an
essential requirement regarding voting for units owned by more than one individual.

Voting Requirement for Condominiums with Multiple Owners:
In order to vote on any matter placed before the unit owners at Cxxxxx Vxxxxxx, a unit
owned by more than one individual or by a corporation or trust must designate a single
owner to vote on their behalf. The designated voter must be either listed as a co-owner on
the deed to the unit or an officer in the corporation in order to qualify as a designated voter.

Action Required:
We kindly request all homeowners who co-own condominium units to review the attached
voting certification carefully and complete it online. This step is crucial to ensure that your
vote is properly counted during all future HOA meetings and decisions.

******Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Please note that if the voting certification is not completed and on file with the HOA, the
vote of such co-owners shall not be considered for any purpose.*******

If there are 2 individuals names on the deed, husband/wife, mother/daughter, brother/sister,etc., they are also requiring it.

Our governing documents to not give them the right to suspend voting rights under any conditions. Looks like the board or the new MPM just made this up without researching their fiduciary obligations.

I'm with you, Pat. The Board may not simply make up arbitrary rules without going through whatever the. procedure is in your governing documents or NC state statute. Did the Board even have this on a board meeting agenda? And their decision is shown in the meeting minutes?

Pinning each unit down to just one specified person is, imo, extremely unreasonable. That one person could become unable to vote or even die. Our HOA and probably most have list of HOA addresses and the owners of each. That unit turns in a ballot, it's checked off the Voters List and no one else from that unit may both. Simple.

Unless your Bylaws already specify this or NC corporations code: "... if the voting certification is not completed and on file with the HOA, the vote of such co-owners shall not be considered for any purpose,"
it cannot possibly be legal.

Also note they use the word "essential," which does not mean "required."

The thing is, Pat, what will you do about this? What can owners do about this? Start a fight on Election Night?? I suggest you all show up at the next board meeting and raise holy hell.

Btw, Our HOA has a new mgmt. company as of 2/1/24. Big national firm. The language in the memo from your Board is very similar to the language from our onsite PM

Mine & Jeff's crossed. I do know that eblasts that come from our onsite PM or his assist. are at least partially "enhanced" by AI. Just this week, we residents received one about a certain noisy test of our generator. It was as usual, too long and it also used the word "essential" instead of state-"required." This same eblast noted the tests are done "annually" in the first line and "quarterly" near the end of the memo.

We once had a couple going thru a divorce and they both showed up at our Annual Meeting claiming the right to vote. We
asked them to step outside and decide which one votes. They argued some, then both left.

I disagree with you, JohnC. There is nothing in the Board's (probably illegal) edict that suggests your interpretation.

From Jeff's citation of the NC condo act, the Board's wording is in conflict with a higher level document, i.e., state corp.code.

So, Pat... how WILL owners cast their votes??

We haven't had a quorum in over 25 years. Perhaps they think they'll get one soon. They keep making all the owner's angry and they just might. At the last Annual Meeting, their 1st, the PM announced there was a quorum and the Pres. cheered. The owners groaned and corrected her that we needed 51%. PM took 10 minutes to review the CCR's and then announced we didn't have a quorum.

Whatever they want everyone to fill out for whatever reason, they do not have the authority to deny anyone to vote because they didn't fill out a form. Our CCR's and By-Laws are very clear on who can vote. Owner's. They don't require proof or the ability to deny. Ownership can be challenged under certain circumstances.

If my daughter and I own the unit and are both on the deed and I show up to vote, I don't need a form to vote and they can't deny me because they don't have one.

I really wish the HOA attorney reviewed their new Rules & Regulations. Lots of stuff in there that is Board overreach and unenforceable.

I do not think you are being fair here. Assuming your condo was established after Oct 1, 1986 and so statute 47C applies, then for one thing, I believe this part of the statute is relevant here:

If more than one of the multiple owners are present, the votes allocated to that unit may be cast only in accordance with the agreement of a majority in interest of the multiple owners, unless the declaration or bylaws expressly provides otherwise.

-- Do the bylaws give the board the authority to amend the bylaws? Sometimes bylaws do give the board this authority.

-- Even if the bylaws do not give the board this authority, is the rule given in the first post reasonable at least for the purposes of satisfying the statutory "agreement" requirement above? I think such a rule is reasonable. Getting the "agreement" that the statute requires in writing is important. It helps minimize the chances of a legal challenge by a disgruntled co-owner. As well if no such written agreement is on file,could the HOA President be stuck with a disruption and refereeing a dispute among co-owners of a unit at the annual meeting (say)?

-- The rule is not perfect. But IMO it is far from abusive and bullying. I think those objecting to this rule are the ones who are far closer to being abusive and bullying.

-- With a caveat or two, I would rather have this rule than not have it.

