Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!


SBCA: Free education for HOAs and condos on satellite placement issues.
(National Trade Organization)
Helping HOAs, condos and property managers with satellite placement issues since 1986.
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Package Notification Mailing list
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/23/2017 1:07 PM  

My building has a receiving desk that receives all packages for the building, and we get email notifications when a package arrives, and also notifications from management. My understanding is that list should be made available to unit owners, since the email list is opt-in. The recent court rulings seem to indicate that just because the condo has your email doesn't make it community property, but if you allow them to use it for delivery notification then it becomes community property. Is this correct?
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:6904


12/23/2017 1:24 PM  
Not following. Why would it be "community property" and accessible to all the members now? You said it was an "opt-in" option. Which to me means you have the option of not giving it out.

I keep a fake email address with my name modified. It's for spam, strangers, or offers. That way even if it gets out, no one has my real name or an email address I can't just change.

Former HOA President
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/23/2017 3:01 PM  
Because the court decision said it is? What's the point of giving he association a fake email for delivery notification?

Surely as a former president you know the issues with roster vs email. The laws are always 10 years behind on technology. For many years, the roster with phone numbers was available to all unit owners. The court determined that email address that unit owners have given permission to use for association business can also be requested by unit owners.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/23/2017 3:08 PM  
Can you cite, Jason, the law you're referring to??
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/23/2017 3:57 PM  
Actually case law would be WORLDMARK, THE CLUB v. WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORP. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1017. While the matter involved a timeshare, both are identified as corporations and the case is published.

In California, the right to membership lists come from our Corporations Code.
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:77


12/23/2017 4:31 PM  
If this is the case Jason was referring to, it only applies in California. It is also specific to Time Shares so would probably only affect HOAs in circumstances that were very close in nature to this case.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:6904


12/23/2017 4:33 PM  
I am not saying one should not know who is a member of their HOA. That's pretty much public information. You have the address you can look them up. Also can go to tax assessor's office to find out as well. (Atleast last in 6 months as it's not always timely).

However, I don't believe personal information like email, phone numbers or outside HOA address should be provided. My rule of thumb has always been if you want to contact members you use the address at their door. Just make sure to put a stamp on it if it's in a mailbox. Certain rules like "No solicitation" may prevent one from going door to door directly. It will be on your dime and time if you want to contact.

I would still use a "fake" email address even for delivery purposes. Of course, I am into protecting my identity wherever I can.

Former HOA President
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/23/2017 4:46 PM  
Richard & I, Ben, have had and this debate before. I agree with you. Our HOA, per CA Common Interest Development Civil Code, gives owners, upon their written request, the right to have the property and mailing addresses of owners.

We, too, have a parcel notification system and Owners can opt in to giving our Mgmt. Co. their email addresses for that purpose and to receive HOA communications from us as permitted by CA Civil Code.

Melissa's method of contacting owners only via their HOA address makes no sense, especially in an HOA like mine with 30% absentee owners and 10% owners who only live here very part time. Is this AL law, Melissa? Or was it just your personal policy back when you were an HOA president?
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/23/2017 4:48 PM  
Posted By BenA2 on 12/23/2017 4:31 PM
If this is the case Jason was referring to, it only applies in California. It is also specific to Time Shares so would probably only affect HOAs in circumstances that were very close in nature to this case.



Published case law can be used anywhere in the country, not just Californian.

Timeshares are corporations. IF you read the case, the same subject matter applies to HOA's. Wyndham Resort is n Oregon Corporation.
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/23/2017 5:25 PM  
I'm in Florida, and the statue is Section 718.111(12). There's several cases and it all hinges on whether "consent was giving to receive official notices". So if consent was given to receive notices from the building, the email address should be part of the official records.

