HOA- Over extends authority.

There are several uninformed board members who losely float out rules or limits or restrictions they would like to impose on members who are not current in their dues. They are attempting to restrict access to a boat launch for unpaid dues. The only consequence set forth in the by-laws for convenants for non- payment is a fomral process for imposing a lien.

This is a frequent problem when board members with idol hands tend to get to big brotherish. The look around for specific people or things to try to pick on and then try to impose rules that are not discussed or outlined in any association papers.

A very slippery slope.

Could a board member be sued individaully for trying to exercise their authority outsideo of the scope of the covenants or bylaws?

A family member is on the board. I am not the person being sanctioned. Our by-laws are very limited.
Personal issues have been taken up by board members furthering their personal agendas. Not what we anticipated when you joined this community. It just becomes very tiresome listening to all the complaints that seemingly nothing can be done about. The covenants were written in the 70's.
Rules and by-laws
(Adopted April, 1997)
Section 1 - Authority

These regulations of the XXXXXXX are adopted pursuant to Article III, Section 3 of the covenants and restrict restrictions of XXXXXX, as duly recorded with the XXXX County Register of Deeds.

Section 2 - Scope

These Regulations shall be applicable to use of XXXXXXX Lake, any common areas of the Association on said Lake, all property, within XXXXXXXXX Subdivisions, and any property which may hereafter be included in the XXXXXX. The Regulations are in addition to, and shall supplement, those requirements set forth in the covenants and restrictions for such property, and shall also be supplemental to any applicable statutes, laws or ordinances, including but not limited those laws, and ordinances concerning hunting, fishing, snowmobiles, off-road vehicles, water safety, motor vehicles, watercrafts and zoning.

Section 3 - Use Of Park

The Association's park facilities are intended primarily for the use of Association members. Non-Association members are not authorized, to use such park unless accompanied by an Association member.

Association members may reserve the use of the park for a group function upon optaining prior approval from the Association President or the President's designee. When the park is so reserved by an Association member, such member shall be responsible for any damages that may occur during the use of the park, and for assuring that such use is orderly and in compiance with the Association restrictions and regulations. No group shall so use the park after 10:00 P.M. on weekdays and no later than 11:00 P.M. on weekends.

All motor vehicles within the park shall remain behind the fence or within the designated parking area, except when loading or unloading.

Section 4 - Use of Watercraft

Watercraft may be operated or used on XXXXX Lake when all of the following conditions have been met:

Owned by a resident or an Association member property owner.

It is licensed, when applicable, by the State of XXXXXX.

It displays two (2) XXXXXX Lake decals, located near the front of such watercraft and on both sides. Decals may be obtained by registering the watercraft with the Association President or his/her designee

All watercraft used on XXXXX Lake shall operate in strict compliance with all State water safety laws and regulations, and in a safe and prudent manner considering the size of the lake and the number of other watercraft when using the lake.

A maximum of three watercraft with person or persons in tow may be operated at the same time.

No watercraft shall be permitted in the designated swimming area adjacent to the Association park.

All motorized watercraft shall observe any posted "No-Wake" areas on the lake.

Section 5 - Use of Snowmobiiles and Off-Road Vehicles

Snowmobiles or off-road vehicles may be operated or used on XXXXXc Lake or the common properties when all of the following conditions have been met:

It is owned by a resident or Association member property owner.

It is licensed, when applicable, by the State of XXXXX.

Displays two (2) XXXXX Lake decals, located as near the front as possible and on both sides. Decals may be obtained by registering the snowmobile or off-road vehicles with the Association President or his/her designee.

No snowmobiles or off-road vehicles shall be operated on Scenic Lake or the common properties between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. in the morning.

Section 6 - Severability

Should any portion of these Regulations be held invalid for any reason, such a finding shall not be construed as effecting the validity of any of the remaining portions of these Regulations.

