LindaL6 (California)
Posts: 62
Posts: 62
Posted:
Here's an interesting article; I can relate.
http://condolawguru.com/2009/11/101/
Linda
http://condolawguru.com/2009/11/101/
Linda
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
Board Standards for HOA's and Condos
Started by LindaL6 • 7 replies • 1630 views
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
HB (Oregon)
Posts: 143
Posts: 143
Posted:
I like the idea of Board standards, commitment to following the CC&R's, however I don't know that anyone would want to volunteer for the Board knowing that if someone thought they made a wrong decision that they would be assessed a fine. Who would assess the fine, how would that be handled?
The CC&R's are not black and white. They often require some interpretation. Who's to say your interepretation is any more relevant than someone elses?? I know there are some definite situations where Boards have been negligent, but that is why the membership has the power to remove them and make changes. That is really the penalty for not following the CC&R's. The membership needs to let it be known that they as a group will ensure that the CC&R's are followed by the Board or they risk bein removed. The homeowners/members are really ultimately responsible for how the Board runs your neighborhood.
The CC&R's are not black and white. They often require some interpretation. Who's to say your interepretation is any more relevant than someone elses?? I know there are some definite situations where Boards have been negligent, but that is why the membership has the power to remove them and make changes. That is really the penalty for not following the CC&R's. The membership needs to let it be known that they as a group will ensure that the CC&R's are followed by the Board or they risk bein removed. The homeowners/members are really ultimately responsible for how the Board runs your neighborhood.
LindaL6 (California)
Posts: 62
Posts: 62
Posted:
That's why the board needs periodic legal counsel 
Linda
Linda
MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491
Posts: 4,491
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By LindaL6 on 11/30/2009 9:50 AM
That's why the board needs periodic legal counsel
Linda
That's why the board needs periodic legal counsel
Linda
Or not. Depending on whether the board thinks it's necessary or prudent at that juncture to get it.
A board could very easily pass the "good faith" test and never ever have obtained legal counsel at all.
What one person might believe qualifies as requiring legal counsel, another may not. That doesn't make either one inherently right or wrong, as long as both believe their positions pass the "good faith" test.
HB (Oregon)
Posts: 143
Posts: 143
Posted:
Nooo, the Board does not NEED legal counsel unless something comes up for which they cannot or are unable to make an informed decision on their own. Lots of people threaten lawsuits or send letters from attorneys as a way to intimidate.
If the HOA has lots of $$ then by all means spend it on an attorney when somebody complains or threatens to sue, but it is NOT a requirement to avoid a lawsuit.
If the HOA has lots of $$ then by all means spend it on an attorney when somebody complains or threatens to sue, but it is NOT a requirement to avoid a lawsuit.
LindaL6 (California)
Posts: 62
Posts: 62
Posted:
Nobody said they did. If a homeowner threatens to sue, they must bring something relevent to the board in which case it is probably prudent to get legal advice. Going to court to fight a lawsuit with no legal advice is unbelievable.
Reasonable inquiry is a requirement, which includes legal advice when necessary. I posted a legal interpretation.
Linda
Reasonable inquiry is a requirement, which includes legal advice when necessary. I posted a legal interpretation.
Linda
MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043
Posts: 7,043
Posted:
Linda,
It's not a requirement that the board seek legal advice for anything; it's up to them to decide. However, if faced with a lawsuit, I agree that legal advice should be sought out. I don't think anyone disputed this. What some people have disagreed with is your thinking that the board MUST seek legal advice. I doubt this requirement is outlined in your gov docs and I don't believe it's stated in the Davis-Stirling Act. You want to take your board to task for not seeking legal advice but you have failed to give us an example of why you feel this way. And, that's why some of us have the impression that you think they should seek legal advice for practically everything they do. If you could be more explicit, perhaps we might agree with you!
It's not a requirement that the board seek legal advice for anything; it's up to them to decide. However, if faced with a lawsuit, I agree that legal advice should be sought out. I don't think anyone disputed this. What some people have disagreed with is your thinking that the board MUST seek legal advice. I doubt this requirement is outlined in your gov docs and I don't believe it's stated in the Davis-Stirling Act. You want to take your board to task for not seeking legal advice but you have failed to give us an example of why you feel this way. And, that's why some of us have the impression that you think they should seek legal advice for practically everything they do. If you could be more explicit, perhaps we might agree with you!
EllenS1 (Florida)
Posts: 1,148
Posts: 1,148
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By LindaL6 on 11/30/2009 12:56 PM
Nobody said they did. If a homeowner threatens to sue, they must bring something relevent to the board in which case it is probably prudent to get legal advice. Going to court to fight a lawsuit with no legal advice is unbelievable.
Reasonable inquiry is a requirement, which includes legal advice when necessary. I posted a legal interpretation.
Linda
Nobody said they did. If a homeowner threatens to sue, they must bring something relevent to the board in which case it is probably prudent to get legal advice. Going to court to fight a lawsuit with no legal advice is unbelievable.
Reasonable inquiry is a requirement, which includes legal advice when necessary. I posted a legal interpretation.
Linda
A"threat to sue" is meaningless. Wiat until the person that threatens wants to spend money to start a lawsuit. If so, and if the association is served with papers, they still have 20 days to have an attorney reply on their behalf. I have to laugh..we have had two people threaten to sue and bascially I just told them to go for it..nothing happened and I haven't heard from them again.
🎯 You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- ✓ Ask follow-up questions
- ✓ Share your experience
- ✓ Get expert advice
- ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here