e-mail:
password:
register
|
login
› CASTLE ROCK
SEARCH YOUR HUB:
GO
advanced search
Loading Ad
STORIES
EVENTS
BLOGS
FOR SALE
YELLOW PAGES
PHOTOS
Local Info ›
Home ›
Help ›
Visit Other Hubs:
YourHub.com
Arvada
Aurora
Boulder
Brighton
Broomfield
Castle Pines
Castle Rock
Centennial
Cherry Hills Village
Commerce City
Conifer
Denver
Denver North
Denver South
Edgewater
Englewood
Erie
Evergreen
Federal Heights
Franktown
Glendale
Golden
Green Valley Ranch
Greenwood Village
Highlands Ranch
Lafayette
Lakewood
Littleton
Lone Tree
Longmont
Louisville and Superior
Montbello
Morrison
nights
Niwot
Northglenn
Parker
Roxborough
Sheridan
Thornton
TriTowns
Westminster
Wheat Ridge
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES
Town wins award for preserving Quarry Mesa
(
Town of Castle Rock
)
Get dirty, clean a creek - Winter Walk in Downtown
(
Town of Castle Rock
)
Sandstone releases first phase of homesteads
(
Sandstone American Ranch
)
Libraries build brains and community
(
James LaRue
)
Early voting sites in Castle Rock announced
(
Douglas County
)
share a story
|
more postings
»
YourHub.com
\\
Castle Rock
\\
Stories
\\
News
\\
Politics
Beware The Associations - Part VII
e-mail to a friend
|
print this
|
link to this
NEXT ›
‹ PREVIOUS
Contributed by:
Jan Jackson
on 6/4/2008
Homeowners associations' boards of directors must be held to a very high standard of responsibility. That is, directors of homeowners associations (HOAs) have a duty - a
fiduciary
duty under the law -- to exercise due care not to bring harm, in any way, to its homeowners.
Boards of directors also, under the law, cannot make arbitrary or capricious or -- needless to say -- unethical or unlawful decisions which could harm homeowners, especially financially.
But they do.
All the time.
All over the country.
And when they do, what's
supposed
to happen is that those HOA directors who vote for an action that causes injury to a homeowner would face
personal liability for the injury
. A California Supreme Court ruling even held that exculpatory clauses (provisions which would clear a board or board member from guilt or blame) in an HOA's documents which were intended to immunize the HOA board members from lawsuits cannot be used to block homeowner lawsuits against their HOA when a board or a board member makes a decision which harms or injures a homeowner.
But the reality is that, once in court, the homeowner often finds that the court's sympathy -- unreasonably and without legal merit -- resides with the HOA, not the injured homeowner.
Also, under the law, when an association's recorded documents contain provisions that are unconscionable or characteristic of an adhesion contract, the offending clauses are supposed to be struck down.
But they're not.
Or, it is such a rare occurrence that homeowners have never heard of such a thing happening in their HOAs.
Also, actions taken by boards of directors in excess of their lawful power should always be found guilty of a civil wrongdoing or a criminal act in our courts.
Again, that may be the law, but that also must be a rare occurrence because one of the main complaints of HOA homeowners everywhere is that their boards of directors simply make any decisions and take any actions that they, and their member "cabals," and their HOA CAI lawyers, want to -- regardless of business ethics or statutes to the contrary.
Jan
Beware The Associations - Part VII
Association Boards of Directors Have a Fiduciary Duty to the Owners
In 1986 the
California Supreme Court
held that the
directors of a corporation owe a duty to third persons,
such as employees or complete strangers,
to exercise due care to not bring harm to such persons.
They clarified, however, that
the only directors who face personal liability are those who actually vote for an action that causes injury, even though the wrongful act is performed in the name of the corporation.
[fn52]
In Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Association, [fn53] the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that
homeowners' associations are "quasi governmental"
and that they are
"mini-governments" paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government."
[fn54] The Cohen court aligned itself with
a well-established body of decisions that warrant against associations using their decision-making powers arbitrarily or capriciously.
[fn55] Recognizing the mini-government status of homeowners' associations, the court gave more than parenthetical affirmation to those decisions saying,
"With power, of course, comes the power for abuse.
Therefore,
the Association must be held to a high standard of responsibility,"
thereby holding that
exculpatory clauses in the CC&Rs intended to immunize the associations from lawsuits fail to block homeowner suits.
[fn56]
In disputes between owners and associations, courts look to governing documents for guidance to see if the association has acted within the scope of its powers.[
fn57]
Actions taken in excess of power are not enforceable.
[fn58] Where it has been found that an association's
recorded CC&Rs contained provisions that were unconscionable and characteristic of an adhesion contract, the offending clauses were struck down.
[fn59] When circumstances arise where CC&Rs do not adequately cover the matter, the remedy is to amend the CC&Rs. [fn60]
When courts are called upon to assess the validity of a rule made by a board of directors, courts look to see if: 1) the
board acted within scope of authority
and 2) the
rule reflects reasoned or arbitrary and capricious decision making.[
fn61] In Ward v Superior Court, the
court found that it was unreasonable for an association to record a notice of non-compliance with the CC&Rs.
[fn62]
The court's rationale was that instruments should be recorded only if some statute authorizes the recording or if section 27280 of the California Government Code authorizes their recording.[
fn63] The court reasoned that since section 27280 of the California Government Code authorized the recording of interests that have a legal effect on title or possession of real property and the notice of noncompliance had no legal effect on title or possession of real property, that the notice of noncompliance could not be recorded.[fn64]
If there is a conflict between the condominium CC&Rs and the Davis Sterling Common Development Act, the Act prevails as a matter of law.[fn65]
(continued in Part VIII)
[Report this as objectionable content.]
SUBMIT COMMENT
Rate the above story
Talk Back :
submit comments to the story
*Note: you need to
log-in
to add a comment or rating.
Thank you! Your comment has been updated.
*A comment must be between 1 and 1000 characters.
*Please refrain from using explicit language.
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION
Jan Jackson
Florissant
, CO
Jan Jackson has posted
533
stories and
38
comments since joining on
9/14/2005
. Jan Jackson 's average story rating is
4.5
.
view profile »
view other postings from Jan Jackson »
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
digg
Google
del.icio.us
Yahoo!
reddit
newsvine
What is this?
STORY RSS FEEDS
All stories
All stories in Castle Rock
All stories by Jan Jackson
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available
all over the Front Range
and with home subscriptions of the
Rocky Mountain News
and
The Denver Post?
All you have to do is
register
, then post a
story or column
,
start a blog
or
tell everyone
what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad
Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad