Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Wednesday, October 20, 2021











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Easy to use website tools to help your board
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Illegal tow & fiduciary duties
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/19/2021 10:52 PM  
I am on the board of an association and I discovered through our security company's logs (which I am authorized to view) that an illegal tow was authorized by the security company. I brought this up at an HOA executive session, but due to the other board members being unaware of the protocol for towing, a reimbursement for the towing could not be authorized. I am unaware of the owner of this vehicle having raised a complaint about the tow and/or asking for reimbursement of towing expenses. I feel as if it is my fiduciary duty to notify the owner of this vehicle that the tow was illegal so they can request reimbursement through the proper channels. However, since it was only discussed in executive session, and since the security logs are for the board only, I would think I'd be in violation of some rule for board members if I notified the owner/operator of this vehicle that their vehicle was illegally towed. Can anyone shed any light on this? And if the latter is true, might there be some kind of loophole in which it would be acceptable to notify the owner of the vehicle?
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10523


05/20/2021 4:18 AM  
Well if it was illegally done and owed a reimbursement, send the owner the money and apology. Just state the board believes they were wronged and deserve money back. Done. That is all they can be due in a lawsuit anyways.

Former HOA President
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/20/2021 8:56 AM  
Thanks for the reply. Obviously that is what would be done if the board as a whole recognizes this. But the board as a whole does not see that the towing of the vehicle was not done in accordance with our guidelines. However, I do and want to see that this gets handled properly. Since I sense that the owner of the vehicle doesn't recognize that it was an illegal tow, it is my feeling that they need to be informed of this. However, as I am a board member, I don't see a way I can do this. Do you?
ND
(PA)

Posts:632


05/20/2021 9:00 AM  
I'm confused as to who requested reimbursement for towing and/or how it could not be authorized.

I suggest at this time that you not directly involve the Board/HOA in this and also suggest that you definitely not take it upon yourself to personally notify the vehicle owner, especially if you don't have complete Board agreement to do so.

This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts).

I suggest thoroughly reviewing tow protocol with your Board and with the security company and thoroughly review the situation in question and potentially other similar situations for red flags or patterns. I would also require the security company to be the one to reach out to the vehicle owner, to fully refund the cost of the tow and issue an apology for the situation and apparent misunderstanding. If they balk at that requirement, then investigate the contract you have with them and decide how you want to proceed from that point.

I'd also leave the word "illegal" out of the discussion. Improper may be more fitting at the moment.
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/20/2021 9:24 AM  
Reviewing the tow protocol with the rest of the board and security as well as investigating this incident would be the right thing to do, but the rest of the board doesn't want to do this. Based on my experience with this board, it is my feeling if it were brought to the attention of management/board by the vehicle owner (rather than by me), it would do a far better job of getting the board to take action.

A board member has requested reimbursement on behalf of the vehicle owner. But the vehicle owner apparently doesn't know that it was an improper tow.

Yes, it appears to be an improper decision by the security company.

KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/20/2021 9:40 AM  
Our fiduciary duty as directors is to try to do what's best for our corporation, our HOA. With ND, I do not see how you approaching the owner suggesting that he request reimbursement for something he did not know was improper serves your HOA.

Can you not simply review of your Association's towing policy on an open meeting agenda? Or are directors barred from submitting agenda items?

I easily could be wrong, but it seems to me, Paul, that you have other issues with the Board on which you serve than this improper tow.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11514


05/20/2021 11:05 AM  
Paul

The owner has not requested reimbursement. You are not his Mother.
ND
(PA)

Posts:632


05/20/2021 11:17 AM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/20/2021 9:40 AM
. . .

I easily could be wrong, but it seems to me, Paul, that you have other issues with the Board on which you serve than this improper tow.



I agree that this seems likely as well. I feel there is also more to the towing story than simply happening upon an improper tow of a random homeowner's vehicle by reviewing security company log books.

Would also seem strangely coincidental that if this vehicle owner, who has been oblivious to the situation of an improper tow, suddenly takes issue with the tow only a few days/weeks after you also personally brought it to the Board's attention.

You seem to be the odd man out in this scenario, but I think you'll find that the Board will begin shutting you out completely because you do things they disagree with (even though it's the right thing to do).

I certainly side with you in this case given the info provided; however, since you're in the minority, you'll find yourself further ostracized and fighting even more unwinnable battles if you go individually to this owner and nobody else on the Board supports the move.

You need to think strategically and longer-term. And instead of going to the impacted owner, try and work with the Board, MC, Security COmpany to do what's right.

KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/20/2021 1:54 PM  
ND is right on target, Paul.

Having serve on our Board for a dozen years, and having followed this forum for several, I cannot recall ever seeing a lone director overcome opposition from a majority of the board.

SheliaH
(Indiana)

Posts:4221


05/20/2021 2:26 PM  
I seem to recall you had several posts last year about towing in your community. Based on what you were saying at that time (half the lot isn't being used anyway, so why tow?) I got the feeling that the main reason you bought that up is because you and/or your friends got towed and you didn't like it, therefore the policy was wrong.

If that wasn't you, sorry for the error, but something about this sounds a little too familiar. You say the owner doesn't know this was illegal - how do you know that? If there was a sign warning of potential towing if the rules weren't followed (e.g. No Overnight parking) and your friend ignored it, well, there's nothing like a crackdown on the wallet to straighten out some people.

Your fiduciary responsibility is to the homeowners who elected you and so your first loyalty is to them. If the car owner wants to protest, I'm sure he can find out who the management company is and lodge a complaint or take legal action against the towing company, so stay out of it. I'm not saying towing companies don't make mistakes, but I know when we asked a company to do periodic patrols to keep junk cars at bay, we discussed this with our attorney, the towing company and the med with police to see if we could do it, what notifications were necessary, etc. If you think the rules should be reviewed, that's fine, but it should be about the people who live there.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11514


05/20/2021 2:29 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/20/2021 1:54 PM
ND is right on target, Paul.

Having serve on our Board for a dozen years, and having followed this forum for several, I cannot recall ever seeing a lone director overcome opposition from a majority of the board.




I was an owner in an HOA that had one Director begin a revolution. Granted the Pres and his allies had come under some fire, but they had control. It took us two election cycles for a group of us to make the changes. First year we got two of 7 on the BOD. Enough to be sure the President was not re-elected President. The next election cycle we got two more on the BOD so "our" faction was now in control. Next election cycle the former President (the root of most of the problems) and one of his supporters did not rerun.

We had open house meetings. Set up information tables. Knocked on doors. Collected Proxies. We worked at it but we did it.
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/20/2021 9:37 PM  
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 11:17 AM
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/20/2021 9:40 AM
. . .

I easily could be wrong, but it seems to me, Paul, that you have other issues with the Board on which you serve than this improper tow.


I agree that this seems likely as well. I feel there is also more to the towing story than simply happening upon an improper tow of a random homeowner's vehicle by reviewing security company log books.

Would also seem strangely coincidental that if this vehicle owner, who has been oblivious to the situation of an improper tow, suddenly takes issue with the tow only a few days/weeks after you also personally brought it to the Board's attention.

You seem to be the odd man out in this scenario, but I think you'll find that the Board will begin shutting you out completely because you do things they disagree with (even though it's the right thing to do).

I certainly side with you in this case given the info provided; however, since you're in the minority, you'll find yourself further ostracized and fighting even more unwinnable battles if you go individually to this owner and nobody else on the Board supports the move.

You need to think strategically and longer-term. And instead of going to the impacted owner, try and work with the Board, MC, Security COmpany to do what's right.





The board seems to want to drag this out over a period of several months. I don't see this as a good idea because if the security company is not following our guidelines, they may make another mistake - and next time a car owner may know the protocol, fight it and request reimbursement. Why would a board want to expose themselves to that risk when they already know that the security company is not following guidelines?

PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/20/2021 9:41 PM  
Posted By SheliaH on 05/20/2021 2:26 PM
I seem to recall you had several posts last year about towing in your community. Based on what you were saying at that time (half the lot isn't being used anyway, so why tow?) I got the feeling that the main reason you bought that up is because you and/or your friends got towed and you didn't like it, therefore the policy was wrong.

If that wasn't you, sorry for the error, but something about this sounds a little too familiar. You say the owner doesn't know this was illegal - how do you know that? If there was a sign warning of potential towing if the rules weren't followed (e.g. No Overnight parking) and your friend ignored it, well, there's nothing like a crackdown on the wallet to straighten out some people.

Your fiduciary responsibility is to the homeowners who elected you and so your first loyalty is to them. If the car owner wants to protest, I'm sure he can find out who the management company is and lodge a complaint or take legal action against the towing company, so stay out of it. I'm not saying towing companies don't make mistakes, but I know when we asked a company to do periodic patrols to keep junk cars at bay, we discussed this with our attorney, the towing company and the med with police to see if we could do it, what notifications were necessary, etc. If you think the rules should be reviewed, that's fine, but it should be about the people who live there.




I do not know empirically that the owner doesn't know it was an improper tow.
The issue is not so much about what the rules should be, but about the security company following the rules. And if they don't, how to expedite correction of it if the board doesn't recognize the problem.
SheliaH
(Indiana)

Posts:4221


05/21/2021 7:07 AM  
If you're so convinced they weren't following the rules, why having you gone to the company yourself with your questions? You said the car owner hasn't lodged a complaint so why do you even care about this? You haven't gone to the board either - why not?

I still say unless and until there's a complaint, stay out of it - I'm sure there are other association issues that warrant your attention.


AugustinD


Posts:1675


05/21/2021 7:50 AM  
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM
I suggest at this time that you not directly involve the Board/HOA in this and also suggest that you definitely not take it upon yourself to personally notify the vehicle owner, especially if you don't have complete Board agreement to do so.

This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts).
-- Under the law of agency, the security company is an agent of the HOA/COA. If the security company's actions damaged the vehicle, then the COA/HOA might very well be liable for this damage.

-- What is in the best interests of the HOA/COA here is debatable. If this practice goes on, a small mess may explode into a bigger mess. If damage results to a vehicle down the road, this will cost the HOA/COA more money.

-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?
AugustinD


Posts:1675


05/21/2021 7:57 AM  
Some background:
https://www.hoatalk.com/Search/ForumSearch/tabid/87/forumid/1/postid/293746/view/topic/Default.aspx

I fear the OP is not making progress, for whatever reasons.
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/21/2021 3:50 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM
I suggest at this time that you not directly involve the Board/HOA in this and also suggest that you definitely not take it upon yourself to personally notify the vehicle owner, especially if you don't have complete Board agreement to do so.

This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts).

-- Under the law of agency, the security company is an agent of the HOA/COA. If the security company's actions damaged the vehicle, then the COA/HOA might very well be liable for this damage.

What sort of statue of limitations is there on claiming damages for something like this? For example, let's say the owner of the improperly towed vehicle discovers that the tow was improper eight months from now? A year and a half from now?

-- What is in the best interests of the HOA/COA here is debatable. If this practice goes on, a small mess may explode into a bigger mess. If damage results to a vehicle down the road, this will cost the HOA/COA more money.

Agreed.

-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)

As someone else eloquently pointed out, it would seem like a strange coincidence if the owner of the vehicle came forward with this complaint shortly after the rest of the board doesn't see the light between the trees (or refuses to) as I have.

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.

Open meeting agenda will mean the entire community hears about it, in which case the owner of the vehicle would likely hear about it. It is currently an executive session matter. Is this the type of thing which can easily be converted from an executive session matter to an open meeting agenda item? If so, what is the process for that?

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?



Careful review of our parking and security policies, along with having more than one unbiased party review them as well.
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/21/2021 3:54 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM
I suggest at this time that you not directly involve the Board/HOA in this and also suggest that you definitely not take it upon yourself to personally notify the vehicle owner, especially if you don't have complete Board agreement to do so.

This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts). -- Under the law of agency, the security company is an agent of the HOA/COA. If the security company's actions damaged the vehicle, then the COA/HOA might very well be liable for this damage.

-- What is in the best interests of the HOA/COA here is debatable. If this practice goes on, a small mess may explode into a bigger mess. If damage results to a vehicle down the road, this will cost the HOA/COA more money.

-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?




Ignore my previous response. The quotes messed up the format.

Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM
I suggest at this time that you not directly involve the Board/HOA in this and also suggest that you definitely not take it upon yourself to personally notify the vehicle owner, especially if you don't have complete Board agreement to do so.

This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts).

-- Under the law of agency, the security company is an agent of the HOA/COA. If the security company's actions damaged the vehicle, then the COA/HOA might very well be liable for this damage.

What sort of statue of limitations is there on claiming damages for something like this? For example, let's say the owner of the improperly towed vehicle discovers that the tow was improper eight months from now? A year and a half from now?

Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM -- What is in the best interests of the HOA/COA here is debatable. If this practice goes on, a small mess may explode into a bigger mess. If damage results to a vehicle down the road, this will cost the HOA/COA more money.

Agreed.

Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM -- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)

As someone else eloquently pointed out, it would seem like a strange coincidence if the owner of the vehicle came forward with this complaint shortly after the rest of the board doesn't see the light between the trees (or refuses to) as I have.

Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM -- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.

Open meeting agenda will mean the entire community hears about it, in which case the owner of the vehicle would likely hear about it. It is currently an executive session matter. Is this the type of thing which can easily be converted from an executive session matter to an open meeting agenda item? If so, what is the process for that?

Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM -- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?



Careful review of our parking and security policies, along with having more than one unbiased party review them as well.

AugustinD


Posts:1675


05/21/2021 3:59 PM  
PaulL12,

-- I presume we are talking about damages from the sticker. Googling suggests the statute of limitations for property damage is three years in California.

-- How come you have not reviewed the Davis-Stirling site for the limitations on what may be discussed in executive session? See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Executive-Session-Meetings . I do not see how discussing the correct implementation of enforcement of the parking rules is an executive session item.

-- I gather the bigger problem is you are a minority on a board with a majority that does not value your point of view. Oh well. Work towards getting a majority on the board who feels as you do. Or seriously: Move.
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/21/2021 4:00 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM
I suggest at this time that you not directly involve the Board/HOA in this and also suggest that you definitely not take it upon yourself to personally notify the vehicle owner, especially if you don't have complete Board agreement to do so.


Ignore my previous two responses. The quotes messed up the format. The lack of a "preview post" or "edit post" option on this page is problematic.

-- This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Yep

-- Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts).
See my later question about statute of limitations.

-- Under the law of agency, the security company is an agent of the HOA/COA. If the security company's actions damaged the vehicle, then the COA/HOA might very well be liable for this damage.
What sort of statute of limitations is there on claiming damages for something like this? For example, let's say the owner of the improperly towed vehicle discovers that the tow was improper eight months from now? A year and a half from now?

-- What is in the best interests of the HOA/COA here is debatable. If this practice goes on, a small mess may explode into a bigger mess. If damage results to a vehicle down the road, this will cost the HOA/COA more money.

-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)
As someone else eloquently pointed out, it would seem like a strange coincidence if the owner of the vehicle came forward with this complaint shortly after the rest of the board doesn't see the light between the trees (or refuses to) as I have.

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.
Open meeting agenda will mean the entire community hears about it, in which case the owner of the vehicle would likely hear about it. It is currently an executive session matter. Is this the type of thing which can easily be converted from an executive session matter to an open meeting agenda item? If so, what is the process for that?

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?
Careful review of our parking and security policies, along with having more than one unbiased party review them as well.

PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/21/2021 4:03 PM  
AugustinD - Thanks for your responses.

So my response is easier to read, I am not using the quote feature at all :-)

Ignore my previous THREE responses. The quotes messed up the format. The lack of a "preview post" or "edit post" option on this page is problematic.

-- This sounds like an improper decision made entirely by your security company. If you get directly involved or involve the Board at this time, then you are accepting some sort of responsibility for what was done, which doesn't sound like it should be the case.

Yep

-- Further, there could be additional liability pertaining to this if the vehicle owner later claims damage to their vehicle as a result of the tow. So the firm and/or HOA could potentially owe the vehicle owner significantly more than the cost of the tow (contrary to the prior poster's thoughts).
See my later question about statute of limitations.

-- Under the law of agency, the security company is an agent of the HOA/COA. If the security company's actions damaged the vehicle, then the COA/HOA might very well be liable for this damage.
What sort of statute of limitations is there on claiming damages for something like this? For example, let's say the owner of the improperly towed vehicle discovers that the tow was improper eight months from now? A year and a half from now?

-- What is in the best interests of the HOA/COA here is debatable. If this practice goes on, a small mess may explode into a bigger mess. If damage results to a vehicle down the road, this will cost the HOA/COA more money.

-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)
As someone else eloquently pointed out, it would seem like a strange coincidence if the owner of the vehicle came forward with this complaint shortly after the rest of the board doesn't see the light between the trees (or refuses to) as I have.

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.
Open meeting agenda will mean the entire community hears about it, in which case the owner of the vehicle would likely hear about it. It is currently an executive session matter. Is this the type of thing which can easily be converted from an executive session matter to an open meeting agenda item? If so, what is the process for that?

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?
Careful review of our parking and security policies, along with having more than one unbiased party review them as well.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/21/2021 4:31 PM  
The open meeting agenda item would not far to this particular issue. It would be to discuss an set policy to direct your security vendor. No need to refer to "an incident."

As apparently a minority on the Board, this is an agenda item the board might be willing to discuss.

Also, with Augustin: why was the tow improper in your opinion, Paul?

But....claiming damage to a car was done by a tow company many months earlier would seem to be very tough to prove.
SheliaH
(Indiana)

Posts:4221


05/21/2021 8:40 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:57 AM
Some background:
https://www.hoatalk.com/Search/ForumSearch/tabid/87/forumid/1/postid/293746/view/topic/Default.aspx

I fear the OP is not making progress, for whatever reasons.



Thanks for the link - I thought this sounded familiar.

And once again Paul, I have a feeling you're primarily concerned about this because a friend or visitor of yours is the owner and perhaps you're embarrassed he or she got towed while visiting you. I also recall you've posted at least two or three posts on parking at your building, and they all sound like you're trying to push certain issues because you have a personal interest in it. I suspect your board colleagues have caught on and so you're not getting anywhere, but sound like a broken record (or CD or a music stream that's hiccupping).

If you want to address this issue, I suggest you wait until the owner says something and THEN you can express your concerns. Right now, you seem worried about some blowback that may never happen. If the owner's car was damaged, that's unfortunate, but I have to wonder what prompted the tow in the first place - if the car was in the parking lot in violation of the rules, there may not be any there there. Have you even spoken to the owner about any of this or are you still annoyed at the association parking policy and can't convince everyone else to look at it differently?
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/21/2021 9:15 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/21/2021 4:31 PM
The open meeting agenda item would not far to this particular issue. It would be to discuss an set policy to direct your security vendor. No need to refer to "an incident."

As apparently a minority on the Board, this is an agenda item the board might be willing to discuss.

Also, with Augustin: why was the tow improper in your opinion, Paul?

But....claiming damage to a car was done by a tow company many months earlier would seem to be very tough to prove.



Based on the guidelines we gave the security company, the car was not eligible for a tow.

>>>The open meeting agenda item would not far to this particular issue

Please rephrase your sentence. It doesn't make sense as worded.
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/21/2021 9:22 PM  
Posted By SheliaH on 05/21/2021 8:40 PM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:57 AM
Some background:
https://www.hoatalk.com/Search/ForumSearch/tabid/87/forumid/1/postid/293746/view/topic/Default.aspx

I fear the OP is not making progress, for whatever reasons.



Thanks for the link - I thought this sounded familiar.

And once again Paul, I have a feeling you're primarily concerned about this because a friend or visitor of yours is the owner and perhaps you're embarrassed he or she got towed while visiting you. I also recall you've posted at least two or three posts on parking at your building, and they all sound like you're trying to push certain issues because you have a personal interest in it. I suspect your board colleagues have caught on and so you're not getting anywhere, but sound like a broken record (or CD or a music stream that's hiccupping).

If you want to address this issue, I suggest you wait until the owner says something and THEN you can express your concerns. Right now, you seem worried about some blowback that may never happen. If the owner's car was damaged, that's unfortunate, but I have to wonder what prompted the tow in the first place - if the car was in the parking lot in violation of the rules, there may not be any there there. Have you even spoken to the owner about any of this or are you still annoyed at the association parking policy and can't convince everyone else to look at it differently?




>>>I have a feeling you're primarily concerned about this because a friend or visitor of yours is the owner and perhaps you're embarrassed he or she got towed while visiting you
The owner of the vehicle does not have a connection to the property through me or anyone in my house.

>>>I also recall you've posted at least two or three posts on parking at your building, and they all sound like you're trying to push certain issues because you have a personal interest in it.
Earlier concerns of mine pertained to both the board not considering ideas which would be beneficial to homeowners and to overabundance of common space. This pertains to proper enforcement of rules.

>>>but I have to wonder what prompted the tow in the first place - if the car was in the parking lot in violation of the rules, there may not be any there there.
Whether or not the vehicle was in violation of the rules is immaterial to this discussion. Based on our rules & guidelines for towing, this vehicle was not supposed to be towed. And I have very strong evidence to support this.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/22/2021 8:08 AM  
Sorry, Paul. I typed "The open meeting agenda item would not far to this particular issue "


I meant: the open meeting would not be about this particular incident, but about the Board making a clear policy about towing. Nothing about the incident that concerns your needs to be in this agenda item, Paul.
AvaA
(North Carolina)

Posts:28


05/22/2021 2:22 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/21/2021 7:50 AM
Posted By ND on 05/20/2021 9:00 AM

-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)


Agree for a couple of equal reasons: impropriety can come back to haunt the HOA, personal and professional ethics.

AvaA
(North Carolina)

Posts:28


05/22/2021 2:26 PM  
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/21/2021 4:03 PM
AugustinD - Thanks for your responses.


-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)
As someone else eloquently pointed out, it would seem like a strange coincidence if the owner of the vehicle came forward with this complaint shortly after the rest of the board doesn't see the light between the trees (or refuses to) as I have.

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.
Open meeting agenda will mean the entire community hears about it, in which case the owner of the vehicle would likely hear about it. It is currently an executive session matter. Is this the type of thing which can easily be converted from an executive session matter to an open meeting agenda item? If so, what is the process for that?

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?
Careful review of our parking and security policies, along with having more than one unbiased party review them as well.




Excellent point about the coincidence.

Can you specifically state the tow conditions? Are certain spaces allowed to be parked in during certain hours & a tow occurred during those hours?
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/23/2021 9:56 AM  
Posted By MelissaP1 on 05/20/2021 4:18 AM
Well if it was illegally done and owed a reimbursement, send the owner the money and apology. Just state the board believes they were wronged and deserve money back. Done. That is all they can be due in a lawsuit anyways.




If the victim of this improper tow never comes forward to complain about it being an improper tow and/or requesting a refund - and the board finds it to be an improper tow, would it be appropriate practice for the board to A) authorize reimbursement to the victim; B) not authorize reimbursement to the victim
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/23/2021 9:58 AM  
Posted By AvaA on 05/22/2021 2:26 PM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/21/2021 4:03 PM
AugustinD - Thanks for your responses.


-- I would use one of the anonymous email services on the net to send an email to the owner, suggesting that he ask for a hearing with the board, pursuant to California's HOA/COA statute. (I am expecting a lot of negativity from this forum on this suggestion.)
As someone else eloquently pointed out, it would seem like a strange coincidence if the owner of the vehicle came forward with this complaint shortly after the rest of the board doesn't see the light between the trees (or refuses to) as I have.

-- I also strongly agree about asking that this topic be put on an open meeting agenda. See https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Setting-the-Agenda . In your request for this to be put on the agenda, include a draft motion on the topic, so a vote will actually occur.
Open meeting agenda will mean the entire community hears about it, in which case the owner of the vehicle would likely hear about it. It is currently an executive session matter. Is this the type of thing which can easily be converted from an executive session matter to an open meeting agenda item? If so, what is the process for that?

-- Can you please explain why you think the tow was improper?
Careful review of our parking and security policies, along with having more than one unbiased party review them as well.




Excellent point about the coincidence.

Can you specifically state the tow conditions? Are certain spaces allowed to be parked in during certain hours & a tow occurred during those hours?



I will only go as far as saying that our guidelines are very clear that vehicles parked as this vehicle was parked are not to be towed.
AugustinD


Posts:1675


05/23/2021 10:02 AM  
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2021 9:56 AM

If the victim of this improper tow never comes forward to complain about it being an improper tow and/or requesting a refund - and the board finds it to be an improper tow, would it be appropriate practice for the board to A) authorize reimbursement to the victim; B) not authorize reimbursement to the victim
In my opinion, hypotheticals and speculating often do not yield progress. This is one such instance.

Given that you do not want to substantively help this person whose vehicle was towed (at some expense to the owner, I presume), I suspect you are stuck with accepting the will of the board majority for the immediate future.
MaxB4


Posts:1351


05/23/2021 10:04 AM  
If a security company authorized an illegal tow, the cost of the tow and storage would be deducted from the security company's check. If they complained, they would be called to a hearing and if there is a dispute, then the association might be looking for a new security company.
AvaA
(North Carolina)

Posts:28


05/23/2021 11:29 AM  
I think I understand a bit more about the *potential* conditions of the illegal tow.

When I lived in a coastal condo, we had a rule that vehicles could not be backed into parking spaces. The state mandated that vehicles have a license plate both on the front and back. I never understood the (logic of the) ban against backing in. I've also lived in states that had no such ban against backing in although the vehicles had one license plate only, and it was on the back of the vehicle. I understand how such a rule would make it easier for people to read license plates, but with as tight as many of the parking spots are, some of us couldn't get out of our vehicles unless we backed in. We also had two massive pilings between some of the parking spaces which further complicated getting in & out of our vehicles. LOL
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11514


05/23/2021 12:34 PM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/23/2021 10:04 AM
If a security company authorized an illegal tow, the cost of the tow and storage would be deducted from the security company's check. If they complained, they would be called to a hearing and if there is a dispute, then the association might be looking for a new security company.



I agree.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11514


05/23/2021 12:35 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/23/2021 10:02 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2021 9:56 AM

If the victim of this improper tow never comes forward to complain about it being an improper tow and/or requesting a refund - and the board finds it to be an improper tow, would it be appropriate practice for the board to A) authorize reimbursement to the victim; B) not authorize reimbursement to the victim
In my opinion, hypotheticals and speculating often do not yield progress. This is one such instance.

Given that you do not want to substantively help this person whose vehicle was towed (at some expense to the owner, I presume), I suspect you are stuck with accepting the will of the board majority for the immediate future.



I agree.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/23/2021 1:24 PM  
I af free with Augustin & JohnC.

Returning to the O.P's subj. line about fiduciary duty, I'l repeat such duty as a director is loyalty to and careful inquiry related to the corporation, not to an individual owner. And in this case, this owner doesn't even know that he was treated improperly.

How would telling him serve your HOA, Paul? You, imo, need to find better ways to serve your HOA and to work with the rest of the Board or, continued frustration lies ahead for you.
JohnT38
(South Carolina)

Posts:764


05/23/2021 2:11 PM  
"Returning to the O.P's subj. line about fiduciary duty, I'l repeat such duty as a director is loyalty to and careful inquiry related to the corporation, not to an individual owner."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this comment but I have a hard time accepting this. If Amazon overbills me and I am not aware of it, should Amazon keep the money because it's in the best interest of the company even though it was their mistake?

Also, I personally feel that I have a strong fiduciary duty to every owner of the HOA to represent them fairly and equally and that includes representing their financial interests in an ethical manner. I realize that in this case the security company may be at fault but if your comment is a general statement that a board members fiduciary duty does not extend to a individual owner, that's certainly not how I interpret.
MaxB4


Posts:1351


05/23/2021 2:47 PM  
Posted By JohnT38 on 05/23/2021 2:11 PM
"Returning to the O.P's subj. line about fiduciary duty, I'l repeat such duty as a director is loyalty to and careful inquiry related to the corporation, not to an individual owner."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this comment but I have a hard time accepting this. If Amazon overbills me and I am not aware of it, should Amazon keep the money because it's in the best interest of the company even though it was their mistake?

Also, I personally feel that I have a strong fiduciary duty to every owner of the HOA to represent them fairly and equally and that includes representing their financial interests in an ethical manner. I realize that in this case the security company may be at fault but if your comment is a general statement that a board members fiduciary duty does not extend to a individual owner, that's certainly not how I interpret.



Can I get an AMEN and HALLELUJAH!!!!
AugustinD


Posts:1675


05/23/2021 2:47 PM  
Posted By JohnT38 on 05/23/2021 2:11 PM
"Returning to the O.P's subj. line about fiduciary duty, I'l repeat such duty as a director is loyalty to and careful inquiry related to the corporation, not to an individual owner."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this comment but I have a hard time accepting this. If Amazon overbills me and I am not aware of it, should Amazon keep the money because it's in the best interest of the company even though it was their mistake?
Heh. I think this topic has come up here before.

Serious armchair lawyering, reinforced by -- you guessed it -- google: A bank error in favor of John Doe's account, where John Doe chooses to say nothing, may result in a successful bank civil court claim of "unjust enrichment" against John. The John (and Jane) Does of the world do have a duty to return money that is not theirs under the rules of contract. Same for corporate America.

Also, I personally feel that I have a strong fiduciary duty to every owner of the HOA to represent them fairly and equally and that includes representing their financial interests in an ethical manner. I realize that in this case the security company may be at fault but if your comment is a general statement that a board members fiduciary duty does not extend to a individual owner, that's certainly not how I interpret.


Ya know, taking PaulL12 at his word that the towing company violated the rules for towing, and the Board either knows the towing company is shady or is ignoring the possibility of same, this Board is not playing on the up-and-up. At times like this (here in the safety of my own home, utterly anonymous except maybe when an expert doxer/hooligan comes along), I argue (rationalize? you choose) that anonymous emails can serve the public good (or HOA membership good).

I continue to see nothing wrong with an anonymous email (using one of the widely available free, protected services for same) informing the owner of what the towing policy is; that it may not have been properly applied to the owner's vehicle; and that the owner may want to inquire more about this from the board. And the sender of said proposed email should give the argument that anyone who use to watch Will Gardner in "The Good Wife" knows well: You do not know anything for sure. You can present the owner with what route he/she might wish to follow, if in fact the owner believes XYZ. But you yourself do not know XYZ for sure. Deny, deny, deny.

Else as far as I am concerned, PaulL12 is complicit in ripping off the owner and unjustly enriching either the towing company, the HOA or both.

Anyone calling this "peer pressure" being applied to PaulL12: Correct. But I suspect he won't do what I propose anyway. [bawk cluck cluck cluck bawk and other chicken noises] [friendly wink]

Good post by JohnT38, afaic. Refreshing, actually.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/23/2021 3:24 PM  
JohnT wrote: "If Amazon overbills me and I am not aware of it, should Amazon keep the money because it's in the best interest of the company even though it was their mistake?" It seems to me in this case, that Amazon gets actual benefits ($$) from the error. To keep the money would be ethically wrong, imo. Paul's HOA rec'd no benefit from the improper tow.

I'll just try a better approach, JohnT, to the rest. My understanding is we serve our Association and our fiduciary duty is to serve it with great care & loyalty. It best serves our corporation if all members are treated honestly & fairly. We directors earn trust. Owners trust us. Win/win. We directors have the obligation to carefully try to contain costs, receive multiple bids, etc. for the good financial health of our assn. The better we board members do at this work, the more each individual member benefits. Win/win. The Board is completely fair when calling alleged violators to hearings. No favoritism, etc. Discipline is meted out legally and honestly. Owners feel that they should obey the rules and are glad miscreants are punished. Win/win.

In Paul's scenario, what if Paul sends an anonymous letter to the towee saying it was an error and he should be reimbursed. The owner becomes very angry and tells his neighbors that the HOA tried to cheat him and should have reimbursed him right away. He demands reimbursement with interest at an open meeting during open forum (required in CA) in the Zoom presence of a few dozen Owners.

Between his neighbors and those present at the open meeting, quite a stir is created, rumors of other alleged examples of mal- or misfeasance fly. No matter how this scenario ends, it does not best serve the assn as a whole. The Board becomes paranoid and secretive. Individual Owners do not trust "the HOA" any longer. Lose/lose.

Since Paul is unable to change the Board majority's mind, at this point in time, I truly believe it's best for all owners and the assn. if Paul lets it go. It's best for him as an individual too as it's clear he's getting nowhere with this Board.

The way I see it, we directors need to be able to think about the big picture while simultaneously thinking about individual owners. In the US, we've been trained to focus on the individual, so it's not always easy to focus on "the community" or "the collectivity." But with 200+ condos and probably 325 owners it's impossible to try to take into account each owner's "financial interests" except as they relate to Board decisions, which must be just and equitable.
MaxB4


Posts:1351


05/23/2021 3:28 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/23/2021 3:24 PM
" But with 200+ condos and probably 325 owners it's impossible to try to take into account each owner's "financial interests" except as they relate to Board decisions, which must be just and equitable.


It starts with one owner at a time.
AugustinD


Posts:1675


05/23/2021 3:35 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/23/2021 3:24 PM

In Paul's scenario, what if Paul sends an anonymous letter to the towee saying it was an error and he should be reimbursed. The owner becomes very angry and tells his neighbors that the HOA tried to cheat him and should have reimbursed him right away. He demands reimbursement with interest at an open meeting during open forum (required in CA) in the Zoom presence of a few dozen Owners.

Between his neighbors and those present at the open meeting, quite a stir is created, rumors of other alleged examples of mal- or misfeasance fly. No matter how this scenario ends, it does not best serve the assn as a whole. The Board becomes paranoid and secretive. Individual Owners do not trust "the HOA" any longer. Lose/lose.
Do you really think what you say happen is what will happen, or even is the most likely outcome?

Isn't it possible the Board listens to the owner during say the required open comment period; considers the owner's claim in executive session; and agrees the HOA needs to reimburse the owner and have a chat (with Klieg lights?) with the security company?

The owner would be in his or her rights to ask for reimbursement (forget about interest in these low interest rate days), wouldn't he/she?

Rumors are the rule. A board/politician/celebrity does the best they can.
JohnT38
(South Carolina)

Posts:764


05/23/2021 3:45 PM  
Kerry I understand the intent of your message and I don't question that you are an asset to your HOA. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think we both may ultimately be saying the same thing but I have a different take on this.

I view every homeowner as a stock holder of the HOA corporation which means they are co-owners. Therefore by default my fiduciary responsibility extends to every owner because they are THE corporation. I don't care if what I am saying is legally correct or not. It's just my approach on how I conduct myself as president of our HOA. I'm a stickler for following our governing documents to a tee but at the same time I owe it to the community to be flexible when I can and assist them on an individual basis when warranted. In other words part of my fiduciary responsibility is to provide service to each individual owner who also happens to be co-owner of the corporation.

Again, the comments I've made were more about your assertion that the fiduciary responsibility does not extend to the owner more than it was about the OP's situation.
MaxB4


Posts:1351


05/23/2021 5:21 PM  
As an individual board member I would approach the security company and either they or the towing company make restitution to the owner, The association didn't profit nor is the reimbursement coming out of their pocket.

Tell the other board members I took care of and if they have an issue tell them to get over it!
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/23/2021 11:41 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 05/23/2021 10:02 AM
Posted By PaulL12 on 05/23/2021 9:56 AM

If the victim of this improper tow never comes forward to complain about it being an improper tow and/or requesting a refund - and the board finds it to be an improper tow, would it be appropriate practice for the board to A) authorize reimbursement to the victim; B) not authorize reimbursement to the victim
In my opinion, hypotheticals and speculating often do not yield progress. This is one such instance.

Given that you do not want to substantively help this person whose vehicle was towed (at some expense to the owner, I presume), I suspect you are stuck with accepting the will of the board majority for the immediate future.



Perhaps you misunderstood me. I do want to help the person whose vehicle was towed. Since it seems I would be violating my board duties by pointing this out to the person whose vehicle got towed, the only route I have to go it to pass on the info I have to the rest of the board. Which seems to me is precisely what would happen if the victim complained.

Perhaps I should rephrase my first question so it doesn't come off as a hypothetical. When a board finds a tow to be improper, but the victim has not complained or come forward, is it more of a standard practice for the board to take the initiative to give the victim a refund or to stay silent on the matter - perhaps with the hope that the victim never comes forward?
PaulL12
(California)

Posts:79


05/23/2021 11:44 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 05/23/2021 1:24 PM
I af free with Augustin & JohnC.

Returning to the O.P's subj. line about fiduciary duty, I'l repeat such duty as a director is loyalty to and careful inquiry related to the corporation, not to an individual owner. And in this case, this owner doesn't even know that he was treated improperly.

How would telling him serve your HOA, Paul? You, imo, need to find better ways to serve your HOA and to work with the rest of the Board or, continued frustration lies ahead for you.



At minimum, the security company would need to be informed they made an improper tow.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


05/24/2021 4:20 AM  
Haven't read every post in this thread. So apologize if I missed something.

It reminds me of a situation my HOA had around 8 years ago with a management company. When a homeowner sold a house, she would order a resale certificate from the MC. The MC prepared the resale package and the seller paid the MC for it. Money went directly from the seller to the MC. No involvement by the HOA.

The problem was that our contract with the MC set a fixed rate for resale certificates. But the MC was charging sellers $100 to $200 more than the contract rate. And the sellers paid what they were charged. None of them asked if we had a contract rate. They all thought that the MC was just doing their job. No reason to question.

Our Board decided that this behavior by the MC was unacceptable. So we reached out to all recent sellers and asked what they paid for the resale certificate. Then we went back to the MC and demanded that the sellers who were overcharged be reimbursed.

One could say that we had no obligation to sellers, because the wrongdoing was not the Board's, and by the time we learned of the problem, they were no longer community members that the Board had a fiduciary responsibility to.

Yet, IMO, that kind of thinking misses the mark. The Board does have a fiduciary responsibility to assure that contractors operate within HOA standards. You don't escape that responsibility by shifting focus to the owner who knowingly or unknowingly was mistreated. This has a lot to do with the relationship between Board and contractor, and a lot less to do with impact on the homeowner. Then again, I do not believe that the improperly behaving contractor should be compensated for their obvious disregard for established HOA standards. In our case, we went the extra mile of demanding reimbursement. It wasn't so much about the money. It was about the contractor knowing that they could not disregard standards set under the contract.

Also, someone on this thread seemed to be saying something about not stepping in to avoid liability for damage to a vehicle. IMO, that thinking is inconsistent with being a fiduciary.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
LetA
(Nevada)

Posts:1425


05/24/2021 10:01 AM  
Why not simply between the board members agree to pay for the towing and impound cost to the person that had their car towed?

This is the most simplest and easiest solution. Remember, if the person gets nasty enough to take your HOA to small claims court, you WILL need to have your corporate council there at a cost of at lest $500 is my low ball estimate. Cut your losses and pay the individual.
MaxB4


Posts:1351


05/24/2021 10:04 AM  
Posted By LetA on 05/24/2021 10:01 AM
Why not simply between the board members agree to pay for the towing and impound cost to the person that had their car towed?

This is the most simplest and easiest solution. Remember, if the person gets nasty enough to take your HOA to small claims court, you WILL need to have your corporate council there at a cost of at lest $500 is my low ball estimate. Cut your losses and pay the individual.



The HOA didn't charge the owner, the tow company did. The security company authorized the tow. Either the tow company or the security company reimburses the owner.

CASE CLOSED!
LetA
(Nevada)

Posts:1425


05/24/2021 10:47 AM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/24/2021 10:04 AM
Posted By LetA on 05/24/2021 10:01 AM
Why not simply between the board members agree to pay for the towing and impound cost to the person that had their car towed?

This is the most simplest and easiest solution. Remember, if the person gets nasty enough to take your HOA to small claims court, you WILL need to have your corporate council there at a cost of at lest $500 is my low ball estimate. Cut your losses and pay the individual.



The HOA didn't charge the owner, the tow company did. The security company authorized the tow. Either the tow company or the security company reimburses the owner.

CASE CLOSED!





It would take forever and too much aggravation on the owners part to go after a contractor for the HOA. These are agents the HOA hired. Since this happened on HOA owned property, the HOA reimburses the owner. Either the HOA goes after the tow company and security company or eat the loss. It's time for the HOA to own the situation and pay up.



I'll give you an example. The HOA I live in paid a contractor to paint some curbs red. The contractor got a little happy with the paintbrush and went farther than 10' from the fire plug. Someone parked in the painted red zone and was towed. The owner objected and showed proof that he parked more than 10' from the fire hydrant. We paid the owners towing bill and had the red paint remocved over the 10' mark.
We could of fought it, but we would have lost.. Cut your losses and Pay the man.
MaxB4


Posts:1351


05/24/2021 11:00 AM  
Posted By LetA on 05/24/2021 10:47 AM
Posted By MaxB4 on 05/24/2021 10:04 AM
Posted By LetA on 05/24/2021 10:01 AM
Why not simply between the board members agree to pay for the towing and impound cost to the person that had their car towed?

This is the most simplest and easiest solution. Remember, if the person gets nasty enough to take your HOA to small claims court, you WILL need to have your corporate council there at a cost of at lest $500 is my low ball estimate. Cut your losses and pay the individual.



The HOA didn't charge the owner, the tow company did. The security company authorized the tow. Either the tow company or the security company reimburses the owner.

CASE CLOSED!





It would take forever and too much aggravation on the owners part to go after a contractor for the HOA. These are agents the HOA hired. Since this happened on HOA owned property, the HOA reimburses the owner. Either the HOA goes after the tow company and security company or eat the loss. It's time for the HOA to own the situation and pay up.



I'll give you an example. The HOA I live in paid a contractor to paint some curbs red. The contractor got a little happy with the paintbrush and went farther than 10' from the fire plug. Someone parked in the painted red zone and was towed. The owner objected and showed proof that he parked more than 10' from the fire hydrant. We paid the owners towing bill and had the red paint remocved over the 10' mark.
We could of fought it, but we would have lost.. Cut your losses and Pay the man.



I'll do you one better. I pay the bills for the HOA. I would short pay the security company and let them figure how to get reimbursed from the tow company. If the security company has an issue, we can always find another.

This would be on the line of how NPS HOA supposedly handled the resale certificates.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8599


05/24/2021 5:06 PM  
In his first post, Paul tells us the Board won't reimburse the Owner for this improper tow: He wrote: " I brought this up at an HOA executive session, but due to the other board members being unaware of the protocol for towing, a reimbursement for the towing could not be authorized. "

Now, that sentence is a little hard to understand. I can't tell if Paul is being polite or what he's try to say here. In amy case, the Board will not pay or make sure the vendors pays for their error. Ia tree, of course, that the Board is wrong.

It's the next step if any that Paul's asking about. Could he really be accused of neglecting his fiduciary duty to the corporation if he doesn't clue in the towee?

This does involve multiple owners being towed, or multiple errors like this so far as we know. Though I haven't looked at Paul's past posts others point out he does seem to have quite an issue with the parking rules or lack of enforcement of them, or other issues,whch I do recall.

As ND & I both suggest, and Augustin agrees. If it's really the security co. that concerns Paul, and that's what he says, the reviewing the policy and instructions to that company is perfect for an open meeting of the Board. No mention need be made of the towing error. As Augustin points out: " I do not see how discussing the correct implementation of enforcement of the parking rules is an executive session item."


Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Illegal tow & fiduciary duties



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.
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