Some tweeker broke in to my unit yesterday, brought his car into the garage, loaded it up and drove away leaving the garage door open.
Isn't it amazing that those noisy neighbors who don't have any problem calling you at both your home and cell phone numbers when they want to tell you your kid is making too much of a racket in the pool can't be bothered to call to check when your garage door is open for hours on end? I wonder how many neighbors noticed this yet did nothing? The two I spoke to, certainly others.
I think there is an HOA "rule" about not leaving your garage door open, so I am rather surprised none of our erstwhile board members got involved when the garage door was open for so long. They'll probably write me a nasty letter after they get done with their stupid and useless anti-parking campaign.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
From the AZ Republic
BY: CLINT G. GOODMAN, ESQ.
QUESTION: My association fined me for weeds on my neighbor’s lawn. I’ve tried to explain that the weeds are not mine but they won’t listen to me and demand that I pay the fine or they will put a lien on my home. Can my HOA really put a lien on my home if I refuse to pay the fine? What about if I refuse to pay my assessments until the fine issue is resolved?
ANSWER: This is the type of case that gives homeowners associations a bad name. As a trial attorney, I see these cases on a daily basis and they almost always happen because HOA boards do not know the law. In the past, associations could record liens and foreclose on a homeowner’s property for almost any reason. You may have read about the 83-year-old woman in Tequesta, Fla., who battled her community over nearly $1.8 million in fines for weeds; the 82-year-old widow who was evicted over $814.50 in unpaid dues; or the California couple whose home was foreclosed because they failed to pay $120 in assessments. Fortunately, our state lawmakers enacted laws to combat situations such as these by addressing when and how liens can be recorded and foreclosed.
Under today’s laws, associations have an “automatic lien” against every home in the association for unpaid assessments. Assessments are the dues paid on a regular basis for maintenance and upkeep of the association; they are not fines. This means that associations need not record a lien for unpaid assessments to foreclose on one’s home because the law implies one already exists. But, unlike other states where associations may evict homeowners for a few dollars, Arizona associations cannot foreclose until the unpaid assessments have accumulated for more than one year or until the amount owed reaches $1,200, whichever occurs first.
Lawmakers also took great care in distinguishing liens and foreclosure actions for unpaid assessments from liens and foreclosure actions for unpaid fines. Unlike assessment liens, an association cannot record a lien for unpaid fines until it first sues the homeowner in court and wins. This means any “lien” on a homeowner’s property for unpaid fines without proper court authority may be a “false document” in violation of Arizona’s false recording laws. It also means the individual director and/or the association responsible for its recording may be liable for statutory damages of at least $5,000.
Importantly, unlike assessment liens, an association cannot evict a homeowner from their home for fine liens. Thus, even if a homeowner is sued for fines and the association wins, the association still cannot foreclose on those fines until the home is sold or the title is transferred
QUESTION: My association fined me for weeds on my neighbor’s lawn. I’ve tried to explain that the weeds are not mine but they won’t listen to me and demand that I pay the fine or they will put a lien on my home. Can my HOA really put a lien on my home if I refuse to pay the fine? What about if I refuse to pay my assessments until the fine issue is resolved?
ANSWER: This is the type of case that gives homeowners associations a bad name. As a trial attorney, I see these cases on a daily basis and they almost always happen because HOA boards do not know the law. In the past, associations could record liens and foreclose on a homeowner’s property for almost any reason. You may have read about the 83-year-old woman in Tequesta, Fla., who battled her community over nearly $1.8 million in fines for weeds; the 82-year-old widow who was evicted over $814.50 in unpaid dues; or the California couple whose home was foreclosed because they failed to pay $120 in assessments. Fortunately, our state lawmakers enacted laws to combat situations such as these by addressing when and how liens can be recorded and foreclosed.
Under today’s laws, associations have an “automatic lien” against every home in the association for unpaid assessments. Assessments are the dues paid on a regular basis for maintenance and upkeep of the association; they are not fines. This means that associations need not record a lien for unpaid assessments to foreclose on one’s home because the law implies one already exists. But, unlike other states where associations may evict homeowners for a few dollars, Arizona associations cannot foreclose until the unpaid assessments have accumulated for more than one year or until the amount owed reaches $1,200, whichever occurs first.
