Releasing assessment receivables

I'm sure there will be lots of discussion following here on what level of specificity and/or owner identification should be disclosed .. ..

But my main question, is why don't you know if your information is 100% accurate. If you have any doubts, you're obligated to correct the situation and/or process that allowed such doubt to exist.

OK - so I feel better now

You're confident in the accuracy of known facts as of a certain date. That level of accuracy should be acceptable for any reviewer of the information.

I'll offer up one man's opinion, but take it as that .. ..

I believe the initial disclosure should not include individual owner identifiers (either name or address), but rather the response to the inquiries should show each delinquency case in a blinded fashion until the HOA would choose to take action that is a matter of public record (e.g. file a lien, foreclose a lien, file a lawsuit, etc).
At that point, I believe identified disclosure can be justified.

But as I started with .. .. just one man's humble opinion.

Others may differ

Your mileage may vary

I tend to agree with you. Releasing names might just cause a lot of friction. I'm going off line now but will check back this evening.

Ellen,

I would suggest only releasing the total dollar amount. You may want to indicate how much is 30, 60, 90 days past due and also if any liens have been placed. You can be as detailed as you wish, however, I don't believe names of delinquent prop. owners should be included. I regard this as a privacy issue. Even though a lien is public knowledge that doesn't mean YOU have to release the info. If the inquiring member wants to know who liens have been placed against they can look up the info themselves!

Members have a right to confidentiality when being disciplined (noticed for violation of non-payment of dues)

We list the address, but not the names. There could be some liability issues here. You are talking about a member who is not there to defend himself. What if one of the names is incorrectly listed?

Why do these members want to look at the actual names?

Peter,
I would say the Regime has the responsibility to post the names of any court action filed in the courthouse. Most organizations have in their documents a step like procedure to follow for non payment and when a lien should be filed. I would suggest that along with the names the reference of the court case # and where filed should be included.

Glen,
My first post of the day and may be grumpy.

I bow to any law that forbids the release of any of this information, and agree with you. I may be picking but if the information is available to Board members and they look at it, and a list is compiled, and a copy made, why then aren't the Board Members "nosy"? Actually all they need to know, is the amounts concerned (in arrears), they would not have to know (nosy) what units were involved, just amounts to unnamed units. I do agree that "nosy" people are a bother but have yet to be able to identify the "Nosy" from the right to know, in this case. Does the Board have the "authority" to know sensitive information? Yes. Does the Board have the authority to go into Executive Session? Yes. Are both "rights" abused? All the time but not by all organizations.

Just an observation having "Zip" importance.

Well John,
I can only speak from personal experience but we (and I expect nearly all) don't have 100% of the owners that have e-mail. Have never seen our website and have no obligation to do so. So, we can muck it up a little more by suggesting to those with the wherewithall to obtain this information at the court house, we are discriminating by not providing a paper notification to those not on internet. And if you do that, then you may as well make a list and send it to everyone by e-mail or snail mail if appropriate. That's a pretty good muck.

Robert when I wrote that California prohibited release I was relying on the summary provided on http://www.davis-stirling.com under Records not Subject to Review but after scanning the actual law section quoted (Civil Code §1365.2. Inspection of Books and Records) it actually says: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the association may withhold or redact information from the association records for any of the following reasons:(e)(ii) Records of disciplinary actions, collection activities, or payment plans of members other than the member requesting the records.

In the past there has been any number of posts about publicizing the names of delinquent H/O and the general consensus is that it is a bad idea. If the account is only a couple of months behind the opportunity for error exists; Robert Rogers account is delinquent but through simple posting error by a clerk making minimum wage Robert Rodgers (who always pays on time) has his payment credited to Robert Rogers and Rodgers account is marked delinquent. If you were Rodgers and it was announced to all your neighbors that you were a deadbeat, what would you do?

Once it gets to the lien/foreclosure status many Associations (not all) rely on an attorney to file these documents for the Association and IMO the attorney-client privilege now attaches to the file and the BOD who by necessity are party to this in that they act for the Association should not release the information.

I am a big believer in transparency and IMHO the more information that is available to the membership, the fewer nuisance problems the BOD will face. It makes it hard for the few people that make it their life's goal to sow seeds of dissension, to accuse the BOD of malfeasance when the information is readily available for any and all. But something's are not anyone's business except between the involved parties.

BTW: Any homeowner that attends our monthly BOD meeting is given a current Balance Sheet, an YTD statement on Profit & Loss Budget Performance and a list of delinquencies with the name and unit number redacted.