Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Disclosure vs. Reality
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/13/2019 7:59 AM  
I'm the new gal on the board of a 'frontier' subdivision. Please don't kill the messenger!

Disclosure re: water

14. UTILITIES
Water - The subdivider does not propose to install a water system for the subdivision. Individual property owner's (sic) will have to drill their own wells. There is a Geohydrology Report for the subdivision on file in the office of the County Clerk. as part of the property report for the subdivision. Refer to Page 12, Item 19 for estimated costs to drill a well. (note: pages aren't numbered)

15. INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES: (BY OWNER SUBDIVIDER)
WATER: No water will be provided to any lot by the developer.

19. FOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL DOMESTIC WELLS OR SHARED WELLS:
WELL PROVIDER: Wells will be provided by the prospective purchaser/lessee/conveyee.

~~~
A community outparcel in our subdivision houses a (unused) sales building & a well (billed by developer as a 'community well' although the disclosure contradicts) The 'community well' is a 'selling point' for the developer. If you want to 'haul water' for domestic use, rather than drill a well, you have that option.

Sometime in the past 12-15 years, the developer built a house for their children on a lot behind the 'community outparcel'. The mobile home on the property was directly plumbed to the well on the community outparcel. The mobile home fell into disrepair and was removed about 2 years ago. The developer sold this lot to a couple in early 2018, "with water".

This was a topic of conversation and many questions at our last annual meeting of members in Sept 2018. Is it the 'associations' well? Why is the association paying all associated costs? Why does one landowner get 'direct' plumbing? The board has been researching and discovered:

In 2007 .. newsletters reflect member meeting minutes that question this 'community well' serving 3 properties, and ask why the HOA bears the full costs of reserves, repairs and electricity. 10 years .. and members are still asking the same questions and paying the full costs.

The board discovered that in 2007, an agreement was recorded at the county granting 'ownership' of the well to the association, and requiring 2/3 membership vote to 'give it back'. The well appears as an 'asset' (for awhile) on early HOA financial forms. Somehow, it disappeared, and ownership was again questioned (for several years). This year, the board located the recorded document at the county granting 'ownership'. Once the document was shared, all hell broke loose.

The developer drove 8 hours one way (Jan) to file a recorded document stating their financial obligation to the well costs as:
50/50, without consulting the board. BUT, they also recorded a document (without a vote), cancelling the original recorded 'ownership' and returning 'ownership' back to the developer. The developer wrote an email to the board and stated: "The outparcel is not part of the subdivision." and they also attached the newly recorded document.

I guess the board hit a nerve. What the heck have we gotten ourselves into?

1) Is the community outparel part of the subdivision?
2) Buyer beware applies to both the new owners and all those who purchased thinking there was a 'community' well. If the well and all responsibilities are returned to the developer, people who haul water will be 'injured'. If the new owners are 'cut off', the new owners will be injured. Is there any middle ground?
3) When suggesting 'attorney advice', please cite any 'damages' to our HOA as 'cause'. Would it be better to advise those who 'haul water' and the new owner to seek an attorney, rather than the HOA?

Hell of a mess ...



What say you?

AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/13/2019 8:16 AM  
Tammi, first, I would ask the developer to explain why he/she believes the outparcel is not part of the subdivision. Second, what you call "disclosure" appears to be "covenants." Please confirm that you quoted these statements from a document titled "Declaration of Covenants" or similar. Third, can you review your Declaration and the plats carefully and see if this outparcel is in fact not part of the subdivision and also not subject to the covenants? The plats should be on record at the County Clerk's, or they may possibly be a part of the Declaration. The latter is a matter of title. If the Declaration and plats are unclear, a day or so of research at the county clerk's may be needed.

If you want to post your subdivision's Declaration (or whatever the source of the statements you quoted was), then this may help readers here to help you.
SueW6
(Michigan)

Posts:530


05/13/2019 10:37 AM  
I’d say whomever owns the property the well sits on is free to share or give away all the water they want.

So your burden of proof is to show ownership of this well-bearing land. That’s first on the list to do.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/13/2019 12:02 PM  