Section 7 - Amendment

These Regulations, may be add to, deleted or modified by the Board of Directors of XXXXX Lake Property Owners' Assocation as provided in the deed covenants and restrictions for XXXXXXX Estates.

Section 8 - Enforcement

These Regulations may be enforced by the XXXXXXX Association, the Association Board of Directors, the duly elected Association Officers and members of the Association.

Sue,

You wrote:

>>>Section 7 - Amendment

These Regulations, may be add to, deleted or modified by the Board of Directors of XXXXX Lake Property Owners' Assocation as provided in the deed covenants and restrictions for XXXXXXX Estates.

Section 8 - Enforcement

These Regulations may be enforced by the XXXXXXX Association, the Association Board of Directors, the duly elected Association Officers and members of the Association.<<<

That language invests your BOD with considerable powers. In reference to the BOD, you use the terms "would like to" and "attempting" as to what they might do? Or is it what they have done?

We need some specifics, and you need a complete copy of your docs, including any amendments.

And out of curiousity, how exactly do they stop folks from using the lake?

John and Donna,
I appreciate your responses. They have posted on a web site and in a newsletter that non payers would be denied access to the launch key ( that only seven people have a copy of). Of course, other keys are floating around, people have launched from their own property etc. to avoid the sanction.

Wouldn't this have to be voted on to be applicable?

Additionally,if they are going to deny access should it be done across the board to any association ammenity?

Enforcement of only selective issues is a problem as well.

I find nothing inherently wrong with Board Directors trying to do whatever (legally) possible to collect from assessment deadbeats.

I don't describe enforcing one's commitment to dues or assessments as "big brotherish." Rather I describe it as their fiduciary duty.

I also think "pick"ing on people who aren't paying up to be their fiduciary duty, as opposed to simply "idol hands."

I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other on whether they are over-reaching or not because I really don't know what authorities they have in their governing documents. They may well have the option to establish "rules" or the option may already be there to restrict access to amenities. It just may not be obvious or may not jump out at you.

But even if it didn't currently give them that option, as a board member I would most certainly be moving to see what we could do to make it an option!

And in answer to your specific question: people can be sued for all sorts of reasons, practically anything. But bringing suit is a far cry from winning a suit.

Is someone wanting to "threaten" the board members with a lawsuit if they plan to move forward with the restricting access option (even if it requires amending the docs)?

pffft.

It would be in their better interest to simply pay their assessments than to pay a lawyer for such a silly and frivolous suit and still have to end up paying their assessments anyway!

I agree, I would be nice if everyone just paid... However, how many times have you heard the "current economic conditions" arguement for being late or delinquent on bills.

In response to:

But "attempting" or "are" aside, I'm still curious as to the "how" part. Does somebody guard the launch area? Do they have a list of alleged delinquents? Do they remove the official labels? Confiscate the boat? Threaten bodily harm?

This very new. A list of unpaids is kept. The "attempt" is simply denying the use of the key. No one is quarding the launch or threating harm that I know of, no boat confiscation or lable removal... they have been unable to enforce the lable us as it is, simply because many people just tell them to get &&*&%^& ( pick your word).

I agree they need to try to collect the dues but it just seems there needs to be something legally in place to do so... not just arbitrary consequences with no legal footing.

What is really striking in this exchange is that fact we have owners not paying their fees but now could have a problem launching their BOATS!

So the BOAT takes priority over paying your fees for your home.

Yes these tough economic times, imagine those da_n Board members trying to stop your pleasure boating just because you can' afford to do both.

Screw your property, your neighbors, but don't you dare prevent me from launching my boat!

I would think the Board should do whatever necessary, proper, and legal to secure payment.

Perhaps they could lien the boat! Now there you go.

I want everything that comes with ownership even though I don't cover my responsibilites as an owner. How wonderful!

I have to agree with Michele. If you can afford to "launch" your boat, as in maintaining insurance on it, or filling it with gas, or maintaining its upkeep, you can afford your association dues. The "current economic conditions" lament has become so unbiquitous as to render it meaningless.

