Waiving a Fine

Our Financial Penalties Resolution (FPR) clearly outlines how violation are handled and how fines are assessed. For "nuisance" violations that may occurr on occasion, such as a party or a dog barking, the homeowner is sent a Courtesy Notice, then a Compliance Notice, and then assessed a $250 fine.

We have only had to do this once before because the threat of a steep fine usually resolves the issue. Last year, 3 neighbors contacted the management company to complain about a nuisance, and then again on several other occasions. The homeowner continued to allow the violation to occur and was fined. The violation has not occurred again since the fine was assessed almost 2 months ago.

Our management company now suggests that for "community relations" we allow the homeowner to do certain things to make sure the nuisance does not happen again in exchange the Board will reduce or eliminate the fine. I have not had to deal with this type of thing before. My opinion is that we just want the violation to stop (which it has) . . . our main objective is not to make money or to penalize anyone. On the other hand, this has gone on for far too long and I think we should remain consistent with the FPR.

One of my fellow Board members is against making any concessions for this homeowner, one hasn't said anything and I am on the fence.
I fear that waiving the fine for this homeowner may be unethical (??) and create more problems later.

Any experience with this type of thing or advice??

If forgiving a fine is unethical, then our entire legal system in the States is unethical. There are so many places where a fine (or other penalty including jail) can be waived or reduced. And eliminating this aspect is what gives rise to stories of the injustice caused by "zero tolerance policies."

I won't comment on if this is an appropriate time to do so. I simply don't know. But the issue should not be simply dismissed without consideration.

We are self-managed; 21 SFDs.

Our docs provide for a $20 fine if quarterly dues are 30 days late. If a Member is 30 days late, our Prez sends an email reminder which has always resulted in the payment being made. We - the other two of us on the BOD - have also given him the power to waive this fine if payment is received following his email reminder, which he has always done.

Works for us. The quality of mercy, and all that poetic stuff.

John.
Not disagreeing with what you do but considering Susans valid points, why don't your Pres send out the letter at thirty days. remind the owner there is a fine after 60 days of $50.00.

Personally I doubt you can legally subvert your documents without an amendment. But if you are going to do it and you say the fine is not the reason for people paying up, the Pres's letter is, then delay the fine until sixty days. Or something.

JohnK,
I appreciate your interests in managing your association and don't mean to imply one sise fits all.

And of course I am sure you are aware that your present managemnt will not be around forever. Understanding that just about means the next board can exert these unlimited powers in the opposite direction that the present board is taking. I really have a problem or a suspecion that unlimited powers to any governing body will breed problems.

This is not bad mothing you all, you are doing what you think prudent and as you say it works...........more power to you.

As to my Johnson, I am unsure what provoked that.

HB,

Based on this additional info, I'd carry on with the fines and whatever else needs be done to eliminate the issue (which is quite different than someone being late with their dues). As for your MC getting an earful - tough darts. That's part of their job, yes?

And call Animal Control.

Any dog that snarls at people and prevents people from using their own back yards is a menace.

Well, if the dog's not an issue anymore...I wouldn't see a problem rescinding the fine...BUT, allowing the BOD to reinstate or even increase the fine should the dog become a problem again. (Get the owner to sign something).

Since fines are really (in my humble opinion anyway) a way to get people to comply...well, problem solved. Sometimes, it is good to smooth things over for the purposes of community harmony.

Should another owner present with the same situation someday, and that same owner wants the exact same thing, well, I would jump off that bridge when I came to it. At this time, you could say you're doing what is best for the HOA (community harmony), but in the future, you could change your mind. Shoot, BODs change ALL the time, so what one BOD thought was appropriate could/would/should change every few years (pick the *ould that applies...)

Kind of off the subject, but related....

You may also want to question your insurance agent. Mine (and I'm getting ready to switch) for the association has said that he's recommending our association get dropped because we don't have a "problem pet" rule... Are your rules appropriate for your association? Does your insurance agent/lawyer feel that the rules are in place appropriately to protect the association to the best of its ability?

I agree. I was stating my thoughts on the dog issue, which brought the insurance issue to the forefront of my gray matter. Lots of ins, lots of outs, lots of what-have-yous (slippery slope) when deciding which covenents NOT to enforce.

Also, I'm one of those property managers who wags the tail of the dog...otherwise, our dog wouldn't even get up off the floor when a stranger bursts in to rape/kill us all!!! I don't play favorites though... Mine is a special situation (not recommended!).

I also am curious about how the dog became a "good" dog overnight... Is he kept inside now? Bark collar? Magic wand?

Tracie - what is a "problem pet" rule that would affect insurance?

Roaming dogs is a problem in our sub, in spite of the local dog ordinance.

Yes, but the pounds of pressure from a cocker spaniel's "bite" is not as strong as a pit bull's. Plus, a cocker is less likely to continue attack and "shred" its prey.

The problem I have with that requirement is that even municipalities are finding they are running into constitutional issues by singling out specific breeds, especially ones called "pit bulls," since that "breed" doesn't really have a formal classification.

In other words, it's actually more a mix of breeds.

Now, many of those municipalities have amended their definitions and wording to pass the appeals test, but I'm not sure an insurance company would.

For example, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a Yakima, Washington, ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it specified the dog breeds that together fit the definition of "pit bull". On the other hand, an earlier case in Massachusetts resulted in a pit bull ban being annulled because the ordinance, as it was written, did not adequately define what a "pit bull" was.

So, which definition will the insurance company require you incorporate? And how does it know that your municipality or state does not already have such a law on the books? In which case your "restrictions" would be redundant.

Tracie: a couple things to ask/think about/trigger conversation

1) ask your insurance agent (or anyone else) for EVIDENCE to back up their reasoning/claim, and make sure the evidence is from a credible source. As you point out, the most common dog biter is a cocker spaniel (very popular/common dog, high strung, often in families with children). Perhaps the evidence can be $$ spent on lawsuits, or # ER treatments per year. Whatever it is, make the person presenting the argument show evidence. And, remember that the plural of anecdote is not no matter how many "stories" a person has about something does not mean they have evidence.

2) It has been said the purpose of the fine is to get compliance. Ask the board if that is true, what is the purpose of the courtesy letter and the compliance notice? And, why have three things who's purpose is exactly the same? Why not simply one thing? (I don't know the answer, but it's a challenging question. If nothing else, it may cause folks to rethink "purpose" attached to things).