Discretion vs Accurate Minutes

While I would have included the cost of the lawsuit in the minutes they look fine to me. Minutes are only a record of what happened not a transcript of every word said.

What stage is this assessment request at?

The members deserve an on-ging, COMPLETE report about the lawsuit, including all costs associated with it.

Not discussing the case has nothing to do with out of control expenses that now the board want to increase fees.

The members need to know the status of the case and all expenditures.

Robert, I don't think anyone was asking her to pay for the list.

They simply did not want to give her a document discussing/detailing the lawsuit so she could mass mail it to the list.

She voluntarily dropped it (the list), apparently, at that point.

I don't think RobertR1 meant anything about actual money... I *think* it is more of a "and this is how the BOD repays her for her long-standing support and her volunteering to kind of "unofficially" keep homeowners in the loop."

Aside from the fact that I agree completely with every word in your post above, this particular comment is important.

Let us not forget that the homeowner in question, AND HIS WIFE, are both attorneys. And apparently the Mike Tyson's of the legal world.

Glen, I pretty much agree with you -- this seems reasonable to me.

I would like to see more highlights, and I think they should have accurately reported in the minutes what they said about a special assessment, rather than change the minutes to reflect their later decision to change the dues retroactively.

However, I am not asking for a detailed representation, and I suppose it's up to the Secretary how much to include.

Susan,

The assessment is at the same stage as a month ago. As I reported earlier and above, they decided to call it a dues change; but as of two days ago when I spoke with a Director, they have not yet met to determine the date and amount.

I agree that the Members need to be more fully informed and kept up-to-date. The BoD needs to report more accurately at BoD meetings and distribute regular updates to the Membership at large. Since they are not all on the email list (I would speculate perhaps a third to a half of almost 300 Members), that requires mailings. I don't think the BoD needs to send out monthly mailings. Once a quarter, timed to closely follow major events, should be sufficient. If they make the Members aware of this, then those who want to know more can attend BoD meetings. Current expenditures and obligations related to the lawsuit should be provided in these mailings and at each BoD meeting. If they don't have a new invoice, but the lawyer spent a day in Court trying to get a TRO, then they can just say so. They can summarize this when they ask for money in an assessment, but they shouldn't wait until then (as I think is their intent). That's what I think.

Robert,

What is "OP", please? Original poster (me)?

I agree with you as well. There is an issue as to level of detail. For the purposes of explaining expenditure, I think the case could be presented in terms of major efforts. (There have been perhaps five of these, so far.) I don't think the BoD will do that -- if they say they spent $15,000 of $90,000 trying to get the homeowner disqualified from representing himself and failed, $25,000 on the MSJ, $15,000 fighting the homeowners TRO and Injunction that was granted and $4000 trying to get our own TRO, which the Court refused to consider; then many homeowners will question these individual items as foolish. That is politically untenable; also, I don't think the BoD is required to go into that detail, and it may generally be advisable not to itemize elements of a lawsuit this way.

I am more concerned about verifying the actual numbers. They were way off for ten months, and I don't think they have really copped to the true situation. I think it must be over $150,000 by now, unless the lawyer gave them a deep discount after providing the invoices through March. This is a little hairy. He may be overstating hours in the context of telling the other side what he will request from the Court in awarding legal costs; and/or he may be discounting what he will actually charge the HOA directly. That may not be entirely proper, but I don't want to foil any measure that saves us money either way.

In any event, the "speculations" of myself and a few neighbors have been consistently on the money or overly conservative, while the "reports" from the BoD have been wholly wrong on many occasions. I am getting very comfortable with my own analyses; these days I tend to only second-guess myself once or twice, and not in response to the BoD's denials.

In fairness, they have not yet asked for the assessment, and they have already said why in explaining again why we need to sue this guy. Beyond that, it's a difference of opinion. I keep thinking that if I was on the BoD, I believe I would choose to be open with any information not privileged or related to strategy, to run an election fairly and trust the Members to vote wisely, and to let the chips fall where they may. To behave as these guys are is much like a 3rd-world dictator who led the revolution and intends to give his people democracy when they are truly "ready". Except we live in America, we all own our homes, and we were always qualified. That's my opinion.

