Foreclosed - vacant property

There is a house in our neighborhood that we have been told is in forclosure.
The house has not been lived in for a year now. The lender has done nothing, not even a for sale sign in front. The lender will not talk to anyone in regards to this property. The house is falling apart. The grass is being cut by an elderly resident living beside it. The board is sending annual dues statements to the lender but refuses to have the HOA landscaper take care of the property & then send the invoice as well as the dues statement for the upkeep of said property.

The residents having the grass cut are elderly & not by any means rich.
The bushes are terribly overgrown, there are weeds in the flower beds & cracks of the driveway. The trim on the windows & doors are coming apart, not to mention the brick is craking over the garage.

My question is....doesn't the HOA board have any obligation in helping in the upkeep of this property. This surely does not help with the property values & we really don't need any more help in making the values go down any more than they already have. Just trying to find some help. Thank you

Our Doc's say that the board is to act in the best interest of the neighborhood.
Other than that unless something is specifically spelt out our board won't do it.
There is nothing in them addressing homeowners landscaping other than the hieght & position of a fence

I agree with you. The problem is that no body here wants to stand up or confront the board because they have seen what happens to those that have tried.
As someone else said "We don't want to make waves"
We have tried to get new blood to run for the board but no one wants to do that either because of the problems that this board has created over the last year.

Brian,

I agree there is no obligation. It's a judgment call.

But based on Bijoux's last post, all seems to be fraught with naught.

Bijoux,

I do NOT agree with John and Brian that the board has no obligation to enforce the CCRs. Whether or not they do really depends upon the exact wording of your CCRs. If the CCRs state, the board has a "DUTY" to enforce then they must do so. There is case law in AZ attesting to this.

The board should be sending violations notices to the lender. Before they perform any work on the property they should first notify the lender to give him the option of having the work done or let him know the assn will do it and bill him accordingly. Perhaps the board should consult with an attorney to determine how to proceed since the lender is not willing to anything.

Your board is another matter. They sound like little dictators! Perhaps a recall should be considered. Get a group of your neighbors together and solicit candidates for the board positions that you feel should be recalled. Check your bylaws for the procedure to remove a board member(s).

I'm going to see if I can get an attorney on my own.
We are in the middle of trying to find some "new blood."
It's hard getting anyone to do so right now.
I will find that case law in AZ you mentioned & see if I can use it in any way.
Thank you all for your help & insite.

The AZ case is:

Gfeller v. The Scottsdale Vista North Townhouses Assn

The defendant argued the CCRs stated: "In the event that an owner shall fail to maintain his patio and the improvements located thereon, as provided herein, the assn, after notice to the owner and approval by vote of the BOD, shall have the right to enter upon said patio to correct drainage and to repair, maintain and restore the patio, fences, and any other improvements thereon." (Article XIII, Section 4)Meaning the assn had a right to enforce the declaration but not the duty to do so.

The plaintiff argued that the CCRs stated: ". . .these covenants, restrictions and conditions may be enforced by the Assn or its Board of Directors, which SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY to enforce the same. . . ." (Article XIV, Section 2)

The court ruled Article XIV, Section 2". . .imposed an express duty upon the assn to enforce the declaration."

The court ruled Article XIII, Section 4 ". . .provided an additional enforcement method but that it did not override the duty set forth in Article XIV, Section 2." The court further found that the assn ". . .could choose from one of many enforcement processes, but could not "forsake its express duty to enforce the CC&R's".

The plaintiff prevailed.

Mary,

Thank you for the information on Gfeller v. The Scottsdale Vista North Townhouses Assn.

I would also like to thank JohnK3, BrianB & DwightT for their input & information as well. Our "Annual Budget" meeting is this Thursday the 13th.
Hopefully I will be allowed,along with several others, to speak. That is after the Sheriff Deputy speaks about the neighborhood watch program, which we already have, & the vote on getting a mamngement co. & the vote on whether or not to get a new sprinkler system....we should be able to get to the budget somewhere in there. If we are lucky, hopefully we will be able to get the residents to vote that the board do something to help maintain the foreclosed property until we can get the lender to do something.

