sueing an HOA Member

It depends on the circumstances of the lawsuit.

If it's for a covenant violation that is not cured, then the board usually doesn't vote on moving ahead with the lawsuit. It's pretty much built into the covenant enforcement process.

If it's for non-payment of assessments, and part of the process that exists is to go to small claims court after $XXXXX in arrears has been accumulated, then the board probably doesn't have to vote on that either.

Again, the lawsuit stage is probably built into the process.

Now in our case, we often address it during a board meeting that the attorney/lawsuit stage has been reached, just to formalize it in the minutes. But it's not required.

I can't think of any other reason that the HOA would sue an association member.

Care to fill in the blanks for us?

Charles,

Can you please give us more info? Why is the member being sued? Who is the board member who has instructed the Sec to start proceedings? Is the whole board aware of the situation?

As Michelle has stated, if this lawsuit is as a result of a delinquency or CCR violation then the procedure should be standard and no vote of the board is needed. However, if this is a case of one board member deciding to sue a member of the assn without the whole board having any knowledge of the issue then that is an entirely different matter.

Charles then the other four members of the Board needs to remove her from her position (the position not the Board) and appoint another Board member to be secretary. The Board also needs to make a policy outlining just who can initiate a lawsuit. With all due respect to Mary and Michele IMHO it is improper for one person on the BOD to initiate a lawsuit, the power of the Association flows through the Board not the one unless the Board authorized them to act unilaterally.

I'm just not going to weigh in on the specifics of this alleged incident because it is way too third hand.

And, quite frankly, if the issue is an open violation that is not remedied by the resident, regardless of who is best friends or not with whom, if the notices have gone out and the violation still exists, and the next step is a lawsuit, then that's the way it is.

We do not require the full board to "vote" on or "sign off" on lawsuits as a result of uncorrected violations.

It's the next stage of the process, and if the proper notices have gone out, and all that's required in the next stage of the process is to have a board member sign off, then, oh well.

The resident should have corrected the violation, or at the very least not have consistently or repeatedly violated whatever covenant he/she violated (grass maintenance?) so that letters have to continually be sent requesting compliance.

With all due respect to both Glen and Mary, we really have no idea if the secretary in this case is or is not following their prescribed process.

It could very well be proper.

We do have information from someone who apparently likes to arm-chair micro-manage the board.

IF the board has a policy in place that allows the trigger to be pulled on a lawsuit after XXX number of violation notices, as long as ONE board member signs off on it, then the secretary is following the procedure.

IF the board requires a vote, then of course she has not.

I just don't think we have enough (unbiased) input to make any determination one way or the other.

PS: Whether a person is up-to-date on assessments has no bearing on a lawsuit brought to compel compliance to the covenants.

PSPS: At any given time, there may be some of our own board members who wouldn't feel comfortable simply letting a third party know if a lawsuit has been filed against a member or not, without first consulting with the rest of the board. As Mary stated, all board members would be brought up to speed at the next board meeting, but if the lawsuit was triggered prior to that, not all of our board members would necessarily know or be aware of it either. When I was president, I would also do a blast email if we got the attorney involved, but not all our board presidents operate that way, preferring instead to just bring everyone up to speed at the next scheduled meeting.

Glen,I endorse your approach to this problem.
i expect if any of this requires the present secretary's involvement there already is a problem there.
The issue with a unilateral action to sue is laced with problems. Is a precedence established by the board? It should be. In view of the communication revelations, it is a simple matter to pole the individual board members. If there is specific directions written into the documents and this is routine matter, then it would appear what ever is written would serve. I would still suggest that all boards make all board members aware of all active court issues, ASAP. Charlie's example seems to fall outside of "routine". The size of the associarion could also bear on this notification issue.
In a large association with hundreds of units it may be deemed to be a strictly administrative function,
and handled under specific detailed board approved directions. In that case it would probably be a management company responsibility.

GlenL,
the secretary is not on the board per se, she is a paid employee of the association.

Charles,

Do you mean she is on the payroll; the BOD takes out taxes, etc and pay her a wage. Or is she contract labor? Does she work for a mgmt co or is she an independent contractor. Exactly what are her duties as secretary? If she is an employee, she can fired for doing things that are not a part of her job description, especially things that may get the BOD into hot water.

Michele,

From what Charles has posted I am led to believe the secretary is the self-appointed assn enforcer. A friend who is a non-member tells he what he believe to be a violation and based upon that she sends a violation notice. According to Charles, if it doesn't go the way she likes she has a board member sign off so legal action can be taken. If this method of enforcement is acceptable to the BOD, then, IMO, the whole board needs to go!!

I always wonder how non-board members know exactly what's going on with the board!!

MaryA1,
as strange as it may sound, no board member ever signs the violation notice. it is sent out by this secretary-office manager with NO SIGNATURE on it

MicheleD,
she is a W-2 employee, who works for the HOA, not a management company

You'll have to excuse me if I don't buy this characterization. Without having access to the complaints that are filed and with the process by which your board directs the complaints to be followed up on, it's not likely you can make this pronouncement.

I can guarantee you that almost every single recipient of a violation notice in our neighborhood, as well as their neighbors to whom they complain when they get that notice, feel exactly the same way: that they are being singled out for "selective enforcement." It's one of the most common misconceptions in HOAs.

With all due respect, I've read and re-read your posts on this and for all intents and purposes, it is virtually impossible (no pun intended) to determine that what this secretary has done is or is not appropriate or whether it is or is not "selective" enforcement.

What difference does it matter who reports a violation? Our mailman reports various violations to us from time to time. He doesn't even live in this part of town, much less in our development.

If the person is in violation, and it is reported to the board, and the policy of the board is that violation notices are triggered once a complaint is made, then apparently she is within her role to do so.

And when you say, "when it doesn't go as she feels it should go,she then has a board member sign off ,so she can go file suit. . ." what you are really saying is "when the person who has been notified that they must correct the violation doesn't, she then goes to the next step to get a board member to sign off and begin attorney action."

Frankly, that's pretty common practice. If a violation is not corrected, or if a resident repeatedly violates the same covenant, and letters requesting compliance don't work, then the next step is the attorney.

If the board had problems with the way this person was handling the violation notices, then they clearly would have dealt with it before now.

If your friend does not like getting notices, and is unhappy about having to defend him/herself in a lawsuit for noncompliance, then the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to comply, regardless of what role the person feels this paid employee should have in the process.

The board is obviously quite comfortable with her work.

It also appears they are using her as a buffer to keep themselves from being "the bad guys" regarding violation notices, but that's probably a different topic altogether.