<

There's the real reason that people aren't voting. The quorum is too high. Many HOAs and especially condo communities have trouble making quorum. It's worse in areas that have a lot of snowbirds or investor-owners. My community's quorum is 20%, and many years we would not have made it if we weren't allowed to use proxies.

Complaining about this new "rule" or whatever is ignoring the elephant in the room. The board should be amending the bylaws to something that actually allows the community to hold an annual meeting.

To return to Jeff's early NC state quotation, which ElleN copied: "§ 47C-3-110. Voting; proxies."

"(a) ..If more than one of the multiple owners are present, the votes allocated to that unit may be cast only...with the agreement of a majority ... of the multiple owners, unless the declaration or bylaws expressly provides otherwise. Majority agreement is conclusively presumed if ANY one of the multiple owners casts the votes allocated to that unit without protest ... by any of the other owners of the unit. [KL emph.]"

So far as we know, neither Pat's CC&Rs nor Bylaws say "otherwise" about THIS topic. If they do, Pat, please provide the exact wording. Even if they do, salutes clearly states, that ANY ONE of the owners may cast the vote.

The above, agreeing with Jeff, is common language in non-profit corp. state statutes. JohnC's first post here is of a divorcing couple who couldn't agree which one should vote. at the annual meeting. Illegal to have two votes by one home in this HOA, they ended up with none.

I think this line in the Board's "rule" also is UNreasonable and most likely conflicts with their documents, most likely their CC&Rs AND/or the Bylaws which probably do NOT say "otherwise.": "In order to vote on any matter placed before the unit owners at Cxxxxx..., a unit owned by more than one individual....must designate a single owner to vote on their behalf.."

With HOAs required to have membership lists and in some states, "Voter Lists," how could some random person vote at an election? Isn't each person with a ballot checked off of this official list??

Do any readers here have such a "rule" in your HOA? Certainly not mine. It should entirely oppose state statute. How is such a draconian rule, which will require an ill voter to show up at the meeting room and expose others, or one suddenly called away by an emergency, or sudden death, Or,? Or?--all of which would disenfranchise that unit OK?

And, again, Pat, did the Board even make this rule at a board meeting? And you've read the meeting minutes?

Would you might copying the Certification Form for us to see?

The Voter Certification was not discussed or voted on in the minutes.

Certification in it's entirety:

Important Notice to Homeowners
Dear Homeowners,
We hope this message finds you well. As part of our commitment to transparent and
effective governance within our community, we are reaching out to inform you of an
essential requirement regarding voting for units owned by more than one individual.

Voting Requirement for Condominiums with Multiple Owners:
In order to vote on any matter placed before the unit owners at C*****, a unit
owned by more than one individual or by a corporation or trust must designate a single
owner to vote on their behalf. The designated voter must be either listed as a co-owner on
the deed to the unit or an officer in the corporation in order to qualify as a designated voter.

Action Required:
We kindly request all homeowners who co-own condominium units to review the attached
voting certification carefully and complete it online. This step is crucial to ensure that your
vote is properly counted during all future HOA meetings and decisions.

Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Please note that if the voting certification is not completed and on file with the HOA, the
vote of such co-owners shall not be considered for any purpose.

How to Complete the Voting Certification:
1. Access the online portal
https://*******
2. Review the voting certification thoroughly.
3. Complete the certification by following the provided instructions.
4. Ensure that all co-owners sign the certification if applicable.
5. Submit the completed certification online.

Deadline:
To ensure smooth proceedings and accurate representation, we urge all affected
homeowners to complete the voting certification by Wednesday, July 31st, 2024.
Your cooperation in adhering to this requirement is vital for the fair and efficient
functioning of our community.
If you have any questions or require assistance with the certification process, please do
not hesitate to contact us at ******
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

C******* Association
VOTING CERTIFICATE

Instructions: in order to vote on any matter placed before the unit owners at C*******, a unit
owned by more than one individual or by a corporation or trust must designate a single owner to
vote on their behalf. The designated voter must be either listed as a co-owner on the deed to the
unit or an officer in the corporation in order to qualify as a designated voter. Please complete all
fields.
This is to certify that the undersigned, constituting all of the record owners of Unit No. _________ in
C******* Association, located at ______________________________ have designated:

Name: _______________________________________

Address: _____________________________________
as their authorized voter to cast votes on all matters that come before the C*******
Association, including elections and other decisions requiring a vote of the unit owners, until
further notice.
This designation revokes all prior voting certificates and shall remain valid until a new voting
certificate is submitted to the association.

Date: _________________

__________________________________________, Unit Owner

__________________________________________, Unit Owner

The OP and her co-owner daughter do not want to fill out any form. It is too much trouble.

1.
At the next meeting of owners where a vote is being held, the OP should show up by herself (meaning without her daughter).

She says she is casting the vote for her unit, pursuant to the aforementioned statute section. She explains that, when she shows up at the meeting by herself, without any other co-owners, she has the statutory right to cast a vote and have it count on behalf of her unit.

