Texas POA plans to issue violation fines without direct authority in the CCR (AI analysis of CCR and situation)

Started by RogerJ1 • 3 replies • 12 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

RogerJ1 (Texas)
Posts: 552

Posted:

Hi everyone,

I’d love to get the forum’s perspective on a situation in our small (~50 members), self-managed Texas Property Owners Association (POA).

Our Board is planning to start issuing monetary fines for deed restriction and architectural violations based solely on a Board vote and resolution. The catch? Our CC&Rs do not contain an express clause granting the Board or ACC the power to levy administrative fines for deed restriction violations.

Instead, the Board is bootstrapping its authority from two specific references to the word "fine" found in our assessment collections section:

Article Six, Section 6.09(1): "A late fee of $50.00 or fine allowed by this Declaration may be assessed against any past due account."

Article Six, Section 6.09(6): "The Tract Owner will be responsible for all attorney's fees, fines, costs of collection, and interest accrued on the account due to the delinquency."

The Board argues that because the document mentions "fines" here, the CC&Rs "contemplate" fining, giving them implied authority to pass an administrative fine schedule for unapproved construction, setback issues, or maintenance violations.

I ran our CC&Rs through an AI legal analysis to test both sides of the argument and evaluate the risks. Here is a summary of what came back:

1. Does the Board have actual legal authority to fine?

AI Analysis: No. Texas Property Code § 209.0061(a) explicitly states that statutory fining rules apply only to associations "authorized by the association's dedicatory instrument to levy a fine." In Texas, real property restrictions are strictly construed. The exact quote in Section 6.09(1)—"or fine allowed by this Declaration"—is conditional boilerplate. Because no other section of the CC&Rs actually establishes or allows a violation fine, those references create no independent fining power. Remedies are limited to injunctions, self-help, and legal fee recovery unless the CC&Rs are formally amended by an owner vote.

2. What is the strongest "Pro-Board" argument, and what are its chances in court?

AI Analysis: The best argument for the Board relies on contract harmonization—arguing that under Texas contract law, courts must give meaning to every word so that "fine allowed by this Declaration" in Section 6.09(1) and "fines" in Section 6.09(6) aren't rendered meaningless surplusage. Combined with broad language in Article Two, Section 2.01 (allowing the Board to take "whatever action, in good faith... necessary") and Tex. Prop. Code § 204.010, the Board claims broad enforcement discretion.

Estimated Court Success Rate: 10% to 15%. A Texas judge would overwhelmingly view using a past-due assessment collection clause to justify administrative architectural/deed restriction fines as an unsupportable legal leap.

3. What is the personal liability and ultra vires risk to Board members?

AI Analysis: If the Board ignores a formal legal demand letter citing the lack of authority in the CC&Rs and Tex. Prop. Code § 209.0061(a), and persists in levying unauthorized fines, the legal baseline shifts from "mistaken judgment" to a knowing, bad-faith act (ultra vires). This opens the Board to:

Loss of statutory immunity and Business Judgment Rule protection.

Potential denial of D&O insurance coverage due to intentional/willful wrongful act exclusions.

Personal exposure for mandatory attorney fees under Tex. Prop. Code § 5.006 if an owner successfully sues to invalidate the fine policy.

Questions for the Forum:

Do you agree or disagree with this analysis? Has anyone in Texas dealt with a Board trying to bootstrap fining authority out of assessment collection language like Section 6.09?

How much weight do Texas courts typically give to board rulemaking powers under Tex. Prop. Code § 204.010 when the underlying CC&Rs are silent on fines?

If you were a board member in a self-managed POA, would this level of ultra vires risk push you to seek a formal CC&R amendment first, or would you take the chance?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences!

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,130

Posted:

I offer the following legal case, Samir Farran et al. v. Olde Belhaven Towne Owners' Association

see: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c22f257342cca657a0dafe8

I would have attached a copy of the 2010 ruling and opinion from the 19th Judicial Court of VA.

If you would like a pdf copy, email me: [email protected]

It is likely that your board is also exceeding their authority.

I suggest, once you have an understanding of the case, that you give the info to the Board and request that they seek a legal opinion.

You should mention that that case resulted in the Association going bankrupt and into receivership.

The other option is to seek your own legal opinion and, worst case, bring a case against the Association if they do fine you for something.

RogerJ1 (Texas)
Posts: 552

Posted:

Thank you TimB4. That is great. I might email you for the PDF. Thanks for the offer.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,130

Posted:

This is from the Courts opinion and ruling associated with the penalties:

The Farrans claim that Belhaven's enactment of the Penalties Resolution was ultra vires. An ultra vires act is an act "beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by a corporate charter or by law." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004). The ultra vires doctrine applies to corporate entities such as property owners associations. See Bennett v. Loudoun Valley Home Owner's AssJn., 73 Va. Cir. 466 (Loudoun Co. Cir. Ct. 2007) (overruling a demurrer to plaintiffs claim that defendant's acts were ultra vires). Furthermore, Va. Code 3 13.1-828 specifically allows a member of a non-stock corporation to challenge an action of the corporation as ultra vires.

Belhaven contends that Va. Code 3 55-513(B) of the Property Owner's Association Act ("POAA") expressly authorizes Belhaven to impose fines such as those included in the Penalties Resolution. Va. Code 3 55-513(B) provides in pertinent part:

The board of directors shall also have the power, to the extent the declaration or rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant thereto expressly so provide, to . . . assess charges against any member for any violation of the declaration or rules and regulations for which the member or his family members, tenants, guests, or other invitees are responsible. The Farrans argue that the POAA does not grant Belhaven the plenary authority it claims.1 Instead, the Farrans contend that this clause limits a board of directors' authority to impose fines; specifically, a board of directors cannot impose fines -unless an association's declaration expressly authorizes such action.

The Farrans point to Article XIII, § 3 of the Declaration and argue that the sole method to enforce the provisions of the Declaration or other rules and regulations is through a lawsuit.

Belhaven claims that the Farrans misconstrue the clause in Va. Code 3 55-513(B) because they ignore the conjunction "or." Belhaven asserts that Va. Code §55-513(B) creates two instances under which an association can impose fines. An association can impose fines (1) to the extent the declaration expressly provides for imposition of fines, or (2) to the extent rules and regulations duly adopted pursuant to the declaration provides for imposition of fines. Belhaven contends that this case falls into the second category because, pursuant to Article IX, § 1 of the Declaration, the Board has the power to formulate, publish, and enforce rules and regulations. According to Belhaven, the Penalties Resolution was enacted pursuant to that power.

Property owners associations and their members must abide by the corporation's governing documents. Virginia High Sch. League v. J. J. Kelly High Sch., 254 Va. 528, 531, 493 S.E.2d 362, 364 (1997). The governing documents constitute a contract collectively entered into by all the owners in the association. White v. Boundary Ass'n, Inc., 271 Va. 50, 55, 624 S.E.2d 5, 8 (2006). As such, effect must be given to the intention of the parties. Foti v. Cook, 220 Va. 800, 805,263 S.E.2d 430, 433 (1980). Importantly, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the omission of a particular covenant or term from a contract reduced to writing shows an intent to exclude it. First Nat'l Bank v. Roy N. Ford Co., 219 Va. 942, 946, 252 S.E.2d 354, 357 (1979).

Although Va. Code § 55-513(B) does grant property owners associations authority to impose fines in certain circumstances, that authority is limited to situations where an association's declaration expressly allows it to impose fines or its declaration expressly allows it to adopt rules or regulations which impose fines. Neither situation applies here. In this case, the omission of a provision allowing Belhaven to impose fines as a method of enforcement shows an intent to exclude.

Article XIII, 5 3 of the Declaration provides the only methods of enforcement: a proceeding at law or in equity. Nothing in Va. Code § 55-513(B) gives Belhaven authority to exceed the power granted to it in its governing documents. As a result, the Court concludes that the Farrans have sufficiently pled that Belhaven's enactment of the Penalties Resolution was ultra vires.

The demurrer is overruled as to the Penalties Resolution.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here