HOA Homeowners' Rights Task Force

Share Your HOA Story

• Share Why Not? on Facebook Share Why Not? on Twitter Share Why Not? on Linkedin Email Why Not? link

  Why Not?

  by Robert Racansky, over 2 years ago
  

  
  

  I haven't heard anyone here, certainly not me, say "Oh we shouldn't have fines". Just for the record nobody has said that. So it isn't about that.

  - Connie Van Dorn, H.O.A. Task Farce, January 16 2024
  @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDa3Rh0J4U T+2:57:15

  Why not?

  Why is the abolition of non-judicial H.O.A. fines not a legitimate topic to discuss in a committee that was allegedly created to protect and promote the rights of H.O.A.-burdened homeowners?

  The abolition of non-judicial H.O.A. fines is exactly the type of policy that homeowner rights advocates should be talking about.

  If non-judicial fines are necessary to deter rule-breaking... Continue reading

  
  

  I haven't heard anyone here, certainly not me, say "Oh we shouldn't have fines". Just for the record nobody has said that. So it isn't about that.

  - Connie Van Dorn, H.O.A. Task Farce, January 16 2024
  @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDa3Rh0J4U T+2:57:15

  Why not?

  Why is the abolition of non-judicial H.O.A. fines not a legitimate topic to discuss in a committee that was allegedly created to protect and promote the rights of H.O.A.-burdened homeowners?

  The abolition of non-judicial H.O.A. fines is exactly the type of policy that homeowner rights advocates should be talking about.

  If non-judicial fines are necessary to deter rule-breaking behavior and ensure compliance with H.O.A. rules, then individual homeowners should be allowed to assess their H.O.A. board members with non-judicial fines, too.

  Otherwise, there exists a gross and unconscionable inequity of legal remedies:

  Where one party -- the H.O.A. corporation -- can unilaterally declare the other party -- the individual homeowner -- to be in breach of contract without due process, impose a non-judicial fine, and then declare that fine to be monetary damages without actually having to demonstrate that they suffered any actual harm. Any legal action to collect the fine then becomes a debt collection case -- because the fine is treated as an "unpaid assessment" -- not a covenant enforcement case.

  Whereas the other party -- the individual homeowner -- must file a suit in an Open Court of Law, prove that the H.O.A. corporation is in breach of contract and/or the actual law, and prove that they suffered actual damages under the rules of due process.

  And that inequity is not going to be resolved by allowing the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to usurp the role the Judiciary.

  In my opinion, community association boards and owners should both be subject to the same requirements to enforce restrictive covenants. If state legislatures repealed their fine and foreclosure statutes, the boards would not be left without a remedy. They would not go bankrupt. Chaos would not emerge. They would simply have to get in line at the courthouse and play by the same rules as other property owners seeking to protect their rights under the covenants or common law.

  - John Cowherd. "Are Legal Remedies of Owners and HOAs Equitable?" Words of Conveyance. July 20, 2017.
  Mr. Cowherd is an attorney specializing in real estate and contract rights in Virginia.

  We don't have to guess or imagine or speculate what life would be like without an authoritarian and heavy-handed H.O.A. corporation with the power to assess non-judicial fines. America was like that for decades -- actually, centuries -- and many of us grew up in such free communities. Somehow, things turned out O.K.

  For more information on how residential covenants can be enforced without an H.O.A. corporation, and why it would be better if they were, see my earlier post, "re New Homeowners Generally Uninformed" (January 11 2024).
• Share Need to get the Property Management Company/Board Members to follow bylaws, they expect everyone else to follow, except them. on Facebook Share Need to get the Property Management Company/Board Members to follow bylaws, they expect everyone else to follow, except them. on Twitter Share Need to get the Property Management Company/Board Members to follow bylaws, they expect everyone else to follow, except them. on Linkedin Email Need to get the Property Management Company/Board Members to follow bylaws, they expect everyone else to follow, except them. link

  Need to get the Property Management Company/Board Members to follow bylaws, they expect everyone else to follow, except them.

  by Michelle307, over 2 years ago

  I live in a community where the property management says, "we are not allowed to speak with our board members and everything needs to go through her". The property manager cherry-picks what to funnel through to the board and when issues are brought up at one of our very few zoom meetings, that hasn't been canceled, a board member states, "that this is not the place for that", so I email the property management company, where is the place to discuss concerns? and her reply was at the zoom meeting... It's a never-ending loop of insanity!

