HOA Rules after purchase

Hello
We bought a condo in March of 2018. We have made no changes to the outside of the unit. We received a notice of violation that the front door is not in compliance with the rules. We bought the unit with the front door on it. Its been over 6 years that we owned it, and no one told us anything about a violation until now. If its against the rules, why didnt they take it up with the prior owners? Why has it taken them over 6 years to complain about the door. Since I bought the unit like this, do I have to replace the door as they are telling me to do?

I'm assuming that your governing documents state that the door is part of the unit. It's worth verifying. It sounds like there may be a new/inexperienced board, and newbies get this stuff wrong. If the door is defined as a common element (which it's probably not), then you'd be off the hook.

Questions:

* Have they explained why the door is in violation, including quoting the relevant restriction or rule?

* What do they want you to do about it: paint the door, replace it, other? Have they provided any guidance about what a compliant door looks like?

* When you closed on your home, did the association provide an estoppel letter stating that there were no outstanding issues with your condo? And did you keep a copy of this document?

* Do Arizona condo laws impose a time limit after which an association can no longer require an owner to correct a violation?

If we get some answers, we'll be able to provide less general advice.

I'm in a different state, but our association attorney stated that the association can require an owner to correct an issue left by a previous owner. Buyers are responsible for understanding what they're buying. Given that, the estoppel letter overrides this. If the association has said in writing that there were no issues when you bought the home, they can't resurrect them now.

Personal opinion: if it's just a matter of painting the door, I'd probably go ahead and do it. Why? Because if you decide to fight this, you can easily spend a lot more than the cost of paint - and you may lose and still need to paint the door. Replacing the door is a different issue.

I see that they're telling you to replace the door. I read right past that the first time.

At any rate, if you didn't receive an estoppel letter or you lost it, I'd still be looking at this as a financial decision. Which is cheaper: replacing the door or hiring an attorney? It may be worth paying for a couple hours of an attorney's time just to see if what your chances are of fighting it. But disputes like this can easily blow up into time-consuming and expensive efforts. When people are upset over something that seems unfair, they can be so focused on winning that they forget about the price attached. Sometimes it's really in someone's best interest to hold their nose and pick the cheaper option.

They are wanting us to replace it, not paint it. The only thing I can find in the CC&R is it says that the security door can be replaced without board approval. As long as they are the same type and color of the other ones on the property. The letter they sent says front door, but the picture they took shows the security door.
The closing documents only say that a 2 month pre-payment was required for the HOA, and we also received a welcome letter that states that there was no current pending violations at the time of purchase.

Your violation letter should state whether there's an appeals process- file the appeal and bring that letter stating there were no violations at the time you purchased the condo. That letter may have been sent in error. Take a look at both doors - are they looking worse for wear (e.g. faded or chipped paint? Rust on the security door?)

Since you've been here six years, had there been any discussion about updating design standards regarding doors? You might want to check the minutes starting with the last two or three years worth. If the standards were changed, there should have been some sort of grace period giving homeowners a chance to fix the doors before sending out letters (-it's not legally required in many cases, but it is common courtesy.) It may be you didn't get the letter or something else happened.

This thread brings up something I've pondered in the past: can a rule or CC&R change create retroactive violations? If something was perfectly legal previously, does it become a violation if something in the governing docs changes?

I vaguely remember our attorney saying no, but I may be mis-remembering. At the very least it should mean grandfathering things until they were due to be replaced, which is an added administrative and record-keeping burden - something boards and community managers don't need.

Personally, I have an issue with anything beyond cosmetic changes that involve minimal expense and that don't have a hard deadline. For example: the board approves new front door colors in a condo community and tells the community that when they paint their front doors they need to choose one of the new colors. My only objection would be to the hodgepodge you've have during the prolonged transition period, because it can be plug-ugly and hurt curb appeal. But nobody would have to spend any extra money because of the change.

Anything that would involve significant expense is questionable in my mind. The need for the change should justify the expense and inconvenience: for example, a change to building codes or insurance standards. So a costly but purely cosmetic change would be off the table unless homeowners are given a say.

There's also a pragmatic reason for looking at it this way: the bigger the expense, the more likely that homeowners would fight it legally. That would result in unplanned legal expenses. So, using my metric of greater cost requiring a higher level of need to justify it, anything that results in homeowners fighting back should probably take optional amendments or rule changes off the table.

Finally, I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change - boards have too many real problems to deal with. So my previous example of the unnecessary change to front door colors, while not causing any added expense, is a waste of time and brain cells at best.

Has a new board come into power? This is odd, though not unheard of. Make sure the door is indeed your responsibility and not the association's. If you are in violation of something, you'll have to consider if it's worth it to fight the board, or pay to replace the door.

No not a new association, but a new HOA management company.
The document that says no violations at the time of the close of the sale (this document cost me $400.00 in the breakdown of the closing costs) came from the HOA Property Management Company.I actually had to pay for this document, shouldnt there be some common ground that I should be able to rely on this document?
I attached a snip screenshot of the document below

I think, SusanA, you rec'd advice about this welcome letter above??

Agree with Cathy. and it's important to remember that it will be the Board that decides NOT the poroperty mgr.

That's unfortunate. It's true that boards can change previous board's decisions. For example, they can change rules and regulations. They can change approved community colors.

But they're applying this rule of thumb in situations where it doesn't apply. This wasn't a decision, it was a mistake on the board's part. Even if they had changed something like the style or color of the door, this doesn't remove the association's obligations with estoppel letters.

And even if we were dealing with something like a change in approved colors, the change only applies to actions going forward. For example, anyone who wants to paint their door needs to choose one of the new colors. But the board can't force the entire community to paint their doors, claiming that everyone is now in violation of the new standards.

So, the board can't retroactively invalidate a legal document or create a violation that did not exist prior to the rule change. Even if the door was not compliant at the date of sale, the association lost its right to enforce this when they failed to disclose that prior to the sale.

I think the board needs a wake up call from an attorney. I don't believe in running for a lawyer every time the board gets something wrong. But this is a bigger issue, especially if they're doing this to other buyers. The association is asking for a lawsuit, and it could cost everyone money if they don't stop.

On the other hand, if you decide that it would be cheaper to just do what the board wants, I wouldn't blame you. You should do what's best for you.