Violation notice > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Violation notice

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

CalvinC
(Florida)

Posts:20

06/08/2006 3:06 AM
Does anyone have a copy of an escalating fine violation notice. We made our first real drive around last night and need to start sending notices to people who are not complying. These are people who have already been notified.

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3725

06/08/2006 6:53 AM
Calvin, before any notices are sent you should establish Rules and Regulations (policies and procedures). Following is an example. Once this is done I first give a warning notice. If not corrected then I issue a violation (Demand)notice and advise that after a specified deadline if not corrected there is a fine after the right to a Hearing; also make reference to the R&R. If one or more additional Demand notices are required include the same info with the escuating fine amount. Ultimately, a final Demand notice can be given advising that if not corrected legal action will procede and the owner will be assessed for all legal costs and costs to correct the violation. ---------------- Rules and Regulations on Enforcement of Covenants and Rules In order to maintain property values, safety, and quality of life the Association enforces restrictions itemized in the Declaration (Covenants), Bylaws, and the Rules and Regulations (sometimes called Policies and Procedures). This may be referred to as Covenant enforcement, or Covenant control, or Covenant compliance. The Property is monitored weekly by the Management Company for Covenant compliance. Owners can also report problems to the Managing Agent and may request anonymity. The Agent will investigate and shall photograph potential violations. A Demand letter will be sent to the Owner advising of the alleged violation, the controlling regulation, a time limit for correction (typically 10 days), and the right of the Owner to request a Hearing before the Board of Directors to challenge the cited violation. To dispute a cited violation the Owner shall promptly submit a written request for a Hearing. Upon receipt of such a request, a Board of Directors meeting will be scheduled and arguments heard. The Owner shall be mailed a Notice of the Hearing date, time, alleged violation, and the proposed sanction if a violation is confirmed and is not corrected within a revised timeframe which will be determined by the Board. The Owner will be allowed to present a statement, evidence, and witnesses to support their position. After the Hearing the owner will be advised in writing of the Board's decision. When a violation is not corrected within the specified time limit, an initial fine of $50.00 is assessed. If a violation is not corrected, subsequent citations may be issued and the fine will be doubled compared to the previous Demand letter. If necessary the Association shall get a court order to correct the violation and effect corrections required. The owner’s property shall be assessed for all costs involved. This will include, but is not limited to, the costs to correct the violation, fines, fees, attorney fees and court costs.

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

JulieS
(Georgia)

Posts:412

06/08/2006 8:01 AM
We send a violation letter stating the violation. The second notice states the infraction again and that it needs to be taken care of within so many days. The third letter states that they are in violation and will be fined $25/day per our documents. This letter is typically send certified mail.

HaroldS
(Arizona)

Posts:904

06/08/2006 9:43 AM
"Owners can also report problems to the Managing Agent and may request anonymity." Roger - Arizona Revised Statues now requires that homeowners be informed of who filed a complaint - "The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation." This just follows old common law that gives the accused the right to face the accuser. Harold

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3725

06/08/2006 11:39 AM
Harold, thanks for that information. The Rule I posted would qualify in Arizona when the Managing Agent observes the violation, take a time dated photo, and testifies at a Hearing. Many owners do not feel comfortable complaining to their neighbor face to face. This is a reason to hire a MC to do Covenant enforcement.

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

HaroldS
(Arizona)

Posts:904

06/08/2006 1:27 PM
Yes, but only if the Managing Agent is the first to observe a violation. If he/she has gone to verify a complaint, that would not relieve them of also having to include the complainant's full name - as the law says "...person or persons..." I can't believe a good Managing Agent would want to compromise themselves - in writing yet - by avoiding that disclosure. Harold

PatH
(Arizona)

Posts:4

06/10/2006 12:33 PM
Harold is absolutely correct but I am really bothered by the attempt by the Management person to "wiggle" around the State law. Shame! Pat

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3725

06/10/2006 3:42 PM
with regards to Harold's post "Arizona Revised Statues now requires that homeowners be informed of who filed a complaint - "The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation." If the managing agent is the only person filing the complaint they would be the only person providing their first and last name. Perhaps the actual wording in the Statute requires the names of everyone who observed the violation, but your post says only "who filed a complaint".

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

06/10/2006 3:54 PM
Posted By RogerB on 06/10/2006 3:42 PM with regards to Harold's post "Arizona Revised Statues now requires that homeowners be informed of who filed a complaint - "The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation." If the managing agent is the only person filing the complaint they would be the only person providing their first and last name. Perhaps the actual wording in the Statute requires the names of everyone who observed the violation, but your post says only "who filed a complaint". Below is the complete wording of the Arizona Senate Bill that will go into effect around August 2006. Step three (c)regarding observing a violation seems to leave room for interpretation "The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation." It doesn't say who first saw the violation, so presumably a homeowner can call the MC and ask them to take a close look at a property to see if they see a violation. Then it becomes the MC who is observing the violation and then writes the letter. SB 1007: ASSOCIATION BOOKS AND RECORDS: Owners are entitled to see association books and records pertaining to “contemplated” litigation. An association cannot charge a member for making books and records available for review. An association has 10 business days from a request by an owner or an owner’s designated agent to make records available or copies of requested records. The association can only charge 15 cents per page for copies of records. FORECLOSURE LIMITATIONS: Associations can only foreclose if assessments are delinquent for a period of one (1) year or if the owner owes $1,200 or more in assessments (whichever occurs first). The provisions in SB 1007 regarding foreclosure limitations mirror the provisions of SB 1008. SB 1008 was also signed into law by the Governor on April 10, 2006. REQUIREMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS: Before taking action to enforce the provisions of the association’s documents regarding the condition of the unit/lot owner’s property, the following steps need to be followed: STEP ONE: The association must give the lot/unit owner written notice of the violation of the association’s documents and a description of the process the unit/lot owner must follow to contest the notice. STEP TWO: A unit/lot owner who receives this written notice may provide the association with a written response by sending the written response by certified mail to the association’s address (as listed on the notice of contact form recorded with the county recorder) within ten (10) business days after the date of the notice. STEP THREE: The association is then required to respond to the unit/lot owner within ten (10) business days (after receipt of the certified mail containing the response from the unit/lot owner) with a written explanation regarding the notice. The written notice shall provide at least the following information: a. The provision of the association's documents that has allegedly been violated; b. The date of the violation or the date the violation was observed; and c. The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation. The association cannot proceed with any action to enforce the association’s documents (including the collection of attorneys’ fees) before or during the time described above. Note: All aspects of SB 1007 apply to planned communities and condominiums. Bill

PatH
(Arizona)

Posts:4

06/10/2006 6:25 PM
Typical Boards and management interpretation, turning words around to be able to get to the homeowner for the $$$$ First you are neglecting to talk about what each homeowners documents say...every HOA is different. Let's take my HOA. Our CC&R's state that "NO COMPLAINT SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE COMPLAINANT". Now what, Mr. Management Guy??? Maybe you would handle this just like our Manager suggested could be done....first if a homeowner phoned him with a complaint HE could go observe the alleged violation and sign off. It didn't matter what the documents said and I can guarantee you that is exactly what will happen. This must seem FAIR and HONEST to the Boards and Management types. But may I make an observation...we homeowner advocates often hear from CAI and Management companies about how HOAs keep and increase property values? And part of doing that makes it necessary for Management or the Boards to play COP and inspect the property once a week. May I suggest that if the honest goal is to keep the community in good shape, less rules violation with awful lawns, what you really want is compliance, RIGHT? Or is it the fine money??? So if it is compliance I would suggest that the HOA notify ALL HOMEOWNERS that on "Tuesday of every week at 3 PM the Violation Cops will inspect the community". Now this would give all homeowners NOTICE with a SET TIME AND DAY. So all homeowners could pull the weeds, pick up the garbage, fix the leaning mailbox, etc and everything will be HUNKY DORY, right....BUT THE HOA WON'T COLLECT ANY FINE MONEY. So which is the goal, a NEAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE $$$$$???? Pat

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3725

06/10/2006 8:04 PM
Pat, the only purpose of fines for violations is to encourage compliance with the Covenants and Rules. And Covenant compliance is desired by the vast majority of homeowners I have encountered. The Board would rather not have to spend their voluntary time dealing with violators and the managing agent would like nothing better than to see no violations. There is no financial insentive except for a Rules violator. You apparently have had a bitter experience; but that is not an excuse for you tone. Thus, I will not respond to your posts again unless you are civil.

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

06/11/2006 6:33 AM
Posted By PatH on 06/10/2006 6:25 PM Typical Boards and management interpretation, turning words around to be able to get to the homeowner for the $$$$ Pat Pat, no one turned any words around. The Arizona code had not been posted on the forum before, but several people had made reference to it. When that happens, sometimes the actual wording of a statute may not be printed exactly as it is, and that can cause different interpretations of the meaning. That's why I posted the actual Senate Bill, so those who are interested in that particular bill could discuss it using the actual wording. I believe that neighbors should not be pitted against one another because homeowners react more favorably to a management company notifying them in a nice way that they are in violation, than they do to a neighbor. I don't believe the AZ statute is meant to pit neighbor against neighbor, and therefore I believe that a homeonwer who has a complaint regarding a neighbors weeds can call the MC and ask them to view the property in question to see if there is an actual violation. That way the MC can use their name as the one who observed the violation and not have neighbor/neighbor problems. I think the section is meant to prevent heresay. That is, a neighbor calling in a bogus complaint causing a notice to be sent. If a name is required, then bogus complaints would be stopped. But if the complaint is real and the neighbor desires anonimity, then they can request the MC to view the violation and use their name on the violation notice. I'm a new member of our board, and we do not like to fine. We don't like to deal with violations. Our MC handles the violations, and we have very few. The largest percentage of those are corrected without fines. Excessive violations and fines could result in a heavier than contracted for workload for the MC, resulting in an increase in fees when the annual contract is used. So you see, fines are not viewed as an income for the association, but rather as an undesirable increase in workload which may end up costing the association more money in the long run. Remember that all of the money in the association funds belongs to the homeowners. What you should be concerned with, in my opinion, is how the board utilizes the association funds. If the board is enforcing the Covenents, then you should be happy because they are doing their job in that regard, and helping to keep your property values up. If they did not enforce the Covenents, then the neighborhood could go down hill pretty fast. Bill

hoatalk

Posts:490

06/11/2006 7:55 AM
PatH: As the moderator of this forum I must ask that you read and follow the posting rules here. Click the Posting Rules link at the top of the forum page. An excerpt is, "This forum is for HOA Boards, Committees and Volunteers to discuss topics concerning their association duties. Topics from individual homeowners, who are not acting as association volunteers, are no longer addressed here....Post any relevant topic you like, but please keep it clean, positive and friendly." As an example, the following comment posted by you is neither helpful, positive nor friendly, "By PatH: Typical Boards and management interpretation, turning words around to be able to get to the homeowner for the $$$$" This forum is for HOA Board members to share ideas and learn to better our communities. We strive to stay positive and ask for your help in this endeavor. Thank You, HOATalk.com

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:1742

06/11/2006 8:11 AM
Pat: I can tell you as the president of an HOA the last thing I want to do is fine anyone. Unfortunately some people didn't bother to read or don't care about the rules when they bought. The reason I live in an HOA is so I know my neighbor can't do things that will decrease the value of my property. I am sorry you feel the way you do, I am sure there are some HOA's who do fine unnecessarily. That isn't the case with us and I would guess the majority of HOA's. Brad

HaroldS
(Arizona)

Posts:904

06/11/2006 10:28 AM
Bill - I definitely am not an attorney and I'm sure SB 1007 will indeed be subject to minute interpretation, and it will probably be one of the first items brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings if the govenor signs HB 2824. But I can tell you our board has changed our rules effective July 1st to require written and signed complaints from a homeowner before the MC will investigate. Anonymous calls will no longer be accepted. Whether the MC withholds that information on the violation notice doesn't matter because the first section of SB 1007 along with ARS 1805 allows a member to inspect association records and SB 1007 overrides Section B.2 of ARS 1805 about restricting access to pending or contemplated litigation. So in our HOA anyway, the homeowner will have access to who turned him in. By withholding that information on the violation report, the MC can make it another hoop to jump thru, but the information must be available. Harold

WilliamT
(Arizona)

Posts:489

06/11/2006 3:18 PM
Posted By HaroldS on 06/11/2006 10:28 AM Bill - I definitely am not an attorney and I'm sure SB 1007 will indeed be subject to minute interpretation, and it will probably be one of the first items brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings if the govenor signs HB 2824. But I can tell you our board has changed our rules effective July 1st to require written and signed complaints from a homeowner before the MC will investigate. Anonymous calls will no longer be accepted. Whether the MC withholds that information on the violation notice doesn't matter because the first section of SB 1007 along with ARS 1805 allows a member to inspect association records and SB 1007 overrides Section B.2 of ARS 1805 about restricting access to pending or contemplated litigation. So in our HOA anyway, the homeowner will have access to who turned him in. By withholding that information on the violation report, the MC can make it another hoop to jump thru, but the information must be available. Harold Harold, Thanks for the input. I'll bring this up to our board at the next meeting so we can develop a rule also. That way we won't leave anything up to interpretation. Bill

SwanB
(Washington)

Posts:194

06/12/2006 11:55 AM
I disagree Pat. I believe a violation notice has two purposes and neither one has the intent of getting more money out of members. I understand people are motivated by two factors; education and finances and that is what a violation notice touches on. Our first notice is a warning and this works as an educational tool for the many members who are motivated in that way. The second notice includes a fine and, unfortunately, it works for those who are willing to learn the hard way.

LisaS
(Illinois)

Posts:339

06/17/2006 9:02 PM
We accept 'anonymous' violation reports. Then, we confirm them by going to the property and observing them first hand. Since I am a Board member, and an association member...I feel perfectly Ok with being the 'complainant'. I would never sign and send a violation to anyone simply on a tip... In our association no one would make a report of anything if they knew that their neighbor would 'know it was them'. Unfortunately, as Board members we can't know every single thing that goes on in the four corners our our HOA, and we rely on people to tell us the things we are unaware of. We don't send anyone a violation notice for the money- we'd be happy to never have to send one. But the reality is if there are not consequences no one would follow the rules. So until there are no rules...there will be consequences in our HOA.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Violation notice