  
  

  Also, at the budget... Continue reading

  I live in a community where the property management says, "we are not allowed to speak with our board members and everything needs to go through her". The property manager cherry-picks what to funnel through to the board and when issues are brought up at one of our very few zoom meetings, that hasn't been canceled, a board member states, "that this is not the place for that", so I email the property management company, where is the place to discuss concerns? and her reply was at the zoom meeting... It's a never-ending loop of insanity!

  
  

  Also, at the budget ratification Zoom meeting, we had three new people running to for the board, but we're not elected because we didn't make quorum. When I sent an email to the property manager about our bylaws stating, "that we have to have an odd number of people on the board" and we only have 4, why wasn't a 5th one elected? Her response was, "I didn't see that bylaw until yesterday (a month after the meeting) while I was going through looking for something else, it will be discussed".... Seriously??? If a property management company, along with the board, does not know what's in/follows the bylaws, it is no wonder we're being assessed over 5K this year and the manager stated at the recorded board meeting, "according to a survey, this property needs to be assessed every year until 2026, if we ever want to get back on our feet".

  
  

  I have no doubt that my insurance company will drop me with that many claims. This is the most helpless I have ever felt in my entire life because we can't seem to find a Property Manager that knows what they're doing and board members that have their own agenda. I would rather be a renter, than ever have to live in an HOA community again.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• Share Very Comfusing on Facebook Share Very Comfusing on Twitter Share Very Comfusing on Linkedin Email Very Comfusing link

  Very Comfusing

  by gvito, over 2 years ago

  I once again spent an afternoon watching the HOA Task Force Meeting. The more I watch these meetings, the more confused I become on what, if anything, they are trying to do. It seems one main purpose of the Task Force and of HB22-1137 is to make it easier for those homeowners who do not or will not follow the covenants, to reduce any consequence they may face. 1137 has done a wonderful job of that and I think many of its provisions have worked better than I thought they might. But there are those on the Task Force who... Continue reading

  I once again spent an afternoon watching the HOA Task Force Meeting. The more I watch these meetings, the more confused I become on what, if anything, they are trying to do. It seems one main purpose of the Task Force and of HB22-1137 is to make it easier for those homeowners who do not or will not follow the covenants, to reduce any consequence they may face. 1137 has done a wonderful job of that and I think many of its provisions have worked better than I thought they might. But there are those on the Task Force who seem to think the law has not gone far enough. One member states clearly that homeowners ought to be able to decide which rules they will follow and what rules they consider petty that they will not follow. If that is to be the case, then the Task Force ought to find a way to force HOAs by law to revise their Covenants and have the least rules possible, perhaps only for health and safety violations. Although, I am certain even that would be difficult since definitions would need to be drawn up. 1137 does differentiate between normal violations and safety and health violations without defining what is a health and safety violation.

  
  

  Then the next part of the discussion time is spent thinking up myriad rules that the HOA must follow. It amuses me that folks who are against rules are bound and determined to create more rules! For example, a mandate that HOA Boards must receive training. The suggestions range from making videos and online courses available to hours of training--which is it to be? They want to make a law mandating frequent Reserve Studies. Again, not a bad idea, but see the word mandate--in other words a new rule. Then a rule that folks who buy into an HOA must watch a video on what an HOA is and what a homeowners' obligations are. Then there is MANDATORY alternative dispute resolutions. Some want to mandate that all communications with homeowners be sent via email with an opt out for those who want to receive mail. At an earlier meeting there was talk of mandating that HOA meetings must be on weekends.

  
  

  Just listing all the rules the Task Force thinks the Legislature ought to pass makes my head swim! So, my suggestion is that the group decides if it is for or against rules and mandates. Once that decision is made your task will be much easier--eliminate rules for both the homeowners and the HOAs or don't. In my estimation, you can't have it both ways. Also, please remember that any mandate with an associated cost placed upon an HOA will be paid for by the very homeowners who complain about high dues.