But whether they have been advised to avoid writing anything, if they are just scared and inept, or if (as I believe) they are focused on manipulating the sentiment of the Membership to avoid and suppress opposition to their policies, I think they have the discretion to chose how much detail to relate about the lawsuit. I agree that they don't have discretion in revealing the cost and keeping us all up to date on that.

I agree that they should have been nicer to Email Lady. She can certainly disseminate any Court document (all filings are public records), and she has always been good about identifying what is from the BoD and what is not. I understand her disappointment that they will not provide her with a plain-language summary. That's their call, but they could have handled it better.

We have a web site, but it doesn't get updated well or often. We are looking at MC's to take over this and other functions. I am looking at HOA-specific web services for this. But that would not matter in this case, because they don't want to commit stuff to writing.

Tracie,

If the BoD showed interest in settling this, then I would have no problem with them declaring victory. They have said much more ridiculous things with straight faces, and people tend to believe them just because they are our Directors and neighbors.

Jon,

I've provided more details about the lawsuit in other recent threads. In short, I think they never had a case, it's not in the interests of most homeowners anyway, and the Court has been consistently ruling for the homeowner whom they are suing. The BoD says the opposite on all counts, but I don't think they've done a good job of backing up their statements.

Email Lady was asking for a statement of what the BoD said at the last open BoD meeting. The information that she wants is not being kept confidential nor is it excessively detailed. The issue is the BoD does not want to put it in writing nor have it attributed to them.

I have also acknowledged that I have only presented my point of view. (What else can do?) I did send Email Lady a write-up of the Board's statements from the meeting, and suggested she run it by a couple of Directors without mentioning my name, to ask if they found it flawed in any way. I think it accurately represents their point of view. She supports the lawsuit and their viewpoint – she just doesn't think it's fair that they won't let every homeowner know what they said in open meetings. If they don't disagree with that write-up or find anything missing, then she could send that and truthfully say it didn't come from the BoD. I don't want my name associated with it, because I think it's inaccurate and misleading.

Mary,

I think you and Jon have good points, to the extent that they respond to my actual posts. Sorry if I was unclear or relied too much on previous threads.

Most of what I know is from Court documents and attending hearings, which none of the Directors have done. That's why I think I have a complete picture and their lawyer is (at best) scamming them. But that's peripheral to the question of how to inform homeowners in this difficult and complicated situation.

Michele,
I imagine by now you have figured out what I said.

Of course my reference was for the Board to just stop this womans efforts that they apparantely welcomed over the years. On top of that, since it was not the official site, the Board has nothing to say about what goes up on it.

From the information reported it seems a stretch to say she volunteered to close the list, and if she did, she of course had the right to do that. The board had nothing invested here except free labor and interest of an owner, by an owner.

By the way, I also do not think that this constitutes a "rebuke," as the OP classifies it.

"She had been rebuked. She read from an email, in which the President told her they could give her a summary, but only for her own use. She could send the document only to personal friends, not to the general email list. She must make it clear that this was not from the BoD or the HOA. She did not think this was fair. She protested by dropping the email list. "

It seems to me they simply expressed their position that no formal communication regarding the on-going lawsuit be distributed under any auspices that would confuse the average reader into presuming it came directly from the board.

That's hardly a "rebuke." A "rebuff" maybe, which is simply a denial, but not a "rebuke," which has a much more negative connotation and implies a chastisement of some kind.

I realize the OP is making an attempt to appear at arms length or unbiased, but that particular throw-away characterization shows, and conveys, bias.

And now the OP is hoping to fill the board's vacuum of information by drafting his own "summary" to give to her. BUT he wants to do it on the sly. He doesn't want her to let anyone WHO wrote it.

I don't think that's any more appropriate than what he claims the board is doing.

Robert,they have already been sharing certain information about the lawsuit with the homeowners.

But what she was wanting I would not do either.

