Why don't any bylaws address receivership?

Probably because receivership is a legal process that is governed by other laws, and it really isn't part of normal HOA governance. The governance has been taken out of the HOA's hands at that point and is in the hands of the court (via a hired professional with the expertise to perform the functions normally performed by the board).

There are plenty of legal processes that aren't addressed in the bylaws: for example, collections, foreclosure, and lawsuits. The governing documents may mention these things - eg. our bylaws state that the board is required to foreclose for non-payment of assessments - but they don't spell out any of the steps involved. The details are addressed elsewhere.

I agree it may be helpful if the membership was ore aware of what they are risking when they ignore board elections or think they should be able to abuse board members without repercussions.

I should mention that mass resignation of the board isn't the only thing that can result in receivership. Anything that makes an HOA unable to govern itself can push it into receivership. The problems don't have to be created by the owners.

Do you want to share what you are up to? I am thinking no, but I thought I would ask, anyway.

Coincidentally this question has come up at the HOA of a friend recently. No one ran for election at the June annual meeting. The incumbent directors stated their intention to quit next week. The HOA is facing two serious legal threats. The latter is why no one wants to be on the board. (The owners have not figured out that, if the dispute continues on its merry way to court, they all get associated with a lawsuit.) The HOA does have an attorney. My friend is proposing that the board now consist of all 30 owners as opposed to going into receivership. Yes, a 30-seat board. By my reading her HOA's bylaws and her state's statutes allow this. Quorum is set as a majority of the seats. At present I think this is do-able and shows some wisdom in an extreme (and extremely volatile) situation. Four attorneys (all representing somewhat varying sides, but all working on the same dispute) are involved so far. No one on the HOA side (including the HOA attorney, by all appearances) has figured out that the magic word is "settlement" yet. I figure the word is burning a hole in the brains of the other three attorneys. No one is blinking (unless it is behind closed doors).

This is a legal mine field, in my opinion. If you want to know why, ask.

I continue to feel the last board member should quit and //then//, if he/she wants to, petition a court.

Just rewriting the bylaws and thinking if I should add something about receivership due to nothing getting done this year because of 2 other board members missing meetings, or saying stuff like maybe i should quit or the HOA shoudl be dissolved when they dont' get their way.

Thinking of adding emergecy clause where if a single board member is left they can at least pay insurance. HOA laws sure are vague about what should be done when there is one board member and no volunteers.

I did a quick search and it may be you need some sort of dissolution clause in the bylaws. Here's one article on the subject: https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/dissolving-nonprofit-corporation

I'm thinking this would follow receivership, which should be a last ditch effort for the association to get its act together. You've read other conversations about receivership, so we don't have to go over that. A detailed policy adopted with a board resolution should be enough - and then pray you never need to take that step.

Having said all that, there are some things that concern me. You said the other board members have missed meetings and are muttering about you stepping down or just dissolving the association if they dont get their way. How involved have they been in the bylaw rewrite? I know you've done a lot to turn the community around, but it looks like there's a lack of communication.

I don't know if they're lazy, don't understand the process, don't want to approve careful thought because legal stuff is scary, or feel you're pressuring the community into doing stuff they really don't want to do (thus the crack about you resigning). Maybe it's all that and more.

It might be time for an executive session where everyone can put everything on the table and these guys can decide if they really want to be on the board. If so, they'll have to buckle down and work on something. If they can't or don't want to, they could look for their replacement. Meanwhile, listen carefully to what thet have to say. If you're not involving them as much as you should and encouraging their d ugg3stions, that could explain the recent pouting.

you have a right to be concerned. one board member has showed up for zero meetings this year and will be kicked out once we get her replacement.

Other member hasnt' even read governing documents and doesn't want to do anything , except oppose what the community voted on last meeting. For example she's against crediting the $6000 excess funds we will have this year back to the residents even though our reserve study says we are 400% over funded and 60% the members voted to return excess funds to themselves at last meeting.

Pretty sure she will quit this December when the members vote against her $45K tennis court pet project.

I'm just gonna mail out the ballot and see how members vote on the changes and after i get feeedback re-group and re-strategize.

NC 47F planned community act says minimum 3 directors are required and if there are 2 left they can appoint a 3rd. If there is only one left then the only option is to call a special meeting of membership to appoint a new director.

When we found ourselves without a board last year and prior to the special meeting to do something about it, I spent my time scaring my neighbors about what was coming if they persisted with this foolishness. Long story short, a dramatic increase in assessments and no say in how the community is run. There would be secondary effects, too - these include the inability to finance a mortgage, inability to sell their home to anyone besides cash buyers, and a drop in property values.

At the special meeting, we had eight enthusiastic volunteers who wanted to serve on the board.

In Wendy's case, she should talk to a lawyer. A lawyer should be involved anyway because you want a professional to write legal documents - otherwise the new bylaws may well be unenforceable and will set the stage for future litigation.

I also think that an article about receivership is appropriate for the community newsletter. The community needs a wake up call.

Should wedding vows included divorce grounds?