  
  

  
  
• Share No Data Driven Conclusions on Facebook Share No Data Driven Conclusions on Twitter Share No Data Driven Conclusions on Linkedin Email No Data Driven Conclusions link

  No Data Driven Conclusions

  by Frank Wille, over 2 years ago

  I witnessed the 16 January Task Force meeting. Regarding the discussion of "what's working and what's not" in HB 22-1137, one Task Force member dominated, and actually moderated the Task Force discussion. The member simply highlighted the various elements of the Bill (fining procedures, communications requirements, foreclosures, repayment plans, fine caps, etc.) without providing any data to support her glowing conclusions. That is, a Bill summary was provided instead of a critical analysis of what's actually working and what's not based on fact. I assume this glowing praise of HB 22-1137 will be forwarded to the legislature. We have been... Continue reading

  I witnessed the 16 January Task Force meeting. Regarding the discussion of "what's working and what's not" in HB 22-1137, one Task Force member dominated, and actually moderated the Task Force discussion. The member simply highlighted the various elements of the Bill (fining procedures, communications requirements, foreclosures, repayment plans, fine caps, etc.) without providing any data to support her glowing conclusions. That is, a Bill summary was provided instead of a critical analysis of what's actually working and what's not based on fact. I assume this glowing praise of HB 22-1137 will be forwarded to the legislature. We have been very fortunate in our HOA that we have not yet had to fine a homeowner under the process outlined in HB 22-1137, or thankfully not foreclose, so we have no data to rebut, We did however have to hire a law firm to rewrite our fining and foreclosure procedures because the Bill was too confusing, complex, contradictory, and poorly written for us to do it ourselves.
• Share HOA Task Force Meeting 1/16: The Subject of Deterrence on Facebook Share HOA Task Force Meeting 1/16: The Subject of Deterrence on Twitter Share HOA Task Force Meeting 1/16: The Subject of Deterrence on Linkedin Email HOA Task Force Meeting 1/16: The Subject of Deterrence link

  HOA Task Force Meeting 1/16: The Subject of Deterrence

  by Andrew Mowery, over 2 years ago

  I thought today's meeting had a different feel and tone, which might have to do with some absences for most of the meeting. I found the topics covered by Ms. Van Dorn were particularly well thought out and organized, and it stirred good discussions about the pros and cons. Her emphasis, however, was on consensus, and there were many examples that were disappointing to see, in particular, Industry advocates who took absolute positions.
  
  Ms. Jackson stated at one point that she did not believe that any HOA enforcement could ever be "petty". It seemed to trigger her into this absolutist... Continue reading

  I thought today's meeting had a different feel and tone, which might have to do with some absences for most of the meeting. I found the topics covered by Ms. Van Dorn were particularly well thought out and organized, and it stirred good discussions about the pros and cons. Her emphasis, however, was on consensus, and there were many examples that were disappointing to see, in particular, Industry advocates who took absolute positions.
  
  Ms. Jackson stated at one point that she did not believe that any HOA enforcement could ever be "petty". It seemed to trigger her into this absolutist opinion that if something is in the governing documents, then it must be enforced, therefore it cannot be petty.
  
  This is known as a strict compliance approach to the governing documents. When a homeowner asks for leniency, the excuses is that if they were given leniency, then EVERYONE would need to be given leniency as a matter of consistency. And, if the rules are not enforced consistently, then they cannot be enforced at all - known as "selective enforcement". Discretion, in this POV is disallowed because according to this logic, even such things as broken blinds, grease stains, and the oft-repeated example of "garbage cans" must be absolutely enforced all of the time.
  
  Ms. Jackson then was asked about her opinions on fines, and she felt that HB22-1137 created fines that were too low to be a "deterrent". According to her, and later when Mr. Freedman arrived, he chimed in as well, the word was used many times in this segment beginning here: https://youtu.be/hyDa3Rh0J4U?t=7841
  
  According to HOA Industry Thought Leaders, $500 isn't a lot of money to people. I mean, except "low-income" people. The "wealthy" scoff at such amounts, so such fine amounts don't bother them. They present a long list of things people can do, almost giving such homeowners who may be listening ideas.
  
  Funny thing is, we never actually see any data. We just hear about these legendary situations where, all of a sudden, people who were following the rules before HB22-1137 suddenly realized that if they only paid $500 per year, they could get away with bad behavior. One rationalization was that, for instance, Boats and RVs would cost MUCH more to store elsewhere, so now HB22-1137 has created this bargain - and there is absolutely nothing the poor HOA can do.
  
  Except that's not really honest.
  
  Because, the problem is, if the scofflaw is truly that defiant and pays the fine, the HOA still has an option - go to Court for injunctive relief. In fact, Ms. Jackson advised one homeowner testifying at the 1/2/24 meeting to do.
  
  But, when we discuss the topics surrounding HOA Directors who may not be following CCIOA, the Non-Profit Act, or even their own governing documents, it is amazing how quickly Ms. Jackson and Mr. Freedman reverse their logic. You see, Ms. Jackson emphasized that when a homeowner purchases the home, they agree to these rules.
  
  And, it's literally the exact same rules that a Board of Director Member must agree to follow - not just for purchasing a home, but as a contingency for being a Director of the Board. You are not free to ignore or break any rules or laws because you are elected to the position.
  
  So, when there is a discussion of any requirements that a Board be knowledgable, the Industry representatives repeat this prediction that IF there were education requirements, then there would be less people wishing to join the board. They've already agreed to know the rules that apply to them as homeowners, which in turn necessitates knowing that they often arise from state laws.
  
  But, if you join the Board, you are literally ENTITLED to ignorance. Not just about the details, but the entire thing. You can have full blown rules amnesia. And, there's this magical non-statutory legal thing called the Business Judgement Rule, which says that even if you drive the HOA into a ditch, you can't be personally liable for not knowing the rules or following them.
  
  Again, often, we are talking about the exact same rules that MUST be strictly applied to a homeowner. The Director can literally say, I wasn't aware that I could not fine you and send it with the first notice, and there's literally zero consequence. Even if this is in both the governing documents and CCIOA, if the Director says "I didn't know that was the law or rule.", they are off the hook. 100% guaranteed.
  
  So, this then makes me wonder about how honest we are about the subject of fines being a deterrent. Because, their argument is that a $500 cap is insufficient.
  
  However, when there is discussion about a $1000 fine for an HOA not, for instance, registering with DORA, well, then that deterrent effect is simply not a thing. Same people, volunteers on Boards, as homeowners. Again, they ALL agreed to ALL the rules. But, the one that requires them to take 30 seconds to fill out a form from Dora and pay online (or send a check) - nah. Why should there be any deterrent effect?
  
  And, this gets to the deeper point about how some of these topics are framed and narrated by Industry advocates. You see, if a Board or individual Directors are out of compliance - you know, not following the rules, the only party who literally has the job of enforcing that rule on them is . . . the homeowner.
  
  And, that is a very ill-defined job. It's basically implied by deductive reasoning.
  
  Is it DORA's job to enforce CCIOA or the governing documents? No! Like don't even ask for legal advice! Just fill out a complaint that goes nowhere. And, get an attorney!
  
  Is it the Attorney General's job? No! They do not enforce Civil statutes, and certainly not private contracts! Get an attorney!
  
  Is it the job of local or state Law Enforcement Agencies? No. We already told you it is a Civil matter! Stop calling the police! They are sick and tired of HOA calls! Get an attorney!
  
  How about is it the job of . . . ? No! We told you to get an attorney!
  
  Well, why do I need to pay for an attorney, which costs WAY MORE THAN $500-1000, when I am not the one who is breaking the rules or law? We can't tell you! Get an attorney!
  
  So, because this is a civil matter in a private non-profit corporation, any member who is NOT a Director must then attempt to enforce the rules on the Directors who literally have all of the power, documents, and access to resources, to inform them that they are breaking the rules. And, of course, any Director who is told they are breaking the rules is going to say they are sorry and agree to never to it again.
  
  You see, HB22-1137 turned all sorts of rule-abiding homeowners into scofflaws overnight because of a measly $500 fine limit. But, Directors, who have literally no reason to ever fear that they will ever be held accountable, or ever pay a personal fine, or frankly, even have to pay for a legal defense if it ever did go to court - because D&O Insurance provides a cutthroat legal defense that will grind even the so-called wealthy into submission 99% of the time.
  
  Because the burden is on the homeowner and solely the homeowner to enforce the rules on Directors, and because the legal expense is so extraordinary with no cap whatsoever (and the prospect of cases being dismissed because "substantial compliance" means that the Court can literally judge a Plaintiff's case as "petty" - not worth enforcing!), it means that any Director who does bother to learn this whole system of governance is then unleashed to have no fear of any accountability if they break the rules - which they are allowed to be ignorant of anyways because of the BJR!
  