Augustin,

The board received a 'copy' of the recorded 'Well Agreement' document and the paragraph stating 'granted ownership' was cropped out. A trip to the county was required before we had the full document. Not sure I value or trust the developer's input at this point.

I've double checked, and I quoted the Disclosure (although you had me running to be sure!!) ... The Disclosure is 12 pages, the CCRs are 5 pages, (if there is any importance to that fact).

I'm struggling to find an accepted format for submitting redacted documents. lol, apparently .jpeg is not an accepted format! I've got a .pdf of the front of the Disclosure. If this is successful, I'll redact and scan additional for review.





Attachment: 151324891971.pdf

AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/13/2019 12:14 PM  
Hi Tammy, thank you for explaining. A few questions:

-- By any chance is the "Developer's Disclosure" recorded at the County Clerk's? If not, I wonder whether this Disclosure has any legal value. Usually only the recorded covenants control.

-- Has the Declarant-Developer turned Board control over to the HOA membership?

-- How many members does your HOA have?

--What percentage is required to amend the covenants to something reasonable?

I would try to answer more questions that people here at hoatalk raise, then prepare a complete list of questions for a HOA attorney, stating at the top the main question you want answered, then hire a HOA attorney.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/14/2019 5:11 AM  
Augustin,

-- The "DEVELOPER'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT" was recorded at the county. I had forgotten that I requested a copy in January! I've got it in hand. It's dated March 22, 2000. Everything reads the same as originally posted, BUT .. there is also a MEMORANDUM dated 5/8/2000 from the New Mexico State Engineer Office that states in part: "The subdivider proposes that water for the subdivision be provided by utilizing individual domestic 72-12-1 wells." Note: **June 19, 2000 is the signature date on the CCRs, Articles & Bylaws.

-- The declarant/developer (recorded the) release of control in 2007, deeding the private roads to the association and directors (other than developer) to the board.

-- The subdivision has 144 lots. 1 lot = 1 vote. My husband and I are both considered 'members', although we only have 1 lot and 1 vote.

-- INTERESTING, the percentage is 75% to 'amend' the Covenants. BUT .. when I was looking at my copy (I don't have the recorded copy), I find it interesting that it's signed on **June 19th, 2000, but the '75%' vote to change the CCRs is an 'Amendment'??!! How/why does one amend an original document prior to it's being initially recorded? - I hadn't noticed this before. hmmm Also note: The developer holds 49 properties. 30 never sold. 18 repossessed. 1 they use personally. Members cannot achieve 75% of the vote. I'm not convinced that the developer could make such an amendment prior to release of control, under NM statutes.

It has been the board's experience that some 'cut & paste' and 'cropping' has occurred with previously requested documents. When the 'Well Agreement' was originally forwarded, the paragraph citing 'granted ownership' had been 'cut' from the document. A trip to the county (3 hours round trip) was required to secure the original, full copy. I begin to suspect my copy of the CCRs .. and another trip to the county may be warranted. Good grief .. everywhere ... rabbit holes!!

HOA attorney. For 'straightening out'? What 'damages' are there to the association? I can't wrap my head around this ... what has the association got to gain, other than clarity? If chicanery has been at play, could the board make its decisions and wait for the developer to bring suit? Would they want this in a court room? All the 'cut and paste' activity is documented. Ridiculous replies & explanations from the developer are documented. The developer had been underpaying assessments (12% yearly loss to the association) for years. Estimated losses around $7000 due to previous board of directors 'non compliance' in enforcing our docs. 2 previous (long time) directors have written: 'That's the way we did it for years, and they are our friends', and this is also documented. The (2) previous directors allowed this chicanery. Anyone who questioned it was run off the board. For years!

Hit me with your best shot!! Thanks much!
Tammy





TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/14/2019 5:35 AM  
Hi Sue,

The outparcel is owned by the developer. The well sits on the outparcel.

Water use of private wells in our subdivision is limited to: "X number of acres of water per 'private' well". The Association was granted 'use and ownership' of the well until the association votes to 'give it back'.

I liken it to 'oil rights' or 'mineral rights'. You may own the land, but you don't own the oil or minerals that might be found there. But I'm not an attorney .. and I don't actually 'know'. The board is looking for an amicable solution for all. (lol, like that ever happens!!)

