Can't get homeowners to serve on board

In a worst case scenario, no Board equals no corporation, no corporation equals no corporate shield and thus if anything happens on the common areas like a kid drowning in the retention pond then all homeowners can be sued jointly and severalty for damages. Meaning while someone who has no or little equity in their home and little of value will only have to pay a little those with deep pockets will pay a lot.

In reality eventually some bill the Association is responsible to pay will get missed and the Association will be sued; when the judge finds out no one is in charge of the HOA, he will appoint a receiver to handle the operation until the homeowner’s are willing to step up. In addition to having no say in how the HOA is run; the homeowners will now on top of their regular HOA fees have to pay the receiver’s fees. (By the way any homeowner can also ask the court to appoint a receiver.)

I fail to see what is so onerous that a few people can’t get together three or four time a year to handle the HOA’s business, with only 42 homes you don’t need to meet every month and you can raise fees and hire either a Management Company or a bookkeeper to handle the day to day stuff.

Tim,

With regard to abolishing the HOA, you said: "This would also mean that some of the reasons people bought in the development (rules, covenants, etc.) would no longer apply to anyone."

Sorry, but that statement is not true. The deed restrictions "run with the land", meaning they are ever present, pass on to succeeding owners and are enforceable whether there is an HOA or not. If there is no HOA then they can be enforced by any property owner.

thanks, Steve. I wish that were true. We have issues that come up that have to be resolved all the time i.e. board approvals for additions, fences, maintenance of the lawns (our fees include lawn service), etc.

Mary,

Only the covenants would run with the deed. We all know that there are many, many more guidelines, clarifications, agreements, interpretations, etc. that are not actually part of the covenants. Those would not be enforceable. Additionally, if the Membership chose to abolish the covenants prior to disbanding the corporation, those also would no longer apply.

Tim

This happens when there is apathy and the few members who are willing to serve burn out. You need to maintain a Board. The alternative could be a Court appointed receivership which would be costly and undersirable.

One solution would be to have the bare minimum the number of Directors (3) and the time requirements to do their jobs. You could hire a managing agent to do the day to day work and be delegated almost all of the work of the Directors and Officers. The Board could meet quarterly to approve contracts, establish policies, etc. The President could monitor the managing agent and the Treasurer could sign checks. The Association (or Board) can amend procedures to reduce Board members' time involvement to a minimum. This solution will save the members money while still maintaining control over what may be the biggest investment of their life.

Lots of HOAs get into this situation: a few people over-commit for a few (or many) years and then burn out and quit on Day X.

Instead of burning out, put effort into figuring out how to do the minimum for an indefinite amount of time. Focus on maintaining the complex to the minimum standard, nothing above that. Then, raise HOA fees to the max every year to buy as much help as you can. Hire everybody at the most expensive plan that the budget can afford. Your goal is to do as little as possible, pay others to do everything that can be paid for.

At some point, fees will be so high that somebody else will get involved.

Not only was that inaccurate and insensitive, it was completely uncalled for in this thread.

Aside from all the millions of jobs lost in the last few years, through no fault of those who LOST those jobs, and the fact that companies are not hiring, and many former military are having problems not only finding jobs, but dealing with PTSD, among so many others who want to work but can't for whatever reason, some form of disability for one, those who "don't want" to work are a miniscule portion of whatever programs the government has to support those who need it.

And there may well be people on this board who you have just insulted with a political jab that was unnecessary.

Thanks.