Lawmakers also took great care in distinguishing liens and foreclosure actions for unpaid assessments from liens and foreclosure actions for unpaid fines. Unlike assessment liens, an association cannot record a lien for unpaid fines until it first sues the homeowner in court and wins. This means any “lien” on a homeowner’s property for unpaid fines without proper court authority may be a “false document” in violation of Arizona’s false recording laws. It also means the individual director and/or the association responsible for its recording may be liable for statutory damages of at least $5,000.
Importantly, unlike assessment liens, an association cannot evict a homeowner from their home for fine liens. Thus, even if a homeowner is sued for fines and the association wins, the association still cannot foreclose on those fines until the home is sold or the title is transferred
Monday, July 14, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Depends on who you talk to, I suppose
Earlier this year, I had a civilized conversation with board member Donald Abbott. Or so I thought.
He told me that the board wanted a resident to step up to be property manager, but no one had applied.
Yet this morning, I was talking to a neighbor and fellow resident who told me she had applied for the property manager job but was turned down by the board because she had applied for the job a day too late.
Now who would you rather see as property manager:
1. Resident or non-resident?
2. Licensed real estate agent or bill collector?
3. Experienced in property management or not so much?
Seems like a very easy decision to me, regardless of whether the application came in a day late, particularly in light of what we now know about our so-called property manager, Maureen Watrous (see prior posts), and further proof of the conflict of interest that exists with Dale Maus and Maureen Watrous.
He told me that the board wanted a resident to step up to be property manager, but no one had applied.
Yet this morning, I was talking to a neighbor and fellow resident who told me she had applied for the property manager job but was turned down by the board because she had applied for the job a day too late.
Now who would you rather see as property manager:
1. Resident or non-resident?
2. Licensed real estate agent or bill collector?
3. Experienced in property management or not so much?
Seems like a very easy decision to me, regardless of whether the application came in a day late, particularly in light of what we now know about our so-called property manager, Maureen Watrous (see prior posts), and further proof of the conflict of interest that exists with Dale Maus and Maureen Watrous.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Words to the Wise
from HOANuthouse
Homeowners association fights get costly
Submitted by Admin on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 10:08am. Living The HOA Way
Members could end up footing the bill for directors' mistakes
By ELIZABETH RAZZI | The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- Beware the homeowners association squabble that escalates. Back-fence grousing over parking restrictions, architectural rules or allegations of cronyism can grow into civil war, and homeowners -- the source of all money in the association -- can end up paying big legal bills, no matter which side wins.
One long-running D.C. fight shows why homeowners who serve as directors of their association had better pay strict attention to the details of good governance. People can be surprisingly dogged about how their dues are spent, how elections are held -- even for thankless board-of-director jobs -- and about how the rules are made, changed and enforced.
For Jo-Ann Fiscina, a decade-long resident of the Devonshire East Homeowners Association in suburban Rockville, Md., the battle with the board started back in 2005.
She, along with some neighbors, believed that just a few elected board members were inappropriately controlling the entire association, making changes as they pleased, preserving their power by allowing other seats on the board to go unfilled and inappropriately encouraging the reelection of incumbents.
Fiscina said these board members were not allowing community input before making rule changes, such as allowing new windows that were less Colonial-looking than the ones originally installed by the builder.
"If the community wants to do that, that's fine," Fiscina said. "But a board member doing it without notifying the community was against the regulations."
In October 2006, she filed a complaint with Montgomery County's Commission on Common Ownership Communities, which has authority to resolve disputes involving homeowners associations, condominiums and cooperatives. This kind of redress is rare; in other places, such disputes can end up in civil court.
Fiscina had an unusually long list of complaints. She charged that board members were not holding regularly scheduled open meetings. She claimed they approved architectural changes -- such as the window styles -- by voting on the changes only after the work had been done.
She also challenged the way proxy votes were handled in a 2006 board election that resulted in the reelection of an incumbent instead of his lone challenger. The proxies transferred a member's right to vote but didn't say for whom they wished to vote. "The board members would go and collect proxies, and they would vote for who they wanted," she said in an interview.
Fiscina stressed that she's not opposed to change per se. "My main objection was how they went about doing it."
Hers was a particularly complicated case, said Peter Drymalski, a commission staff member. Most complaints aren't involved enough to warrant a lawyer, as Fiscina's did, he said. The commission held 11 hearings on this one complaint, including two all-day Saturday sessions.
On May 21, the commission ruled in Fiscina's favor, saying the association's board should maintain a full complement of seven members, unless it votes to change its bylaws. The challenger in the 2006 election, Frances Mielach, who lost because of all those proxy votes, is now entitled to take her spot on the board.