If the HOA refuses to let her cast a vote, then she has a lawsuit.

Until then, she has nothing.

2.
If the OP and her daughter both want to attend the meeting, but without filling out any form, then they should do so.

When the HOA confronts the OP and her daughter, pointing out that the form has not been completed, the two co-owners should say that the statute only requires agreement of the co-owners. Mom and daughter should state they hereby orally agree on their vote, and all these people are witnessing their oral agreement. Hence they should be allowed to cast a vote.

The HOA President responds: "Will you kindly put this agreement in writing? It's for liability reasons. The HOA does not want one co-owner denying the agreement down the road."

Mom and daughter say nope; the statute only requires an agreement between the co-owners. The statute does not require a //written// agreement.

The HOA President states, "Got it, but we are having an insurance problem lately. We may be damned if we do require the written agreement, and we may be damned if we do not. The Board will have to consider whether it will count your vote or not. I think it sets a bad precedent to allow your vote without a written agreement."

The OP and her daughter ask to be informed of the board's decision.

All this because the OP does not want to fill out a simple form that simply puts in writing an agreement she already has with her daughter.

So, yes, elle is back with her snide remarks. First she speculates that Pat is being "unfair." Then she scolds Pat for not having known to postpone ballot counting so that quorum could be met -- twice!

Finally, elle sneers: that Pat "... and her co-owner daughter do not want to fill out any form. It is too much trouble." WT...?

I saw this nowhere in Pat's post; if I missed it, please point it out, elle. Try this: Read Pats's fairly post on the nightmare new Board "making" some sort of "rule" that all owners MUST purchase & install storm doors on their units. Keep in mind, elle, that Pat already has a storm door. She feel it's unfair to her neighbors, and that the "rule" goes beyond the Board's authority in the CC&Rs.

Pat was on her Board for many years (maybe 8?) and from her solid posts, which also benefited readers here, over time worked very hard and seriously in the best interests of her community. She retired and has--I think-- said she's moving away. But her heart hurts with the dismantling of the previous Boards' efforts that the new Board is doing.

And for her troubles & concerns, elle hurls insults at her. As we can see, Pat quit the Forum today. I'll miss her and hope her remaining days in her HOA are tolerable.

I still don't t see, elle, where Pat wrote this is AT ALL about her & her daughter. Please point out.

What are your reasons, elle, by the way, to justify that the HOA to force all units that have multiple owners to choose one to vote? And why to do you think this Board can make such a rule without doing so in a board meeting? Meeting minutes are the ONLY official record of a board's decisions.

How, elle, can you argue that this phony rule has a "good reason behind it." What is that "reason?" Replies from anyone welcomed!

You mumble something about the Board mentioning "insurance" in your imaginary exchange between Pat & the Board. How could "insurance" be affected?

My concern is that every unit is able to vote -- no unit should be disenfranchised. But any number of things could happen to the designee named on the "certificate" on or near Election Day that keeps that designee, i.e., that unit, from voting.

I refer to Jeff's citation in my way above.:

"§ 47C-3-110. Voting..."

"(a) If only one of the multiple owners of a unit is present at a meeting of the association, HE IS ENTITLED to cast all the votes allocated to that unit. IF MORE THAN ONE of the multiple owners are present, the votes allocated to that unit may be cast only in accordance WITH THE AGREEMENT OF A MAJORITY ... OF THE MULTIPLE OWNERS unless the declaration or bylaws expressly provides otherwise. Majority AGREEMENT IS CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED if any ... of the multiple owners casts the votes allocated to that unit without protest being made...by any of the other owners of the unit."

The "agreement" referred to above does NOT mean written agreement, which is how elle seems to interpret it. Instead, it simply means ownrs concur. If they do not and ac tally raise a public fuss, the presider simply says "take it outside" as in the JohnC example. The prez has does not adjudicate!

My interpretation is that Owners among themselves agree on for whom to vote and who votes. So far as I've seen on this forum over many years, this is extremely common. I do think Pat could have provided some exact citations from her gov.docs, BUT I personally, given her good history on this forum, do NOT think she was lying when she insists docs allow any owners to vote to so long as there's only one vote per unit.

BUT a new inexperienced Board demands that each unit pick ONE unit owner. All other are disenfranchised. This opposes state law AND this HOA's CC&Rs & Bylaws, which so far as we can tell, do not state any "otherwise." More, this "rule," from what Pat wrote, was never approved in a Board meeting. It's not in HOA meeting minutes. how can it be legit at all? Pat also wrote she wished this Board has consulted with the HOA attorney.

Some here have written this rules has "good intentions"; the rule is "reasonable." I still have not seen any justification whatsoever or this rule and this disgusting form.

ElleN owes Pat an apology --who may still read these posts- for accusing her of being "unfair," and of being just being lazy re: her & her daughter and the form. Pat wrote NO such thing and such an accusation & insult is unfounded.