One could 'claim' an 'intent' by the developer to provide water, but it is not supported by our docs.

Regardless of who owns the well, how does ONE lot get plumbed water from a well that wasn't 'personally dug' for them on their property? Docs say: "Dig your own well". The developer has violated the very Docs they wrote! The HOA pays the full electric for that well. The developer said they'll make the 'deal' with the lot owner for 'payment' of electric and forward it to us, and then they recorded the paperwork without a vote.

Hot Mess 101!!

All input appreciated.

AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/14/2019 8:04 AM  
First, to get clarification on the legal position of the 'developer's disclosure' vis-a-vis covenants, I checked New Mexico case law. Only two NM Supreme Court cases come up, but they helped me a lot:

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/2003/9adc.html

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/1979/12444-0.html

Six NM Appeals Court decisions came up. To see them, google on:
{developer disclosure site:https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/court-of-appeals}

Reviewing these cases may help a bit.

Second, New Mexico Statute NMSA 47-6-17 requires the disclosure statement. At this point, my take is that the Disclosure is on roughly equal legal footing with the covenants. To view the statute, see https://codes.findlaw.com/nm/chapter-47-property-law/nm-st-sect-47-6-17.html .

Third, your comments leave me with the impression that you are dug into a certain point of view but do want a sort of reality check from the hoatalk[dot]com. I do hear your frustration as well. I know I would be battling to decipher all the recorded docs and their reasoning. (I already am battling, and I read such docs a lot.) What I am posting here is my reality check on your position, for what this layperson's reality check is worth.

Fourth, you, and I suppose your board, are averse to using an attorney. So sure, the board could try to impose its interpretation of the docs on the developer. Then see if the developer starts making threats of taking your HOA to court. At the first threat, the HOA has to inform its insurer. If the dispute goes to court, then under New Mexico law, the HOA is required by law to use an attorney.

Alternatively, the Board could sit down with the developer and explain its concerns, and try to reach a legal agreement with the developer that would be properly recorded. A professional licensed mediator (who typically are attorneys) should be considered. It's way cheaper than hiring an attorney.

But because of all the documents the developer has recorded, both way back when and more recently, I think the HOA's best choice is turning all documents and all questions over to an attorney and having this attorney discuss this with the developer's attorney, maybe with both parties present.
AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/14/2019 8:16 AM  
For what it is worth, yes my eyebrow went up when I read, "[Two] previous (long time) directors have written: 'That's the way we did it for years, and they are our friends', and this is also documented." This reads like board members who are susceptible to inappropriate influence and who are not interested in following the law. Developers get sued all the time by HOAs, often with good reason. Developers know full well that those who actually buy into their subdivisions are potentially the next lawsuit waiting to happen. Developers can and will find rubes to serve the developers' ends, putting the rubes on the board to make the rubes feel important. Flattery gets the developers everywhere. I have seen a developer fawn over a little old gentleman for years whom they helped get on the board and keep on the board. They'd play favorites with his home and favorites with him. The developer's hand-picked, sleazy property manager was nailed for embezzlement some years later, perpetrated against a dozen or so HOAs, abetted by the boards' acquiescence to having the HOAs' reserves held in a bank account in the property manager's name.

I would keep in mind that developers getting their friends on the board after turnover happens only because the rest of the membership lets it happen. Nothing is keeping any member from pounding the pavement and sending mailings to campaign, win votes and get elected.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/14/2019 10:55 PM  
I've read the two NM SC cases, and I'll need to read them again. I had a difficult time locating the appeals cases, but it was well worth it! (pun!)

Section 47-6-17 looks & reads like a template that was used for our docs. I'll be cross referencing tomorrow!

I appreciate a reality check! Better to be checked sooner than later! I'm so much dug in as I am stuck. I'm speaking as the majority on the board spoke. I championed "Attorney" being on the agenda for two of our last three meetings and it is a hard sell. Monsoons are coming. We'll have $road $issues. We have bylaw issues. We have well issues. We have contentious out-of-state director issues.

OKAY! We need an attorney!

The association doesn't carry insurance. That was on the Agenda too. Twice! I can't find any law that requires it. I'd love to bring it back up, if you're able to find something.

Neither an attorney or insurance would ever have made it on any of our agendas if it weren't for forums like this one. I've got some perspective, and case law, that I can bring to the table. It'll be on the Agenda again in about a week. It's all I can do at this point. It sure could take a load off our minds, and our backs.

AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/15/2019 7:31 AM  
Tammy,

-- Do your governing documents (e.g. your CC&Rs) say somewhere in them that the HOA is incorporated and subject to the New Mexico Nonprofit Corporations Act?

-- Do your governing documents speak of the HOA being required to have insurance?

-- I am betting your HOA is subject to NMSA 47-16, New Mexico's relatively new Homeowner Association statute. I see nothing in it that requires insurance.

-- If your HOA's docs say it is a nonprofit corporation, then NMSA 53-8 (New Mexico's Nonprofit Corporations statute) applies. But once again, I see nothing in this statute that requires insurance.

-- One thing that is confusing me is that you wrote that the "developer" filed docs in January returning ownership of _____ (the well, certain lots?) back to the developer. If the HOA was turned over to the membership some years ago, then how could the developer record docs pertaining to the entire HOA this past January that have any legal validity? I am sure I am missing something. After a HOA is turned over to membership control, a member of a HOA cannot just declare itself not a member.

-- Small aside, for now: So far it appears only New Mexico Judicial Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11 and 13 require that a corporation be represented by counsel // if // there is a court appearance or court filing. Your HOA is nowhere near this. For now, it's a "just saying" observation by me, relevant to HOAs and attorneys in New Mexico and many other states.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/15/2019 10:58 AM  
-- Yes. Our Articles state: 'under NM Non-profit organization act'.

-- Governing documents dictate there is an option to carry insurance.

-- Yes. I also believe the HOA is subject to NMSA 47-16. No insurance requirement. Affirmation is appreciated. I have questioned the boards responsibility and culpability in allowing 2 directors to continue to serve on the board, given their failure of fiduciary duty over the past decade.

-- Yes. Governed by nonprofit corporation too. No insurance requirement. Affirmation again.

-- Confusing to me too!! The developer forwarded many newly recorded docs to the long time friend/director in January, and that director forwarded them to the board. The amended well agreement was among them. I just pulled the Well Agreement to quote it .. and the first paragraph speaks to the developer's claim that the out parcel is not part of the subdivision:

WELL AGREEMENT March 2007:

Developer, LLC Owner of 2.08 Acre Out Parcel of XYZ Subdivision, XX County, located at corner of County Road X-XXX and Animal Trail, XYZ Subdivision, HEREBY grants ownership and use of the well located on said Out Parcel to the XYZ Landowners' Association, a New Mexico non profit organization with the following provisions: (paraphrasing now):

Lot # 126 shall have perpetual use and shall go with the land
Building on out parcel shall have perpetual use, etc ..
Electrical .... Put the meter/bill in the landowner association name.
Building a.k.a. 'office', shall be metered separately upon full time occupancy.
Repair & Maintenance: the lines going from the well to the out parcel and lot 126 shall be the responsibility of the prospective property owner.
Verbatim: "IN THE EVENT the Landowners' Association deems they no longer require the use of the well. Ownership of the well shall revert back to the owner and assigns of the Out parcel, with no change of rights and use granted to lot 126. At that time, the electrical expenses and maintenance shall be shared 50-50 with the owners of the Out Parcel and lot 126 and a lock shall be
placed on the well barring the use from the other property owners. It will be private ownership and use."

The new Well Agreement January 2019 cites that the LOA has not filed the well at the state level, and grants "use" to the LOA under these conditions: (paraphrasing)

the electric is the full responsibility of the landowners association.

repairs are still 50/50. Caveat: "Outside agreement between owner of Out Parcel and Lot 126 will be by separate agreement.

Verbatim: "IN THE EVENT the Landowners Association by an 80% vote of membership deem they no longer require use of the well, the electrical meter will revert ...."