The commission said the board frequently violated Maryland law and the association's bylaws by doing business at closed meetings. And financial records weren't made available to community members as they should have been.
It was a big win for Fiscina. The crowning touch: The commission ordered the association to pay Fiscina's legal expenses, which she said exceed $20,000. It's the first time the commission has awarded legal fees to a homeowner, Drymalski said. It was done this time because the association's own bylaws call for it, he said.
It's rarely pleasant to challenge the way things are done in a homeowners association. After all, these are your neighbors. At best, you risk being labeled a crank. At worst, you can be ostracized.
"They said I was frivolous, that I had a bone to pick and that I just wanted to get my way," Fiscina said. But she said she was willing to invest the time and money because she wanted the association's business to be handled fairly.
After she filed the complaint, board President Stephen Shaffer sent a letter to all residents alerting them to the complaint and warning of its potential to affect their pocketbooks.
"I am very concerned about the financial impact our legal fees will have [on] the community," Shaffer wrote. He warned of the risk of a special assessment. "Unfortunately, to pay these expected legal fees and unbudgeted amounts, the [homeowners association] may be forced to seek funding from each and every homeowner."
At least, thanks to the commission's ruling, decisions on any such assessments will be held at open meetings.
Source
Homeowners association fights get costly
Submitted by Admin on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 10:08am. Living The HOA Way
Members could end up footing the bill for directors' mistakes
By ELIZABETH RAZZI | The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- Beware the homeowners association squabble that escalates. Back-fence grousing over parking restrictions, architectural rules or allegations of cronyism can grow into civil war, and homeowners -- the source of all money in the association -- can end up paying big legal bills, no matter which side wins.
One long-running D.C. fight shows why homeowners who serve as directors of their association had better pay strict attention to the details of good governance. People can be surprisingly dogged about how their dues are spent, how elections are held -- even for thankless board-of-director jobs -- and about how the rules are made, changed and enforced.
For Jo-Ann Fiscina, a decade-long resident of the Devonshire East Homeowners Association in suburban Rockville, Md., the battle with the board started back in 2005.
She, along with some neighbors, believed that just a few elected board members were inappropriately controlling the entire association, making changes as they pleased, preserving their power by allowing other seats on the board to go unfilled and inappropriately encouraging the reelection of incumbents.
Fiscina said these board members were not allowing community input before making rule changes, such as allowing new windows that were less Colonial-looking than the ones originally installed by the builder.
"If the community wants to do that, that's fine," Fiscina said. "But a board member doing it without notifying the community was against the regulations."
In October 2006, she filed a complaint with Montgomery County's Commission on Common Ownership Communities, which has authority to resolve disputes involving homeowners associations, condominiums and cooperatives. This kind of redress is rare; in other places, such disputes can end up in civil court.
Fiscina had an unusually long list of complaints. She charged that board members were not holding regularly scheduled open meetings. She claimed they approved architectural changes -- such as the window styles -- by voting on the changes only after the work had been done.
She also challenged the way proxy votes were handled in a 2006 board election that resulted in the reelection of an incumbent instead of his lone challenger. The proxies transferred a member's right to vote but didn't say for whom they wished to vote. "The board members would go and collect proxies, and they would vote for who they wanted," she said in an interview.
Fiscina stressed that she's not opposed to change per se. "My main objection was how they went about doing it."
Hers was a particularly complicated case, said Peter Drymalski, a commission staff member. Most complaints aren't involved enough to warrant a lawyer, as Fiscina's did, he said. The commission held 11 hearings on this one complaint, including two all-day Saturday sessions.
On May 21, the commission ruled in Fiscina's favor, saying the association's board should maintain a full complement of seven members, unless it votes to change its bylaws. The challenger in the 2006 election, Frances Mielach, who lost because of all those proxy votes, is now entitled to take her spot on the board.
The commission said the board frequently violated Maryland law and the association's bylaws by doing business at closed meetings. And financial records weren't made available to community members as they should have been.
It was a big win for Fiscina. The crowning touch: The commission ordered the association to pay Fiscina's legal expenses, which she said exceed $20,000. It's the first time the commission has awarded legal fees to a homeowner, Drymalski said. It was done this time because the association's own bylaws call for it, he said.
It's rarely pleasant to challenge the way things are done in a homeowners association. After all, these are your neighbors. At best, you risk being labeled a crank. At worst, you can be ostracized.
