July 20, 2017
Are Legal Remedies of Owners and HOAs Equitable?
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently wrote in an opinion that, “Property rights are necessary to preserve freedom, for property ownership empowers persons to shape and to plan their own destiny in a world where governments are always eager to do so for them.” Murr v. Wisconsin, 198 L.Ed.2d 497, 509 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2017). This principle goes beyond the eminent domain issues in Murr v. Wisconsin. Many HOAs and condominiums boards or property managers are eager to make decisions for (or ignore their duties to) owners. In the old days, legal enforcement of restrictive covenants was troublesome and uncertain. In recent decades, state legislatures made new rules favoring restrictive covenants. Sometimes owners seek to do something with their property that violates an unambiguous, recorded covenant. I don’t see that scenario as the main problem. What I dislike more is community associations breaching their specific obligations to owners, as enshrined in governing documents or state law. Is the ability to enforce the covenants or law mutual? Are legal remedies of owners and HOAs equitable?
Why HOAs Wanted the Power to Fine:
Take an example. Imagine a property owner decides that it would be easier to simply dump their garbage in the backyard next to a HOA common area than take it to the landfill. Let’s assume that does not violate a local ordinance. Or substitute any other example where a property owner damages the property rights of others and the problem cannot be solved by a single award of damages. Before legislatures adopted certain statutes, the association would have to bring a lawsuit against the owner, asking the court to grant an injunction against the improper garbage dumping. This requires a demand letter and a lawsuit asking for the injunction. The association would have to serve the owner with the lawsuit. The owner would have an opportunity to respond to the lawsuit and the motion for the injunction. An injunction is a special court remedy that requires special circumstances not available in many cases. The party seeking it must show that they cannot be made whole only by an award of damages. The plaintiff must show that the injunction is necessary and would be effective to solve the problem. The legal standard for an injunction is higher than that for money damages, but it is not unachievably high. Courts grant injunctions all the time. However, the injunction requires the suit to be filed and responded to and the motion must be set for a hearing. Sometimes judges require the plaintiff to file a bond. Injunction cases are quite fact specific. The party filing the lawsuit must decide whether to wait for trial to ask for the injunction (which could be up to one year later) or to seek a “preliminary” or “temporary” injunction immediately. If the judge grants the injunction against the “private landfill,” the defendant may try to appeal to the state supreme court during these pretrial proceedings. These procedures exist because property right protections run both ways. Those seeking to enjoin the improper dumping have a right, if not a duty, to promote health and sanitation. Conversely, the owner would have a due process right to avoid having judges decide where she puts her trash on her own property. If the court grants the injunction, the judge does not personally supervise the cleanup of the dumping himself. If an order is disobeyed, the prevailing party may ask for per diem monetary sanctions pending compliance. That money judgment can attach as a lien or be used for garnishments. These common law rules have the effect of deterring the wrongful behavior. This also deters such lawsuits or motions absent exigent circumstances. Owners best interests are served by both neighbors properly maintaining their own property and not sweating the small stuff.
Giving Due Process of Court Proceedings vs. Sitting as both Prosecutor and Judge:
If association boards had to seek injunctions every time they thought an owner violated a community rule, then the HOAs would be much less likely to enforce the rules. The ease and certainty of enforcement greatly defines the value of the right. Boards and committees do not have the inherent right to sit as judges in their own cases and award themselves money if they determine that an owner violated something. That is a “judicial” power. Some interested people lobbied state capitals for HOAs to have power to issue fines for the violation of their own rules. To really give this some teeth, they also got state legislatures to give them the power to record liens and even foreclose on properties to enforce these fines.
Statutory Freeways Bypass the Country Roads of the Common Law:
Let’s pause for a second and pay attention to what these fine, lien & foreclosure statutes accomplish. The board can skip over this process of litigating up to a year or more over the alleged breach of the covenants or rules. Instead, the board can hold its own hearings and skip ahead to assessing per diem charges for the improper garbage dumping or whatever other alleged infraction. Instead of bearing the burden to plead, prove and persevere, they can fast track to the equivalent of the sanctions portion of an injunction case. Instead of enjoying her common law judicial protections, the owner must plead, file and prove her own lawsuit challenging the board’s use of these statutory remedies. Do you see how this shifts the burden? Of course, the HOA’s rule must meet the criteria of being valid and enforceable. In Virginia, the right to fine must be in the covenants. The statute must be strictly complied with. But the burden falls on the owner to show that the fast track has not been complied with.
