We have a home owners association (HOA) for a group of condominiums governed by an Enabling Declaration that mirrors condominium law for the state of Texas. In the Enagling Declaration containing the covenants, conditions & restrictions (CC&Rs) it mandates the HOA be governed by a Board of Governors comprised of THREE ndividuals who must be condominium co-owners in the same HOA.
For over a year now, we have had only TWO members in this Board of Governors because it is an unpaid position and our co-owners are mostly retired with no desire to do extra work for a bunch of ungrateful, grumpy old neighbors. BUT, our two existing Governors on this board are screwing up in big ways which could lead to legal recourse against them based on their exploitation of other co-owners and defiance of clearly defined rules under the CC&Rs.
The requirement that there be at least 3 on the Board comes from the basic principle that it is harder for 3 to collude than it is for 2 and certainly for 1.
In this situation with only two on the Board, it appears there WAS collusion to the detriment of other co-owner’s property rights. So my question is whether the entire HOA is "invalid" or "illegal" because we are not property formed with at least 3 members on the Board of Governors. Certain legal actions were taken to amend property rights but if the entire HOA was invalid or illegal due to lack of the appropriate number of Governors, I question whether any amendment under their administration can be considered binding.
What is the appropriate remedy or response to this situation if there is a co-owner dispute? We’re not interested in hiring attorneys or going to court and hope that by referencing the correct body of law, we can self-correct without all the unnecessary court and legal fees. What situation are we really in with only two on a Board that should have three? No amendments were made to the CC&Rs to approve only 2 Governors were needed on the Board vs. 3.
Thank you Responder DannoRea for the encouragement to run for head of our HOA myself. I would certainly do a much better job than who is in there now, yes, but I’m dealing with petty people who are most intimidated when I even ask basic questions or encourage the group to follow the rules. They feel an attorney has to advise them on everything but they’re too cheap to pay for one so they just guess at what the CC&Rs really mean and make it up as they go along until someone objects. I’ve objected to ane major violation so now I’m the "bad guy" and there is no way they would vote me to lead nor would I do it for free with this cantankerous hornets nest of grumps. Even when I do good work for them for free, they complain. I’m looking to bring in an outside property manager to take over and that will cost but it will beat being sued and we will actually have someone competant running things, I hope. Thanks again though for the vote of confidence.
DannoREA said:
Feb 02, 09 at 6:09 amIMO, if the HOA is not abiding by their own bylaws, they will find they have no leg to stand on in a legal argument when defending ANY decisions they’ve made. It could be reasonably argued that with only two members on the board, there was no room for a majority, and the decisions they made were not in the best interest of the HOA members.
My advice would be to run for it yourself and become the "new sherriff in town".
As far as the collusion goes, that’s something you’ll have to priove in open court.
words_that_live_on said:
Feb 04, 09 at 6:01 amThanks for the information. Real estate people need to keep learning. I saw a condo in Texas last year with a hundred lots. The roads were bad and many houses were left to rot. You cant buy into it without all the controls so it needs to be a total purchase and resold as freehold land and accepted by the local city for police and water.