Lying to the Board

We have an owner who met with the Board and lied saying she would replace her deck EXACTLY the way it was before. The Board said if it was a duplicate there would be no need of an ok by the Arc. Now she has built a deck which obstructs a view of the lake by adjoining neighbors. Not only that, but she has placed high planters on each side of her deck further incringing on the view from her adjcent neighbors.
While we don't have the means I think the only solution is to employ an attorney to put her on notice. We have a $20,000 lien on another owner so we thought this would make other owners sit up and take notice. But I think she believes she is immune. Do you think a letter from an attorney would work or what do you suggest?

not sure about all states, but in many, there is nothing confidential about a lien. it is recorded with the county recorder, and is a matter of public record.

with that exception, i think the advice given is pretty good... approach the situation friendly, and professionally. start with a letter outlining what was agreed to, and why you don't believe it occured, then state what the board wants to happen.

One has to be very careful when accusing another of "lying." A lie is an intention to deceive. To prove that this person lied, you would have to have direct evidence that this person knew, when she said the deck would be "exactly" the same as the original, that she intended that it be otherwise. If she meant what she said, but later changed her mind, she did not "lie" to the board. However, she should have remembered the conditions and have gone back to the board to seek permission for the change.

There is also the question of the interpretation of the words "exact" or "exactly." Some may consider minor deviations to be acceptablem (ie, the old deck used 2x6 lumber for the deck floor, the new deck uses 2x8 lumber). Others may interpret it to be no deviations whatsoever, down to the last detail.

Then, there is the question of the difference between what, exactly, was SAID, and what was HEARD. Sometimes, people hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is being said.

That's the problem with verbal agreements. Everything should be in writing. She should still have been required to submit the plans for the replacement deck, in writing, to the ARC for approval. She could then be held accountable for any deviation from the approved plans.

Minutes show it wa agreed by the owner and the board that the deck would be identical. And, yes, we do have before pictures as well as after.

IreneC,

Unfortunately, ignorance is frequently used as a defense, far too often and now that I’m a board member, I’m fortunate (sarcasm) enough to deal with it on a more regular basis. The over-all lack of knowledge has become far too lax, especially in association living, society has made this “ignorance” acceptable, without consequences. Regardless, of the misinterpretation/misunderstanding HO should be accountable for their actions. PERIOD, NO EXCUSES! (Previously history/action will weigh in heavily upon the boards decision to act)

I feel that a violation notice should be mailed, first and foremost, from “name of association” to the HO, stating the violation and provide a list of approved architectural changes without written request. i.e- community standard/ARC guidelines (if you have any). Notify the HO, that she has been found in violation of these community standards and is encourage to act promptly (site covenant), to avoid legal expense. Furthermore, the expenses incurred WILL BE assessed to her account (make very clear) if the violation isn’t corrected within (specific days stated in your governing documents)

Thank her in advance for her cooperation and specifically state what she would need to do in order to be found in compliance. Enclose an ARC for her changes, deny or approved the changes according to your governing documents. That way you will appear to be sympathetic to her current situation.

Then if that doesn’t get her to comply, send the account to the attorney, and follow-through. Much more aggressive (from the attorney) perhaps (if your state or governing documents allow) you could impose self-help, if the violation observed isn’t correct within such and such days of the date on that notice.

Attempt to be civil, if that doesn’t work, “pull out the big guns”

Best of luck and keep us posted.

Chuck W.

Donna,

You are so right. We had two weak board members who just caved. The owner did provide an ARC form. We have townhomes with five units adjoining and our docs require that a majority of those five units sign their ok as well as the ARC being approved. The owner could get only one to ok the deck. This owner later said she only signed because the owner told her everyone else had ok'd it. The properties look out on a lake so the high planters on each side of the deck obstruct their view of the lake. The planters are portable so she will be notified to remove these. Whether she does or does not remains to be seen. We have a new board now (with a couple of old ones remaining) and I, for one, will insist on everything in writing. I look on this as a learning experience and now we may have a mess on our hands.

Ellen - tell her EXACTLY what has to be done: lower rail 4", remove side flower boxes; etc. etc.

Then pray that you can come up with a compromise before the feathers start to fly. This will be a slippery slope for others to use, in the future.

Also - in the future, EVERYTHING submitted for approval, as according to plans to the Board for pre-approval.

hoatalk,

Let's hope so. I guess all we can do is for our MC to senbd a letter with specifics and if no response an attorney letter.

Does your HOA require that my planters follow some quoted quidelines somewhere?

I'm sorry, but I find this offensively intrusive and controlling.

Tough **** that the others can't see over her planters!

Seriously, if you contacted me and tried to get me to remove PORTABLE planters, not permanent structures that would require some sort of arch approval, I would tell your board to go jump in the HOA lake.

I have no idea what the variance of the deck is to the others. I have no idea why or even if it truly is "higher" or if it's just the railings, or what.

Those would have to come into whatever compliance is required, whether she had a verbal okay to "replace exactly" or a written okay to "replace exactly."

Since the verbal okay was not a carte blanch for whatever style she wanted, then yes, she would still have to come into compliance with the VERBAL okay as though it were a written one.

But you are spinning your wheels piling on over the planters.

I'm sorry. I would have to fight it. The planters thing.

I would have to see the authority for restricting planters.

It may be there, but I'd have to see it before I would agree to it.

MicheleD,

I doubt if you lived adjacent to this owner you would think we were intrusive and controlling. These planters are 3 feet wide and 6 feet tall and she has three planters on both sides of the deck that abut the other two owners. Our docs are very clear that this is not allowed which I am certain the owner knows since she has been here for aprox 7 years.

6 foot tall and 3 feet wide each, times three.....they sound more like screens.

OK if she got a building permit then it probably was built to code but are the ones around it? How specifically is it different from the one it replaced? Is it longer, wider, or taller, are the steps or railings in a different place?

And while your documents may require the neighbors to sign off on the replacement, if the deck being replaced was structurally unsound and a danger I don't see that particular restriction standing up in court. I can see the headlines now: Unsafe deck collapses injuring four, neighbors said they knew it was unsafe but didn't like the homeowner so they wouldn't let her replace it.

OK. Forget the views. The deck that has been replaced does not meet the requirements of the HOA and the planters are definitely not allowed and another member was notified to remove their and did. The deck was approved by the board IF it was a duplicate of the deck being replaced. The owner and her contractor assured the board the deck would be identical then just did their own thing. The deck is to conform to the decks on either side. I am amazed that Michelle says the planters don't appear to be in violation of our docs. She has no idea what our docs contain and shame on you for jumping to conclusions.

div class="NTForums_Quote">Posted By EllenS1 on 05/27/2008 9:11 PM


OK. Forget the views. The deck that has been replaced does not meet the requirements of the HOA and the planters are definitely not allowed and another member was notified to remove their and did. The deck was approved by the board IF it was a duplicate of the deck being replaced. The owner and her contractor assured the board the deck would be identical then just did their own thing. The deck is to conform to the decks on either side. I am amazed that Michelle says the planters don't appear to be in violation of our docs. She has no idea what our docs contain and shame on you for jumping to conclusions.