Judge sides with Cherry Creek owners over HOA

This case was not about covenant violations, although that was the proximate cause. There were personal issues here on both sides that clearly got out of control, as the judge noted.

The record shows that homeowners were clearly violating deed restrictions. It also shows that the board was abusing its power. It has become a costly lesson for all sides. "Innocent" residents were caught up in the board's arrogant quest for retribution.

It demonstrates what can happen when there are inadequate, accessible checks and balances on the power of a board. It may also be the perfect example of the Abilene Paradox in action.

It also fits the axiom, all power corrupts . . .

We cannot, and should not, rely on an idealized concept of democracy to provide those checks and balances. It does not work in our constitutional form of government, nor does it work in a private, pseudo government by contract.

In their homes, most people seek respite, peace and quiet. That leads to a desire to be left alone, and a desire to not get involved in disputes or in regulating the behavior of others. That is one reason behind low turnouts in association elections and participation in the affairs of associations.

People want to avoid controversy. People will long suffer much indignity and abuse before acting.

It is also one reason why board participation tends to attract people who wish to control the lives of others. Not all board members are attracted for that reason. Yet, for some, board participation is an outlet for their need to control, regulate and dictate. And those people are able use low turnout and the lack of adequate checks and balances to enhance their power.

The best boards are characterized by commitment to servant leadership and conduct their work though a strategy of policy governance.

Why does the people who tried to have the board ousted have to reimburse for the expense of the overthrow?

Isn't each members right to call for a special meeting of members for the purposes of community issues? Isn't their right to go around and lobby for things that they wish to see in the community, including calling for the dismissal of BOD members if they do not agree with them?

What if I wanted the sidewalks repaired because they are all cracked up and the board does nothing. Do I have to pay the cost holding a special meeting to try and get a special assessment enacted so that the sidewalk can be replaced?

To all,
It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to not abide by Roger's advice. I think the issues involved are minimal in nature as opposed to the Board suing an owner, to me that is major and I believe the judge should rule on the issue of whether the case should have be resolved outside the courts.
We have all been mad enough to sue the Board and the President (the really Mr. President)(not about the same things, of course), but we don't and time passes and just like a husband and wife spat, two weeks down the road the issue is forgotten, by most people. By it takes a lot of folks to get together, plan and scheme and spend money that don't belong to them for the BOD to sue an owner. If they have to do it I quess they have to do it, it is what is is, but it is also costly, and likely to appear folish at the end.