I don't know of any association Bylaws that do not give the Board authority to create and establish rules, resolutions and regulations which it deems necessary to ensure the compliance and enforcement of the CC&R's. Yes, the rules must be reasonable and they must be consistent with the governing documents. The Board could have established a system of fines for non-payment, until the dramatic lien process is initiated, but probably figured if they ain't paying their dues, they probably won't pay a fine. I suspect the Board has been rather informal with this new rule, prohibiting non-paying members usage of the common areas, in this case, the launch, by not making a formal Resolution, therefore, the sense of "arbitrariness."

As for suing? Let me tell who can sue. Just one, or several, or all members who pay their dues could sue the association for mismanagement, for breach of fiduciary duty, by NOT enforcing the governing documents, which REQUIRE ALL members pay dues.

So, the bottom line is this. Everyone pay their dues, and work with and support your Board in the fair and cohesive management of the association.

Dorothy

I don't know about Michigan, but you may want to check on MRTA. The Marketable Record Title Act which states that after 30 years if the covenants have not been revitalized, the CC&Rs expire. I know that law exists in Florida and many homeowner associations haven't revitalized according to the Florida Statutes, so in turn the BOD's have no authority to enforce the CC&Rs or spend money.

Frankly, I find your concern to be disingenuous.

Have you given any thought to helping with some creative and effective ways to get people to pay their obligations?

No more of this B.S. about "tough times."

How much less "tough" are the times on the board trying to meet it's budget if people "arbitrarily" determine they don't have to pay, and there are no immediate consequences for it?

Misplaced outrage, if you ask me.

How long past due are you?

Frankly, liens aren't enough. Nor are fines.

If there are other ways to more immediately "punish" (your word, not mine because I will argue extensively that it is LESS about PUNISHMENT than it is about gaining compliance and collecting what is due to them), than liens then you should be helping your board discover and implement those instead of trying to find "cover" for deadbeats.

I mean what I said. I find your "concern" misplaced and disingenuous.

I know what you claimed above, but your actions imply a personal stake in obstructing and/or barring the board from trying to engage in a simple, inexpensive, straight-forward and timely way to gain compliance from people who are trying to cheat your HOA out of needed (and required) funds.

So it's either you -- or someone close to you.

And your efforts would be better placed in being a part of a solution instead of muddying up the problem.

First, I noticed nobody answered your original question. And the answer is that yes an individual Board member may be sued. When it comes to filing a suit there are few rules to stop someone from filing against a particular person for anything.

BUT, that doesn't mean it will be effective. The association most likely has an indemnity clause. Further they should have Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance which will pay for said defense. The only way you breach this is if you show that what they did was beyond reasonable.

More to the situation at hand, it would appear to me that they are trying to work to get the assessments for which you should be thankful (unless you are one of the effected). This is a thankless job and if you are being honest they are now being hit from those paying and those who are not. Perhaps they should amend the bylaws first. But several things come to mind.
1) Many courts would simply instruct them to correct the failure to amend the bylaws.
2) Most defense lawyers would instruct the Board to do this before the Court could rule.
3) Since they can do so, in the end the only thing that could be accomplished is a delay in the policy.

Like others I don't by the "current economic situation" argument with regard to launching one's boat. Quite honestly, I wouldn't care if they have a low budget solution. The lake is maintained with dues and if you can't afford them you don't get use of the lake. The amount of entitlement that people expect is amazing. While I might be slow to start foreclosure, I have no issue with removing of benefits such as pools and lakes.

As for the policy thing, clearly they have said what the policy is since you know. I would say they should buy a new lock as this won't cost much and will eliminate the floating key problem for a period of time.

Sorry, I lost that in the noise. But I do find it interesting that (a paying) someone would complain about an effort to be fair to those who paid. And why the desire to pick on some particular Board members?