Documents handed out at a Board Meeting

Can someone share what your PM has available for Members attending a monthly or quarterly board meeting such as agendas, financials.

Tim,

What I was referring to was income/expenses for the month to compare against the same items budgeted. Our old PM had the financials available to the members as they walked into the meeting.

I asked for the financial's from our new PM and they want $45 for me to just inspect.

Tim

Civil Code 1368.2 states that the Association must make certain information not of an confidential matter available for inspection to the member requesting such information. Our PM is refusing inspection but is willing to charge me $45 for a mailing or $20 for a PDF copy. I was willing to travel to the PM's office to view.

Richard since it is the MC charging the fees not the HOA they are evidently not constrained by the sections of law which limit the fees an HOA can charge to the actual costs involved. (Bold by me)

Case Law

Brown v. Professional Community Management, Inc.
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 532

COUNSEL
Richard Paul Herman for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Fiore, Racobs & Powers, John R. MacDowell, Michael C. Fettig; Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh and Paul E. Van Hoomissen for Cross-defendants and Respondents. [127 Cal.App.4th 535]

OPINION
IKOLA, J.-

Cross-complainant Sabina Brown cross-complained against her homeowners association, Lake Forest Keys (LFK), and its property management company, Professional Community Management, Inc. (PCM). She alleged under various legal theories that she, and the class she purported to represent, had been charged assessments or fees exceeding the amount necessary to defray the costs for which the assessments or fees had been levied. In her "Corrected Third Amended Cross-Complaint" (cross-complaint), Brown claimed the alleged conduct of both LFK and PCM violated Civil Code section 1366.1 fn. 1 and gave rise to remedies against both cross-defendants for negligence, a violation of section 52.1 and article I of the California Constitution, civil conspiracy, and a violation of sections 1750 et seq., the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. [127 Cal.App.4th 536]

The court sustained PCM's demurrer to Brown's cross-complaint without leave to amend, and entered a judgment of dismissal on the cross-complaint as to PCM. Brown contends the court erred by concluding PCM owed no duty to Brown under section 1366.1. She also contends the litigation privilege, section 47, subdivision (b)(2), does not apply to the alleged conduct. fn. 2 We disagree with Brown's first contention, find it unnecessary to reach the second, and affirm the judgment.
FACTS

Our factual summary "accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaint, together with facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged." (Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505.) Brown's cross-complaint is not a model of clarity. But she appears to challenge the legality of certain fees charged by PCM for providing collection services to LFK, which fees are then passed along to the delinquent homeowner. We extract from her cross-complaint the following material allegations.

PCM is in the business of providing services to homeowners associations such as LFK. The homeowners associations serviced by PCM levy "various fees, fines, liens, imposts, charges, [and] interest charges . . . against thousands of homeowners. . . ." In connection with its services to LFK, PCM prepares "'late letters' and 'lien letters' for which it charges a fee and therefore shares in the profits of these illegal fees." The subject fees, "under whatever name, exceed 'the amount necessary to defray the cost for which they are levied' in violation of Civil Code, section 1366.1." Brown alleges the fees in excess of those permitted by section 1366.1 have been charged negligently by PCM (first cause of action), the excessive charges entitle Brown to damages under section 52.1 (second cause of action), PCM conspired with LFK to charge excessively and shared in the "profits" by charging a "late letter fee" (third cause of action), and PCM has "represented that transaction [sic] involves rights, remedies or obligations which does not have or involve and which are specifically prohibited by flaw [sic] under Civil Code, Section 1366.1, in violation of Civil Code, Section 1770(a)(14)" (fourth cause of action). [127 Cal.App.4th 537]
DISCUSSION

[1] "In determining whether plaintiff[] properly stated a claim for relief, our standard of review is clear: '"We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed." [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment; if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. [Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.'" Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.

Section 1366.1 Does Not Limit PCM's Fees

[2] At the outset, we note that Brown offers no argument as to why the demurrer to her third cause of action should have been overruled. Her third cause of action alleged entitlement to a remedy under section 52.1, presumably on the ground that imposition of PCM's fees constituted an infringement of rights secured to her by the federal and state Constitutions. We decline to address the third cause of action. "When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary." (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700.) We turn to the other three causes of action, each of which is premised on conduct alleged to violate section 1366.1. fn. 3

[3] Because this case turns on the language of section 1366.1, and an understanding of the conduct it prohibits, we begin with the words of the statute. "An association shall not impose or collect an assessment or fee that exceeds the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied." (Italics added.) Section 1366.1 is part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act), section 1350 et seq. Under the Act, an "'association' means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development." [127 Cal.App.4th 538] (§ 1351, subd. (a).) The Act requires that "[a] common interest development shall be managed by an association which may be incorporated or unincorporated." (§ 1363, subd. (a).) An "association" is charged under the Act with many specific duties, responsibilities, and restrictions, one of which is set forth in section 1366.1 -- not to charge an assessment or fee in excess of the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied.

[4] In construing section 1366.1, "'"as with any statute, we strive to ascertain and effectuate the Legislature's intent"' [Citations.] 'Because statutory language "generally provide[s] the most reliable indicator" of that intent [citations], we turn to the words themselves, giving them their "usual and ordinary meanings" and construing them in context [citation].' [Citation.] If the language contains no ambiguity, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs." (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1106, 1111.)

[5] Here, the language of section 1366.1, in context, contains no ambiguity. The statute prohibits an "association" from charging fees or assessments in excess of the costs for which the fee or assessment is charged. As noted ante, an "association" is a defined term under the Act, and the definition requires the "association" to be a nonprofit entity. In contrast, the Act imposes separate duties on a managing agent. (See §§ 1363.1 & 1363.2.) And those statutory duties are owed to the "association" and its board of directors, not to individual owners of separate property interests in the common interest development. (Ibid.) Significantly, the Act does not require a managing agent to be a nonprofit entity. It is clear, both from the definitions in the Act and from the separately imposed duties, the Legislature meant "association," when it used that term, and it meant "managing agent," when it used that term.

[6] Thus, we understand the section 1366.1 prohibition, which runs expressly against an "association," to mean, for example, that fees or assessments levied against homeowners for the purpose of defraying the cost of mowing the grass in the common areas, or of painting the association's clubhouse, or of replacing the deck of the association's swimming pool, or any other of the myriad of the association's management and maintenance responsibilities, may not exceed the cost to the association for providing those services.

The Act contemplates the officers and directors of an association will be volunteer homeowners. (See § 1365.7 [limiting liability of volunteer officers and directors].) Surely, the individual homeowners acting as volunteer officers [127 Cal.App.4th 539] and directors are not expected to perform all of the required services personally, and at no cost. Instead, the association must either hire employees or contract with others to provide the services. Landscape maintenance contractors are hired to mow the grass, painters are hired to paint the clubhouse, swimming pool contractors are hired to repair the pool deck, and managing agents, such as PCM, are hired to make these arrangements, and, importantly, to collect the fees and assessments levied against the homeowners. The costs incurred by the association, for which it levies an assessment or charges a fee, necessarily include the fees and profit the vendor charges for its services. While section 1366.1 prohibits an association from marking up the incurred charge to generate a profit for itself, the vendor is not similarly restricted. Plaintiff would have it that no vendor selling its services to an association could charge a fee, or, indeed, continue in business as a profit making enterprise. That cannot be the law.

Indeed, section 1366, subdivision (e), authorizes an association to charge homeowners the very type of fees challenged by plaintiff. "If an assessment is delinquent the association may recover all of the following: (1) Reasonable costs incurred in collecting the delinquent assessment, including reasonable attorney's fees. [] (2) A late charge not exceeding 10 percent of the delinquent assessment or ten dollars ($10), whichever is greater, . . . [] (3) Interest on all sums imposed in accordance with this section, including the delinquent assessments, reasonable fees and costs of collection, and reasonable attorney's fees, at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent . . . . " (Italics added.) In spite of this statutory authorization, Brown alleges that PCM prepares "'late letters' and 'lien letters' for which it charges a fee and therefore shares in the profits of these illegal fees." The allegation is circular. The fees are not "illegal" unless they exceed the association's costs, costs that necessarily include the fee charged for the service. And section 1366 contemplates that the association will incur reasonable costs in connection with its collection efforts.

[7] We conclude the duty to refrain from the conduct prohibited by section 1366.1 is imposed solely on the "association," the nonprofit entity designated by statute as having the responsibility to manage the affairs of the common interest development. Section 1366.1 has no application to an association's vendors. Competitive forces, not the statute, will constrain the vendors' fees and charges. [127 Cal.App.4th 540]

The Conspiracy Allegations Do Not Create a Duty Where None Exists

[8] Perhaps recognizing section 1366.1 applies only to an association, Brown nevertheless attempts to impose liability on PCM by alleging it conspired with the association to violate section 1366.1. The effort is unavailing. In Doctor's Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 39 (Doctor's Company), the California Supreme Court held: "A cause of action for civil conspiracy may not arise . . . if the alleged conspirator, though a participant in the agreement underlying the injury, was not personally bound by the duty violated by the wrongdoing . . . ." (Id. at p. 44, italics added.) Thus, in Doctor's Company, attorneys and expert witnesses hired by an insurance company could not be held liable for conspiring with the insurance company to violate a statutory duty owed only by the insurance company. (Id. at p. 49.)

[9] The rule established by Doctor's Company is plain enough. But it was firmly cemented into our law in Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503. "The invocation of conspiracy does not alter [the] fundamental allocation of duty. Conspiracy is not an independent tort; it cannot create a duty or abrogate an immunity. It allows tort recovery only against a party who already owes the duty and is not immune from liability based on applicable substantive tort law principles." (Id. at p. 514, italics added.)

Having concluded PCM does not owe an independent duty under section 1366.1, we need only follow the high court's precedent. PCM cannot be liable in tort for conspiring with LFK to charge fees in excess of the amount necessary to defray LFK's costs. If, as Brown alleges, PCM "shares" in the "profits" represented by the fees for "late letters" and "lien letters," PCM violates no duty owed by it, either to the association or its members, because it is not prohibited from earning a profit, or from charging any fee the competitive market will bear. On the other hand, if LFK is, in fact, "sharing" in the fees charged by PCM (i.e., kickbacks), LFK may be violating section 1366.1, but to the detriment, not the advantage, of PCM.

Since we conclude PCM owed no duty, we do not reach the issue whether the alleged conduct was privileged under section 47, subdivision (b)(2), the so-called litigation privilege. The demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend as to all causes of action of Brown's cross-complaint. [127 Cal.App.4th 541]
DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. PCM shall recover its costs on appeal.

Sills, P. J., and O'Leary, J., concurred.

FN 1. All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise stated.

FN 2. The notice of appeal also purports to appeal from the denial of a motion for class certification. Because Brown has not briefed these issues, she has waived her appeal from the order denying class certification. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 ["'[E]very brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration. [Citations.]'"].)

At the very least the information should be posted on the website after it has been approved by the board at the meeting.

We used to have copies of the agenda available to people attending the meeting, but since so few homeowners show up, we've stopped doing that. We do print a summary of the minutes and income/expense report in our newsletter, and homeowners may ask our property manager for a detailed financial report or minutes

We provide a copy of the annual budget mailed to members once per year. We haven't ever had a request for additional information, but would be happy to email if asked. Our PM also charges, so it is best if the member contactsa board member.

George

I have read the Davis-Stirling Act at least 5 times, more times than any book or document I have read in my lifetime, and that is a while.

I am not on a fishing expedition. I know exactly what I am looking for and the information is not confidential or privileged. As an owner and someone trying to get a seat at the table, I want to know where the money is going to and if California and our governing documents are being followed. Our board with the help of the PM do not follow the statues that are supposed to regulate HOA's. The minutes are incomplete, there has been no vote on any item within the Association in over 6 months, no general reference to items discussed in Executive Session (which is conducted before every meeting). Apparently, we have been spending large amounts of Association funds on legal issues not related to violations or non-payment of assessments. They are trying to install cameras at our gates at a cost of $30K, which is over 5% of our annual budget, without a vote of the membership.

In the end, all I was asking for is 12 sheets of paper that could have been emailed to me. When you make it difficult for someone to inspect, I think someone is hiding something.

I can see John's had too much caffeine for one day.

California Civil Code under the Davis-Stirling Act allows members to inspect non-confidential information at the Association's Business Office. The PM has refused to allow me to go to their office to inspect the records that I am allowed to inspect. I've told the PM I don't want copies only to inspect.

As I mentioned before, I just want a look at the income/expense part of the financial's.

Becoming President of the U.S. would be easier.

We am going to do them one better.

We are going to be electing a whole new set of BOD and will be firing the PM at the very earliest date.