~~~~~~

You're right, it appears that the developer still has control.

Here are the developers own words via email: "In 2007, after we reached 108 sold as specified on recorded plat, we started paying (developer assessed) dues." - - "We were giving two years for members to become familiar with the board & the duties before reaching the targeted goal of 108 parcels sold. At that point in 2007, we deeded the roads, turned the maintenance of roads to the responsibility to the association & the newly elected board, which was : __ ___ & ____. "

^ That is the response received to another question regarding the "2/3 lots sold" written in the disclosure. Every resident landowner said, and the long time treasurer responded via email, that the association was 'turned over' when 96 (2/3) of the lots were sold (2005). The board pointed out that the target of '96 lots sold' was a false narrative. The release was recorded in 2007 when the statute dictated goal of 75% (108) lots sold was met.

Also note: developers claim of paying "developer assessed dues" (1/5 of the 'normal' rate on unsold properties). The treasurer allowed repossessed properties to return to the 'unsold' rate of 1/5 the normal assessment. Properties that were not even in the 'declarant' name! This has been corrected. Full assessment was received for 2018 & 2019 on all 'sold' properties. (12% increase in income).

This entire journey is predicated on the Treasurers Report at the Annual Meeting in Sept. The Treasurer announced income as: 95 lots at full assessment. Me: 95? Wasn't turnover at 96? (Now I know better) My question at the meeting was: What? How can the associations revenues be lower than their revenues in 2005? And the developer has more voting power? When the 'actual' target is 108, the loss is even greater.

You aren't the only one who is confused.


























AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/15/2019 11:37 AM  
Tammy, just to keep fleshing things out: Is the March 2007 "well agreement" signed by both the HOA and the owner of the "outparcel"?

If so, I do not see how the owner of the outparcel can then turn around in Jan 2019 and return the ownership of the well to himself/herself.

I do see "outparcel" has a specific meaning in real estate law. It seems to be a piece of land that is currently not being used in the same way that the surrounding land is being used. Importantly, it appears an "outparcel" is not subject to the same restrictions as the rest of the land. A developer appears to be able to legally carve out a piece of land from a development, and cause this piece of land to be not subject to the surrounding land's restrictions. At the time of the outparcel's creation, the outparcel becomes a smaller asset, newly carved out of a larger asset. An outparcel often seems to be the best land or lot out of a larger collection of land or lots. Hence the desire by developers to carve it out and sell it at a higher price, or keep it for the developer's own use.

The statement that the outparcel is not part of the HOA may be correct. But at this point, I just cannot find the documentation that confirms it is a bona fide, legal (so to speak) "outparcel."

I could be wrong, but right now it seems like the owner of the outparcel and lot behind it are a husband-wife team who seem to be lacking in legal sophistication.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/18/2019 5:36 AM  
You have brought up a point raised by a current director and a previous director: The original 2007 recorded agreement is signed by the developer only. In some sick twisted irony designed to further my torture, the current director and previous director have opposing views on the 'ownership' of the well with regard to 'one signature only'. I am interested to know on which side you fall. Do tell.

I also tried to find documentation on 'outparcel'. Our subdivision has two outparcels, A & B. Both A & B are sided by a county maintained road at the corner of our two main entrances. Months ago, the tax assessor explained that outparcels are common in our county's subdivisions and although it is not required, are often deeded to the association after the developer has sold their last property in the subdivision. (The developer has sold 3 properties since release of control in 2007. The developer is also a realtor, licensed in a neighboring state.)

**The developer claimed the outparcel is not part of the 'subdivision'. The HOA's does not collect assessments on the outparcel. Is it possible to be part of the subdivision and not be part of the HOA?

Lot #126 & the outparcel WERE owned by the husband & wife developer team. The developer sold lot #126 last year, "with water" plumbed directly from the well that sits on the developers outparcel (across surveyed boundaries). Regardless of who 'owns' the well, wouldn't a direct line supplied by either the developer or by the association be non-compliant with regard to the disclosure?

I have the 'community outparcel' scanned to pdf, but still can't upload due to file size. Arg! I don't often wish there was still a teenager in the house ... but I could sure use one today!



RoyalP


Posts:0


05/18/2019 7:03 AM  
..... 15. INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES: (BY OWNER SUBDIVIDER)
WATER: No water will be provided to any lot by the developer. .....