It would be too easy to inadvertently put something in there that shouldn't be.

Sorry, we're just going to have to disagree about this.

This situation is certainly not a good one.

I have already given my position on the original post, the one that has the picture of the retaining wall in question that the (attorney) homeowner put up without permission and that encroaches on HOA common area.

I am truly conflicted because on the one hand, were I on their board, I would have initiated the lawsuit just as they did. On the other hand, the jury is still out for me if I would have been on board with letting it get this far.

I will admit that the poster has some good spin, but he clearly has a bias for one side, which is fine, we all do, more or less. But even more, he also clearly has a bias against the OTHER side, which, as much as he tries to tread that thin line, he continues to reveal in the way he "reports" his interpretation of what is going on.

The board is in a very tricky position. Granted, much of it is probably of their own doing, but much of it, also, is due to running up against an attorney homeowner whose legal fees are basically "free."

Oddly enough, in this case, the "deep pockets" are the homeowner.

Jon,

I can understand you replying without looking for related threads, but you will now have to go there for full details. This particular thread is not offered as another discussion about whether the lawsuit is in our best interest, although I have reiterated that I think it is not, and I'm not trying to object to further posts about that. I started this thread as a discussion about proper minutes, releasing vs. withholding information and what to write vs. say in this context; but I appreciate your interest and opinions, and I will try to answer your questions briefly.

In summary, my HOA is a mandatory HOA of almost 300 single-family homes with several grassy common areas. We have a volunteer BoD numbering seven and no MC; our dues are only $260 annually.

A homeowner built a retaining wall on a steep slope behind his house, partly on the back of his lot and partly on a wedge of HOA property between his lot and the Golf Course pond. He has an express, private easement over this 2800 sq ft triangle-shaped area for his exclusive use. It is the only easement like this in the subdivision. The dispute is whether the Easement Agreement (the contract) allows him to construct improvements or only to pass across this Easement Area.

This initial question before the Court (what rights were granted) is complicated by the obligation in the Easement Agreement for the homeowner to maintain the Easement Area. The Court has ruled that he must prevent erosion and shifting, leaving open questions about whether there is erosion and whether the retaining wall is a reasonable and necessary measure. The Court referred to expert reports provided by both the BoD (from before they sued) and by the homeowner that indicate a retaining wall is necessary, the wall he built is such a wall, and that a better wall may be necessary.

I am not the homeowner in question. I have lived in the community for about eight years. This homeowner has lived here for about three years. The Easement Agreement was executed in Sept, 1991, before the common areas were conveyed to the HOA.

I have sought election to the BoD in March. The BoD rigged the elections by restricting the ballot to four candidates for four seats -- the three incumbents and an immediate neighbor who lives between two of them; put simply, they picked themselves and excluded seven other nominees who did not agree with them. Think about the Chicago Machine or Tammany hall running an election so corrupt that they have only their candidates on the ballot and get 100% of the seats, as opposed to just playing dirty tricks and getting a firm majority. It's more complicated, but there's a thread with all that. If I seem pissed off about this, democracy is sacrosanct for me. Before this, I didn't like a lot of things they did, but I stayed relatively quiet and refrained from criticizing them in public. When we saw the ballot (there was no notice or explanation -- they seemed to hope no one would object), I and another nominee went door to door to get our own proxies. We received over 50, which the BoD summarily decided not to allow. We attempted to discuss the validity of their ballots at the Annual Meeting of the Membership, and they called it out of order and refused to allow discussion. I think most homeowners are more concerned about the money, as a practical political situation, but the rigged election is what motivated me.

The election tallies were announced at the end of the Annual Meeting. I have submitted repeat records requests to get the BoD's proxy ballots and other election-related information, as well as financial and insurance information. They refuse to provide the complete proxies based on "secret ballot", which I believe only applies during the election.

I was not involved at all in my HOA until about a year ago, and did not know my neighbors. When this dispute got heated (a few weeks before the BoD ended up voting to litigate), I started asking some Directors about this, and also interviewed the homeowner who built the wall and his two neighbors (who are involved on both sides). I have no business relationship with any of these, and I have only become acquainted in the context of observing this lawsuit.