Another left foot, right foot condo law, where an association could claim that no official consent was given.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/23/2017 6:56 PM  
First, associations that want to use email to save monies are required to have members opt-in to use that vehicle. Who is the association? It could be the Board, it could be an agent, such as the management company, it could also be its members or homeowners. There is already case law that required equal access when campaigning. The same can be said for communicating with the membership.

You're right, timeshares are not HOA's, but the case was fought as a corporation, not a timeshare or an HOA. While Civil Code §5200 says the owners have the right to inspect and copy membership list, Corporation Code §8330 is more exactly in the matter in which it is intended to be used.

It is only a manner of time before an HOA will make it official for HOA's.

As to the concierge package, a number of HOA software packages have that feature as an option and is useful if you happen to manage mid or high rise complexes and an on-site staff.
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/24/2017 8:35 AM  
To be fair, different states do have different statutes, and case law is interpretation of the State statutes in regard to Official Records.

Just because condos are required to get unit owners to opt in for email notification, that doesn't mean that they did. Associations do a lot of things they're not supposed to do or in the wrong manner.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:7113


12/24/2017 10:21 AM  
I do not see this as a big thing. I have several Email addresses and use them for specific things such as HOA business, family, social, etc. Email address are like tissues. Use and discard.

HOApackage(at)gmail.com
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/24/2017 10:24 AM  
Richard wrote: "There is already case law that required [sic] equal access when campaigning. The same can be said for communicating with the membership." I don't get what these statements have to do with giving out email addresses to any owner who asks. I also don't get how the first sentence relates to the second. What does equal access to common areas for campaigning have to do with all owners having access to every owners' email addy?
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/24/2017 10:39 AM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 12/24/2017 10:24 AM
Richard wrote: "There is already case law that required [sic] equal access when campaigning. The same can be said for communicating with the membership." I don't get what these statements have to do with giving out email addresses to any owner who asks. I also don't get how the first sentence relates to the second. What does equal access to common areas for campaigning have to do with all owners having access to every owners' email addy?



It's called EQUAL access. You need to think about it.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/24/2017 2:08 PM  
No, Richard. You can't just drop two sentences that don't fit together and ask anyone to think about it. Prove it with relevant CA citations
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:1761


12/24/2017 2:29 PM  
Posted By JasonB13 on 12/23/2017 1:07 PM

My building has a receiving desk that receives all packages for the building, and we get email notifications when a package arrives, and also notifications from management. My understanding is that list should be made available to unit owners, since the email list is opt-in. The recent court rulings seem to indicate that just because the condo has your email doesn't make it community property, but if you allow them to use it for delivery notification then it becomes community property. Is this correct?

I believe "delivery notification" applies to delivery of notices from the association to the owner. Not package delivery.
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:1761


12/24/2017 2:36 PM  
Posted By JasonB13 on 12/23/2017 5:25 PM
I'm in Florida, and the statue is Section 718.111(12). There's several cases and it all hinges on whether "consent was giving to receive official notices". So if consent was given to receive notices from the building, the email address should be part of the official records.

True enough. What cases are you referring to? Are they court decisions or DBPR arbitration rulings? The latter are easy to search, the former.... I've seen few actually documented online.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/24/2017 4:23 PM  
I read Fla. Section 718.111(12) and the sub-sub section to which it refers and it does seem that: If an owner provides the email info to the Association for notification of HOA biz, that email address also is available to anyone who wants it.

But I don't trust my reading of this. With Geno, I'd like to see the court cases referred to. I also don't know if this is the same for Fla. 720.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/25/2017 10:48 AM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 12/24/2017 4:23 PM
I read Fla. Section 718.111(12) and the sub-sub section to which it refers and it does seem that: If an owner provides the email info to the Association for notification of HOA biz, that email address also is available to anyone who wants it.

But I don't trust my reading of this. With Geno, I'd like to see the court cases referred to. I also don't know if this is the same for Fla. 720.



Maybe this will help you.