Owners’ Options:
Statehouse lobbying and clever legal writing of new covenants has helped the boards and their retinue. Let’s take a moment to see what remedies the owner has. Imagine reversed roles. The board decided that they could save a lot of money if they dumped garbage from the pool house onto the common area next to an owner’s property. The board ignores the owners’ request to clean and maintain that part of the common area. Let’s assume that the governing documents require the board to maintain the common area and do not indemnify them against this kind of wrongful action. The owner can sue for money damages. If the case allows, the owner may pursue an injunction against the board to clean up the land and stop dumping trash. The owner must follow the detail-oriented procedures for seeking an injunction. The owner does not have a fast-track remedy to obtain a lien against any property or bank accounts held by the board.
Fine Statutes Should be Legislatively Repealed:
In my opinion, community association boards and owners should both be subject to the same requirements to enforce restrictive covenants. If state legislatures repealed their fine and foreclosure statutes, the boards would not be left without a remedy. They would not go bankrupt. Chaos would not emerge. They would simply have to get in line at the courthouse and play by the same rules as other property owners seeking to protect their rights under the covenants or common law.
“But Community Association Lawsuits are a Disaster:”
Many of my readers are skeptical of leaving the protection of property rights to the courts. They don’t like people who sue or get sued. They argue that whether you are defending or suing, the process is laborious and expensive. The outcome is not certain. I don’t agree that property owners should surrender their rights to associations or industry-influenced state officials. What if there was a controversy-deciding branch of government that the constitution separates from special-interest influence and the political winds of change? Wouldn’t that be worth supporting? I know that there are legal procedures that drive up the time and expense of the process without adding significant due process value. That does not mean that the courts should be divested of the power to conduct independent review and award remedies not available anywhere else.
Judicial Remedies Are Better Options Than Many Owners Think:
Fortunately, owners have many rights that their boards and managers are not informing them about. Many common law protections have not been overruled. In Virginia, restrictive covenants are disfavored. Any enforcement must have a firm footing in the governing documents, statutes and case law. The statutes adopted by the legislature limiting the common law protections are strictly (narrowly) interpreted by the courts. It is not necessary, and may be counterproductive to run to some elected or appointed bureaucratic official. Under our constitutional structure, the courts have the power to enforce property rights. Many owners cannot wait for the possibility that a future legislative session might repeal the fine statutes. If they are experiencing immediate problems (like improper dumping of garbage or whatever) they need help now. In rare cases law enforcement may be able to help. In most cases working with a qualified attorney to petition the local court for relief is the answer.
Photo Credit: duncan Commit no nuisance via photopin (license)
July 3, 2015
Do Your Association’s Parking Rules Pass the Smell Test?
There are few property rights as unappreciated as the privilege to park. For nine years, I lived in a condominium where the association’s parking lot did not have enough physical spaces for all of the permitted vehicles. If you came home late, you might have to park on the street several blocks away, even if you had a parking decal. The property manager arranged to tow all vehicles without a permit or guest pass after a certain hour in the evening. You didn’t want to run the risk of having to hitch a ride down to the towing company and “bail” your car out. I relied upon that small sticker in the rear window of my car every night.
An association’s parking rules effect the owners’ essential right to access one’s property. This means that whoever enforces community parking restrictions makes quality of life decisions for everyone. In many communities, the number of parking spaces permitted to a condominium unit defines the number of adults who can conveniently use it. If street parking is not readily available, guest passes define whether or not an owner can entertain anyone at their home. An association’s parking rules enforce someone’s vision for the character of the development. Residential associations typically refuse to issue parking permits for commercial vehicles. Commercial condominium associations may use parking restrictions to restrict undesired industrial uses.
The right to park at one’s property is easy to take for granted until threatened. If a HOA suspends privileges for a rule violation, the owner may be able to live without access to the pool, gym or party room. If the condominium documents allow revocation of parking permits for a violation, then this presents a greater threat to the resident. At a community association conference I attended this year, managers discussed whether it is feasible to enforce parking rules by using jersey walls to barricade owner’s garages!
Given the fundamental nature of the right of access, it is no surprise that landmark court decisions concerning community associations arise out of parking disputes. In 1982, the Supreme Court of Virginia decided Unit Owners Association of BuildAmerica-1 v. Gillman. BuildAmerica-1 was a commercial condominium consisting of a large industrial structure containing warehouse or garage condominium units. Undesignated parking spaces surrounded the building.
