WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
 |
| 01/15/2007 6:12 AM |
|
Posted By DanaB1 on 01/14/2007 4:52 PM
WilliamT, you are a very smart man, you look outside the box. You have vast experience and a very good head on your shoulders. I do have one question for you; in one of your posts you mention that the resident was denied moving a load bearing wall and that she obeyed that ruling. Do we know that for sure unless someone has been in her unit? Other than that statement you were dead on.
quote]
Dana, I don't know that I deserve all those compliments, but I'll take it and thank you.
My statement regarding the load bearing wall was in regard to P
Wells statement which was
"Last time this owner contacted me they lashed at me because they were denied permission for altering a Load Barring wall. As our CC&R's and House Rules" states."
PWells was saying that the owner was denied permission for altering the wall, and got angry. However, it implied that the owner complied.
I believe the board is going overboard in spending money on an attorney for this matter. The woman is obviously fearful for her life, and it appears as if now it's nothing more than a personal vendetta for PWells and board who actually stated that they made up their mind at the workshop meeting, when they should have not even been discussing the issue. That amounted to an illegal meeting.
They could have worked out a solution that could have worked for everyone. I've read PWells posts very carefully and there has been ablsolutely no compassion for the owners situation. One of the first things PWells said was that she didn't see why the owner didn't move. That shows absolutely zero compassion.
I'm a firm believer in upholding the CC&R's. However, there are times when a board should be understanding, sympathetic, and willing to be flexible enough to work with a member to solve an unusual problem such as this.
A reasonable, thinking, compassionate and understanding board can issue a variance for a specific case to solve a serious matter such as this. If I were on that board and they hired an attorney for this matter I would immediately resign as I would want no part of such a board. And I would make sure that the minutes showed that I voted against such an action.
We should remember that a judge will always apply the rule of reasonable business decision to a situation. The judge is going to hear both sides, and is going to be sympathetic to an owner who is fearful for her life, and has taken reasonable precautions at her own expense, notwithstanding what a covenant says.
The judge does not have to take the letter of the covenant at face value. He/she will determine if it was reasonable for the board to deny this request based on the circumstances, or if a more reasonable business decision would have been for the board to issue a variance, in order to assist one of it's members in need.
I think the owner will prevail if it goes to court.
|
|
|
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:3724
|
| 01/15/2007 8:32 AM |
|
| William, thanks for your excellent well reasoned response. It's too bad those needing to hear have not been listening to you. Wasting the HOA's money on an attorney is not the solution; a reasonable Board making sound business decisions is the solution. The granting of a variance is a "no brainer" to anyone who places themselves in her shoes. |
|
Roger Borcherding
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
DARCO Property Management (Colorado)
(303) 925-0150 
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 01/15/2007 3:54 PM |
|
As if that owner failing to follow procedures wasn't bad enough. Someone damaged one of the cameras they installed. So now they called me and plan to hold the HOA responsible for the cost of the camera replacement. Which still has not been denied or approved. This is one of many reasons the Board is against the cameras. I know the other board member understand why that owner wants them. But we look at it as if we allow 1 unit to we must allow all the units to do it. This owner has told me... as a friend... that if we deny the cameras then they might sue the HOA for not providing a secure living enviroment. No matter what it is and will remain ugly.
It may end up requiring more then a response from the HOA Attorney. As this owner is very determined to win this battle. I will be more then happy to keep everyone posted of the out come.
PWells
|
|
|
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:3724
|
| 01/15/2007 4:32 PM |
|
Posted By PWells on 01/15/2007 3:54 PM
As if that owner failing to follow procedures wasn't bad enough. Someone damaged one of the cameras they installed. So now they called me and plan to hold the HOA responsible for the cost of the camera replacement. Which still has not been denied or approved. This is one of many reasons the Board is against the cameras. I know the other board member understand why that owner wants them. But we look at it as if we allow 1 unit to we must allow all the units to do it. PWells
PWells, be careful your bias is being reflected when you say "This is one of many reasons". And what makes you think the association is responsible for replacing owners' damaged property? By the way, giving a variance does not equate to "we must allow all the units to do it." Each request is treated based on its own merits.
|
|
Roger Borcherding
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
DARCO Property Management (Colorado)
(303) 925-0150
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
|
| 01/16/2007 6:15 AM |
|
Posted By PWells on 01/15/2007 3:54 PM
It may end up requiring more then a response from the HOA Attorney. As this owner is very determined to win this battle. I will be more then happy to keep everyone posted of the out come.