The monthly BoD meetings have been attended by five to twenty-five homeowners (and 50 to 100 back when this came to a head). I believe the Annual Meeting was attended by over 100, although it is usually much smaller. I think about 30 votes were cast at the Annual Meeting by attendees and perhaps 80 by the BoD's proxies.

The BoD had this suit filed as the HOA against the homeowner; the homeowner has not countersued, although he says he has strong causes for counter-claims (and the Judge actually said he did in a hearing). The homeowner says he wants to work this out and not sue his neighbors; I am certain the possibility of D&O insurance paying if/when he counter-sues is also a consideration.

I am not acquainted with either the HOA's regular attorney or the litigating attorney for this suit. I have seen the latter's pleadings and observed him in hearings. He is a friend of the Defendant homeowner's neighbor, who has publicly stated that he will force him to move away and has played a role instigating this lawsuit.

I believe perhaps twenty or thirty neighbors believe strongly that this lawsuit is not in our interests and about an equal number feel strongly that it is (or at least want it pursued). The remainder may have little knowledge or interest, or may simply stand by the BoD without applying much scrutiny. I count at least four factions.

Robert, again, he was not "disallowing" her from communicating the information, just requiring that it not be an official communication from the board.

I would most definitely support this position, because all sorts of "interpretation" can find its way in when that happens.

I, as a board member, would not want to put anything about the lawsuit in writing UNTIL THE LAWSUIT IS OVER.

That's all I'm saying.

Michael,
Would my worthy adversary agree that the lawsuit is not over (all in what we hear) that a special assessment is being considered because they don't have the funds to continue the suit(again, all in what we read). Of course that means they would not need a special assessment if they dropped the suit.

So no special assessment, no more suit, no more reason to explain how they spent the 90K. Maybe this would be attractive to the board, in that it would protect the association from the harm of knowing what this is about.

How's that sound?

BOD and people should never dig a hole so deep, they can't get out ofit.

Michael,
Nor do I know know what the real story is..........hardly a unique circumstance.

I just finidhed writing a couple hundred words in a rebuttal.

Then I deleted them.

enough said on this end.

Robert,

I'm not sure exactly what you would be rebutting nor who is your worthy adversary. I have a bit of difficulty following.

As to anything you see inconsistent or unreasonable about my posts, I'd be interested in your opinion. I am certainly hoping for some opportunities to mitigate or reconcile things that I may have missed.

Michael,
I can understand your confusion, and I deserve to be shot or worse.

My post you are referring to should have spelled "Michele".

My post was a way of extracting myself from letting this be something other than a clinical evaluation of the issues as presented.

There is also a strong possibility I can contribute nothing of value.
I have great empathy for a board and an association that has to contend with one of their own contributing to a "I'm going to get you and it is going to cost a bundle and folks that don't deserve it are going to pay the bill."

Not only am I convinced that the association must be served above all else by the Board, I am convinced that each individual homeowner has exactly the same obligation. So, from my point of view, both "sides" are wrong to contribute to this "no win" situation.

Yesterday, in our Local Paper there was a large article about a Homeowners association's litigation problems with their "Club". and some involved contentions about who was right and who was wrong. The article was quite open about the lawsuit and who was wanting what and who got what with the judges decree. Both sides appealed the decisions and both lawyers stated that they hope to obtain a "wash" through their appeals. So they have gone through the courts, had conclusion and direction from the courts, and it appears both sides won or lost, as determined by the opponents, and they want to appeal to obtain a "wash", which I think was explained as an equal distribution of costs and an equal distribution of what has to be done to reconcile their differences. Of course, this resolution will be determined by all sides siting down, agreeing on something and trying to get the judge to go along with it. Certainly I can't judge the right and wrong of this, or has the right and wrong turned out to be important in the end. It is what it is, and in this case is headed to meaning something decided by the involved parties.
That result is going to cost a bundle.