Harry & Saundra Gillman purchased space in BuildAmerica-1 for their trash collection business. After a few years, some of their neighbors complained about the odor of the Gillman’s trash trucks. The Association fined the Gillmans. They sought to force them to relocate by forbidding them from parking their trucks. A commercial condominium development can have the character of any number of office or industrial uses. Who wins when different owners have competing visions for a commercial condominium association? To the Supreme Court of Virginia, the answer lay with one of the fundamental, yet controversial, doctrines of community association law: The governing documents (covenants, declarations, bylaws) comprise a contract to which the owners are parties. A “covenant” is a legal agreement. Some homeowners’ rights advocates argue that boards, attorneys and managers abuse this doctrine by insisting that individual owners “agreed” to whatever policies and practices the association adopts. It is my opinion that the “contract” theory can actually help owners. How is this? A contract has the effect of limiting the scope of the rights and responsibilities of the parties. This can cut both ways, limiting the authority of the Association while also defining its affirmative duties to the owners. The “contract” is not each and every rule, regulation, decision, resolution or policy adopted or enforced by the Association and its agents. An owner can only be charged with such contractual obligations as are reflected in the declarations, covenants, bylaws, amendments that the owner is put on notice of in county land records and disclosed at the sale. Those documents are typically prepared by the developer’s lawyers. The governing documents are usually drafted to protect the developer and to be palatable to the initial investors at the sale. This means that often these documents don’t speak to the owner vs. association disputes that arise after the developer is out of the picture. Usually these disputes are about legislative amendments or Board-adopted regulations.
In Gillman, the Board adopted regulations forbidding owners from bringing more than three trucks onto the parking area weighing more than 10,000 pounds each. This rule was not a provision in the governing documents. So how are Virginia courts supposed to view the Board’s rules & regulations that are not in the covenants recorded in land records? In Gillman, the Supreme Court of Virginia set forth several very important standards:
- Rules Must be Reasonable. This is not a subjective test but one based on context.
- Rules Cannot Be Arbitrary or Capricious.
- Rules Must Not Violate a Fundamental Right. Does the rule violate the constitution or statutes?
- Rules Must Serve a Legitimate Purpose. The covenants should set out the fundamental character of the development (residential, industrial, office, mixed use, etc.) to provide some guidance as to the ostensible purpose of the Association’s existence. The issue of “legitimate purpose” has become more complicated now that many local governments mandate an association as part of the permitting process. If the Association has no other purpose than to fulfill a City or County ordinance, does this affect a Board rulemaking authority?
- Rules Must be Reasonably Applied. This includes uniform application to all owners fairly.
- The Board of Directors Must Not Abuse its Discretion.
The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Circuit Court of Fairfax County’s decision to set aside the Association’s fine against the Gillmans. It reversed the Circuit Court’s decision to order the Gillmans to wash the trash trucks. Since the Gillmans prevailed, the Supreme Court set aside the award of attorney’s fees against them.
The Unit Owners Association of BuildAmerica-1 argued that they were a “self-governing community” and a “fully self-governing democracy” whose inherent powers are not limited. The Court rejected this and observed that while the powers of an association are broad, they are limited by statute. Gillman shows that association rules and regulations are not to be treated with the high level of deference owed to statutes or covenants. The only way to invalidate a regulation outside of the procedures in the Bylaws is by court review. If the rule or regulation your Association seeks to enforce violates your property rights contact a qualified attorney. Although the facts and circumstances of each case may result in different outcomes, judicial review may be a breath of fresh air to the prevailing “smell test” being applied within your Association.
Case Citation: Unit Owners Association of BuildAmerica-1 v. Gillman, 223 Va. 752 (1982).
photo credit: Eugene Oregon tow truck via photopin (license)
April 17, 2015
Valuable Voices of Dissenting Directors in Homeowners Associations
Homeowners often acquire the impression that the HOA Board of Directors and property managers act in unison. However, there are often dissenting directors in homeowners associations. Homeowners seek changes to improve their community. Enough of her neighbors agree to get her elected at the annual meeting. Once they attend their first Board meeting as a director, they discover that the property manager is handling the day-to-day affairs of the association. The volunteer board only meets every so often. The majority of directors may find the property manager’s services and information acceptable. If the new director disagrees with a proposal, she is outvoted by the majority and perhaps informally by the property manager, association attorneys, etc. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Lord spoke to the prophet Elijah not in an earthquake, hurricane, wind or fire, but in a “still small voice.” 1 Kings 19: 11-13. Dissenting directors in homeowners associations may feel sometimes like a still small voice in the wilderness. Even when it may not be immediately fruitful, small voices may nonetheless be influential voices. The rights to speech, due process and private property are related.
Homeowners frequently hear that they must support increase assessments and fines because the policies “protect property values.” However, the value of a home reflects, in part, the extent to which its use may be maximized by its residents. In my opinion, restrictive covenants can decrease the value of property. Where the covenants are reasonable and the association is well run, the benefits of membership may meet or exceed the “cost” of any restrictions and assessment liability. While potential buyers may notice the appearance of neighboring property, they make their decision primarily on the home on the market. For example, if a neighbor has peeling paint on her deck, that practically affects the value of that property and not its neighbors.
Some might object on the grounds that this reasoning is selfish and that really, “we are all in this together.” However, the individual property rights of one neighbor are precious to all neighbors. An assault to the rights of one threatens the rights of others similarly situated.
In a similar way, when dissenting voices on a Board of Directors represent a genuine concern about the governance of the association, they have great deliberative value even if they don’t carry a majority vote. In the association, the property manager and other advisors serve at the discretion of the board as represented by the majority. Association attorneys can be expected to be competent and professional, but they advocate for the legal entity. A dissenting director cannot reasonably expect the association’s advisors to provide her with independent counsel. So, what rights and responsibilities to dissenting directors have in a Condominium or HOA? Here are a few key considerations:
- Legal vs. Practical Power: While the majority (and by extension the professionals they retain) may enjoy the practical power of control, by law all directors have the same legal duties to the Association. Lawyers, lawmakers and judges usually describe this legal duty as “fiduciary.” Virginia Beach association lawyer Michael Inman explains the fiduciary duty of directors in a July 30, 2007 post on his Virginia Condominium & Homeowner’s Association Blog. He argues that a Board has a fiduciary duty to conduct debt collection against delinquent owners. However, the duty to conduct debt collection is not absolute. The board must not exceed its authority or neglect its other obligations. A director who does not enjoy practical control of the operations must understand her fiduciary duties in order to protect her voice. A director may also enjoy indemnification in the event of a civil lawsuit arising out of board action.
- Identify Potential Conflicts of Interest: A conflict of interest arises when a board member is called to vote on a matter where his personal interests and the interests of the association lead in opposite directions. For example, the director may be a principal for a company the association is considering doing business with, such as a property management company, construction contractor, pavement company, or other vendor. A director must be aware of how a vote on a potential resolution by her or other directors may give rise to a legal claim to undo the disputed transaction. However, the existence of a conflict of interest may nonetheless be acceptable under the circumstances. For example, the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act provides “safe harbors” where the conflict of interest is disclosed to the board or the owners eligible to vote and they pass the resolution anyway or the transaction is deemed “fair” to the association at trial. The burden is on the director with the conflict of interest to properly disclose it.
- Owners’ Rights vs. Directors’ Rights: A director wears different hats. She is a director, an owner and probably also a resident or a landlord in the community. This presents unique circumstances not usually found in business or nonprofit boards. The director may leave board meetings and then go home in that same community. In a condominium, the director may rely upon the association’s employees for concierge services, HVAC maintenance, etc.
- Document Review Rights: Directors and owners have rights to review association financial statements and other documents as spelled out under Virginia law. Traditionally, a business would store these documents in paper files at its official address. As more and more information moves “on the cloud,” how a director or owner practically exercises her rights to review will evolve. Hopefully cloud computing will translate into convenient, transparent exercise of owners or directors rights to review financials and other documents to which they are entitled.
- Governance Issues: Virginia law and the bylaws impose obligations on the board of directors on how it may go about adopting legally effective resolutions. The board may be required to give notice of a meeting, achieve a quorum and record minutes and written resolutions. However, leadership may desire the flexibility of adopting resolutions without the necessity of an actual meeting. Formal governance requirements allow dissenting directors an opportunity to have their voices heard.
- Human Relationships: Even when leadership and managers disagree about major decisions and policies of the association, it’s important not to lose sight of the values of professionalism, respect and diplomacy. I recently participated in a continuing education seminar where a foreclosure attorney explained how important respect was in his practice. Although his job requires him to foreclose on commercial real estate supporting its owner’s livelihood, he reminds himself that these borrowers are also someone else’s family. Being a resilient advocate of the property rights of oneself and one’s neighbors requires civility. Ultimately, the best directors look at situations from the perspective of leadership.
In most situations, dissenting directors in homeowners associations will not need to retain independent legal counsel. However, if you are a director or committee member experiencing a legal dispute adverse to the association, contact a qualified attorney to protect your rights.
legal citation: Va. Code Section 13.1-871, Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act, Director Conflict of Interests.
photo credit: East Norriton Townhouses via photopin (license)(photo depicts homes in Pennsylvania and not matters discussed in this blog post)
