Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Tuesday, November 13, 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: How Many Votes Should I Get?
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
JeremyP2
(Texas)

Posts:3


06/28/2018 6:37 PM  
I have two lots and pay dues on each lot. The ruling by the board is that I only get one vote. There Are two references to voting rights that I can see in our bylaws. The first says the corporation shall have one class of members. The other reference says that each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to cast one vote per lot owned or one vote per homesite as the case may be. So with this language, how should we interpret the number of votes a person with one house but two lots should cast?
JenniferG11
(Texas)

Posts:492


06/28/2018 6:40 PM  
Based on what you wrote it seems like 2 votes.
JeremyP2
(Texas)

Posts:3


06/28/2018 8:35 PM  
Where the confusion lies is the terminology around one vote per lot or Homestead. This leads some to argue that it’s one vote per lot that has a house on it.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


06/28/2018 9:20 PM  
Jeremy. Imo, you get one vote per lot. This is, I believe, very common. Why wouldn't you?
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:746


06/28/2018 9:26 PM  
One vote per property.

You would win this one in court - easy!
CjC
(Maryland)

Posts:138


06/29/2018 8:49 AM  
We have a number of homes who purchased empty lots to keep neighbors from getting too close. They all pay dues for two lots and get two votes.
AugustinD


Posts:1139


06/29/2018 6:22 PM  
JeremeyP2, any chance you can provide the relevant sections of your Declaration and Bylaws, verbatim?
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


06/29/2018 6:26 PM  
I think you are right about where the confusion is. Taking it as written, I would say if you have a house on a lot with an adjacent lot, you get one vote, since an adjacent lot would normally be used as part of your home. The problem is that if you have a lot that is not part of your homesite, either not adjacent or adjacent but you don't use, it says you have a vote for each lot. That obviously would not be fair and I doubt it would hold up in court giving some owners one vote per lot and not others.

You said that was in your bylaws, are your CC&Rs silent on the issue, because they would prevail over the bylaws. If it is not in your CC&Rs, I think you would have to have the same rule for everyone, otherwise you have two classes of owners.

Another thing is that you originally said homesite but later used homestead. If it actually says homestead, there is a specific definition of homestead in Texas. The fact that you live there does not necessarily give it homestead status and it is limited to a certain size of land.

BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


06/29/2018 6:30 PM  
To be clear on my statement, I think you have to have one rule for all owners regardless of the documents. Everyone gets one vote per lot or everyone gets one vote regardless of the number of lots. Otherwise you have two classes of owners.

The bottom line is you should get advise from an attorney.
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


06/29/2018 6:37 PM  
This may be the norm but the governing documents can provide for one vote per owner. Ours clearly give each owner one vote per owner, regardless of the number of lots owned, in all matters except for changing the CC&Rs, in which it is one vote per lot.


DouglasK1
(Florida)

Posts:1260


06/29/2018 7:25 PM  
The verbiage about classes of members is generally rooted in the fact that during developer control, there are often two classes. A) the developer who might get 5 or 10 votes per lot, and B) regular owners who get one vote per lot. Once the development is turned over, some associations amend their docs to remove the developer references that refer to two classes and clarify that there is only one class of membership. In any case, that verbiage does not suggest one vote per owner no matter how many lots.

Escaped former treasurer and director of a self managed association.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


06/29/2018 11:36 PM  
Again, Douglas is on target.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:3107


06/30/2018 12:05 AM  
An owner is entitled to one vote for any unit, residential unit or lot subject to an assessment.
AugustinD


Posts:1139


06/30/2018 8:17 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 06/30/2018 12:05 AM
An owner is entitled to one vote for any unit, residential unit or lot subject to an assessment.


I have lived in a HOA where lots without a home built on them were subject to a tiny fraction of the assessment and a tiny fractional vote.
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:3107


06/30/2018 10:17 AM  
Guess size does matter?
JeremyP2
(Texas)

Posts:3


07/01/2018 3:09 PM  
Thanks for all of your input. I tried to attach files so you could see directly but couldn't get below the 200kb size limit (cmon man). Here is the exact language from the CC&R:

"After the Association is created by Declarant, each residential lot in the Property (exclusive of those owned by Declarant) shall be subject to an annual maintenance charge, hereinafter called "general maintenance charge", not to exceed $360.00 per year or an amount in excess thereof agreed to by a majority of the lot owners, excluding lots owned by Declarant. Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned. The monies collected by the general maintenance charge may be used by the Association as deemed beneficial by its Board of Directors for the Property and its Owners."

So, what do y'all think? I wish it didn't have the "or home site owned" verbiage as that takes what would be straight forward and complicates it. So, I own two adjacent lots with a home on one lot. I pay maintenance dues on both lots. How many votes do I get?
RichardP13
(California)

Posts:3107


07/01/2018 3:31 PM  
Posted By JeremyP2 on 07/01/2018 3:09 PM
Thanks for all of your input. I tried to attach files so you could see directly but couldn't get below the 200kb size limit (cmon man). Here is the exact language from the CC&R:

"After the Association is created by Declarant, each residential lot in the Property (exclusive of those owned by Declarant) shall be subject to an annual maintenance charge, hereinafter called "general maintenance charge", not to exceed $360.00 per year or an amount in excess thereof agreed to by a majority of the lot owners, excluding lots owned by Declarant. Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned. The monies collected by the general maintenance charge may be used by the Association as deemed beneficial by its Board of Directors for the Property and its Owners."

So, what do y'all think? I wish it didn't have the "or home site owned" verbiage as that takes what would be straight forward and complicates it. So, I own two adjacent lots with a home on one lot. I pay maintenance dues on both lots. How many votes do I get?



TWO
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


07/01/2018 3:40 PM  
"Each lot owner ... shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned." With the rest: Two. Key word is EACH.
AugustinD


Posts:1139


07/01/2018 5:59 PM  
One reason I would say you get two votes is because ambiguity in the covenants is resolved in favor of the member and against the HOA. Another reason is that you are paying the same dues on each lot.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4151


07/01/2018 7:28 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 07/01/2018 3:31 PM
Posted By JeremyP2 on 07/01/2018 3:09 PM
Thanks for all of your input. I tried to attach files so you could see directly but couldn't get below the 200kb size limit (cmon man). Here is the exact language from the CC&R:

"After the Association is created by Declarant, each residential lot in the Property (exclusive of those owned by Declarant) shall be subject to an annual maintenance charge, hereinafter called "general maintenance charge", not to exceed $360.00 per year or an amount in excess thereof agreed to by a majority of the lot owners, excluding lots owned by Declarant. Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned. The monies collected by the general maintenance charge may be used by the Association as deemed beneficial by its Board of Directors for the Property and its Owners."

So, what do y'all think? I wish it didn't have the "or home site owned" verbiage as that takes what would be straight forward and complicates it. So, I own two adjacent lots with a home on one lot. I pay maintenance dues on both lots. How many votes do I get?



TWO

Richard is correct ... If you own two Lots and are subject to the assessments for each Lot you have TWO votes.

BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


07/01/2018 8:12 PM  
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/01/2018 7:28 PM


Richard is correct ... If you own two Lots and are subject to the assessments for each Lot you have TWO votes.




That makes sense but, if it is not based in law, it's only an opinion and you have to refer to the governing documents. If they are ambiguous, it is best to get the advice of an attorney.
JenniferG11
(Texas)

Posts:492


07/01/2018 9:38 PM  
Posted By JeremyP2 on 07/01/2018 3:09 PM
Thanks for all of your input. I tried to attach files so you could see directly but couldn't get below the 200kb size limit (cmon man). Here is the exact language from the CC&R:

"After the Association is created by Declarant, each residential lot in the Property (exclusive of those owned by Declarant) shall be subject to an annual maintenance charge, hereinafter called "general maintenance charge", not to exceed $360.00 per year or an amount in excess thereof agreed to by a majority of the lot owners, excluding lots owned by Declarant. Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned. The monies collected by the general maintenance charge may be used by the Association as deemed beneficial by its Board of Directors for the Property and its Owners."

So, what do y'all think? I wish it didn't have the "or home site owned" verbiage as that takes what would be straight forward and complicates it. So, I own two adjacent lots with a home on one lot. I pay maintenance dues on both lots. How many votes do I get?




Two. I don't think the wording complicates anything. One is a home site, the other is a lot. One could have two lots or two homesites. It would be strange w/o that wording, because it would be calling homesites lots! :-)
JenniferG11
(Texas)

Posts:492


07/01/2018 9:39 PM  
Key word is EACH.




Yup.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


07/01/2018 9:47 PM  
The governing docs are NOT "ambiguous."
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:7812


07/02/2018 8:34 AM  
It is only ambiguous when one cannot comprehend.
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


07/02/2018 7:38 PM  
If reasonable people can argue the meaning, it is, by definition, ambiguous.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4151


07/03/2018 9:22 AM  
Posted By BenA2 on 07/01/2018 8:12 PM
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/01/2018 7:28 PM


Richard is correct ... If you own two Lots and are subject to the assessments for each Lot you have TWO votes.




That makes sense but, if it is not based in law, it's only an opinion and you have to refer to the governing documents. If they are ambiguous, it is best to get the advice of an attorney.


There is nothing ambiguous in the OP’s statement:

... “each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to cast one vote per lot owned or one vote per homesite as the case may be.”

Per what the OP noted in the documents it is one vote per lot OR per house on a lot (a.k.a. homesite). Also, the lots will be as noted on any Final Plat filed with the County Records. Potentially the only way the OP would have one vote is if two lots had been purchased and the Plat revised to note that now only one lot exists instead of the previous two lots. The same would be true if for example the opposite occurred such as my subdivision where acreage was divided into more than one lot.

The State Law also notes:

Sec. 209.0056. NOTICE OF ELECTION OR ASSOCIATION VOTE. (a) For an election or vote taken at a meeting of the owners, not later than the 10th day or earlier than the 60th day before the date of the election or vote, a property owners' association shall give written notice of the election or vote to:
(1) each owner of property in the property owners' association, for purposes of an association-wide election or vote; or
(2) each owner of property in the property owners' association entitled under the dedicatory instruments to vote in a particular representative election, for purposes of a vote that involves election of representatives of the association who are vested under the dedicatory instruments of the property owners' association with the authority to elect or appoint board members of the property owners' association.
(a-1) For an election or vote of owners not taken at a meeting, the property owners' association shall give notice of the election or vote to all owners entitled to vote on any matter under consideration. The notice shall be given not later than the 20th day before the latest date on which a ballot may be submitted to be counted.
(b) This section supersedes any contrary requirement in a dedicatory instrument.
(c) This section does not apply to a property owners' association that is subject to Chapter 552, Government Code, by application of Section 552.0036, Government Code.

I would contend Ben if your own HOA is not allowing votes for certain items and if you are comprised of Lots vs Condo that those provisions in your governing documents are potentially null and superseded by the State Statute. Assessments in a single family HOA are determined by the lots on the final plat and who has vested interest or essentially owns those lots. You cannot mess with people’s “vested” property rights.
AugustinD


Posts:1139


07/03/2018 10:00 AM  
Posted By BenA2 on 07/02/2018 7:38 PM
If reasonable people can argue the meaning, it is, by definition, ambiguous.


I agree. As importantly IMO is the fact that the Board reads the covenant one way and the member reads it another way. Ambiguity will be interpreted in favor of the member.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:7812


07/03/2018 11:00 AM  
Posted By BenA2 on 07/02/2018 7:38 PM
If reasonable people can argue the meaning, it is, by definition, ambiguous.




I was referring to the OP's original question where his docs say:

Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned.

How much clearer can this be?
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


07/03/2018 11:15 AM  
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/03/2018 9:22 AM
Posted By BenA2 on 07/01/2018 8:12 PM
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/01/2018 7:28 PM


Richard is correct ... If you own two Lots and are subject to the assessments for each Lot you have TWO votes.




That makes sense but, if it is not based in law, it's only an opinion and you have to refer to the governing documents. If they are ambiguous, it is best to get the advice of an attorney.


There is nothing ambiguous in the OP’s statement:

... “each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to cast one vote per lot owned or one vote per homesite as the case may be.”

Per what the OP noted in the documents it is one vote per lot OR per house on a lot (a.k.a. homesite). Also, the lots will be as noted on any Final Plat filed with the County Records. Potentially the only way the OP would have one vote is if two lots had been purchased and the Plat revised to note that now only one lot exists instead of the previous two lots. The same would be true if for example the opposite occurred such as my subdivision where acreage was divided into more than one lot.

The State Law also notes:

Sec. 209.0056. NOTICE OF ELECTION OR ASSOCIATION VOTE. (a) For an election or vote taken at a meeting of the owners, not later than the 10th day or earlier than the 60th day before the date of the election or vote, a property owners' association shall give written notice of the election or vote to:
(1) each owner of property in the property owners' association, for purposes of an association-wide election or vote; or
(2) each owner of property in the property owners' association entitled under the dedicatory instruments to vote in a particular representative election, for purposes of a vote that involves election of representatives of the association who are vested under the dedicatory instruments of the property owners' association with the authority to elect or appoint board members of the property owners' association.
(a-1) For an election or vote of owners not taken at a meeting, the property owners' association shall give notice of the election or vote to all owners entitled to vote on any matter under consideration. The notice shall be given not later than the 20th day before the latest date on which a ballot may be submitted to be counted.
(b) This section supersedes any contrary requirement in a dedicatory instrument.
(c) This section does not apply to a property owners' association that is subject to Chapter 552, Government Code, by application of Section 552.0036, Government Code.

I would contend Ben if your own HOA is not allowing votes for certain items and if you are comprised of Lots vs Condo that those provisions in your governing documents are potentially null and superseded by the State Statute. Assessments in a single family HOA are determined by the lots on the final plat and who has vested interest or essentially owns those lots. You cannot mess with people’s “vested” property rights.



The part that makes me disagree with others' interpretation is that if the intent was to have one vote per lot in all cases, the second part of the sentence referring to homesites would not be necessary. "Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to cast one vote per lot owned would be clear by itself. "... as the case may be" implies that the two parts of the sentence refer to different cases which would also imply different voting rights depending on the case. I understand how you and others interpret that differently, hence the ambiguity.

As for my HOA, it allows one vote per owner on everything except deed restriction changes, in which it is one vote per lot. Our CC&Rs are very clear on the matter and we have had two different attorneys in the last few years confirm this. There is nothing in the state code that contradicts our CC&Rs on voting.

If you read 209.0056 carefully, you will see that it only covers notice of elections. It does not grant or discuss voting rights, other than requiring notification of all owners "entitled to vote."
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


07/03/2018 11:23 AM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 07/03/2018 11:00 AM
Posted By BenA2 on 07/02/2018 7:38 PM
If reasonable people can argue the meaning, it is, by definition, ambiguous.




I was referring to the OP's original question where his docs say:

Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each lot or home site owned.

How much clearer can this be?



I agree that sentence is crystal clear but that was not the complete sentence. The original writers obviously had a reason for adding the second part of the sentence referring to homesites and even added "as the case may be" implying the two parts are different cases. What they meant by that is unclear, in my opinion.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4151


07/03/2018 12:24 PM  
Posted By BenA2 on 07/03/2018 11:15 AM
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/03/2018 9:22 AM
Posted By BenA2 on 07/01/2018 8:12 PM
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/01/2018 7:28 PM


Richard is correct ... If you own two Lots and are subject to the assessments for each Lot you have TWO votes.




That makes sense but, if it is not based in law, it's only an opinion and you have to refer to the governing documents. If they are ambiguous, it is best to get the advice of an attorney.


There is nothing ambiguous in the OP’s statement:

... “each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to cast one vote per lot owned or one vote per homesite as the case may be.”

Per what the OP noted in the documents it is one vote per lot OR per house on a lot (a.k.a. homesite). Also, the lots will be as noted on any Final Plat filed with the County Records. Potentially the only way the OP would have one vote is if two lots had been purchased and the Plat revised to note that now only one lot exists instead of the previous two lots. The same would be true if for example the opposite occurred such as my subdivision where acreage was divided into more than one lot.

The State Law also notes:

Sec. 209.0056. NOTICE OF ELECTION OR ASSOCIATION VOTE. (a) For an election or vote taken at a meeting of the owners, not later than the 10th day or earlier than the 60th day before the date of the election or vote, a property owners' association shall give written notice of the election or vote to:
(1) each owner of property in the property owners' association, for purposes of an association-wide election or vote; or
(2) each owner of property in the property owners' association entitled under the dedicatory instruments to vote in a particular representative election, for purposes of a vote that involves election of representatives of the association who are vested under the dedicatory instruments of the property owners' association with the authority to elect or appoint board members of the property owners' association.
(a-1) For an election or vote of owners not taken at a meeting, the property owners' association shall give notice of the election or vote to all owners entitled to vote on any matter under consideration. The notice shall be given not later than the 20th day before the latest date on which a ballot may be submitted to be counted.
(b) This section supersedes any contrary requirement in a dedicatory instrument.
(c) This section does not apply to a property owners' association that is subject to Chapter 552, Government Code, by application of Section 552.0036, Government Code.

I would contend Ben if your own HOA is not allowing votes for certain items and if you are comprised of Lots vs Condo that those provisions in your governing documents are potentially null and superseded by the State Statute. Assessments in a single family HOA are determined by the lots on the final plat and who has vested interest or essentially owns those lots. You cannot mess with people’s “vested” property rights.


The part that makes me disagree with others' interpretation is that if the intent was to have one vote per lot in all cases, the second part of the sentence referring to homesites would not be necessary. "Each lot owner in good standing shall be entitled to cast one vote per lot owned would be clear by itself. "... as the case may be" implies that the two parts of the sentence refer to different cases which would also imply different voting rights depending on the case. I understand how you and others interpret that differently, hence the ambiguity.

As for my HOA, it allows one vote per owner on everything except deed restriction changes, in which it is one vote per lot. Our CC&Rs are very clear on the matter and we have had two different attorneys in the last few years confirm this. There is nothing in the state code that contradicts our CC&Rs on voting.

If you read 209.0056 carefully, you will see that it only covers notice of elections. It does not grant or discuss voting rights, other than requiring notification of all owners "entitled to vote."


Generally the second part of the sentence potentially would not be necessary. However, I have seen more documents now reference both because of past instances and lawsuits where an individual who owned just a lot with no home built would state that because they had no home yet with landscaping and other items, made them not subject to HOA fees. Referencing both Lots and Homesites takes care of that BS.

The title of that section states “Notice of Election OR Association Vote”. Also it starts out stating “(a) For an Election or Vote taken at a meeting ...”. Also, it notes (1) each Owner of property in the property owner’s association ...”. Again ... the Final Plat will determine each property and boundaries. Some of your best answers can be found in the various statute definitions such as:

(2) "Residential real estate subdivision" or "subdivision" means:
(A) all land encompassed within one or more maps or plats of land that is divided into two or more parts if the maps or plats cover land within a city, town, or village, or within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city, town, or village and are recorded in the deed, map, or real property records of a county, and the land encompassed within the maps or plats is or was burdened by restrictions limiting all or at least a majority of the land area covered by the map or plat, excluding streets and public areas, to residential use only;

(3) "Owner" means an individual, fiduciary, partnership, joint venture, corporation, association, or other entity that owns record title to real property in a subdivision, or the personal representative of an individual who owns record title to subdivision property.

I have had a few attorneys give me incorrect information. However, if I was in your subdivision and owned two Lots along with paying assessments for each Lot and was told I did not have a vote for both my properties ... I would not hesitatate to sue for my rights no matter how many attorneys you had say the HOA was right. Because the Map/Plat and how the assessments are noted to be paid would state otherwise with regards to my “vested” property rights. If I pay assessments for a lot I get to vote who I believe is the best person to manage the HOA, my money, and represent each of my properties.
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


07/03/2018 1:34 PM  
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/03/2018 12:24 PM


Generally the second part of the sentence potentially would not be necessary. However, I have seen more documents now reference both because of past instances and lawsuits where an individual who owned just a lot with no home built would state that because they had no home yet with landscaping and other items, made them not subject to HOA fees. Referencing both Lots and Homesites takes care of that BS.

The title of that section states “Notice of Election OR Association Vote”. Also it starts out stating “(a) For an Election or Vote taken at a meeting ...”. Also, it notes (1) each Owner of property in the property owner’s association ...”. Again ... the Final Plat will determine each property and boundaries. Some of your best answers can be found in the various statute definitions such as:

(2) "Residential real estate subdivision" or "subdivision" means:
(A) all land encompassed within one or more maps or plats of land that is divided into two or more parts if the maps or plats cover land within a city, town, or village, or within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city, town, or village and are recorded in the deed, map, or real property records of a county, and the land encompassed within the maps or plats is or was burdened by restrictions limiting all or at least a majority of the land area covered by the map or plat, excluding streets and public areas, to residential use only;

(3) "Owner" means an individual, fiduciary, partnership, joint venture, corporation, association, or other entity that owns record title to real property in a subdivision, or the personal representative of an individual who owns record title to subdivision property.

I have had a few attorneys give me incorrect information. However, if I was in your subdivision and owned two Lots along with paying assessments for each Lot and was told I did not have a vote for both my properties ... I would not hesitatate to sue for my rights no matter how many attorneys you had say the HOA was right. Because the Map/Plat and how the assessments are noted to be paid would state otherwise with regards to my “vested” property rights. If I pay assessments for a lot I get to vote who I believe is the best person to manage the HOA, my money, and represent each of my properties.




The title is an accurate description of what the section is about: Notice of elections or association votes. The section still only requires notification for elections and other votes and does not grant voting rights.

I'm not sure where you are getting that every owner in every HOA gets one vote per lot. That may be the norm and there may be states where that is the law, but that is not the law in Texas. The CC&Rs are a binding agreement that you agree to when you purchase your property. Unless they violate the law or unless a statute or case law invalidates them, the CC&Rs prevail. Nothing you quoted above contradicts what our CC&Rs say.

CC&Rs, like all contracts, don't have to be fair, they only have to be legal.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4151


07/03/2018 9:22 PM  
Posted By BenA2 on 07/03/2018 1:34 PM
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/03/2018 12:24 PM


Generally the second part of the sentence potentially would not be necessary. However, I have seen more documents now reference both because of past instances and lawsuits where an individual who owned just a lot with no home built would state that because they had no home yet with landscaping and other items, made them not subject to HOA fees. Referencing both Lots and Homesites takes care of that BS.

The title of that section states “Notice of Election OR Association Vote”. Also it starts out stating “(a) For an Election or Vote taken at a meeting ...”. Also, it notes (1) each Owner of property in the property owner’s association ...”. Again ... the Final Plat will determine each property and boundaries. Some of your best answers can be found in the various statute definitions such as:

(2) "Residential real estate subdivision" or "subdivision" means:
(A) all land encompassed within one or more maps or plats of land that is divided into two or more parts if the maps or plats cover land within a city, town, or village, or within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city, town, or village and are recorded in the deed, map, or real property records of a county, and the land encompassed within the maps or plats is or was burdened by restrictions limiting all or at least a majority of the land area covered by the map or plat, excluding streets and public areas, to residential use only;

(3) "Owner" means an individual, fiduciary, partnership, joint venture, corporation, association, or other entity that owns record title to real property in a subdivision, or the personal representative of an individual who owns record title to subdivision property.

I have had a few attorneys give me incorrect information. However, if I was in your subdivision and owned two Lots along with paying assessments for each Lot and was told I did not have a vote for both my properties ... I would not hesitatate to sue for my rights no matter how many attorneys you had say the HOA was right. Because the Map/Plat and how the assessments are noted to be paid would state otherwise with regards to my “vested” property rights. If I pay assessments for a lot I get to vote who I believe is the best person to manage the HOA, my money, and represent each of my properties.




The title is an accurate description of what the section is about: Notice of elections or association votes. The section still only requires notification for elections and other votes and does not grant voting rights.

I'm not sure where you are getting that every owner in every HOA gets one vote per lot. That may be the norm and there may be states where that is the law, but that is not the law in Texas. The CC&Rs are a binding agreement that you agree to when you purchase your property. Unless they violate the law or unless a statute or case law invalidates them, the CC&Rs prevail. Nothing you quoted above contradicts what our CC&Rs say.

CC&Rs, like all contracts, don't have to be fair, they only have to be legal.


Sorry ... The Title is a very accurate description of what the section is about ... if not ... IT WOULD NOT BE A TITLE!!! Show me where it is NOT the LAW in TEXAS!!! What I stated above WOULD contradict what the CCR’s state because the Final Plat for the Association AND the info regarding Assesments for each Lot would apply. Again, if you charge me fees for my LOT you had better be able to tell me per the definitions that I cannot VOTE!!! Yep ... and you cannot!!!
BenA2
(Texas)

Posts:531


07/04/2018 5:52 AM  
Posted By JanetB2 on 07/03/2018 9:22 PM
Sorry ... The Title is a very accurate description of what the section is about ... if not ... IT WOULD NOT BE A TITLE!!! Show me where it is NOT the LAW in TEXAS!!! What I stated above WOULD contradict what the CCR’s state because the Final Plat for the Association AND the info regarding Assesments for each Lot would apply. Again, if you charge me fees for my LOT you had better be able to tell me per the definitions that I cannot VOTE!!! Yep ... and you cannot!!!



Yes, I said it is an accurate title, we agree on that.

No one can show you where something is not a law. If it is not the, law it does not exist. Unicorns do not exist either. I can't prove it but it is generally accepted. The proof is in the lack of evidence that they do exist.

You apparently are not reading my posts completely because I said that we do not charge owners assessments for each lot. The CC&Rs stipulate each owner pays one assessment regardless of the number of lots owned. I have two lots and pay one assessment. I also get one vote in all matters except when voting on changing the CC&Rs, in which I get two. This is all in our CC&Rs so I would not have to prove anything to you if you lived here, I would simply advise you to read the CC&Rs.

My point is that, in Texas at least, the governing documents stipulate how assessments are paid and how many votes owners get. I am a Certified Manager of Community Associations, as former president of my HOA I have spent many hours reading community association laws, and have talked to at least two HOA attorneys about these rules specifically. That doesn't prove anything, but at a certain point reasonable people accept what professionals are saying when there is no evidence to the contrary.

It's been an interesting debate but I'm done.

RichardP13
(California)

Posts:3107


07/04/2018 6:20 AM  
Glad I am not on some of your Boards as nothing would ever get done.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:746


07/04/2018 6:48 AM  
Jeez, no kidding, Richard.

Lived in a common nifty where this came up ... had two owners of two adjacent lots each ...their houses were on one lot of the two lots.

They wanted two votes, but also only one assessment. 🙂

We offered them the option - combine the properties legally and in perpetuity, where they could not be resold separately ...and, you get one vote and one assessment. Keep them separate and you get two votes and two assessments.

One combined legally and one kept separately (and sold the second lot three years later).

Circumstances are important ... so, with the tax goes the vote ...if someone is paying for one they get one, if they are paying for two they get two.

Does this seem reasonable?
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


07/04/2018 8:45 AM  
We have about 5 "combined" units in our condo towers. Each comprises two condo lots. Each of those owners pays two sets of taxes and are assessed for two lots.The reason is our CC&Rs clearly state that's how our HOA must proceed.

I guess George's say something different if they're able to eliminate the assessments on one lot if combined.



DouglasK1
(Florida)

Posts:1260


07/04/2018 9:06 AM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 07/04/2018 8:45 AM
We have about 5 "combined" units in our condo towers. Each comprises two condo lots. Each of those owners pays two sets of taxes and are assessed for two lots.The reason is our CC&Rs clearly state that's how our HOA must proceed.

I guess George's say something different if they're able to eliminate the assessments on one lot if combined.


We would need CCR amendment at least to reduce the number of lots for assessment and voting purposes.

Escaped former treasurer and director of a self managed association.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:746


07/04/2018 12:04 PM  
Kerry,

Single family homes so different circumstances since no shared cost factors, it was fair.

In a condo, completely different since costs are shared, based on approximate square footage, right?
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


07/04/2018 1:05 PM  
I appreciate your concern about fairness, George. But what I was trying to point out is that we abide by our CC&Rs and so should your HOA, which Douglas also observed.

(Yes, we do have a sf variance, but it's pretty tiny, e.g., my 1,250 sf condo pays $5.00/mo less than one that's 1,300 sf. This amount is a tiny fraction of our monthly assessments.)
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5842


07/04/2018 1:10 PM  
I appreciate your concern about fairness, George. But what I was trying to point out is that we abide by our CC&Rs and so should your HOA, which Douglas also observed.

(Yes, we do have a sf variance, but it's pretty tiny, e.g., my 1,250 sf condo pays $5.00/mo less than one that's 1,300 sf. This amount is a tiny fraction of our monthly assessments.)

Even with detached homes, I can see situations where there’s a lot more curb and street screening or asphalt replacement to reserve for with two lots. If the HOA pays for water, I guess more is consumed to water the lawns (if any), etc.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:746


07/04/2018 1:56 PM  
Kerry,

Confused - we do abide by the CCRs in my neighborhoods ...??

The story I told was about a neighborhood I previously lived in - it had no covenants, but did have a mandatory association through its original articles to replace roads, etc.
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > How Many Votes Should I Get?



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