How to disband an hoa > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: How to disband an hoa

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Author

Messages

KevinH
(Texas)

Posts:53

05/15/2006 5:15 AM
I guess I am confused how 2 non-board members are running/heavily influencing the current board. 1) If they want to control the board, they should run to be on the board. If not, they need to sit back and let the board handle the jobs they are entrusted with. Control-mongers generally maintain such control by limiting information. They are not out to share knowledge, they want to limit and control it, and thus control the HOA for whatever agenda they have in mind. 2) I think empowerment may be the solution here. The existing board needs to feel empowered to handle the functions of their jobs. I found myself empowered after going to speak with 2 lawyers (on my own dollar) about how to dissolve the HOA and other related concerns. I came back ready to steam roll through anyone that tried to withold information, as our management company (of one) appeared to be doing. We have since turned things around drastically for the better. We are on a much better path now. 3) Would you say you have less than 10% member participation? (about 23 homeowners) If you have more, than I would work on the homeowners before addressing the 2 control-mongers. Let the majority speak and find out what they want. Unfortunately, if the homeowners are extremely apathetic towards the HOA, it won't be easy and may even be futile, but you should at least try and say you gave it your best. HOAs can flourish if they have a strong sense of community among the homeowners. If it is full of individuals that want to be left alone and every attempt to stir their sense of community fails, then it may be a lost cause.

If you cannot see the forest for the trees, back up and get a better view. Don't start to clear a path while still blind.

SharonD
(California)

Posts:39

06/07/2006 8:35 PM
The two are running it because they have convinced the board of directors that due to all the upcoming changes ONLY THEY can run the boad. No onein the HOA ia aware they quit....The board members don't want the jobs but don't quite either. Recently we had a special meeting where we were to discuss who was going to volenteer for treasurer...I said I would do it. At the meeting however, one of the board members brought in his neighbor, whom the board then voted he become a direcotr at large and then voted him for treasurer......We have maybe 40 members who feel the board is worth salvaging.....This board talks about community etc etc but it is a wasted group of people who get togther for free booze and snacks...seriously!

SharonD
(California)

Posts:39

06/07/2006 8:37 PM
This is bull*...All the controls are still with the city. HOA's cannot guarabtee good neighbors etc Our HOA discriminates who they go after...pople here have * all over...when I complains as board member the expresident say: go to the city!!!!

SharonD
(California)

Posts:39

06/07/2006 8:46 PM
1 233 2 7 3 yes the two women who ran it (as a couple for 8 years) then quit but are still running it Most everyone I spoke to says the same: get rid of the baord.....but no one is willing to do anything

SharonD
(California)

Posts:39

06/07/2006 8:49 PM
because we have 3 women eho say everythig I am sharing is WRONG. I live on the block where the islands are and know for a fact they are not being maintained. If I say it is day: these women say it is night....The residents are stupid and "allow it" because they say: it's only $100 a year...this isn't a gated community...and dues have been doubled, People are weak and not interested in fighting

SwanB
(Washington)

Posts:199

06/08/2006 6:06 AM
An HOA can also be disbanded by the Secretary of State of your particular state. You can go online to your Secretary of State's website and read through the rules for Associations or Nonprofits or however they are listed. In WA State the particular rules are titled the RCWs and then the section covering Associations falls under the number 24. I ran a search and found the exact RCW covering the 'disbanding' of an HOA in WA: RCW 24.03.302 Administrative dissolution-Grounds-Notice-Reinstatement-Fee set by rule-Corporate name-Survival of actions. There are stipulations for an administrative dissolution by the Secretary of State and it may not apply to your situation but it is a place to look.

hoatalk

Posts:538

06/08/2006 6:16 AM
SharonD: Your post above was edited to remove foul language, which is not allowed here. Please click the Posting Rules link at the top of this page and review it. An excerpt is below. "This is a positive place for community association leaders to share ideas and learn....please keep it clean, positive and friendly." Thank You, HOATalk

HOATalk.com, A free service of Community123.com Provider of Upscale Community Websites CLICK HERE to get a FREE trial community website *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:2491

06/08/2006 11:51 AM
Sharon: Sounds like you have three options: 1) move 2) disassociate yourself from the HOA and save yourself the grief. 3) Get together with your neighbors and get determined to make a difference. I am puzzled how two women who are not on the board can rule the HOA? Get together with the other board members and convince them to follow your lead. I would think if you want to be president you should be. I would also check into the $100 for a meeting and $200-$700 for christmas decorations. Sounds like someone is doing something that isn't up to par. We spent nothing on meetings, it is a meeting not a social gathering. Best of luck to you, but if you are strong and persistent and can get some people behind you, you can succeed.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:2480

06/08/2006 3:24 PM
Swan B (and others): the instructions provide by the Secretary of State apply to the dissolution of an HOA as a business, commerce agency, or not for profit organization. They must indeed be followed to be successful. However, they are not ALL the rules that need to be followed... the common areas must still be dealt with, and the Sec of State has no provisions for that, in most cases, except to mention it as a saleable asset. And many common areas are not saleable... the city has blocked that option in perpetuity.

KevinH
(Texas)

Posts:53

04/02/2007 1:16 AM
As stated by BrianB: "the instructions provide by the Secretary of State apply to the dissolution of an HOA... However... the common areas must still be dealt with, and the Sec of State has no provisions for that... many common areas are not saleable... the city has blocked that option in perpetuity." Yes, this is the primary reason we have not yet dissolved our HOA, however... I heave heard there may still be an option that does NOT require the sale of the property. In a nutshell, you establish a credible management company to handle all basic issues with this property and offer that to the city. The money to pay that company still comes from the homeowners, but generally is still less, since they would not have all the overhead related to HOA-specific functions. I have heard others have successully used this method to then go ahead and dissolve the HOA entity, but would like more details of what to be careful of when doing something like this. My first thoughts are, exactly how is the mgmt company paid? Would it still be direct payments from homeowners? Or handled by the City via taxes on those homeowners for the equivalent amount?? Also: What if the mgmt company decides to inflate the cost without just cause (actual expenses haven't changed to match new amount taxed/charged)? I am curious if anyone here has done this before and what kind of issues were dealt with in the process (during and after). Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Kevin

If you cannot see the forest for the trees, back up and get a better view. Don't start to clear a path while still blind.

BradD2
(Florida)

Posts:418

04/02/2007 3:42 AM
Sharon, what state?

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:4686

04/02/2007 8:15 AM
Kevin, as you said "the common areas must still be dealt with". That is the key question which must be resolved prior to dissolution of an association. The Secretary of State only gets involved when the association incorporates or terminates the corporation. Yes, a HOA can dissolve the corporation (if ever incorporated). But that does not dissolve the HOA nor the homeowners' responsibilities under the Declaration of CC&Rs. So until such time as the homeowners have no responsibility for common areas I think the HOA must remain intact.

KevinH
(Texas)

Posts:53

04/03/2007 8:36 PM
That is my point however: How to ensure the common areas are dealt with after the HOA (corporation) is dissolved. Since the common property will likely have little value to the city, they generally will not want to accept the responsibility of maintaining it. This means someone has to and since the homeowners were the ones responsible while the HOA existed, they remain responsible afterwards. If the common property isn't tended to on a regular basis, the city would come in, have the property mowed, then assess a large fine (several times more than what we would have paid within the HOA) on each of the homeowners that were part of the former HOA for failure to maintain that common property. Not a good idea. Again, my understanding, is that even with dissolving the HOA, it may be possible to assign a mgmt company that works directly with the city to maintain the property. That company gets paid by the either additional taxes on those specific homeowners or by direct payments to the company by each homeowner. Yes, the CC&Rs still stand and could be addressed by the mgmt company (or any homeowner for that matter) provided they are willing to pay the initial legal fees and take the issue to JP court. I've discussed this with 2 lawyers on my own dime to try to understand the dynamics of this system. From what I have seen and understand, if the homeowners are apathetic and the potential of an HOA cannot be achieved, dissolution should seriously be considered. Even with common areas, this may still be possible, but it's not as straightfoward and simple as we would all like. At the moment, I am still working on trying to find the good within an HOA. However the apathy of the homeowners can wear your spirit down quickly.

If you cannot see the forest for the trees, back up and get a better view. Don't start to clear a path while still blind.

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:4686

04/04/2007 7:49 AM
Kevin, IMO the good of an HOA comes from better maintenance of properties AT LESS COST than the senerio you mentioned. Some HOA can dissolve but many can not because their CC&Rs are for pertetuity. What may be required is court action to place the association in receivership. The judge assigns a receiver and your assessments significantly increase. And what do you think will happen to the selling price

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:4686

04/04/2007 7:50 AM
Correction- pertetuity = perpetuity

KevinH
(Texas)

Posts:53

04/04/2007 9:09 AM
I am confused why you say maintenance at LESS COST than the scneario I discussed. How so? The basic deed restrictions on homes will remain, but they generally do not prevent an association from disbanding. I'm not sure why you say the assessments will significantly increase and the that the association may have to be placed in receivership. The management of the HOA brings with it more overhead than the focus on JUST the management of the common areas. The concept of an HOA is relatively new and does not exist everywhere. Many neighborhoods thrive without one. It boils down to the homeowners in that neighborhood and how much they care about the neighborhood. As stated, the deed restrictions remain intact and can be enforced by any homeowner(s) if they choose. My aggravation with HOAs is more about the social mess they often create. I see little point to any association where the well being of the neighborhood is lost among all the politics and backstabbing of a few homeowners. In many aspects, they pull apart a community more than bring them together. The average homeowner didn't create that fire, yet are held financially responsible for taming it. One possible method may be to remove the social mess and leave a mgmt company in place to focus on the management of the common areas (lawncare and utility bills essentially). Granted, ideally this should cost less. Reality may take a different spin on it however. Ultimately, there is no easy answer, but there are options. Dissolution is one of them. It comes with good and bad, but may be the best answer for some neighborhoods. Yes, there is also the choice to change the HOA for the better. For some that can be an uphill battle. For others, it may be a challenege worth taking on. I'm in the latter stage at the moment. Dissolution is currently on standby.

If you cannot see the forest for the trees, back up and get a better view. Don't start to clear a path while still blind.

PaulM
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:1347

04/04/2007 10:36 AM
KevinH: I appreciate your posts which contain 'clear thinking'; I am enjoying the read. I, too, do not hold to the fact that maintenance of an HOA comes out to 'less cost' per homeowner. Not true in most instances. Because we are also paying for common area/s which we would not have otherwise. Plus, in our community we own nothing but the unit and only what it sits on. However, we are paying high price for maintenance of surrounding ground plus electricity, streets, etc. I have posted this before, but it bears repeating. It is time for communities to come together and seek a type of overseer at gvt. level who will be our advocate against: 'double taxation', Board members w/personal agendas, power mongers, Attorneys looking to line their pockets, etc. HOA problems are the same everywhere, they are repeated constantly on this site, over and over again, in every state. We get nothing--and the municipality gets our tax dollars, gives nothing in return and the developer sells his homes in Bulk and leaves us with rules. When will things change for the buyers' benefit?

KevinH
(Texas)

Posts:53

04/04/2007 12:43 PM
Thanks. I'm just trying to make sense of it all. I think you may be hitting a good point. Perhaps we need to push for new legislation that protects homeowners in existing CAM-based communities and places a greater restriction on developers when designing new communities. For example: What if they were to PREVENT developers from incorporating common areas in their design that have little to no resale value of their own? Any property established as a common area, should be adequate enough to be usable for other development, such as a park (city property) or even other homes (private property), etc. If the city looks at the common areas and says, hell no, we wouldn't even be able to do anything with that property, then they shouldn't authorize the zoning plans and property lines. They should be able to tell whether a piece of property will be of any value or use to someone, other than the proprietary plans of the developer. At least give the future home owners a chance to decide whether they want to keep the common areas or not. If the property has little to no resale value, then the homeowners have hardly any choice but to keep it. That seems unfair. In our HOA, we have these 9 little taxable strips of land, that we cannot resell or bargain with the city on. We have no leverage whatsoever. Why did the developer lay it out this way? They could just have easily included parts of those strips in the property lines of adjacent neighbors from the start. The approval must have happened at the city level when the developer proposed his design plans. So in a way, the CITY allowed this happen and now we as homeowners must pay for the maintenance, property tax, utilities, and management of that property (of which my house is not adjacent to). In addition, our developer had gone bankrupt just after the first phase of development (our phase). Phases 2 and 3 were supposed to be part of the HOA, but due to the bankruptcy, were never added. So instead of 200-300 homeowners helping to cover this expense, it is only 100 homes. I realize why the city won't take it. Basically we are introducing a new cost that the city must somehow absorb. Responsibility for that property was long-removed from the city's budget over 20+ years ago and they're not just going to tack it back willingly. Fine. But in our case, no one would buy those small strips of property. Perhaps we should advertise them on eBay and see what happens. Knowing our luck, we have all sorts of advertisement signs strewn up and down those strips of property because the people that bought it hoped to get low cost advertising space for it. ;-)

If you cannot see the forest for the trees, back up and get a better view. Don't start to clear a path while still blind.

GregL4
(Colorado)

Posts:1

09/23/2009 9:57 AM
I have found this string of great value and have very much enjoyed reading through the posts. I am an ex-board member in a small community where personal agendas rule and there is a massive division within the community. The WF HOA is only six years old since turned over from the developer and to this day has never been a successful entity. I believe that these issues arrise from personal agendas and apathy. This HOA is in a rural area and has a piece of common land and several other large common areas that need to be maintained. Our assessments are minimal but cover these costs adequately but personal agendas and inflated egos ruin what could be a very good thing. A small group of the community has banned together to make things happen where pontification and discussion has rendered the HOA useless in the past. This new endeavor is showing that positive actions speak louder than words. We are trying to remove the division in the community by our actions, communication and especially by not speaking badly about board members or other community members. All this and our actions are an attempt at salvaging what is left of our HOA and community involvement. Thanks again for all of the insight in this thread.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

09/23/2009 10:38 AM
WAY TO GO GREG, Working from the inside is the only successful way to get your community back from the non doing, non caring, self indulgent turds that have had a grip on it. It might be like starting from scratch but if you plan on being there and you love your home, then it is up to you and your good neighbors to take back the community. I have such issues with those who have the idea that at the stroke of a pen and if we just say so, we can dissolve our HOA. NA AH, it isn't that easy because every HOA has at least some type of common area or property. Someone has to own it and to just say that you are walking away doesn't work. Sharon!!, it is also your choice. Do something to fix the problems or sell and leave with a lesson learned. HOATALK!!! Thanks for the language reminder to the O.P. It's that attitude that is counterproductive and may be part of her problem.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

09/23/2009 10:48 AM
Posted By KevinH on 04/04/2007 12:43 PM For example: What if they were to PREVENT developers from incorporating common areas in their design that have little to no resale value of their own? Don't know about your neck of the woods, but our Metro 2020 plan (a long-range development plan for our metropolitan area, that was drafted, I THINK, in 1990) does not allow any new development to not include a certain percentage of "green space" (often referred to as "common area") in the site plan. Trust me, the developers would much rather use all available acreage for land that will give them a return on their investment and on which they can build -- something -- that they can sell or that they can sell to someone else who wants to build -- something. . . That alone is one of the reason why the "common area" appears as such a chopped up, unusable plot of land. It was never intended to be used as anything except "green space." In addition, the issue of the retention basin common area plays into probably about 90% of the developments, at least in this area. There is no way that the city is going to take ownership and management of the retention basins. Just sayin' . . .

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

09/23/2009 10:59 AM
Posted By SharonD on 06/07/2006 8:49 PM because we have 3 women eho say everythig I am sharing is WRONG. I live on the block where the islands are and know for a fact they are not being maintained. If I say it is day: these women say it is night....The residents are stupid and "allow it" because they say: it's only $100 a year...this isn't a gated community...and dues have been doubled, People are weak and not interested in fighting You know the old saying, I'm sure: A picture is worth a thousand words. If your position is that the islands are not being maintained, and you live by them, it should be fairly easy to produce a pictorial timeline that shows the islands' state over that period of time. With solid evidence in your hands, people can say "She's wrong" all they want, but they will have to explain why the pictures show the disarray and disrepair of the islands over the 30 days of the pictorial. I think what I'm saying here, which brushes up against what some other posters complain about, too, is that apathy is a strong de-motivator. Most people are not impacted by the daily ins-and-outs of the HOA in any way, shape or form. They have a million other priorities, and what happens to that $150 a year they pay (or whatever the amount is) to keep the HOA off their back and out of their mailbox is not one of them. It's the same thing with people who don't live in covenant-restricted areas. If something doesn't impact them directly, and cause an inconvenience or an ill of some kind, they ignore it. Our part of the county used to be a veritable dumping ground for certain types of businesses and developments (chemical factories and trailer parks). Many years ago, lots of interested neighbors (activists, for lack of a better word) changed all that. Now only stick-built homes and very light industrial are allowed near here. People went back to sleep again. . . . The people woke up one day when news that a steel mill was going to be a neighbor. Suddenly the cohesiveness and interest in every little detail of our community was overwhelming. They managed to block the steel mill. Now, that includes residents in both HOA developments in the area and residents in NON-HOA developments in the area. Sometimes it just takes some catalyst of some kind to spark the people into action and erase the apathy, even if it's only temporary. You need to find that catalyst for your community. If your pictures of "A Month In The Life of an XXXX Island" becomes the flashpoint for that catalyst, so be it!

MaryA1

Posts:0

09/23/2009 1:26 PM
Michele, Perhaps you didn't notice, but Sharon posted that message THREE years ago! I think this is the oldest post I've seen resurrected.

MaryA1

Posts:0

09/23/2009 1:27 PM
Michele, Perhaps you didn't notice, but Sharon posted that message THREE years ago! I think this is the oldest post I've seen resurrected.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

09/23/2009 2:05 PM
Nope. I sure didn't! Thanks for pointing it out! Oppsy!

EllenS1
(Florida)

Posts:1148

09/23/2009 5:46 PM
Roger, You need to read Sharon's post again. She said the residents hate the hoa so how, exactly, do you suggest they correct the problem and reap the benefits of a good HOA? It seems evident the residents don't give a crap and would contribute nothing to forming a "good" HOA.

EllenS1
(Florida)

Posts:1148

09/23/2009 5:57 PM
Roger, I agree that hoas can keep up property values (MAYBE since they really have toothless covenants for an owner who wishes to ignore them). As far as a trash dump by an adjoining neighbor or a noisy day care center, this can usually be taken care of by contacting code enforcement or licensing for businesses (which may not be allowed in a residential area). Too many associations run to their attorney instead of exploring their options with city codes, etc. As to the color of the house I guess it's just different strokes for different folks. Anyone who does that will probably ignore any violation notices they get anyway and then it goes to an attorney and the huge costs that go with it. HOAS do not have the power many think they have.

EllenS1
(Florida)

Posts:1148

09/23/2009 6:14 PM
Kevin, You are so right. The builders and developers are in bed with the City..plain and simple. None could care less what happens after all homes are sold. The buyer is provided with covenants which seem to indicate that property values will be kept up but in reality there is nothing the association can do but have volunteers who do not know which end is up to enforce them. The association can send violation notices which only good residents will adhere to and the ones who refuse to will continue to do their own thing and ignore any notices. What is an association to do? Yes, a lien can be placed if assessments are not paid..so what? The only recourse then is foreclosure and all the expenses that go with that. We have had an ongoing problem (over 2 years) because an owner let her property get in such disrepair that the association had the repairs done, went to an attorney, got a final judgment for about $20,000 and then were told we could not foreclose since in the State of Florida we could only foreclose for lack of payment of assessments. We are now on our second attorney so we will see what happens. Oh the joy of living in an HOA. There needs to be some sort of legislation that protects owners who buy into an HOA.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > How to disband an hoa