Following the Spirit of the law?? > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Following the Spirit of the law??

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

NicoleO4

Posts:0

07/28/2008 4:14 PM
How would you understand this statement? " I much prefer to enforce the spirit of the law vs the law itself? "

StaceyP1
(Tennessee)

Posts:5

07/28/2008 4:58 PM
It sounds like someone who intends to possibly break the law. You cannot follow the spirit of law and not follow it at the same time. How does this relate to your hoa?

GeorgerwilliamsW
(Indiana)

Posts:771

07/28/2008 5:23 PM
I will write you a book on just this! Seriously, too often we become way too legalistic in our approach. Board members forget that they are there to serve the best interests of the people in the community, and sometimes that means following the intent or spirit of the law, rather than the strict letter of the law. Too often, people serving on boards begin to see the association itself as more important than the people it is organized to serve. They adhere to the strict rules but forget that they are dealing with people's lives and homes. I believe with a passion that every board member should be a servant leader. Ask not how I can best run the association, but how best I can serve the people who honored me with the confidence of their vote. Neighborliness can't be legislated or codified into a set of laws, covenants, regulations and rules. Sometimes neighborliness means overlooking small infractions. Sometimes it means learning to deal with the weirdness of our neighbors, even though they are incredibly frustrating. Sometimes it means enjoying the children across the street playing ball on your beautifully manicured grass and not caring about it. Sometimes, it means doing the right thing, rather than the legal thing. I do my best to live by the Paradoxical Commandments every day. Life would be so much better if we all did. *The Paradoxical Commandments* _______________________________________________________________________ 1. People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered. Love them anyway. 2. If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Do good anyway. 3. If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies. Succeed anyway. 4. The good you do today, will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. 5. Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway. 6. The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds. Think big anyway. 7. People favor underdogs, but follow only top dogs. Fight for a few underdogs anyway. 8. What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight. Build anyway. 9. People really need help, but may attack you if you do help them. *Help people anyway.* 10. Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you have anyway.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

07/28/2008 5:53 PM
Posted By NicoleO4 on 07/28/2008 4:14 PM How would you understand this statement? " I much prefer to enforce the spirit of the law vs the law itself? " Can only truly be said by the author of the law, UNLESS, said law has plenty of background information, documents, and supporting errata to allow a comprehensive understanding of the original intent, ie, spirit, of the law. I would counter that quote with this one: "I would prefer people say what they mean, and mean what they say, when making legislation"

NicoleO4

Posts:0

07/28/2008 5:58 PM
Ot was a quoate from a board member. The above.... I didn't want to appear ignorant but couldn't quite wrap my head around this one.

DonN
(Michigan)

Posts:242

07/28/2008 6:07 PM
Laws should provide stability and predictability. That is what the rule of law is all about. Is there a common definition for the spirit of the law? Who is to decide? Will it be decided differently next year, or when another board is elected? Under the statutory and common law, laws are interpreted according to a well defined set of principles. If the law is clear, that is what should be enforced. The same is true with governing documents which are contracts under the law. They are interpreted according to the same set of principles as used for interpreting the law. If the laws and/or the governing documents are not serving the common interest, then amend the documents according to the amendment provisions. Seek changes in the law through the legislature.

Don Nordeen Governance of Property Owners Associations

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

07/28/2008 6:43 PM
Posted By NicoleO4 on 07/28/2008 4:14 PM How would you understand this statement? " I much prefer to enforce the spirit of the law vs the law itself? " To be honest, it sounds like a comment taken out of context to me. I find it not possible to address at all for a variety of reasons, but in particular, I have no idea what preceded the comment. I have no idea what the topic was nor who the people involved were. I have no idea what the body language was and whether or not it was intended tongue-in-cheek or to put an end to a conversation the speaker did not care to continue. Just too many unknowns to even hazard a guess. But it would make an excellent tidbit to take out of context and try to nail someone with. As an excellent example, how would you understand this statement: "make me an instrument of your will."

TonyM3
(Arizona)

Posts:140

07/28/2008 7:06 PM
The board member probably meant to say the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. It's a common idiom...plenty of info about it on the web.

GeraldT4

Posts:934

07/29/2008 12:09 PM
TonyM3 - To me it sounds like something a judge would say. That's one of things judges do, interpret and make reasonable decisions. Regardless of the author, what is meant by the "spirit" is the intent, the purpose of the law. If the end result wasn't followed to the letter but wound up accomplishing what law intended than the person judging may exercise his/her discretion. Mind you, I'm not advocating the logic in the argument, just what I believe is meant by the statement itself.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

07/29/2008 12:28 PM
Yes, Tony, and depending on who was saying "make me an instrument of your will," and the context, who they were talking to and why, it could either be simply a hundreds-of-years-old often used prayer supplication, uttered by a humble person in prayer to his god, or something a fanatical suicide bomber utters just before he sets off his strapped-on bombs. Context is everything.

MD
(California)

Posts:27

07/30/2008 7:02 PM
This is so well said! I am going to forward this to my HOA board. Thank you-

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

07/30/2008 7:50 PM
Nicole - it was unfair of you to drop this in our laps with no context. Please give the background and case in point. The member may have been taling about bylaws that were written 50 years ago.

NicoleO4

Posts:0

07/30/2008 8:31 PM
Susan. I was asking about what thsi meant. If you want details it was specifically in regards to a rule infraction and that one board member did NOT want to enforce a clearly written rule of Nothing in our garages ( common under ground ) except our cars or motorcycles. We had an old board member storing personal boxes ect in her spot and it is against the rules.. that is where this man mis quoated the spirit of the law ect.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

07/31/2008 6:05 AM
Rules and bylaws should be reviewed at a minimum of every 3 years. Perhaps the boxes were in "transition" and meant to be there temporarily. There are no absolutes when the documents can and are constantly amendable. Perhaps new storage lockers for every garage slot would be appreciated by EVERY resident.

NicoleO4

Posts:0

07/31/2008 7:06 AM
Susan thanks for being opitmistic. The boxes were NOT in transtion, and we alerady have storage lockers. It's an issue with current baord members not wantting to rock the baot iwth old BOD or hurting thier friends feelings. We had an atty consult on on this matter as this is NOT the only internal issue our board has that could potentially end us wth some liability. According to DSA here in Cali any homeowner can take legal action to the HOA or individual board member or homeowner depending on the issue of rules, regs bylaws and cc&r's are NOT duly enforced. Our atty had a few eye opening comments to those who did not want to "rock the boat" .

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

07/31/2008 7:34 AM
Well, then you should be very happy. I just hope you HOA is not replacing one set of "bad" leaders with another. Ones who like to play "gotchya" or to single out others with vindictive motives. Not everyone who breaks a rule is arrogant or a diva. Sometimes it's just plain laziness. It's not personal. Just keep that in mind. It's not personal. Try not to let it get personal on your end, either. Fairness and compromise -- healthy things to have in any organization. Good luck to you.

GeraldT4

Posts:934

07/31/2008 8:16 AM
MichelleD - While I understand the spirit of what you are posting, and agree in not letting things get personal, not sure what your intent is in posting it. Meaning, Nicole isn't letting anything get personal, or vindictive. She doesn't need to try to not let it get personal at all. Their is no compromise here. An area is being used as storage that the docs. say can not be done. No one is being unfair but enforcing.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

07/31/2008 10:14 AM
I beg to differ with you, Gerald. She has a definite "agenda" and is employing all-to-common tactics. I wasn't speaking to this one, out-of-context incidence, but rather the culmination of all her posts, the tone of her references to the former board members, her somewhat apparent attempt at playing "gotchya" with all of them (combing through the regs with a fine-tooth comb and challenging such things as flowers on a wrought iron fence, for example). Her posting of this topic to begin with was curious. And I disagree, sometimes compromise does become important, in dealing with people (whether in this particular instance or not), and this is where the "spirit" of the law, or the purpose of what you are trying to accomplish is, critical. But okay, since you brought it up, there is an area to "compromise" in this particular "infraction." First and foremost, what is the intent in compelling compliance? To uphold the restrictions, or to smack somebody on the wrists? If it is to smack someone on the wrists, then by all means, send her the fine, letter, violation notice, whatever, and push for immediate and instaneous compliance. Scorched earth. Letter in her "permanent file." Or, if it's for upholding the integrity of the documents, I might well be inclined to say to her, "I'm for upholding the spirit of the law." I might then talk with the homeowner about having her provide some sort of timeline for box removal. There are any number of variables. Perhaps she is handicapped. Perhaps she needs to secure an off-site storage facility and needs a month or two to come up with whatever funds to do so. Perhaps she is in the process of separating items for donation and they will be gone shortly anyway. Our first notice is always a courtesy notice. And when possible we try to work out something with the homeowner, thereby remaining true to both the "sprit" and "letter" of the "law." Now, granted, the variables I mentioned most likely aren't present in this case, I'm just being hypothetical and showing where compromise COULD be employed, even in strict interpretation and execution of the governing docs. But I do sense a strong, personal vendetta here. It will get uglier before it gets worked out if not kept in check. If some of us can sense it miles and internet cables away, it's probably much more evident up-close and personal. I'm sincere when I wish her luck in her efforts. But I'm also sincere that she needs to sit down with herself and ask herself if she is keeping things at the professional level and not letting her emotions override good sense. Just an observation and suggestion. Not an indictment or personal attack.

GeraldT4

Posts:934

07/31/2008 10:37 AM
Michelle - Never said that compromise isn't necessary. But in this case, as I wrote, "Their is no compromise here." As for all the rest of Nicole's posts and her approach I'm unaware, you may be right. However, sometimes righting one wrong is all that it takes for everyone to move forward on equal footing. Sounds to me like others in Nicole's association are making things personal by granting an exception for someone. That is foolish.

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:1470

08/01/2008 3:39 AM
Right on Michele. I've posted this before but I believe that Nicole is just the latest incarnation of one poster. All of the underlying problems of these posters pointed at the same community and all claimed to be on the BOD and having problems with former BOD members. Do I have proof? No, just a gut feeling but it strikes me as odd that one of these persons would abruptly stop posting and a new one would start. Remember IreneC who was upset because the BOD was on her husband for leaving a wheeled cart in his parking spot while he was at the store?

NicoleO4

Posts:0

08/01/2008 3:51 AM
Has this turned into a which hunt? I think you all have beter things to do besides count posts, read past posters archived information, try to connect past poster s and point a finger at someone who has valid concerns. Sorry last time I checked I didn't have a husband.. nice try. Seriously? It if bothers one that much how about moving on??

NicoleO4

Posts:0

08/01/2008 4:01 AM
Posted By NicoleO4 on 08/01/2008 3:51 AM Has this turned into a which hunt? I think you all have beter things to do besides count posts, read past posters archived information, try to connect past poster s and point a finger at someone who has valid concerns. Sorry last time I checked I didn't have a husband.. nice try. Seriously? It if bothers one that much how about moving on?? that would be away from my posts? I persoally do not appreciatea being the commentst that my communties issues have been brought up here before. I had another HOA memeber who did post concerns regarding our MC but tht awas it. I am a new poster with a board of 6 other members, have no disabled husband and have no clue as to why a couple of posters woud think otherwise. Maybe if you look outside your internet bubble and understand that there may be many poorly ran HOA"s not just ONE Friggen community in California that just may have some semi universal problems concerns or issues? It may just be coincidence and that would suprise me at all giving the nature of the business? I don't know how anyone can sit, count posts, remember archived posters information from previous months and attempt to put it together and paste it on a newbie. That takes ALOT of time... and alot of balls to point that kind of claim... much like a part time job?

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:1470

08/01/2008 8:09 AM
Nicole I'm sorry if I touched a nerve and if I'm wrong I apologize. I just have a weird sort of memory. I can't remember what I did last week half of the time but I can remember stuff I read 30 years ago and some things jumped out as being too coincidental.

ChrisB4
(West Virginia)

Posts:175

08/01/2008 7:33 PM
Posted By NicoleO4 on 07/28/2008 4:14 PM How would you understand this statement? " I much prefer to enforce the spirit of the law vs the law itself? " As this applies to HOA's I think it's pretty simple. Covenants and By-Laws can't possibly hope to cover every single situation. The often make blanket statements to cover large and sometimes complex issues. For example. If the CC&R's were written to prevent swimming pools (taken right from another thread here), does anyone believe that that provision was meant to prevent "4 deep 4' across plastic wading pools from Kmart? What was the rule in question intending to prevent? Was it a pool that is 4" deep and can be dumped out after it's used? Or semi-permanent 3"+ deep that hold several hundreds of gallons of water? "The spirit of the rule" is a term used to take a practical look at the problem in question, especially when the rule is vague. The By-Laws don't say I can't have a basketball hoop in my driveway, but someone builds it so the pole is at the corner of the driveway and the street that sits perpendicular to. The hoop is then set facing 45 degrees to both the driveway and the road. Even though the provision allows for hoops, do you think that the creating of that rule intended to allow the hoop to be placed in that fashion? With no provision that addresses specific instances, the next best thing to do is to ask for a vote of the Board, or committee to determine the "spirit" of the rule. Or you can pay an attorney...

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

08/02/2008 2:52 PM
Nicole: I'll jump on your side of the fence on this one...the context of what she has posted is pretty simple. If her BOD refuses to enforce this rule then how can they have any credibility? I do agree with Susan that sometimes there is more to a situation and I have always been one that preaches flexibility when it comes to boards. But the old adage, if you give someone an inch, they will take a mile to me applies here. This person is not in transition and there seems to be no end in site to the boxes, however they have taken the lattitude of the board and run with it. When you get into enforcing the Spirit of the rule or law you get into trouble in my opinion. That is what a judge and a court of law is for. My spirit is different from the next persons. This rule leaves no room for interpretation, simply there are to be no boxes or anything out there. Pretty cut and dried. As to Nicole having an agenda, the only agenda I have seen so far from her is someone who wants to be treated fairly and cares about her association. I think it is unfair to cast her as a person on a witch hunt, what proof does anyone have of that?

GeorgerwilliamsW
(Indiana)

Posts:771

08/03/2008 4:51 AM
Posted By BradP on 08/02/2008 2:52 PM Nicole: I'll jump on your side of the fence on this one...the context of what she has posted is pretty simple. If her BOD refuses to enforce this rule then how can they have any credibility? I do agree with Susan that sometimes there is more to a situation and I have always been one that preaches flexibility when it comes to boards. But the old adage, if you give someone an inch, they will take a mile to me applies here. This person is not in transition and there seems to be no end in site to the boxes, however they have taken the lattitude of the board and run with it. When you get into enforcing the Spirit of the rule or law you get into trouble in my opinion. That is what a judge and a court of law is for. My spirit is different from the next persons. This rule leaves no room for interpretation, simply there are to be no boxes or anything out there. Pretty cut and dried. As to Nicole having an agenda, the only agenda I have seen so far from her is someone who wants to be treated fairly and cares about her association. I think it is unfair to cast her as a person on a witch hunt, what proof does anyone have of that? Brad, It is hard for me to agree with you on this. Every law, every contract provision, every covenant, every rule is open to interpretation. The operating principles need to be "reasonableness," "proportionality" and "motivation." Even the police don't enforce law to its technical extreme. The speed limit may be 70 miles per hour, but how many people will get stopped for doing 71 or 72? No question, it is a violation. Do the police lose credibility for overlooking it? I don't think so. And sometimes the cost of enforcement may be greater than the value to be achieved. You gotta' ask, "Is the damage done by the rule infraction worth the mental, moral,and other costs of enforcement?" Should the association file a lawsuit over this, or merely write a neighborly letter? Sometimes moral suasion works better than legalistic enforcement. This is about boxes in a parking space. It is also about the ability of a board of directors to make decisions about enforcement. It is about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. The best course of action may be to wait until the offender goes the mile, rather than fighting over every inch. Maybe the cops only start ticketing drivers who do more than 75 miles per hour. I would suggest that the board may wish to consider how many owners think this is a problem. If a petition of, say, 1/4 or more of owners were submitted, then the board ought to consider taking some sort of enforcement action. If it is just a single owner complaining, it may not be an issue to take a stand on. Not every rule infraction should be considered a challenge to the association's authority.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/03/2008 5:54 AM
To all, I just finished reading this thread. I am sort of glad I missed it before. Not that the post is bad, far from it. I may be able to joust with one or two of you at a time, but to start and "Top this" in a thread such as this is way beyond my capabilities. Collectively, you all are too smart for me and I bow to my betters. This is really a slice of the life of HoaTalk. I would be amiss if I didn't say thanks for a page turner of a thread. No, I can't add anything that is competitive.

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

08/03/2008 6:29 AM
Depends on where you are, some people choose to pull you over for 1 or 2 miles over, it happens around here. The job of the police is so complex that catching speeders is a small percentage of that. Invariably every speed trap I have seen they are always busy so they are enforcing. So your argument is as long as no one is getting hurt you think it is ok to violate the covenants you signed up for? You think the board should poll the members and ask how many think it is a problem? How is that feasible, now you are asking volunteers to spend way more time than is necessary. There is no spirit of the law in this rule, it is pretty cut and dried, they violated, send a letter, fine them if necessary. Not every rule infraction is a challenge to the boards authority, but every rule infraction needs to be dealt with instead of turning a blind eye to it. It may be as simple as reminding them it is a violation. But to start picking and choosing what you enforce in an association is a dangerous thing IMO.

TonyM3
(Arizona)

Posts:140

08/03/2008 7:02 AM
There are plenty of laws on the books that may have made sense when they were written but no longer do and still remain on the books but are not enforced. Take a look at the great debate on illegal immigration as a prime example of where the desire for labor has so many people including major portions of government turning their heads. There's a world of difference between storing great grandma jones' personal items in the garage while the family decides whether or not to pull the plug and someone using their garage as a staging point or receiving terminal for the transfer of goods. I think the intent of the rule is to maintain harmony in the neighborhood by preventing the latter and embracing the former. Just the fact that there's more than one opinion on this discounts the theory that any rule is cut & dried. They are just words on a page until you inject the human element. At that point if you have the ability to act with human kindness and compassion you have the required tools to create harmony.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

08/03/2008 7:21 AM
Nicole, Where are you? Surely you are not finished. I for one would like to hear more from you. Personally, I am facinated and pleased to have indepemdent women speak with a strong voice. Being from the old school and now that everyone else looks like that have just been born (compared to me), it's like a whole new world to me. Of course I am not blind, and know full well women compete and contribute and have forever, but this HOA piece of life is new and I am glad to see the direction it is taking, as evidenced by some of the distaff (i hope that don't mean something bad) posters on this site.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Following the Spirit of the law??