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/lsc/documents/OfficialRecordsEnglishRevised06092010.pdf
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/26/2017 2:15 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 12/24/2017 2:08 PM
No, Richard. You can't just drop two sentences that don't fit together and ask anyone to think about it. Prove it with relevant CA citations




In Florida, and for Condos, it appears homeowners have the ability to request membership lists and if the associations maintain such a list which also includes email addresses, then homeowners in condos are allowed that access.

In California, if a homeowner requests a membership list, we cite Corporation Code and its rules for using that list. Civil Code only says an owner is allowed to inspect and copy. Members have the ability top op-out at any time if they like. If you don't want things sent by email, don't include your email address. Email is much more effective than snail mail.

The court case I referenced is a timeshare, BUT more importantly it was argued as a corporation, which all HOA's are, or at least treated as such. Corporation Code outlines how that list is not to be used. §8338 outlines penalties for its misuse.

In a case involving a timeshare corporation not governed by the Davis-Stirling Act, the court of appeals in Worldmark v. Wyndham Resort interpreted the word "addresses" in Corporations Code §8330(a) to include email addresses for purposes of a member's inspection and copying rights.

Applicability to HOAs? The courts have not ruled on whether it applies to common interest developments. An argument can be made that HOAs are governed by a similar but more restrictive provision in Civil Code §5200 which allows members to inspect and copy "Membership lists, including name, property address, and mailing address." If an association maintains a membership list with everyone's email address and if a California appellate court decides that the Worldmark decision applies to homeowner associations, boards would then be required to provide membership lists that include email addresses to those members who request it (except for those homeowners who opt out of the membership list).

Argument Against. At least one lower court decided that the WorldMark case does not apply to associations governed by the Davis-Stirling Act. Lower court decisions are not binding on other courts or other parties. Nonetheless, this decision shows that at least one court, when faced with an actual controversy and having had an opportunity to analyze the WorldMark case in detail, found that it did not apply. The court recognized that the law does not require associations to maintain a list of members’ email addresses and that members who give their email addresses to the association so that they can receive communications from the association should not be forced to receive unsolicited emails from fellow members.

Corporate Asset. A membership list is a corporate asset. (Corp. Code §8338(a).) Without the consent of the board a membership list may not be:

(1) Used to solicit money or property unless such money or property will be used solely to solicit the vote of the members in an election to be held by their corporation.

(2) Used for any purpose which the user does not reasonably and in good faith believe will benefit the corporation.

(3) Used for any commercial purpose or purpose in competition with the corporation.

(4) Sold to or purchased by any person.
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/26/2017 3:06 PM  
FL is getting better. They just instituted term limits for directors and made some stonewalling a crime; including making it a felony to refuse to produce documents to hide a crime. CAMs now can be held personally responsible for stonewalling; they can't just claim the board ordered them to not provide documents.
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:1761


12/26/2017 4:14 PM  
Posted By JasonB13 on 12/26/2017 3:06 PM
FL is getting better. They just instituted term limits for directors and made some stonewalling a crime; including making it a felony to refuse to produce documents to hide a crime. CAMs now can be held personally responsible for stonewalling; they can't just claim the board ordered them to not provide documents.

Baby steps. Those things were enacted in 2017 for condo associations but not HOAs. The Florida Bar Association has already drafted proposed "glitch" bills to be considered in 2018 that un-do most of the criminal penalties. There's no way the 2017 reforms will be extended to cover HOAs. It's already an uphill fight to prevent the lawmakers from rolling back the progress made in 2017.

One of the "glitch" bills would allow condo associations to sidestep mandated term limits by a simple amendment to the bylaws. The term limits imposed in 2017 are so easy to get around it's not funny. They limit a director to serving no more than 4 consecutive 2-year terms. If an association has the terms of directors something other than 2 years, the limits do not apply anyway.