Twist, squirm, scream, hollar ...... then be done with it
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/19/2019 4:19 AM  
The referenced well went down yesterday. Let the twisting, squirming and hollering begin. *sips coffee* ... (made with water from our private well, dug in compliance with state law and according to our community docs).

If only you could be here to tell the horse owning landowners who didn't read their community documents that there will be no water for their horses. Or them. And I imagine that the owners of lot #126 will be traveling up my driveway sometime today.

Our treasurer, the developers long time friend, may be inclined to cut a check for those repairs when the developer demands it and without consulting the board. Because, you know, that's the way they've done it for years!








AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/19/2019 8:43 AM  
Posted By TammyC3 on 05/19/2019 4:19 AM
The referenced well went down yesterday. Let the twisting, squirming and hollering begin. *sips coffee* ... (made with water from our private well, dug in compliance with state law and according to our community docs).

If only you could be here to tell the horse owning landowners who didn't read their community documents that there will be no water for their horses. Or them. And I imagine that the owners of lot #126 will be traveling up my driveway sometime today.

Our treasurer, the developers long time friend, may be inclined to cut a check for those repairs when the developer demands it and without consulting the board. Because, you know, that's the way they've done it for years!


Ha, you're funny. Seriously though, I think I would be concerned that the owners of lot #126 will have a string of lawyers with them when they travel up your driveway today. Your board and you might be correct about the law. I just do not know yet. I am aware that a HOA that is refusing to provide water, yet is legally obliged to provide water, might get in trouble with state health departments, in the vein of landlord-tenant law.

Maybe the good thing here is that the HOA can say to lot #126's owners that they can fix the well themselves, and then take the HOA to court (or seek mediation?) for the cost of the repairs and to resolve well ownership.

Somehow you all have to deal with this treasurer.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/20/2019 9:08 AM  
Ah, my humor can cross lines ... let me know. *sips coffee*

I can only remind the treasurer via email that individual landowners and not 'the association' took it upon themselves to assess the condition of the out-parcel well, and the association cannot pay for any repairs without a majority approval by the board. We already have meeting scheduled for this Thursday. Slow and steady with the treasurer, it's uphill all the way.

Lot #126 is still 'moving in' and they are not in the subdivision at this time (word of mouth). The developer indicated that they made a 'separate' agreement with #126 for water access and 'repairs' to the well *see reference above. For all we know, #126 thinks everyone is connected to that well!

Lots of digging in this case - Reported: The pressure tank was floating and the control panel was submerged in the standing water. Assessment: Pipe broke and water ran until it was visible at ground level. It needs to dry out a bit before pipe repair can be made; rain is in our forecast. If it's just the pipe, it will be repaired with a members 'on hand' materials at $0 cost. If the pressure tank or control panel are fouled, there will be an additional chapter ... stay tuned!

-- Re: One signature on any and all versions of the Well Agreement

Previous director's view: The well was never ours, the "association didn't agree to contract". "Contract violates disclosure". -
This seems to follow the KISS theory and I can't say I don't like it! Our association walks away. All questioners can be referred to the disclosure. Questions about the developer's 'promises' can be referred to the developer that made the promise. Is that too simple?

A current director's view: The well belongs to the association. Get survey, record easement, new electric meter for "Well only", cut water lines to #126.
The current director has a non-working private well and has relied on the out-parcel well water for some years. However, his private well repairs are in progress, and we will see if perspective has changed on Thursday.


AugustinD


Posts:1886


05/20/2019 9:20 AM  
Posted By TammyC3 on 05/20/2019 9:08 AM
Previous director's view: The well was never ours, the "association didn't agree to contract". "Contract violates disclosure". - This seems to follow the KISS theory and I can't say I don't like it! Our association walks away. All questioners can be referred to the disclosure. Questions about the developer's 'promises' can be referred to the developer that made the promise. Is that too simple?


For now, I think this justification is fine. Let the dissidents try to take the HOA to court.

Also, I say: Keep that fine sense of humor. It's a means to surviving being a HOA director-president.
TammyC3
(New Mexico)

Posts:49


05/20/2019 5:47 PM  
Thanks and thanks!

Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Disclosure vs. Reality



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