Richard,

FYI, the "books" are not just the financial statements, but rather ALL the financial data; i.e., all the journals and ledgers, including the general ledger, adjusting entries, etc. I don't understand how you can determine whether the books have been altered just by looking at the financial statements.

This is what happens when someone with no accounting knowledge determines to prove that the financial accounting is not on the up and up. Do you really know what you're looking for?

Oh, well, it's good to see you're not engaging in a fishing expedition.

Richard Richard stop the nonsense if your on the BOD great ask questions of the PM an get answers great you wANT A COPY OF EVERYTHING GET ON THE BOARD AN QUIT BEING A NUSANCE TO THE bod..................THESE ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS DO YOU UNDERSTAND UNPAID VOLUNTEERS.
yOUR LUCKY YOU DO NOT LIVE IN MY COMMUNITY i WOULD GLADLY GIVE YOU EVERY SINGLE FINANCIAL DOCUMENT AN IT WILL COST YOU EXACTLY 2.0 MILLION DOLLARS AS IN fLORIDA YOU MAY HAVE ACESS TO EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT AT THE RATE OF 2 DOLLARS A PAGE..................What are you getting all bentout of shape over anyway you hoa has dno insurance its required any monies are paid back under that policy if anuthing turns up missing or improperly spent
as to lawyers fees they are always hi in a HOA as all contracts should be run thru the law firm an any foreclosures have to be run thru the law firm..............at the rate of 2500 per foreclosure an then if only a simple foreclosure ( uncontested ) liens run close to 1500 per home its usually $250 per clock hour used..............every contract binding on the hoa must be looked at 250 an hour an the beat goes on any technical questions have to be answered at 250 an houran no results are ever shown other than in the minutes an thats only if there are no problems any problems were BOD members have to call the lawyers are also at 250 a hour an $5 a page for faxes 250 dollars per finished page.

And who also does not work for you, but for the board.

Glen

I got the records I needed. I got the minutes and I got the income/expenses. Now it will be up to 311 other owners to determine whether $100K in legal was wasted by the BOD/PM. According to their minutes, we have had only one foreclosure and two liens placed on homes. Using John's calculations that's $4500.

Michele..The Board works for me and 311 other owners. Even though they were never elected by the members they still have a fiduciary responsibility to transact business in the best interest of the Association.

I started questioning what was going on here when the BOD changed PM's late last year. The prior PM provided the minutes and financial's for the members who attended the meetings. Items were voted on by the Board at the meetings. Since September, there has been no vote on any matter, no minutes provided, no financial's provided, no accounting of our money. So when you go from transparency to complete lock down, that throws up a red flag, especially when you ask for minutes and financial's and they say this is a legal issue.

I joined this site to ask questions. Some of the responses have been very helpful (Thank you Tim) others just mean spirited. I have researched information here going back some 4 years. I have seen a number of posts similar to ours. Much has to to with uninformed Board members and power hungry PM's and attorneys. Instead of just using common sense (nothing is ever black or white), they try and follow letter for letter governing docs that were put into place by developer to sell property and for local governments to wash their hands of any responsibility. My problem is not with Board, its with the PM's and Attorneys as they should know better. I'm standing up for the others who don't want to in fear of retaliation from the powers to be.

An you claim your not on a fishing expedition? Thats exactly what you are doing trying your level best to get anyone to agree with your thinking in any manner what so ever I notice you never say that you even attempted to be on the BOD no you think your self appointed duty is to destroy an defame others...........The reason supossedly for this web site is for BOD members to share ideas an concepts you have no place here your sole funtion in life is to lay blame at others feet because you are not adult enough tofind out ow things are done an what the order of things are set up to do......your so wrong so often its pitafull................a text book reason I do not perticipate more often..................You an what you promote are not what this web site isall about....it appears to me you have a persecution complex period.................If you think your BOD is wrong go hire a attorney case closed an by the way before you do realize you are sueing yourself as the HOA attorneys work for the BOD not the members.............

Well, technically, this forum is for "Community Association Boards and Other Volunteers to discuss topics concerning their association duties."

This is primarily a board for HOA leaders. It's very likely that we will have a bias towards that perspective, even while being responsible homeowners and association members ourselves.

So while non-HOA or community association members may have SOME place here (all are welcome), the role of this forum has never been to provide any homeowner with advice and/or direction regarding their specific HOAs.