So I respectfully disagree that things are getting better in Florida. We'll see what 2018 brings but I don't have much hope for legislative improvements to condo/HOA life.
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:1761


12/26/2017 7:18 PM  
In all fairness, I want to point out that there is some good legislation proposed for 2018 regarding FL HOAs. HB 873 was submitted for consideration a couple of weeks ago. It would change the HOA Act (FS 720) such that most of the changes to the condo law in 2017 would also be in place for HOAs.

This is a bill I can get behind. We'll see who prevails: the FL Bar Association's rollback bill or Rep. Diaz's proposal to bring FL HOA law in line with the condo law. HB 873 actually gives me some hope.
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/27/2017 9:34 AM  
The reason is that the 2 year staggered terms are designed to maintain control of the condo. If they run every year you have an opportunity to remove them every year. with staggered terms it takes 2 years and you can't get rid of all of the bad seeds at once.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/27/2017 5:06 PM  
Staggered terms are good so that there isn't a board of all rookies, which may not be good for an association.

Even with staggered terms we elected 3 of "ours" one year on our board of 7 and the following we gained a majority. So it doesn't take 2 years, only one. Even during that first year, we 3 were able to get the ignorant directors headed in the right direction by citing statue, bylaws, etc., that they had no clue about.

Richard your citations of davis-stirling.com are ones I believe in and is why our CA board does NOT give owner email addresses to owners wh might ask. It's really best, btw, to point out to rears the source for the opinions your wrote here.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/27/2017 5:31 PM  
There is a case, WITTENBURG v. BEACHWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSN.(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, which involves equal access when campaigning. The law firm that defended the association is the same one that you happen to like their opinions. They lost that case and it cost the association $250K in legal fees.

We maintain email lists for associations through our software. We communicate to owners via email as long as they allow us via the required opt-in and opt-in. If that same law firm representing an association did they same thing it would cost another association potentially the same amount of money.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:15081


12/27/2017 6:59 PM  
Posted By JasonB13 on 12/27/2017 9:34 AM
The reason is that the 2 year staggered terms are designed to maintain control of the condo. If they run every year you have an opportunity to remove them every year. with staggered terms it takes 2 years and you can't get rid of all of the bad seeds at once.





The reason for staggered terms is to retain corporate knowledge that could be nonexistent if the entire board was replaced.

Corporate knowledge does not equal whats in the records.
JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/28/2017 10:33 AM  
Thats great when you have a functional condo with an engaged community. When you have 7 friends who appoint other friends (and they probably forge ballots), it's more difficult. We have condos here in SFL where the board has been the same for 15 years. Someone new gets on, and they run them off by shutting them out; one board member was forced off because they dug up dirt on his wife. Theynthey appoint a loyal friend.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:7113


12/28/2017 11:47 AM  
Jason

No one can be "forced" off a BOD. There are ways of removing them and if done properly, so be it.

If you do not like the direction your BOD is taking then take the time and effort to get those that think like you elected. In one HOA I was in, it took a group of us working over two election cycles to replace the BOD. But it took time and effort, not just moaning and groaning.

If your goal is a just one, it can be one.

JasonB13
(Florida)

Posts:17


12/28/2017 12:13 PM  
If they say they're going to file charges against your wife if you don't resign, how is that not being forced off? Welcome to the real world.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


12/28/2017 4:22 PM  
Richard wrote: "There is a case, WITTENBURG v. BEACHWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSN.(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, which involves equal access when campaigning. The law firm that defended the association is the same one that you happen to like their opinions. They lost that case and it cost the association $250K in legal fees."

So what? What does this have to do with the original question. And what does equal access while campaigning have to do with owners equal access to other owners' email addresses. Look up non sequitur.

Richard it was YOU not I who cited davis-stirling.com on access for any owner to other owners' email addys. They do not support permitting HAs to give out email days to owners who request them. By citing them, you seemed to agree with them

My complaint above was you didn't cite them as the source of what you wrote. So that made it appear that it was your own opinion not that of a CA HOA law firm.

