Responding to those who simply want to kick the can down the road.

Does a Board majority continue to believe this is the proper way to interpret the covenants (section 12 in particular)? Is the HOA attorney immovable on an argument that section 12 should be interpreted differently (and if someone does not like it, they can spend the money and go to court)?

Is the HOA attorney immovable on the following appraoch?

I am thinking an approach not unlike the approach your former HOA took is worthwhile here, but with a bit more honesty. For example: Tell folks that courts are divided on how to interpret section 12. The latter is a fact. Tell folks there is no way to guarantee what a court would say. But for the good of the HOA, the board is asking folks to enact these amendments now. Then get as much buy-in and then votes as possible. Pass the amendments, including an amendment to section 12 to add clarity and to make the amendments effective immediately.

Next I might be researching how many years would need to pass before people lose a right to challenge an amendment to CC&Rs, per Tn case law and/or statute.

History on this matter appears at https://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/forumid/1/postid/356874/view/topic/Default.aspx

Cathy, good ideas. However, as a reminder, we have zero common areas and zero common amenities.
The only things we take care of are two entrance monuments on private property with easement agreements in place.

Our biggest expense is insurance.
Our total budget is $4,150

The governing documents doesn't allow for increases or special assessments.

Per one of the comments (that summarizes all of them): "Who knows what things are going to be like in seven years!!! My viewpoint is, let’s all live in harmony until the seven years are up and then decide what is best for all of us".

It's a valid point.
It can also have major repercussions in the future if our insurance doubled (like others have) or we have legal challenges.

It's true you don't know what will happen in the future - which is why you try to prepare as best you can. These aren't the 10 commandments - as the community evolves and people move in and out (or die and someone buys the property), changes should be expected because homeowners 7 years from now may have different priorities than today's homeowners. For example, people may be cool with little or no rules enforcement because most of the homeowners take the time to keep their homes in good order. Seven years from now (and sometimes less) may bring in people who think the rules apply to everyone else but them, and you wind up with junk cars all over the neighborhood, raves in the street at 3 am, or a community where half of the owners don't pay assessments because they don't wanna - but there are no mechanisms to hold them accountable.

For the folks who think you don't have to address things until they happen, remind them that time and circumstance do what they do, and they don't give a damn about your ability or willingness to put off addressing the problem. Better to have plans in place so you can avoid hurry and indecision than having to be forced to make a move quickly because you no longer have a choice. Consider one's health - it's a lot easier to do things like stop smoking (or not starting) when you're young, than decide or be forced to do it when you're middle aged and have been told you have COPD that's so severe, you'll need portable oxygen for the rest of your life. And what do you do if there's a natural disaster - Hurricane Beryl just went through, starting with Mexico and Jamaica. Do you think it considered waiting until the people were better equipped to take precautions, especially it may escalate quickly or peter out by the time it hits the beach?

There are probably other things you can say depending on what else these folks come up with (or not). If they start repeating themselves (and they will), you may have to remind them politely that they just said all that - is there ANOTHER reason they think this should be put off? What are they really concerned about - there are always underlying reasons why people hesitate, and if you can determine what's most bugging people, you may be able to develop ways to address it. Perhaps you can start with smaller changes and work your way up.

Last year when we had no board, I made it my mission to scare the cookies out of my neighbors. At the special meeting to try to elect a board, I spelled out what receivership would mean to us: sharp rise in assessments, no say in how the community was run, and we'd have to petition the court to terminate the receivership - they wouldn't automatically turn us loose when we cried "uncle". I invited attendees to imagine what this would mean for them personally.

It worked like a charm.

Many people aren't good at imagining how abstract concepts translate to their daily lives. You have to spell it out for them in concrete details. Your neighbors think they can just live carefree "harmonious" lives until something happens to disturb their peace. Tell them what's happening beneath the surface, right now, what's lurking out of sight, what happens when they knock a hole in the bottom of the boat and they'd neglected to bring along life vests. Ironically the biggest threat to harmony is financial difficulty, as many couples have discovered. The neighbors want to take steps that will damage the thing they claim to value the most. Spell it out for them.

project inflation 7 years into the futuer to show that the HOA will not be in a good position without dues going up.

Also state that changes often take multiple votes to pass and the HOA is trying to be more democratic.

you are doing your patriotic duty to make sure everyones voice is heard. it would be unpatriotic to not get input. blach blah blah.

I'm jealous of your $4150 annual budget. Ours is a few grand more, but we have a park and 1/4 acre front entrance.

I thank everyone for their thoughtful answers.

They help.

I am going to butt in here and say that yes, this is mentioned in the CCRs, but it's a matter of interpretation. Five states' courts (in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado) court see it the way TimB4 indicated in the first post herein. Two states' courts (Alabama and North Carolina) say clauses like that in TimB4's HOA's CCRs do //not// restrict when amendments can be made.

I continue to think his HOA should go with Alabama's and NC's interpretation and then let the chips fall where they may. Why? Because the situation is somewhat dire, in my opinion.

Though at least there is very little that can 'break' at this HOA.