We have often had residents or homeowners drop in to rant because they have been hit with a violation notice or fines or liens (almost always warranted, after the facts get pulled out), promote anti-HOA propaganda, attempt to get some sort of advice to nail their "evil" boards, and so forth.

We often spend time working through some of those posters issues, but, to be honest, sometimes we have little patience when it's clear that the homeowner really doesn't want the advice or suggestions we may provide.

Many times all they want is to confirm that they are "right." They are looking for affirmation, validation, and confirmation. We can give that -- sometimes -- but only if they are completely honest. Many times they are not. (Again, not a fatal flaw; it's just human nature. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore that it happens.)

Excellent.



My guess is that your governing documents already hold the BOD accountable and responsible. I'm not sure "restating" them is required. Simply following them should be all that's required.



Sorry, but it is not only the BOD's fault, but the homeowners as well for doing exactly what YOU are doing, giving the board a "pass."



Ahhh. Who's assuming now? I happen to know very well that not all HOAs work or run like ours. Ours didn't even always run like ours in the early years. There is definitely a learning curve for the homeowners who step forward to volunteer on the board. And I am quite familiar with many HOAs in my area that are veritable NIGHTMARE HOAs.

But in the end, it's still the MEMBERSHIP'S responsibility to take control of their association back and fix it.



Sorry, you are still dead up wrong. The BOARD does NOT WORK FOR THE HOMEOWNERS. The BOARD MANAGES THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND IS GOVERNED BY THE DOCUMENTS, NOT THE HOMEOWNERS.



You just flip-flopped from a business to a social club.

*I* know the HOA is a business, and the board conducts the business of the organization. They are NOT "employees," the homeowners ("shareholders") are NOT their bosses or supervisors, remember, THE BOARD MEMBERS are "shareholders" too!



Excellent! As I always say, reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements about waht constitutes a "better job." So if you can garner the MEMBERSHIP TRUST in your platform, that's great.

But remember, YOU will have to operate the business of the corporation in a manner that your fellow members feel is responsible, too.

In that regard, I can tell you that I greatly look forward to your CONTINUED education. You are really going to need it, apparently.


I don't see that as "retaliation." Making idle threats is not retaliation. It might be a form of intimidation, but it's hardly "retaliation."

The board doesn't work FOR the association. The board conducts the day-to-day business of the association and is subject to the governing documents regarding what they can and can't do.

The are members of the association as well as all members. No one person or board "controls" the association, the governing documents do.

If the majority of homeowners feels the current board is not effectively handling the affairs of the association the way the documents prescribe, then the DOCUMENTS dictate how that is to be handled.

In most cases, simply electing different board members may remedy.

Either way, the board does not WORK FOR the MEMBERS.



Well, they are not the only ones who need a refresher course, you do as well.

They are incorrect and you are incorrect if either of you keep insisting that the HOA is a "type" of government. It is not. It is a type of corporation. It is NOT a government, pseudo- or otherwise.

Again, this is partially where you are getting your bad information.

In a corporation, and on the board, the PRESIDENT has no more "power" than any other member, director or officer.

In fact, the board has no more "power" than any individual association MEMBER.

The only power that a board has is to make business decisions granted them by the GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. No board member's vote or position carries any more weight that another, with ONE exception: that is, IF the governing documents for that specific HOA DESIGNATE an officer or board member to have greater weight or more power. Period.



Now you are starting to get it. SORT OF. The board AND the membership answers to the association's governing documents. NEITHER (either the board or the membership) can do anything that isn't allowed or specified in the governing documents. ALL and EACH have equal responsibility to the association - - so hopefully you are "getting it" that the board doesn't "work for" members, especially individual members!!



By making excuses for the fact that they have abdicated THEIR DIRECT RESPONSIBILITIES to the governing documents and turned over all decisions/direction of the business to VENDORS!!

Duh.



First of all, "waah" -- sorry, but you seem to be wanting a pity party. I just gave it to you.

Now suck it up and put on your Big Boy Pants and look at the situation through reality glasses.

Starting with focusing on the BOARD and not the PM.



So why are you not doing that? Why are you running some campaign against the PM and attorney? They have nothing to do with your association, except by way of being a VENDOR.