Then you ramble about how your MC handles email addresses, but you do not say, you reveal them to any owner who asks.

Jason, I can't believe how slow I was to to pick up that you are not on a board and you aren't griping about your own particular HOA. You're merely accumulating complaints about HOAs from various sources to spew at us. You are not looking for advice to help with your HOA. Nore t do you offer any to help others. In addition, your last post has nothing to do with your OP.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


12/28/2017 5:05 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 12/28/2017 4:22 PM
Richard wrote: "There is a case, WITTENBURG v. BEACHWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSN.(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, which involves equal access when campaigning. The law firm that defended the association is the same one that you happen to like their opinions. They lost that case and it cost the association $250K in legal fees."

So what? What does this have to do with the original question. And what does equal access while campaigning have to do with owners equal access to other owners' email addresses. Look up non sequitur.

Richard it was YOU not I who cited davis-stirling.com on access for any owner to other owners' email addys. They do not support permitting HAs to give out email days to owners who request them. By citing them, you seemed to agree with them

My complaint above was you didn't cite them as the source of what you wrote. So that made it appear that it was your own opinion not that of a CA HOA law firm.

Then you ramble about how your MC handles email addresses, but you do not say, you reveal them to any owner who asks.

Jason, I can't believe how slow I was to to pick up that you are not on a board and you aren't griping about your own particular HOA. You're merely accumulating complaints about HOAs from various sources to spew at us. You are not looking for advice to help with your HOA. Nore t do you offer any to help others. In addition, your last post has nothing to do with your OP.



Trust me Kerry, I have much more knowledge and experience in this than you.

You need to know which code handle the subject. Civil Code allows an owner to inspect and copy, but when asked to provide a membership list, it is always Corporation Code because it provides the parameters by which the information can be used.

There are number of opinions that I disagree with on the davis-stirling.com site. And there are a number of law firms that also disagree, but that is par for the course. The davis-stirling site disagreed with providing email addresses, but my attorney disagrees with them, as well as some others I have talked with. Email is how the world communications now days. Snail mail is old technology, and when Worldmark v. Wyndham Resort is challenged for an HOA, emails will be allowed. If you don't want your email address maintained by an HOA, don't provide one, or opt-out when the annual disclosures come out.

I think the davis-stirling site is one of the best, if not the best, in the country. I use it quite often as it is free legal advise/opinion. Unfortunately, there are a number of opinions I don't agree with. I bookmark about 50 HOA law firms in California and I refer to them from time to time. I read relevant court case, from start to finish.

From my research, there is NO case law that says you can't give out email addresses. Besides, Florida allows it.
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:1761


12/31/2017 2:20 PM  
Posted By JasonB13 on 12/28/2017 12:13 PM
If they say they're going to file charges against your wife if you don't resign, how is that not being forced off? Welcome to the real world.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:4632


01/03/2018 7:10 PM  
As you know, Richard, the CA Davis Stirling Act's document inspections section do not permit CIDs to give out email addresses or phone numbers to Owners who request them. Our HOA does not and will not unless some legislation gives us the go-ahead. We do want Owners to opt in to receiving many HOA materials online and some would refuse if they knew every owner had access to their email addy.

If I or any owner asks for someone's email address, whch is rare, our PM emails that person to get permission.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:2202


01/03/2018 9:19 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 01/03/2018 7:10 PM
As you know, Richard, the CA Davis Stirling Act's document inspections section do not permit CIDs to give out email addresses or phone numbers to Owners who request them.


Can you please cite the Civil Code number for this. Civil Code §5205 allows for "inspecting and copying" OF association records as detailed in §5200.

Corporation Code §8330 defines how a membership list can be obtained and what the penalties can be for its misuse.

You do things your way and I will do things MY WAY!
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Package Notification Mailing list



Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!



News Articles Provided by: Community Associations Network
News, articles and blogs about condos/HOA's

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice:  (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.

Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement