Changing/Amending Bylaws

That's called a revision and is more than just amending each sentence in the bylaws.

Just do a re-write. They will be all new, anyway.

When you present it to the Members for approval, then list each change.

State the original article A, and present the new B version.

Of course you have a Bylaw committee to work on this, right?

The BOD did set up a Bylaw committee, but not sure what direction they have been given. I have another question on CCR's and Bylaws. Our Bylaws state that you don't have to be a member to be on the board, but our CCR's state you do and I know CCR's have priority over the Bylaws, and Article 10 of the Bylaws state that any conflict between the two, the CCR's prevail. Should the wording in the Bylaws be eliminated or updated?

Richard,

Having been the chair of a documents committee in Florida, I can tell you what worked best for us and what advise our Attorney gave us. You already are off to a good start if you have a committee doing this work.

As long as there is a difference between something particular in the By-Laws and CC&Rs, those must be changed to match each other as the CC&Rs have priority over the by-laws so I advise you to amend that by-law.

Mary mentioned that she did not think that the by-laws need to be changed. Our Attorney suggested that as long as the committee is redoing items, it costs no more to update the entire set of documents. You may have very little to do with the By-Laws but cleaning them up certainly is a way to ensure that all items match within the entire set of docs.

When it goes to the membership, IF!! and I stress IF!! there are changes to anything which needs amending per a vote, then it is all together in a neat package for the memberrs to review before they vote to any change.

Removing references to the Developer is a common practice and is not dificult and it removes many extra pages when it comes to printing out the new docs..

I also recommend against changing the entire text of bylaws unless absolutely necessary. I have seen examples where items are slipped in that are very homeowner-unfriendly. I agree with the poster that says give the old text with the new text under it so that it is very clear what is being changed.
Jeanne

Richard, we went 27 years with the Declarant in out documents. My experience in the process pretty much agrees with what has been posted. The name of the re-0write might be a little different but I do know that our lawyer advised this kind of change called for a re-write and it was a laborious process. If the committee happened to be all full time residents, I am sure the process would have been smoother. Our Declarant was inserted into our documents in such a way, that there could be a question of their legal standing even after pulling out, at one time they owed a unit in the3 condo that was used as a community room. We got smart and bought the unit and then amended our documents, and deleted this reference along with nearly all, there may be one or two reference to declarant, this was five years or more ago.

Community opened in 2001 and turned over to the homeowners in 2002.

Mary,

First, there has only been one legitimate election (where a BOD was actually elected) since 2001 and that in 2002. The BOD positions (when BOD resigns) have been filled by being appointed. If no quorum is achieved then they are in for a full term (two years). The way I read the Bylaws is that if appointed, their term is either to fill out the term or until the next election. But they would continue for two year terms if quorum is never reached. It should only be until the next Annual or Special Meeting, never for two year terms if the members didn't actually vote them in as their ballots were never opened. The way they are holding their term is some form of acclamation.

Currently, we have 317 homes and 159 of those are required to be present in person (in person or secret ballot) or by proxy for an election to even take place. Over the last 5 years, I understand from the old PM the HOA has averaged about 35 ballots. They have always gone to a second meeting and again quorum is not achieved even at the lower 25%. This past year was different, as someone other than the current BOD was running and the second meeting and election were cancelled.

People who come into an HOA, such as myself, expected that HOA elections are held like other government elections. In fact, the Davis-Stirling Act says that HOA should follow County guidelines when conducting elections. This was the first time in my 38 years of voting that my vote didn't count for something. I would put my trust in the 35 or so people that vote every year over the way our BOD is currently elected/appointed and not allowing an attorney to interpret the bylaws for their own benefit. The elimination of quorums, cumulative voting and proxies is recommended by davis-stirling.com.

Daniel,

I wouldn't want you to worry about me. We have a group of individuals who will dedicate themselves to making the necessary changes to right the ship and they don't include me because there will be a potential conflict of interest. Running an HOA is not as difficult as people make it appear.

Become transparent to the community. Ensure all public notices are posted on web site and communicated to the members (minutes, financials, agendas, newsletters) discontinue the closed sessions that are currently in place. Replace the adversarial system we currently employ to one of a partnership that treat residents with respect.

But do you intend to paint fences, lower fees or something?

Richard P,
As we speak, our restated CCR's/bylaws (1987) ballot is being mailed to each
homeowner. Ours' were so outdated, laborious, confusing........that we, the
BOD, made it a priority starting over one year ago. The issues that you hoped
to change were similiar to our problems; I am in So. CA and would be happy to
share any experience with this process with you. Good luck....you can be the
difference by supporting and suggesting whatever needs to be done. The next few months should prove interesting with our voting process.
Jackie

It sounds like a case of "Hooray, the King is dead! Long live the King!"

But, I suppose that you know what you're doing.

Or since they’re updating the Covenants they could change them to include spouses and domestic partners who are not on the deed.

totally agree and make sure CCR's/bylaws support this.

len,
Why would multiple owners of a unit be given the latitude to pick and choose who they wanted to be on the Board, while a husband/ wife in another unit, which both may or not be listed as owners, be denied the same rights as the multi owner unit. The wording here also directs the unit owners shall select from among the unit owners or the spouse of the unit owners. What does this mean if the next sentence changes that wording. Suppose the unit owners of a unit are multiple owners each having an equal share in the unit? This seems to say there can only be two kinds of ownership, a man and wife, and a company. No single ownership and no mmultiple ownership. I don't think you have to form a company to hold joint ownership in a unit in a condominium or any other residence. But what do I know?

Glen,

Whatever you say.

Richard,

I believe that is the way it is in the majority of HOAs. One thing to note though is that if a corp is the owner of record, an officer or designated rep of the corp may serve on the board as a rep of the owner -- the corp. So, it's not just individuals that may own property in the assn. And, yes, property owners are automatically members of the assn. Who's name the mortgage is in has no bearing on this whatsoever. In AZ the Deed of Trust is the mortgage!

Richard,

Hate to dispute your word, but in AZ the mortgage is called a deed of trust.

Richard,

I don't know about CA, but in AZ there is a state law stating "the assn has a lien on a unit for any assessment levied against that unit from the time the assessment becomes due." The statute then goes on to talk about late payments, judgments and foreclosure. This info can also be found in the assn's CCRs. This is what gives the assn the right to foreclose and this is why the Courts allow the foreclosure. However, in many states nonjudicial foreclosure are allowed meaning the Courts do not even get involved in foreclosures. In AZ judicial foreclosure of HOA properties are required. In state law or the CCRs there is no mention of the assn being required to have a signed and/or recorded document from the property owner(s) granting the assn the legal right to foreclose.

The fact that you did not recieve any of the gov docs b/4 you purchased has no bearing on anything. Even if there is state law stating these docs must be given to a potential buyer, I doubt that state law says that if the docs are not received b/4 closing the member doesn't have to abide by the CCRs or is not required to join the HOA, etc. The fact that you purchased the property means you are automatically a member and subject to the deed restrictions and all other provisions of the CCRs. Those CCRs include provisions on foreclosure, I'm sure.