If you don't like the way they work or what they are doing ( or NOT doing ) and the board isn't responsive to that, then elect a board that understands its responsibilities and doesn't abdicate that responsibility to a VENDOR.


I NEVER put anyone down for getting involved. I strongly encourage involvement.

I DO impress upon people that they get their facts straight, that they get their own agenda out in the open and that they recognize their own responsibilities and know and understand their own governing documents inside and out. And I don't have a "my way," but I do try to be as accurate as possible when referring to the HOA environment. HOA BOARDS DO NOT GOVERN!! They conduct the business of the corporation within the parameters of the controlling documents. When they DO make rules or regulations, even THOSE are within the scope and parameters of the controlling documents. ANY governance comes from the membership body as a whole. It is the membership that makes and approves amendments to the controlling documents. It is the controlling documents that "govern" the association. All the board does is conduct the business affairs.

So you clearly don't read my posts then. I'm quite confident that you still read my posts through your own filter. (Oh, and your little snug about fining people as a "last resort" speaks loudly about your own filter and agenda, by the way.)

You don't want to do that. You want to go "fishing" instead, and start from the back end instead of getting it square from the front.

You want to put the cart before the horse. Why? Dunno. I can make some guesses.

Six months is a long time, but in HOA time, not so much. Some HOAs have had to deal with secretive and unresponsive and incapable boards for six YEARS.

Six months doesn't give one near enough time to know what is or is not working.

How do you know the board is not directing the PM to keep the information from you?
How do you know that the board is not directing the PM to give you the information and they are refusing?
How do you know that the board has not been working on this for the past six months themselves, and don't feel like they have to tell you or anyone else what they are doing?

The bottom line is that there may be something wonky going on. There may not be. There is no way to tell, even with the information you THINK you have acquired.

But I DO know that the BOARD is where you need to start and end your expedition.

If they cannot give you satisfactory answers, then they are the ones who need to go.

When they are gone, and I sincerely hope that YOU then become a board member, then you will have access to what the PM and attorney was directed to do or not do, and everything else your little info-hungry heart would desire.

At that point, either toss them and get a new one, or MAKE THEM WORK FOR YOU like they are SUPPOSED to do, and not the other way around!!

But you are also extremely incorrect when you say there is no right or wrong way to run an HOA.

There most definitely is a "right" way -- it's the legal way -- and even in states that have no HOA laws, there are CONTRACT and corporate and non-profit laws that control what a board can and can't do.

Running an HOA in a way that "feels right" is bogus and dangerous.

If you want to run an HOA that way, be prepared for your own arse to get bit.

Are we really going to keep going back and forth on this?

Get it through your thick skull. It's not an "opinion." It's a fact. An HOA is not a government. It is a corporation, and in most places a non-profit corporation.

There is only one way to run the corporation and that is in accordance with the corporation's controlling documents and local and state laws.

You are going to need a great deal more education if you can't grasp that very basic fact.

People may try to use "government" as an ANALOGY for an HOA, but it would be wrong.

You still can't run it whatever way "feels" right.



Transparency is a good thing to look for. Fishing expeditions don't get you to the "transparency" goal, though.

And since you have no clue of the difference between an HOA and a government entity, you are going to keep ramming your head against a brick wall.



You can look at it however you want, but it's still apples to oranges.

How old are you? Is it possible for you to take a course in corporate law? You might want to try that.


And your "president" is as wrong as you are. . .

Your turn. . . . .

We’ve certainly gotten away from the document question but since the OP led us this way I’ll follow. Yes a lot of people have compared HOA Boards to a private government; that doesn’t make it so. An HOA is a private corporation exercising its rights and powers granted to it by the State and its covenants; no more no less. Compare a HOA to another corporation say a credit card company.

Like an HOA it’s voluntary for you to join. Like an HOA when you join you sign a pledge to obey the rules as set out by the credit card company. Like an HOA the credit card company can charge you fees to belong and like an HOA if you violate the rules you agreed to the credit card company has the right to fine you for your violation. This DOES NOT make the credit card company a private government. It is a corporation exercising the rights and powers given to it by the government and its charter; no more, no less.

There's probably a decent argument to be made that HOAs are private governments which would probably involve arguing that regular corporations are private governments. It's not convincing to me but, hey, some argument could be made.

The so-called articles and research papers posted here and on the Internet serve only to convert the already converted. The arguments are weak and the logic questionable.