Thank you again.

I see what you mean. I'm thinking that if we are able to pass this with community that we could send a certified letter to the lender along with the annual dues statment, telling them of our action. The lender has admitted that this is their property now.

Mary

Yes it does state a written notification is to be sent. That is why I thought it would be okay to send a certified letter along with the statement for the dues.
Then whether we hear from the lender or not, go on from there.

My plan, if I can get the community to go along, is to make sure that everything is documented, everything dotted & crossed that needs to be.

Thank you for you advice.

Property values are driven by many factors. More macro than micro.

The whole arguement of justifying actions and expenses at the community level to "preserve property values" is a money "sink".

How about this for prop. value impact...: Do I want to buy into a community where I might have to maintain other properties as well as my own?

Humans want instant gratification but the legal system is based on due process.
It will take time and money to correct the violation(s). Sometimes more of one means less of the other.

The OP seems to be asking one question... Can we enter the property?

If they feel so motivated then they have to ask: Who will ultimately pay for it?
If it is not budgeted, would it require an assessment?

The court case cited did not seem to explicitly grant permission to enter the property.

In fact they wrote [the HOA]: "...could choose from one of many enforcement processes..."
That seems to be more telling than anything else written.

They have chosen a process, letters and statements.

This MAY be the case in your situation.

BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT CASE ENTIRELY.
You need to recognize that.

The BOD IS acting in the best interest of the HOA.

Entering ANY private property without prior or proper authorization, sans the potential for loss of life or loss of neighboring property (leaky pipes, flood, etc.), is foolish. Nor would I expect my HOA/BOD D&O (or similar) insurance to cover any personal actions while on the property.

Be patient.

Why did you cite an admittedly irrelevant case/judgement, and then CHIDE me for being out of context when opining its possible relevance to the OP's question or situation?

Hey rather than try to judge others comments (out of context and such), why don't you pay attention to the thread, and more importantly your own postings?

The OP wrote:
"My question is....doesn't the HOA board have any obligation in helping in the upkeep of this property."

Brian and John indicated (paraphrasing) they may not agree that an HOA is obligated to maintain a property.

Then you diverted the thread and said : "I do NOT agree with John and Brian that the board has no obligation to enforce the CCRs."

A non sequitur.

Funny how that occurred about reply #6!

You then cited an irrelavent case to make some point about something else and the thread was diverted.

I feel that is not what they wrote.
I'm not going to cut & paste a bunch of stuff.
Just go back and read what was written prior to your case posting. Neither suggested enforcement shoud be waived.

The OP's question was clearly stated, the case/judgement posted, by your own admission, was in regards to a different question.

Then, when I try to link some sort of relevance to the OP's question and the posted case, I'm accused of being out of context and scolded.

It is unlikely that any HOA docs. state that the corporation is OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN any private property under any circumstances (other that to mitigate an emergency).
I expect that burden is explicitly placed on the member(s), owner(s), estate, etc. of said property.
But I'm not sure, so I won't say "never".

The duty to enforce is a seperate issue and was not in question here.

With your focus on the minutia, I'm surprised you don't recognize that.

I will not tolerate any one judging me or my opinions. You can disagree, but I feel you are the one who was out of context or at least off topic.

I could tell you what not to do as well, but I don't know you.
You may be impared in some way.

Yowr rit. I cnat tipe.

Mary (and all),

I'm all for a heated debate.

I will, and have, argued position(s) here that may contradict my true sentiment just for the sake of the argument.

I'll take unpopular positions and point out what isn't said to promote healty discourse and perspective diversity.

How boring would ANYTHING/EVERYTHING be if everyone agreed?

So bring on your best arguments but remember it's just that... an argument.

As you have seen, I don't appreciate personal sniping no matter how subtle.

Making it personal is unbecoming and I'll call anyone on it.