I sincerely doubt that. ;-)


I agree with most of that.

In our case, I would say both sides (the BoD and the Defendant homeowner) are contributing to it. I do not think either side is a victim nor has clean hands. My neighbors and I do qualify that way.

I would expect each individual homeowner to look out for their own legitimate interests -- their family, their home, their money and their friends -- perhaps in that order. Each has a duty not to impact other homeowners with their personal business. The Directors are charged with serving the interests of the Association. This is expected to task the Members in a reasonable and equitable manner (reasonable dues to pay for reasonable activities and reasonable compliance); after all, we benefit from the Association and agreed to join it when we moved here. The legitimate interests of the corporation are property values and quality of life.

Personal vendettas have no place in the business of the association, whether invoked by the Board or individual homeowners. They are generally foolish, but in any event should not be made the problem of anyone not directly involved -- either by an individual or by the BoD.


Not sure I get the point of this, other than "cost a bundle." Are you saying both sides created the problem; and after spending a bunch on the lawyers and wearing themselves out in Court, in the end they get back to where they started and must sit down and work it out?

MichaelK,
Your:
****************************
Not sure I get the point of this, other than "cost a bundle." Are you saying both sides created the problem; and after spending a bunch on the lawyers and wearing themselves out in Court, in the end they get back to where they started and must sit down and work it out?
**********************************

That's the way I read it. I am sure in the end both sides will strut and posture around saying they won, but did they?

We had a smaller scale case in our HOA. From what I can understand both sides made concessions, neither side agreed, the judge says go back and do it again, and at some point they two sides agreed it was time to stop fighting and took what they could get. This case and I assume your instance was not a trial by jury, here in SC I do believe this kind of thing is heard by a Master in Equity and I know personally from another Homeowner/Developer Management Co case, that it was heard by a Master in Equity Judge. That also resulted in both sides hammering out something the Judge would accept. I am sure the Judge applied the rule of law, in all cases.

Our (you and I) differences seems to be a matter of how we group out priorities. The commitment to family, God and Country fall in one category. The special legal responsibility we all signed when we joined an HOA falls somewhere else. I am sure if we had the doctor's Hippocratic (sic) oath to sign we might rebel. However we sign what was put in front of us and all things being equal one of our responsibilities is to "do no harm." So to speak.
But, if every homeowner would follow, do no harm, we would have a lot less trouble. But every homeowner don't and this does not mean that the Holy Grail for the rest of us should not be "do not harm the association." Think about it. It will make the life in a HOA much more pleasant and easier. Never be perfect and I am not a Pollyanna by far, but it keeps me grounded..................AT TIMES!

MichaelK, I heard recently of how many trials ever reach the jury stage, a very small percentage.

Now, tell me something I don't know if you can. Suppose the parties in a scheduled jury trail decide to settle, lets just say, prior to court date, because I know what happens if they decide at date of court. I am wondering if the same procedures are followed.

Party A and Party B have a meeting and decide they should settle. The case has been filed and scheduled for a hearing, so it is a matter of court record. Now if A and B agree to settle and settlement is determined by a point of law to some degree, does the parties have to appear or petition the judge for a ruling? Or can they just withdraw the case and walk away? Who then decides attorneys fees?

Now in the case of an HOA is there any state law or likely to be any covenants that would disallow a settlement of this kind. Not specific to any state and not specific to any HOA, but just a general analysis.

Anyone? Maybe this is a non-issue.

And we're back to the lawsuit. Michael I hate to say it but we're beating a dead horse here, we know your opinion of the lawsuit. What we don't know and have no way of reasonably obtaining is the BOD's rational for the suit. It may be as you maintain that they're being petulant however they may be worried that if this is allowed to stand then more and more homes around the lake will want an exclusive easement which will eventually cut off access to the lake for members not living on it. It may be that they're trying to protect the documents original intention as best they can or they may simply be bullies.

Nor do we actually know exactly what the homeowner has done or is trying to do. What we know is your interpretation of the facts he has given you possibly in an effort to sway the court of public opinion. While we do know how you feel about the Board; since you've used just about every negative adjective to describe them and have accused them of malfeasance in office, election fraud, etc. In fact you've done everything except to somehow connect them global warming.

The truth is nothing we say here is going to fix this for you. This is a problem you and the other members of the Association are going to have to solve for yourselves. There is no magic pill or 1-800 number to call to resolve it but the answers are there in your CC&R's. If the majority of the homeowners feel as you do; there is a mechanism in the documents to recall the BOD and replace them with more "rational people". But whether you go door to door and wake your apathetic neighbors who are blissfully unaware of what is going on or get the woman to send out one last email to rally the troops the answer to your problem is ultimately in your collective hands. Just don't be too surprised when the "rational people" after learning all of the details decide to proceed with the lawsuit because they feel it is in the best interest of the Association.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

MichaelK11

Cooler heads in your association should become involved, which reflects the view from GlenL. Your descriptions suggest that the board is out of control and doesn't adhere to the law and the governing documents. Something more appears to be involved than just a dispute over the construction of a retaining wall.

If the election of directors is invalid as your description suggests, the board members might be personally liable for acting without authority.

From your description, the land within the easement used for the wall could be sold or deeded to the owner including a provision to make the owner responsible for its maintenance including the retaining wall. There are many ways to address this problem without spending $100K+ in litigation.

A friend of mine lives in a condo that requires approval by members for any litigation brought by the association. This is a good idea and keeps a board from going way off base. The board would have to explain what the issues are and why the litigation is in the interests of the association.

There are many ways to inform the members. One of the obvious ways is to post the court documents on the internet. The Complaint describes the issues, and in your case likely describes the issues and the relief being sought. The Defendant's reply to the Complaint provides the other point of view.

My understanding is that the board or the association is not bound by attorney-client privilege. It is the attorney who is bound by the privilege. Typically, the board as agent exercises the privilege which can protect legal work product from discovery. The client can elect to provide documents and information to the members. However, any document or writing disclosed to the members can then be part of discovery by the other party.

Keeping minimal content in board members cuts both ways. The minutes except for any part that qualifies as attorney work product can be part of discovery by opposing party. If the minutes are sterile, then no information of value is directly discovered. However, sterile minutes do not document that the board performed its fiduciary duty, creating potential liability for the association and individual board members.

Even if the minutes are sterile, the board members and others are still subject to deposition. You can imagine the questions that can be asked each board member about the board's actions. One of the people being disposed may have kept some notes which would have to be produced. What other documents and handouts were provided to the board? Every one of the board's decisions would be questioned in penetrating detail. Inevitably, different people will recall the decisions, actions and reasons differently, which would not be helpful to the association. The questioning could certainly lead to a conclusion of a conscious decision and action of the board to cover up what was really going on. It might show that the board was not acting with clean hands. Both of these last two could be devastating to the association.

My bottom line is that the minutes should be as concise as possible but not leave out important documentation of good governance and management. See my article, Discussion Concerning Meeting Minutes, for my further discussion of issues concerning meeting minutes.

MichaelK11 makes a very important point. If a board has acted improperly, the absence of documentation would likely not help the board and the association avoid liability. The depositions would likely uncover the actions and the basis for the actions. And, of course, without documentation, the board would not have any hard evidence that it acted properly.

If there are no decisions made, then this could be viewed as nothing more than a private meeting among acquaintances at which various matter arose in casual discussion. This is a little disingenuous, and still discoverable; but if handled well, it should not amount to any sort of fiduciary breach or other misconduct.

If they make decisions and don't record them or the meeting or don't properly constitute the meeting, then I think that creates big problems.

The discussions themselves don't have to be recorded (just as in open meetings) or divulged.

I am sure that state corporation and non-profit corporation acts and other statutory requirements apply -- that violating these may create more problems than keeping records. I am sure the dwelling category (condo, single-family, etc) of the association does not matter so much as whether it is a corporation or other type of legal entity; the governing documents may also be relevant.

I don't believe this is a lose-lose situation. I believe the law usually promotes justice and equity (if it doesn't always result in such). If BoD's follow the rules and perform their duties, then they should generally be better off.

My BoD avoids committing any opinions, analysis, discussions to writing. I think I would handle things differently, but I can respect their position. My BoD no longer appears to actually discuss issues (even non-lawsuit matters) or make decisions at meetings. They simply announce things that have been obviously determined outside of these open meetings. If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat . . .

I can see the descretion side of minutes, however, the full Association are entitled to everything that goes on in a Board Meeting and it is the Law, Roberts Rules. If certain items are completely left out, or left to the "imiganation" that triggers things to become out of hand and exagerated. I brought up the damage in my unit at a 2006 Board meeting, and it was never put in the minutes. I was yelled at, and then completely ignored. There were 3 new owners, 2 reg. owners and the Board, they had all the proxies besides the 3 that I had. Shouldn't it be considered a conflict of interest for the Board to vote proxies? Esp ours, since they have personal agendas, and never contact the Association for input or votes? They have broken more bylaws than anyone I have ever seen.

I have been dealing with a Board who has refused to fix serious problems in my unit in Gulf Shores. I have water damage now to the point my ceilings are going to fall in, the floor has bucked so much and the north wall has dropped so much that it will now not withstand another small to large tropical storm or hurricane. At least that is what two contractors have told me. I have tried everything to get them to repair the problems. We have come to realize, that the Board did not want to spend the money, we are an older complex, but our personal town homes are very pretty and we have invested a lot in them, but the Board were in the hopes of someone buying out the complex, and wanted to spend as little as possible. Though they never told the Association this, we suspected it, and kept fighting. The young management boy was overheard by my contractors saying this same exact thing when they were trying to sneak into our other unit last week, as we have been fighting another water damage problem with the Board for the past 6 months that they refused to acknowledge. This same manangement boy told the Board president that my units did not have water damage, it was either my pull down stairs or it was shifting of the units. It was neither, and they took the word over this person who has no experience at all except at mowing yards and cleaning pools, and it took him several years before he could do that correctly at our complex. This same person harrassed my son and his family a month ago and we had to call the police on him, and he threatened me over the phone twice. He enters our unit with the president on the phone from one witness. I have told them on the phone and in writing I don't want them in our units without us being present or someone to represent us, they have completely ignored that I stated that.

This Board only took action on doing ANYTHING when they found out by spies at our complex who one of my contractors were, as they knew him, the president called him, not us, asking him about our damage. The contractor told him about all the damage, so now they are sneaking around trying to fix the more recent problem, but have not one time contacted us the owners.

The also found out that I had been speaking with an attorney who gave me good advice, and also found the attorney who will represent us. They actually called that attorney!

Anyway, they are trying to "repair" the more recent damaged, without contacting us and letting us know. That has to be illegal when it is not an "emergency" situation as far as damage, though it will continue to get worse, but nothing like my other unit where the damage is so far gone, everything will have to be ripped out and replaced.

The Board has not contacted us in anyway about our repairs in over 3 years!

I would appreciate any input....

Well, have the minutes from that meeting been approved yet? Until they're approved, they're just a draft, and corrections can still be made.

Have you ever sent anything in writing to the BOD outlining the damage and asking for a timeline for repairs?

Also, your BOD was hoping someone would buy the complex? How does that work? I'm in a townhome, too, as I see from your post. There's no way our complex could be bought... So, I'm confused.

Also, Robert's Rules of Order are fine, but a bit cumbersome for most HOAs. My documents DO NOT require the use of ROR, but yours may. Do they, or are you just hoping they do? Usually, basic parliamentary procedure is enough...

I have tried every manner of commuication to get the Board to address our problems since Hurrican Ivan. The president has refused to return calls, emails, etc. They have completely ignored the problems, until I finally had to take action. Enough is enough. A homeowner has to do what they have to do to protect their property when all else fails. Common sense, and also the law when it affects the other owners around them, and the damage spreads to other units because of non-repairs.