State will not ‘take over’ a condominium association or HOA: "Question: What is the legal standard for the state to intervene and take over an HOA? What is the procedure to initiate the state to investigate an HOA? —"
----------------
The answer this attorney gives it basically, the state doesn't take over associations, but sometimes a court may appoint a receiver. The attorney mentions cases of fraud, but I think it is more often done if an association is falling apart and becoming nonfunctional, or if the BOD refuses to pay a court-ordered judgment.
4 comments:
Funny how the author suggests getting copies of records in order to "build a case" against the HOA. Of course, HOAs and their vendors creating barriers to accessing records is one of the most complained about issues in HOA-burdened housing.
Case in point, look no further than PA HB595. The current bill — approved unanimously in the House and sailing through committees in the Senate — has been crafted by CAI attorneys to require two conditions before an HOA owner/shareholder can file a complaint against their association with the AG — for issues as basic as obtaining access to records, an HOA’s refulsal to alllow owners to examine election ballots, or expecting the HOA to hold an annual meeting and actually meet quorum requirements.
The two conditions:
1) the owner must be in “good standing” — creating a perverse incentive for a rogue board or manager to fabricate covenant violations, impose fines, and/or to misplace or claim to have never received assessment payments. (It happens)
2) the owner must participate in the HOA’s own internal ADR process and wait 100 days to see if the HOA will play nice — what is there to mediate or arbitrate with the HOA breaks state law? Isn’t it the job of the AG to investigate and determine the merits of a complaint?
NOPE, not in PA. And not according to HB 595. The only thing the AG can do, if this bill passes (and it’s likely to pass and be signed by the Governor), is to merely TAKE A COMPLAINT but only after the owner jumps through the ADR hoops created and designed by HOA attorneys for the benefit of the HOA. That’s going to cost owners a lot of money, and delay action for 100 days, It will discourage owners from filing a complaint, and that’s precisely the intent of the industry attorneys that crafted HB 595.
The original bill HB 432 (2016) proposed that the AG would “investigate and mediate” complaints aginst HOAs made by housing consumers. That bill was killed and DOA.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2017&sInd=0&body=H&type=b&bn=595
.
IC_deLight said... "Funny how the author suggests getting copies of records in order to 'build a case' against the HOA. Of course, HOAs and their vendors creating barriers to accessing records is one of the most complained about issues in HOA-burdened housing".
Long and horribly convoluted story short and grossly over-simplified :
A few years ago, I was involved in a suit/counter-suit with my H.O.A. corporation (which was a small part of a much larger nearly decade-long dispute):
One of my counter-claims was failure to produce documents and records that I was entitled to, under both the H.O.A. corporation's governing documents and open-records provisions of the state's H.O.A. law.
Among the records and documents I had requested were the governing documents of the H.O.A. corporation (declaration, bylaws, policies, rules, etc) *.
The judge ruled that I did not follow the H.O.A. corporation's policy for requesting documents. Therefore, not only was that part of my counter-claim dismissed, but I was not allowed to mention the H.O.A. corporation's refusal to produce records and documents in my defense.
The H.O.A. corporation's policy for requesting documents and records was never published nor disclosed to me, and actively withheld from me. But that was irrelevant to the judge. They had (secret) policies **, I didn't follow their (secret) policies, and therefore I had no recourse.
Although Colorado has open records requirements in it's H.O.A. law, for practical purposes they are unenforceable. As Evan told Shu 8 years ago, "Who cares what the rules are? Who cares what the law says? It doesn't make any difference. The transaction costs of enforcing an owner's rights are so great that they are hardly ever able to do it".
Words cannot begin to convey how frustrating and infuriating the whole ordeal has been. Years later, I'm still angry about the whole matter. Colorado's legislators *** and judges have bent over backwards to ensure that homeowners will be denied even the tiniest sliver of justice and dignity.
* Other records I was requesting were an accounting for $2,000 in un-awarded attorney fees that were illegally billed to my account, in violation of the same judge's Court Order from a prior litigation. The judge was indifferent about the ongoing violations of her Court Order by the H.O.A. corporation. When the H.O.A. corporation again violated another one of her Court Orders six years later, by illegally billing $7,000 in un-awarded attorney fees to my account (and again demanding payment for the illegal attorney fees), she refused to hold them accountable. I doubt homeowners -- or other non-corporate natural-persons -- receive the same leniency. Insert rant about "equality before the law" here.
** which, of course, they could (secretly) amend at any time
*** both state and federal representatives, several whom I've repeatedly contacted over the years; some in person.
.
IC_deLight said... "Funny how the author suggests getting copies of records in order to 'build a case' against the HOA. Of course, HOAs and their vendors creating barriers to accessing records is one of the most complained about issues in HOA-burdened housing".
Long and horribly convoluted story short and grossly over-simplified :
A few years ago, I was involved in a suit/counter-suit with my H.O.A. corporation (which was a small part of a much larger nearly decade-long dispute):
One of my counter-claims was failure to produce documents and records that I was entitled to, under both the H.O.A. corporation's governing documents and open-records provisions of the state's H.O.A. law.
Among the records and documents I had requested were the governing documents of the H.O.A. corporation (declaration, bylaws, policies, rules, etc) *.
The judge ruled that I did not follow the H.O.A. corporation's policy for requesting documents. Therefore, not only was that part of my counter-claim dismissed, but I was not allowed to mention the H.O.A. corporation's refusal to produce records and documents in my defense.
The H.O.A. corporation's policy for requesting documents and records was never published nor disclosed to me, and actively withheld from me. But that was irrelevant to the judge. They had (secret) policies **, I didn't follow their (secret) policies, and therefore I had no recourse.
Although Colorado has open records requirements in it's H.O.A. law, for practical purposes they are unenforceable. As Evan told Shu 8 years ago, "Who cares what the rules are? Who cares what the law says? It doesn't make any difference. The transaction costs of enforcing an owner's rights are so great that they are hardly ever able to do it".
Words cannot begin to convey how frustrating and infuriating the whole ordeal has been. Years later, I'm still angry about the whole matter. Colorado's legislators *** and judges have bent over backwards to ensure that homeowners will be denied even the tiniest sliver of justice and dignity.
* Other records I was requesting were an accounting for $2,000 in un-awarded attorney fees that were illegally billed to my account, in violation of the same judge's Court Order from a prior litigation. The judge was indifferent about the ongoing violations of her Court Order by the H.O.A. corporation. When the H.O.A. corporation again violated another one of her Court Orders six years later, by illegally billing $7,000 in un-awarded attorney fees to my account (and again demanding payment for the illegal attorney fees), she refused to hold them accountable. I doubt homeowners -- or other non-corporate natural-persons -- receive the same leniency. Insert rant about "equality before the law" here.
** which, of course, they could (secretly) amend at any time
*** both state and federal representatives, several whom I've repeatedly contacted over the years; some in person.
Post a Comment