PWells
This "battle" was started by the board. That's evident from every thing that PWells has posted. The board was prejudiced from the beginning, and had absolutely no compassion or understanding of the special needs of this owner. So the board drew the battle lines and came out swinging.
It illegally discussed the issue at a workshop, where members were not allowed to attend, and it made it's decision there. At the next meeting they were just going to go through the motions to get the resolution in the minutes.
It keeps turning a blind eye to the fact that they could have issued a variance, and maded an agreement with the owner that would have been acceptable to the "community". I believe the community would be 100% behind the owner, and the board works to serve the community.
By starting this "battle" and engaging an attorney, it is doing a great disservice to the community as it will end up costing the community a lot of money in legal fees; that is unles a good HOA attorney refuses to take the issue to court and advises the board to settle the matter and issue a variance.
Good attorneys do not want to go to court if they know they are going to be on the losing side, especially if their side is obviously unreasonable. Judges can be very hard on attorneys who bring cases to court that the attorney should have advised the client to not go there. Attorneys who suffer the wrath of a judge who dislikes the case they bring in have a difficult time with legitimate cases later on in front of that judge.
My prediction is that if this does go to court the judge will not be happy that it ended up there, and that the owner will win. Then the community will be very upset with the board, and there could be a severe backlash, and possibly a recall.
A hard line on the CC&R's without using reasonable business decisions is not the way a board should operate.
A hard line on parking, RV's, gazebo's, etc is a reasonable business decision. But when a community members life may be at stake, a hard line is not reasonable.
It's because of hard line boards that operate to their own rules; are prejudiced, inflexible, and mismanage the community funds that there is so much new legislature each year to have more accountability and give the homeowners an economical way to legally challenge the boards. Hiring an attorney in this case is a blatant case of mismanagement of community funds in my opinion.
I would suggest that the entire board involved in this issue set aside their prejudices for a momemnt, and read all of these posts and understand what is being said. Then decide if they want to go to court, or if they should be a reasonable board and issue a variance for this owner.
As far as the owner asking the board to pay for a camera that someone damaged, the board only has to write a formal letter stating that they are not responsible for the owners personal property, and leave it at that. The association is not responsible.
Damage to the cameras is a separate issue from the owner putting them up. If she wants to claim damages against the association then she would have to hire an attorney. She probably will not do that. |
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 01/16/2007 8:07 AM |
|
PWells:
I am still baffled by the statement that the installation of cameras will increase liability for the HOA and increase insurance costs, how? I think you have made a bad decision in seeking legal action against this owner, as several have said you had an illegal meeting at a workshop to discuss and based on your posts here don't have an objective view of this person or the situation.
I am a firm believer that a board has to be flexible and should look out for the best interests of their homeowners, in this case I see installing cameras as a viable option. As Roger has said you can grant a variance and that doesn't make it a precedent.
Making a comparison to a car of blocks or an RV in the driveway is comparing apples to oranges because those things do not help in safety. I am all for asking the advice of an attorney, but I think this has gotten out of hand and I would not want to be on your board.
As for the damaged camera, if they are recording chances are she knows who broke the camera. Even if it was a deliberate act by a member of the board the HOA should not be liable for the damage. |
|
|
|
|
GlenL
(Ohio)
Posts:1458
|
| 01/16/2007 9:16 AM |
|
I'm going to object to the term illegal meeting. Depending on the State PWells is in it "may be" illegal it also may not be. In our community any three BOD members may take: All actions, except removal of a Trustee, which may be taken at a meeting of the Association, may be taken without a meeting with the approval of not less than three (3) Trustees, and in writing or writings signed by members having a percentage of voting power required to take such action if same were taken at a meeting. Such writings shall be filed with the Secretary of the Association.
The State also allows us to hold a meeting by: A meeting of the Board of Directors may be held by any method of communication, including electronic or telephonic communication, provided that each member of the Board can hear, participate, and respond to every other member of the Board.
While I would probably give a variance of some kind; today there are cameras that can be hidden so that no one knows that they are there. We don't know what kinds of cameras are mounted on the property or what they look like. The BOD has made their decision, whether reasoned or not and the HO doesn't agree with it. There should be some kind of an appeal process in place. The attorney wouldn't do the BOD's bidding if it were an illegal request or if their decision were improper would advise them to reconsider. I know because we just wanted to do something and ran it by the attorney and he advised against it.
It is best to keep an open mind and make decisions fairly and rationally, once you consider a request and make a decision, you don't have to keep an open mind. I don't like sushi; someone I know and respect took me out to try it all the while extolling its virtues, I tried it with an open mind and didn't like it and nothing anyone can ever say will make me change my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
DwightT
(Idaho)
Posts:477
|
| 01/16/2007 10:03 AM |
|
| Maybe I've missed it, but what do other homeowners in the association have to say about the cameras? Obviously somebody doesn't like them there as evidenced by the damaged camera, but how about the others? It might be worth it to take a straw poll to get an idea of what everybody else thinks. |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 01/16/2007 2:15 PM |
|
Posted By PWells on 01/15/2007 3:54 PM
........... Someone damaged one of the cameras they installed.
OK, those who said installing security cameras would protect the homeowner, please raise your hand. The camera couldn't even protect itself!
..........So now they called me and plan to hold the HOA responsible for the cost of the camera replacement.
It seems to me you are dealing not only with a disgruntled homeowner, but a nut case! How could the HOA possibly be responsible for damage to the camera? Would it be responsible for damage to her vehicle? Her house? Her lawn?
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
|
| 01/16/2007 2:39 PM |
|
I haven't read where anyone said the cameras would protect her. It has been said that cameras are a deterrent, and the evidence can be used in court.
I don't take everything that's been posted about the owner at face value because the board keeps adding reasons to support their original decision to deny the cameras. They are not looking for a reason to help her, or they would have issued a variance. From what I read this is a board with a vendetta.
The association does not have any responsibility for the owners cameras.
However, I would ask myself who would like to see the cameras damaged. If the cameras were damaged, perhaps it got a photo of the vandal. |
|
|
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 01/16/2007 2:44 PM |
|
During our workshops we discuss agenda items but never vote or make official decisions. We use the time to bring other board members up to speed on items needing to be discussed at the monthl meeting. Then at the monthl meeting we take offical minutes and have an official discussion with not only the owner requesting whatever is being discussed but everyone else that is attending the meeting.
The Board itself has managed to remain undecided. We're waiting for our attorney to respond. And are looking at our CC&R's and House Rules Book as our CC&R's state to do.
No official answer has been given... yet. Because there is no official decision made.
The owner feels the camera is now the HOA responsibility. The HOA feels its the owners responsiblity. Someone here does not like having the cameras ansd showed it by vandalizing one of them. Now the owner with the camera wants to install them through out or 12 acre (78 unit) complex. They informed us that we would not have access to the camera system. Which if they do install them through out the complex and deny the board access will cause a major problem.
2 board members personally understand why this owner wants them. But we have to think about the community as a entirety because it is on the exterior. Now this owner is now discussing wearing a body camera. Which we can't stop. Fine with that... but the building cameras we have the right to look at the pro's and cons of the purpose of the cameras.
This owner was a board member that was voted off by 100% of the ownership 9 yrs ago. And has a history of CC&R violations for over 12 yrs.
The board is looking at every possible way we can. Both pros and cons before we even have another meeting with the owner to come to an official answer.
PWells |
|
|
|
|
WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
|
| 01/16/2007 2:56 PM |
|
Posted By PWells on 01/16/2007 2:44 PM
The board is looking at every possible way we can. Both pros and cons before we even have another meeting with the owner to come to an official answer.
PWells
In your first post you said that the board had made a decision and intended to deny the system. Here is your statement:
"My fellow board members intend to deny the system as it will violate the neighbors right to privacy and may cause to many issues then this 1 owner realizes. "
Now you say you haven't decided.
What are the pro's in this case?
So far you have only mentioned the con's.
Why did the board not issue a variance and work out some agreement so the woman can have some degree of a sense of security?
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1748
|
| 01/16/2007 3:02 PM |
|
| Hey ron, maybe that camera could apply to the board, to get a variance to get another camera mounted to watch over it! |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 01/16/2007 3:10 PM |
|
Posted By PWells on 01/16/2007 2:44 PM
............... Now the owner with the camera wants to install them through out or 12 acre (78 unit) complex. They informed us that we would not have access to the camera system.
The owner thinks she has the ability and authority to install cameras on other people's property or common areas? And wear a "body camera"? This lady is clearly out of her mind. You need legal help ASAP before she can do anything else to destroy the HOA.
Yes, she can wear a "body camera" but what would she do if someone else in the neighborhood (not you) followed her around with a camera recording her every move? How would she feel if the board installed a camera to monitor her property? |
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 01/16/2007 3:13 PM |
|
Exactly. So now the board is waiting for the attorney. We've sent it to them. But haven't heard anything yet.
PWells |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 01/16/2007 3:13 PM |
|
Posted By BrianB on 01/16/2007 3:02 PM
Hey ron, maybe that camera could apply to the board, to get a variance to get another camera mounted to watch over it!
Brian, I'm sorry but I've read your post several times and can't figure it out. It's been a long day!
