NikkiT (Texas)
Posts: 30
Posts: 30
Posted:
I am so thankful to have found this forum. I have learned so much.
Our HOA is in the process of "getting new Bylaws" as if that will fix our problems. Only one of our documents mention anything that slightly resembles mandatory dues: that being the original Deed Restrictions (dated 1972) which state "the owner cannot sell (property) to a person who MAY not become a member." Although the term "shall" is used several times in the document, it is not use in this sentence or section.
None of our Bylaw documents state financial obligation is mandatory to owning property in the Subdivision. The sentence states that Membership in the Association requires payment of dues.
The neighborhood had run down because of lack of enforcement of the CC&R's which do state the responsibility of enforcement lays with the Association and our paying memberships have shrunk from 470 to 120.
Now, the Board wants NEW BYLAWS which will specifically state "ownership of any property in the Subdivision automatically places that lot owner as a member in the Association with full obligation to support the Association.
This new Document WILL NOT BE SENT TO ALL OWNERS UNTIL AFTER THE MEMBERS THAT ARE CURRENT IN THEIR DUES HAVE VOTED IT IN. Actually they wanted to have the warm bodies (17 people)at the last meeting to do the voting, in spite of the fact, our document requires 50% vote of all members to change the Bylaw document.
The Board seems to feel once financial obligation is mandatory, they can go back and force the "delinquent" 350 to pay dues or take their property. And of course, fines for violations of the deed restrictions. The same CC&R's they presently do not enforce "because it has been so long since any of them have been enforced that the people don't have to . . . ." The reasoning is the cost in copying the document and mailling it to all the membership. However, they say, do expect to mail it to everyone after it has been voted on! Go figure!
Is this legal? Can people be forced to have a financial obligation simply by changing the rules on them without their knowledge?
To me this stinks. How can they 'change the rules' midstream and expect it to work? Especially without letting everyone know what is happening until it is accomplished and the "laws" are in place that will force them to?
Okay, any input? NikkiT
Our HOA is in the process of "getting new Bylaws" as if that will fix our problems. Only one of our documents mention anything that slightly resembles mandatory dues: that being the original Deed Restrictions (dated 1972) which state "the owner cannot sell (property) to a person who MAY not become a member." Although the term "shall" is used several times in the document, it is not use in this sentence or section.
None of our Bylaw documents state financial obligation is mandatory to owning property in the Subdivision. The sentence states that Membership in the Association requires payment of dues.
The neighborhood had run down because of lack of enforcement of the CC&R's which do state the responsibility of enforcement lays with the Association and our paying memberships have shrunk from 470 to 120.
Now, the Board wants NEW BYLAWS which will specifically state "ownership of any property in the Subdivision automatically places that lot owner as a member in the Association with full obligation to support the Association.
This new Document WILL NOT BE SENT TO ALL OWNERS UNTIL AFTER THE MEMBERS THAT ARE CURRENT IN THEIR DUES HAVE VOTED IT IN. Actually they wanted to have the warm bodies (17 people)at the last meeting to do the voting, in spite of the fact, our document requires 50% vote of all members to change the Bylaw document.
The Board seems to feel once financial obligation is mandatory, they can go back and force the "delinquent" 350 to pay dues or take their property. And of course, fines for violations of the deed restrictions. The same CC&R's they presently do not enforce "because it has been so long since any of them have been enforced that the people don't have to . . . ." The reasoning is the cost in copying the document and mailling it to all the membership. However, they say, do expect to mail it to everyone after it has been voted on! Go figure!
Is this legal? Can people be forced to have a financial obligation simply by changing the rules on them without their knowledge?
To me this stinks. How can they 'change the rules' midstream and expect it to work? Especially without letting everyone know what is happening until it is accomplished and the "laws" are in place that will force them to?
Okay, any input? NikkiT