  I mean, I have always hoped to meet one day the genius who sold this system to millions of Americans as some way to protect their home values. As Ms. Van Dorn stated, I think we are beginning to see the Emperor Wears No Clothes.
  
  The issue of strict compliance for homeowners, while this bizarre system of "substantial compliance" per Loonan v. Woodley (1994) creates this bizarre contrast on enforcement of the SAME set of documents. If you are a Director, you can be both ignorant or partially comply - with zero consequences.
  
  The industry says, on the other hand, if there are CAPs on fines (not no fines, just caps), then people will get away with ignoring all the rules because $500 is nothing to some huge majority of the 2.7 million Coloradoans livings in HOAs. I think it is possible that this is psychological projection from wealthy attorneys who have been collecting legal fees from HOA homeowners that majority of their adult lives.
  
  The rest of us commoners, however, think $500 is a huge sum. And, perhaps those of us who do are the actual majority. Because majority logic is another lynchpin of Industry logic. If it's not happening to the majority, then it doesn't matter.
  
  LIterally, if a fine of $1000 is an appropriate deterrent for bad faith actions from homeowners, then there MUST be SOME deterrent for bad faith or even ignorant actions by volunteer directors. Because in my experience, a Director is equally likely to be a scofflaw - and it is more logical that a Board that does not follow the rules has a bigger detrimental effect on home values than any homeowner who has left their garbage can out all night.
  
  It's just disingenuous to hear the industry folks on this panel repeat the same tired catch-phrases that they've used in stake holding for years. Even when their logic is unable to withstand simple logic tests.
  
  Ms. Van Dorn repeatedly said she was disappointed that consensus could not be found on matters as simple as this. If the rules apply strictly to homeowners, and there's no reason for leniency on garbage cans cause it is in the rules, then how is it that a Board can be found guilty of manipulating an election (to preserve their own power), and not be held accountable? I mean, shouldn't there be a fine for being found guilty of violating CCIOA and holding an invalid election to be at least in proportion with being fined $500 for leaving your garbage can out?
  
  If we can't get at least agreement that this is a problem from the industry representatives, then I doubt the sincerity of their participation in this HOA Task Force. This is supposed to be about HOMEOWNER RIGHTS, and they are spending hours of our time preaching to us about how we agreed to rules that, in many cases, were changed long after we bought homes.
  
  And, for those of us who took enforcement on the Board seriously, we are treated as though we are not just the enemy, but as "harassers" who need to have fines and legal fees aimed at us for enforcing the rules on Boards.
  
  If this Task Force is unwilling to take a hard look at this, then it is a huge missed opportunity. I wish the moderators would have the courage to call these things out. Not every opinion voiced here is rooted in facts or even logic. Bothsiderism is not an asset, but a liability.
  
  I hope to see a change at the next meeting, the issue of balanced compliance standards for homeowners and Directors addressed explicitly.
• Share A request for the Task Force on Facebook Share A request for the Task Force on Twitter Share A request for the Task Force on Linkedin Email A request for the Task Force link

  A request for the Task Force

  by 1150H, over 2 years ago

  This is not a complaint or a "story" - where can I make a request instead?

  The DORA website needs attention! Needs standardization and description of terminology for starters.

  I would like to "engage" with the Task Force. I attend the ZOOM meetings and have suggestions and requests for their consideration, but am redirected to the "story" page at every turn.

  Please pass along?

  Thanks.

  This is not a complaint or a "story" - where can I make a request instead?

  The DORA website needs attention! Needs standardization and description of terminology for starters.

  I would like to "engage" with the Task Force. I attend the ZOOM meetings and have suggestions and requests for their consideration, but am redirected to the "story" page at every turn.

  Please pass along?

  Thanks.
• Share 3 awful CCIOA non compliant years at Cheesman Tower West, Denver. on Facebook Share 3 awful CCIOA non compliant years at Cheesman Tower West, Denver. on Twitter Share 3 awful CCIOA non compliant years at Cheesman Tower West, Denver. on Linkedin Email 3 awful CCIOA non compliant years at Cheesman Tower West, Denver. link

  3 awful CCIOA non compliant years at Cheesman Tower West, Denver.

  by mmstafford, over 2 years ago
  I am 69 yo, moved into CTW on Cheesman Park 3 years ago this coming April.