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 02/06/2007 5:25 PM |
|
Ok here's an update. Today February 6th. We finally heard back from our HOA attorney and insurance company. The owner is in violation for 2 of our CC&R'salong with 3 House Rules. So our attorney has advised us to have the cameras removed and the cost billed to the owner. Tonight we have an emergency meeting called to make our votes official. As our time runs out on Thursday.
This owner has already used their video footage to accuse owners guests and owners of "Weird drug dealing like behavior." One of the units accused belongs to a board member.
Our HOA has a auto registration requirement just put in place. That all vehicles must be registered with the HOA or the owner will be fined for each car every month until they do register them. With that in mind...
The owner with cameras sends me an email commenting how they wish they had the list of all cars and liscense plates of residences here on the property. And they (in a round about way) asked for the list or for a board member to walk with them so they can create their own list. Which we can not supply as our regulations state.
I will update everyone with this situation as it unfolds more.
-PWells |
|
|
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:3724
|
| 02/06/2007 7:50 PM |
|
Posted By PWells on 02/06/2007 5:25 PM
So our attorney has advised us to have the cameras removed and the cost billed to the owner. Tonight we have an emergency meeting called to make our votes official. -PWells
Did your attorney really give written advice "to have the cameras removed"? Or did they say your Covenants allowed it? Big difference! If the first then there is something missing between that attorney's ears 
I'd bet it was more like the second. Is your wording again reflecting your bias?
I sincerely hope most HOA Board members be more careful with their responsibilities. Remember your written comments can be used in court.
|
|
Roger Borcherding
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
DARCO Property Management (Colorado)
(303) 925-0150
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 02/06/2007 9:19 PM |
|
Yes our attorney put everything in writing to us. Our insurance company gave their response in writing as well. All our i's are dotted and t's are crossed to the best of the HOA's ability.
-PWells |
|
|
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 02/06/2007 9:25 PM |
|
In a nut shell. Yes the attorney literally instructed the board in a letter have the cameras removed and stated which CC&R's and House Rules Book regulations where infact violated by installing them. What actions to take, recommended time window to have them removed. And what will happen if they failure to comply.
All the i's are dotted and t's are crossed :o) as best as we can.
-PWells |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 02/07/2007 2:27 PM |
|
Posted By PWells on 02/06/2007 9:25 PM
In a nut shell. Yes the attorney literally instructed the board in a letter have the cameras removed and stated which CC&R's and House Rules Book regulations where infact violated by installing them. What actions to take, recommended time window to have them removed. And what will happen if they failure to comply.
All the i's are dotted and t's are crossed :o) as best as we can.
-PWells
I think that's great news for your association. If you can't stop violations of the CC&Rs, you might as well not have them in the first place.
I also think you're dealing with a "nut case" here.
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 02/07/2007 2:34 PM |
|
.... A hard line on parking, RV's, gazebo's, etc is a reasonable business decision. But when a community members life may be at stake, a hard line is not reasonable. ....
The member may believe her life is at stake, but she ignored the CC&Rs. This was not an "emergency" that had to be acted uppon immediately (such as a tree falling through the roof of her house), she knew the person would eventually get out of prison.
She could have informed the board of her fears and asked for help finding a way to protect herself while complying with the CC&Rs or with a temporary variance.
And again, the cameras do not protect anyone, they just help identify the attacker after the fact. Ever watch the crime shows on TV?
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
DwightT
(Idaho)
Posts:477
|
| 02/07/2007 2:36 PM |
|
| Wasn't the original purpose of this surveillance system meant to be a means of "protection" from a potentially violent EX getting out of prison? And now the owner is accusing others of "Weird drug dealing like behavior?" Sounds like this owner has slipped off the deep-end here. I would agree that those cameras need to go. |
|
|
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 03/17/2007 7:51 PM |
|
Just when we thought it was almost over. The owner is talking about suing our HOA because they denied them the right to the cameras. Right now it attorney to attorney. From what I can tell their gonna fight until they believe they win. And the board members have figured out that by not stopping it... this owner will go as far as demanding cameras all over the property. Which the owner has already inquired about. The owner has definitely gone off the deep end. They have recently asked the HOA for a copy of the list of registered cars on the property. So they can do a criminal background check and get to know the cars.
Unforunately our attorney is saying it may be in our best interest to allow their cameras because of legal documents. The owner is comparing the cameras to windchimes and planter boxes. How asinine is that!? Uggggg why did they not just move after the situation happened? Is beyond me. I wish they'd move soon.
