Seeing homeowner's violations

This really applies to Arizona only, however it might be food for thought for others.

In Arizona, there is a legal system set up just for homeowners to sue their HOAs. It is a type of court system, but the judges do not have to have the same legal background, nor do the same rules apply. Basically you file a suit and pay either $550 for one complaint or $2000 for multiple complaints. Each side can present their case in the same way as a trial. Usually lawyers are involved, especially if they want to win. The judge listens and renders a decision. I am not sure what the appeal process is, if any.

A question seems to come up many times, if or example I see a home across the street that seems to be in violation of the rules. I would really like to know if the homeowner has ever been fined and just ignoring the fines or they have never even been given any notification of the problem. In Arizona, the law generally states that the association must provide all records about any homeowner except for:

"Personal, health or financial records of an individual member of the association, an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor for the association, including records of the association directly related to the personal, health or financial information about an individual member of the association, an individual employee of the association or an individual employee of a contractor for the association."

I would have been told that violation letters to the homeowner fall under this classification and thus the association is not allowed to give out such information.

A case recently came before this court and the judge stated that this idea was no correct. I have the entire legal judgement and you can read it for yourself if you want. It really turns the concept upside down and provides the homeowner like myself the ability to see what is really going on with the neighbors where I think things are being corrected.

There are a bunch of caveats in using this decision. I am not even sure if it can be used in another case in this court, but it is interesting. Just thought people would like to know.

IMO, i would say that personal financial records or information refers to bank accounts, assets, ownership records, etc.. The types of things banks don't give out without warrants, for example. Your debts and obligations are a trickier subject, as there are some privacy concerns there, however, the fact that you owe money isn't a protected bit of information to the company you owe it to, nor their shareholders.

In this case, i bet the "judge" (who is really a state sponsored mediator) is saying that the fact that an owner owes money to the association is not protected: that's a business record, just like any other company, vendor, etc.. The letters sent to notify or collect on a debt are also not protected to the view of SHAREHOLDERS in the Company (and paid owners are shareholders in a business corporation). The HOA couldn't publish this stuff to the general public, but I doubt that many privacy rules will apply to what is essentially an internal audit within a company.

That's my opinion of the judge's opinion, and to be safe, if I were asked to provide complete disclosure to one homeowner about another homeowner, i would fall back on the one item that is required by law: our business records and books are open for inspection to all homeowners. I would show them my business documents, my meeting minutes, etc.. There should be more than enough inside those documents for any homeowner interested to find out who is behind, who has had letters of violation sent, etc..

Unfortunately, AB3, it doesn't matter if you don't find the color offensive or if the homeowners might not have the time/money/ability to fix the paint color.

The CC&Rs don't give waiver to items that some people might find "petty" or just not important.

If it is in the CC&Rs, it should be enforced, regardless of one homeowner's, or many homeowners', opinion about the "pettiness" of the restriction.

If it truly is something that should be a non-issue, then care enough about the overall integrity of your governing documents to get the restriction removed or changed.

Don't set up a justification or watered-down rationale for just plain ignoring it.

That you "pick your battles" doesn't apply to the CC&Rs.

If it is in the CC&Rs, it should be enforced. Period.

They way to "pick" that battle, again, is to simply get the useless and/or unenforceable restriction changed.

Unfortunately you give the impression that the HOA posts the information about the violators on the referenced web site. However, the web site you give is an anonymous diatribe of issues you have with your board. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Gerald, you beat me to the punch (no pun intended). I saw exactly the same relationship between lot 8 owner and the website.

I just noticed the number of grammatical errors on the website. Also I thought the minutes were "creative" at best. I would not point to either example as a model for anything!

But we digress.

I think that might have been a typo. I read the document and it said the "agenda" was on the back of the ballot, since that was what he was saying was making the meeting "illegal" -- that there was no "agenda," yet it was on the back of the ballot.

I have to say, that site is atrocious. It's a good thing nobody but us reads it! LOL.

MicheleD - My bad, I read it too quickly and misstated. The Lot #8 was told the agenda was on back of the budget, not on back of the ballot. Nix that as an impropriety I guess. More of just "turning the page" over which is what I think WardellD and Lot #8 needs to do more of.

Just a quick question, if the homeowner did paint his house the wrong color at what point could the HOA not be able to change it? I guess my question is how long does the BOD have to catch and correct a painting error like that before it's too late? Sorry to get off the actual subject of the post.

In my former HOA, the board had until the last piece of applied paint had dried. After that, we could do nothing. AS stated just before my post, it all depends on your rules, state, regs, etc...

You are mistaken if you think my editorial comment regarding that site was about whether or not it had grammatical or spelling errors, or what color the background was.

It is an atrocious compilation of spewtrid. Yes. I did just make that word up.

The "facts" this person is alleging are suspect and his comments border on defamatory. Whatever valid issues he may or may not have are diluted by his over-the-top venom and bias.

So, yes, it is atrocious.

However, I do like the color.

This is our web site http://www.cp2hoa-info.com me and some other homeowners and we are trying to get this board to comply to the RCW. When we go to the meetings we are attacted by the board members Lot: 39 attacted lot 8. and lot 8 puched him back. Lot 39 is a board member and they control the minutes.

http://www.cp2hoa-info.com/

Wardell

MicheleD;

Thank you for asking about my health, and to answer your question my health is just fine and I hope this reply finds you in the best of health as well. As for you getting into a contest with me, yes it would be pointless and a waste of my time so I would suggest you go find another tree to piss on...........

wardell

I'm gonna pick at what GeraldT4 apparently considers a nit: _SMALL_ JUSTIFICATION.
The nerve.
Who gets to decide when a homeowners complaint is SMALL?
Who gets to decide when a homeowners complaint is not worth taking into account? W
ho gets to decide when a homeowners complaint is not worth the board's time?

How dare you!

One of the biggest problems of OUR board is that homeowners have brought SMALL complaints to them, one at a time, over the years, and nothing is ever done about them. Now we have 8-10 people with this tiny complaint, 12-22 people with that tiny complaint, 5-15 people with another tiny complaint. Our boards constant, consistant response has been no, go away, you don't count. And then concerted ignor--ance of the person and the complaint. And away goes the unhappy homeowner(s)not to be heard from again. What can one person with no voice do against the king?

That attitude absolutely appalls me. Shame on you, and everyone else who thinks that way. Get off the board if your ego is so big you can't see the distress of others and if you arent' there to help anyone except yourself and your cronies.

"And away goes the unhappy homeowner(s)not to be heard from again." While many here complain about member apathy, some boards deliberately encourage it.