  My complaints:

  1.The board is noncompliant with several aspects of CCIOA, and although they know this, have failed to comply with most.

  I paid a lawyer $6645 in the fall of 2022 to force them to comply with CCIOA law that allows homeowners to speak before taking a vote on a motion. They were non compliant since 2006, the way I read CCIOA.They did in fact change the governing documents to use the EXACT language in CCIOA about this, less than 2 weeks after... Continue reading

  I am 69 yo, moved into CTW on Cheesman Park 3 years ago this coming April.

  My complaints:

  1.The board is noncompliant with several aspects of CCIOA, and although they know this, have failed to comply with most.

  I paid a lawyer $6645 in the fall of 2022 to force them to comply with CCIOA law that allows homeowners to speak before taking a vote on a motion. They were non compliant since 2006, the way I read CCIOA.They did in fact change the governing documents to use the EXACT language in CCIOA about this, less than 2 weeks after the letters from my lawyer. I have told them I will go to small claims court to recoup this money, and they refused my offer to enter into mediation before I file.

  The pool here has been closed for 2 YEARS this month, a complete debacle, and NO NOTICE OF common area closure as required by CCIOA, although I have been asking for this for 2 years. There was a notice posted very briefly 2 years ago AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS leadig to the pool entrance, which would be seen by NO ONE unless they went looking for it.

  They have NEVER held the owner education meetings outlined in CCIOA.

  2. The board is the same people decade after decade, including a real bully, a lawyer, who is allowed to "serve" even though he rarely lives here (our governing document problem), has missed about 50% of all board meetings in the past 3 years, and has sent abusive letters to at least 2 owners. Their decisions show lack of due diligence and failure to act prudently.

  The board and management told me several times in the first 18months I lived here that a leak in the underground garage "has been there for years and we don't know where it is coming from".

  3. The board has no plan in 3 years to address the glaring shabbiness of what should be an elegant 14 story condo on Cheesman Park. There are constant "bandaids" for immediate problems, most importantly leaks from decrepit water pipes. There are about $1million in work that needs to be done, a blatently underfunded reserve fund to deal with it, and the board REFUSES to discuss the situation at board meetings. I am shut off or the meeting is gaveled closed when I ask for a plan.

  4. Their management choices are truly appalling, starting with WESTSTAR management, ineffective, condescending managers from Weststar, who along with the board have hired 3 part time onsite office managers in 3 years , one of whom was so incompetent that she turned the water back on in the building WHILE A PLUMBER WAS STILL WORKING, causing extensive flooding in the lobby and 2 units. They retained her for a while, citing "total confidence" in a real idiot and liability to the building and homeowners.

  
  

  All this, and much, much more, and I have no recourse because CCIOA has no teeth.

  
  

  Please GIVE CCIOA ENFORCEMENT AND FINING CAPABILITIES!

  
  

  Peggy Stafford

  Cheesman Tower West

  847 507 6909

  Peggystafford@gmail.com

  
  

  
  
• Share Illegal Elections on Facebook Share Illegal Elections on Twitter Share Illegal Elections on Linkedin Email Illegal Elections link

  Illegal Elections

  by talmapp, over 2 years ago

  At our Annual Meeting this year we had an election for board members of Stratford Lakes Master in Westminster. There were proxies counted that were invalid according to the new laws on Proxies.

  The question was asked to the Management Companies attention, MSI – Judi England Manager, as to why illegal or invalid proxies were counted (almost half were invalid) and would there be a re-count. They replied that the ‘case was closed’. What case? The residents of Stratford Lakes Master simply want a fair election and we did not get that. Not only were they illegal (proxies) they did... Continue reading

  At our Annual Meeting this year we had an election for board members of Stratford Lakes Master in Westminster. There were proxies counted that were invalid according to the new laws on Proxies.

  The question was asked to the Management Companies attention, MSI – Judi England Manager, as to why illegal or invalid proxies were counted (almost half were invalid) and would there be a re-count. They replied that the ‘case was closed’. What case? The residents of Stratford Lakes Master simply want a fair election and we did not get that. Not only were they illegal (proxies) they did not follow our Governing Documents pertaining to the validity of the proxies. They (board and MSI) basically broke the law. How will they or can they be held accountable.

  Is there anything the residents can do to get a proper election? It was a blatant illegal action. Proxies were dated wrong, some of the proxies were not from residents and some were assigned to someone by the management company and then called valid.
• Share Your task force is very important to HOA homeowners in Colorado on Facebook Share Your task force is very important to HOA homeowners in Colorado on Twitter Share Your task force is very important to HOA homeowners in Colorado on Linkedin Email Your task force is very important to HOA homeowners in Colorado link

  Your task force is very important to HOA homeowners in Colorado

  by LK, over 2 years ago
  I have owned homes in HOAs for 38 years because it has always been easy to sell a home in a well-run HOA when I have to relocate.

  
  

  My experience with an HOA here in Colorado has been the best because we are managed by a professional company. The management company helps us follow all our documents, as well as Federal, State and County/City regulations and laws, estimate reserves needed, complete proactive maintenance, and get qualified contractors. They do the accounting, submit our registrations, and help make sure agendas, meetings and elections are done as required.

  The homeowner meetings are... Continue reading

  I have owned homes in HOAs for 38 years because it has always been easy to sell a home in a well-run HOA when I have to relocate.

  
  

  My experience with an HOA here in Colorado has been the best because we are managed by a professional company. The management company helps us follow all our documents, as well as Federal, State and County/City regulations and laws, estimate reserves needed, complete proactive maintenance, and get qualified contractors. They do the accounting, submit our registrations, and help make sure agendas, meetings and elections are done as required.

  The homeowner meetings are held during business hours, but the advantage is the management company is present to make sure meetings are conducted properly. I have found the management company is impartial, so all homeowners get equal treatment, because we have a variety of owners–some are investors who rent their units. The company has a portal, so HOA documents and activities are available for review. The Board of Directors has an email alias, so they are available between meetings.

  My experience is having written HOA policies and fines keeps everything fair and safe for all homeowners and guests. Rules on parking makes sure everyone has equal access to their unit, space for snow storage, and emergency vehicles can access the complex. Rules on use of common areas and owner modifications gives everyone reasonable privacy, quality of life, and maintains the complex’s appearance. My experience is our HOA is much more forgiving than any government agency when is comes to fines and late fees. My HOA will listen and try to solve issues without fines.

  I have a concern about the new collections policy of an 18-month repayment period with a minimum of $25.00 a month. That policy treats an HOA like it is a business that has the ability to cut expenses, like lay people off, or stop services to stay solvent. In our HOA, I would be wondering how we are going to pay for snow plowing, roof repairs, insurance, accounting—basic operating expenses—if we do not have homeowners paying assessments on time.

  Unlike an independent, non-HOA homeowner, my financial future and quality of life is connected to my fellow HOA owners. We all go up together or go down together. I ask your task force to please keep HOAs a reliable financial investment and quality of life option for Colorado residents.

  Thank you.
• Share No communication and slow responses to things that need to be fixed on Facebook Share No communication and slow responses to things that need to be fixed on Twitter Share No communication and slow responses to things that need to be fixed on Linkedin Email No communication and slow responses to things that need to be fixed link

  No communication and slow responses to things that need to be fixed

  by cynthiahull, over 2 years ago
  In spring of 2023, my condo building had no hot water for well over a week. Worse than that, there was virtually no communication from the board or the management company regarding the situation. Now (1/12/24), our building has no hot water, coming up on the coldest day we have had in years. I reoported it at 10 this morning. I got an email response that the property manager "will open the utility room so the vendor can get in" to work on the problem. I have not heard a word sense, and am assuming that we will go the... Continue reading

  In spring of 2023, my condo building had no hot water for well over a week. Worse than that, there was virtually no communication from the board or the management company regarding the situation. Now (1/12/24), our building has no hot water, coming up on the coldest day we have had in years. I reoported it at 10 this morning. I got an email response that the property manager "will open the utility room so the vendor can get in" to work on the problem. I have not heard a word sense, and am assuming that we will go the whole weekend without hot water, at least. i would not be surprised if we were out for over a week again. The frustrating part is that we will probably, once again, not recive any communication on this AGAIN. There are two giant sinkhoples in the parking lot that have been there for months. One is blocking the emergency access to the back buildings (my building!) and the access for the utility company. Nothing is addressed in a timely manner. I can go to meetings, but those are fairly useless, and that is not helpful when trying to communicate on day to day issues.