-P |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 03/18/2007 6:12 AM |
|
[quote]Posted By PWells on 03/17/2007 7:51 PM
Just when we thought it was almost over. The owner is talking about suing our HOA because they denied them the right to the cameras. Right now it attorney to attorney. From what I can tell their gonna fight until they believe they win. And the board members have figured out that by not stopping it... this owner will go as far as demanding cameras all over the property. Which the owner has already inquired about. The owner has definitely gone off the deep end. They have recently asked the HOA for a copy of the list of registered cars on the property. So they can do a criminal background check and get to know the cars.
Unforunately our attorney is saying it may be in our best interest to allow their cameras because of legal documents. The owner is comparing the cameras to windchimes and planter boxes. How asinine is that!? Uggggg why did they not just move after the situation happened? Is beyond me. I wish they'd move soon.
-P[/quote]
I would question the advice of the attorney. If this person is allowed to ignore the HOA requirements, she will be in control of the HOA. She and anyone else will be able to do anything they want. The neighborhood will never be the same even after she leaves. And don't supply her with a list of cars either. You've got to go "toe to toe" with her.
PS: How can she possibly believe that she has the right to place security cameras "all over the neighborhood"? I'll bet if she placed one in front of my house it wouldn't last very long.
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:3724
|
| 03/18/2007 7:32 AM |
|
[quote]Posted By PWells on 03/17/2007 7:51 PM
Unforunately our attorney is saying it may be in our best interest to allow their cameras because of legal documents. -P[/quote]
Did the attorney change their mind or was their advise as I previously posted?
"Did your attorney really give written advice "to have the cameras removed"? Or did they say your Covenants allowed it? Big difference! If the first then there is something missing between that attorney's ears."
I agree with your attorney's current advise. I suggest you reread your post but replace the word 'owner' with 'the Board'. The owner is setting up a case which I believe they will win if this goes to court. This would end up being expensive for the HOA if the owner were to prevail in court and be awarded their legal costs.
I just can not comprehend why the Board would not provide a variance based on this owner's circumstances. To me this is a "no brainer" since her request is based on justifiable circumstances. Please, don't let your ego control your judgement. Let go!!
|
|
Roger Borcherding
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
DARCO Property Management (Colorado)
(303) 925-0150
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
PWells
(Washington)
Posts:30
|
| 03/20/2007 7:20 PM |
|
At first our attorney advised us to have the cameras removed as our CC&R's states no modification to the exterior of any building without written consent from the Board. This was before the owner supplied the Board with copies of restraining orders, court documents, etc.
As soon as that was supplied our attorney changed his mind and recommend letting them have the cameras. The Board then came back with a suggestion of: "Put them inside the window and only have them pointing them into their patio only. No other areas." Which again the owner refused to accept.
Now owners are complaining right and left about the cameras.
The owner has been denied the list of registered cars.
This owner has a history of walking all over the (prior) Boards. Which we are not permitting any longer.
I have requested to get a second legal recommendation. So now it's a wait an see if that happends.
-P |
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 03/20/2007 7:58 PM |
|
I thought in the beginning that it was reasonable for them to have cameras outside their unit. I do agree with you that them putting them all over the neighborhood is not reasonable and do agree they have no business with a list of cars.
I agree with your lawyer's advice. But I do wonder if the board had been more flexible in the beginning if she would not have turned into this demanding personality. But, hindsight is 20/20, I would try to work out a compromise. |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 03/21/2007 6:25 AM |
|
[quote]Posted By PWells on 03/20/2007 7:20 PM
At first our attorney advised us to have the cameras removed as our CC&R's states no modification to the exterior of any building without written consent from the Board. This was before the owner supplied the Board with copies of restraining orders, court documents, etc............................. [/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the CC&Rs do not provide an exception for someone with a restraining order, do they?
She needed to wait for approval for making a modification to the exterior of the building. Period.
The approval probably should have been granted but she had no legal basis for going ahead on her own. If you fail to stand up to her, she, and any other homeowner, can do as they please in the future and in effect, you have no CC&Rs. Examples:
I can park my work truck in my driveway because my boss said I had to be on call.
I can put my trash cans out the day before pickup day because I wear a suit to work and can't get it dirty.
I can park cars in my yard because my children drive and all the cars won't fit in the driveway.
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:1742
|
| 03/21/2007 7:44 AM |
|
Ron:
I agree wholeheartedly she should have waited for approval before doing anything. I would guess the lawyer saw that allowing her to have cameras up by her home was a reasonable thing given the documents she provided. After all we are supposed to be reasonable with our rules. I do think the board should have fined her for doing that without approval since she has a history of causing trouble. |
|
|
|
|