Imposing Fines on Violations

Actually I have two questions. Can and should the Association impose a fine prior to a hearing whether it is for the following reason or any other violation? Case in point:

We are a fee-simple HOA in Illinois. Our Decs/ByLaws state that the Board may purchase insurance on an owner's unit and charge those premiums back to the owner if they fail to provide proof of coverage. It says nothing about fines or violations. Reading through our Rules and Regulations, if a homeowner fails to provide proof of coverage within a stated time frame, the BOD must send a written notice to that homeowner for non-compliance and a hearing will be scheduled. It is at that time a determination of innocent/guilty is decided and a fine is either set or rescinded.

Also, the BOD is now suggesting that homeowners name the Association as an additional interested party on the certificate. The only document that references this is the Illinois Condo Property Act, Section 12(i) Certificates of Insurance that makes reference to contractors and vendors.

Isn't this BOD confusing the issue?

ReneeD

I am in Illinois as well. Although our HOA is single family homes, I am a Realtor and have been involved in a number of condo sales. Many Associations are requiring that they be listed as an 'intertested party' or 'additional insured'.

Our covenants require a certfied letter be sent regarding a violation, allowing a hearing if requested. If no hearing is requested and violation continues, then we can fine. Or, if hearing happens and Board still agrees that violation continues then we fine.

I agree that opportunity to correct problem should occur, hearing should be offered, and then fine should be levied if needed.

Lisa

You can't place a lien on violations. It's for non-payment of dues. You are correct. Has anyone ever had a lien placed on them? or is it still an empty threat? It would be hard for them to place a lien if it's determined to be placed because of violations/fines. Could be fought in court if necessary.

That sounds a bit excessive. I don't know if that would hold up in court. At $250K, I would think it would be worth a court challenge.

Some documents (especially older ones) may not specifically allow fines but they allow "special assessments" to cure the violation which is a fancy way of allowing fines. The fines need to be reasonable and IMHO most violations should be given a reasonable time to cure the violation without a fine for a first offense. There should also be language about repeat violations escalating the fine if repeated within a year.

There have been posts here over the years about H/O's taking advantage of the fining process. One of them was were a violation fine was limited to $25.00 a month by the Declarations, the BOD couldn't raise enough votes to amend it and most H/O's were simply paying the $25.00 a month and not curing the violation. Another where there was no language about repeat offenses within a year. That one was about leaving trash cans out at the curb each week, the HOA would send a violation notice with an intent to fine - the H/O would remove the cans and next week it would start again, with the H/O claiming it was a new violation.

Gary,

You might want to check your state laws to see if the developer ammended the declaration legally. If the law was violated in amending the declaration, then the new provisions are unenforceable and would not stand up in court.

The HOA laws in every state are different (and sometimes almost non-existent), but, for example, here in CT the declarant (developer) is prohibited from making unilateral changes to the declaration (even while the HOA is still under declarant control) except in very limited circumstances. The actual language is complex due to all the cross references to other sections and subsections of the law, but it basically boils down to the declarant can only amend the declaration unilaterally to bring it into compliance with the law or in other ways that generally have no impact on existing homeowners. An amendment of the nature you described would require that the declarant obtain the agreement (vote) of 67% to 80% of the existing homeowners.

Consider it this way. The declaration (CCRs) is essentially a contract between the homeowners and the association (declarant, while under declarant control). One party to a contract can't unilaterally change the provisions of the contract after it has been agreed to and signed unless the other party agrees to the change. Many homeowners might not have purchased their homes if such a provision were in the declaration to begin with.

So, check your state laws. The developer may have amended the declaration illegally, and that provision might be unenforceable.