"They said I was frivolous, that I had a bone to pick and that I just wanted to get my way," Fiscina said. But she said she was willing to invest the time and money because she wanted the association's business to be handled fairly.
After she filed the complaint, board President Stephen Shaffer sent a letter to all residents alerting them to the complaint and warning of its potential to affect their pocketbooks.
"I am very concerned about the financial impact our legal fees will have [on] the community," Shaffer wrote. He warned of the risk of a special assessment. "Unfortunately, to pay these expected legal fees and unbudgeted amounts, the [homeowners association] may be forced to seek funding from each and every homeowner."
At least, thanks to the commission's ruling, decisions on any such assessments will be held at open meetings.
Source
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Hacienda Real HOA CC&Rs re: Parking
The CC&Rs are the supreme law of the HOA. Any other rules, regulations, codes of conduct, etc. or whatever else the board dreams up CANNOT contradict these basic rules governing the HOA:
ARTICLE II.
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN COMMON AREA
Section 1. Owners' Easements of Enjoyment Every owner shall have a non-exclusive right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every lot, subject to the following provisions:
e. Rules and Regulations
The right and power of the association to promulgate reasonable and uniformly applicable Rules and Regulations governing the use and conduct upon the Common Areas;
f. Parking
The right of individual owners to the non-exclusive use of any parking areas which are located adjacent to said owners lot.
Please note some key phrases:
1. Reasonable and uniformly applicable:
That means you don't pick on the people Barbara or Dorothy or whichever board member wants to victimize that week. You apply the law evenly to all owners.
2. The right of individual owners to the non-exclusive use of any parking areas which are located adjacent to said owners lot
That means owners can park their cars or their guests' cars outside in the designated parking spaces adjacent to their houses. Note nothing is said about how many cars you need to keep in your garage. If the HOA towed cars as they have threatened to do they would be liable for those fees because according to these CC&Rs, the owners have EVERY RIGHT to park their cars outside if they so desire.
ARTICLE II.
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN COMMON AREA
Section 1. Owners' Easements of Enjoyment Every owner shall have a non-exclusive right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every lot, subject to the following provisions:
e. Rules and Regulations
The right and power of the association to promulgate reasonable and uniformly applicable Rules and Regulations governing the use and conduct upon the Common Areas;
f. Parking
The right of individual owners to the non-exclusive use of any parking areas which are located adjacent to said owners lot.
Please note some key phrases:
1. Reasonable and uniformly applicable:
That means you don't pick on the people Barbara or Dorothy or whichever board member wants to victimize that week. You apply the law evenly to all owners.
2. The right of individual owners to the non-exclusive use of any parking areas which are located adjacent to said owners lot
That means owners can park their cars or their guests' cars outside in the designated parking spaces adjacent to their houses. Note nothing is said about how many cars you need to keep in your garage. If the HOA towed cars as they have threatened to do they would be liable for those fees because according to these CC&Rs, the owners have EVERY RIGHT to park their cars outside if they so desire.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A little housekeeping the Hacienda Real HOA board should have taken care of by now
Arizona Revised Statutes 33-1807
J. The association shall record in the office of the county recorder in the county in which the planned community is located a notice stating the name of the association or designated agent or management company for the association, the address for the association and the telephone number of the association or its designated agent or management company. The notice shall include the name of the planned community, the date of the recording and the recorded instrument number or book and page for the main document that constitutes the declaration. If an association's address, designated agent or management company changes, the association shall amend its notice or record a new notice within ninety days after the change.
The former property manager Dorothy Maus resigned in December 2007. Let's say she didn't resign until the annual meeting in January 2008. That means the board and the property manager have had six months to get this up-to-date. This (above) is the most recent document filed by Hacienda Real HOA at the county recorder's office.
A real property manager and a real HOA board would have known to take care of this before now.
J. The association shall record in the office of the county recorder in the county in which the planned community is located a notice stating the name of the association or designated agent or management company for the association, the address for the association and the telephone number of the association or its designated agent or management company. The notice shall include the name of the planned community, the date of the recording and the recorded instrument number or book and page for the main document that constitutes the declaration. If an association's address, designated agent or management company changes, the association shall amend its notice or record a new notice within ninety days after the change.
The former property manager Dorothy Maus resigned in December 2007. Let's say she didn't resign until the annual meeting in January 2008. That means the board and the property manager have had six months to get this up-to-date. This (above) is the most recent document filed by Hacienda Real HOA at the county recorder's office.
A real property manager and a real HOA board would have known to take care of this before now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
