Representing Texas Homeowners Associations & those aggrieved by them

Attorney Trey Wilson handles lawsuits and pre-litigation disputes involving enforcement of restrictive covenants/deed restrictions, Homeowner Association member voting/ballot/proxy issues, HOA Board elections, collection of assessments/dues, placement and removal of liens, CCR/Declaration disputes, developer HOA control/turnover, ACC approval, HOA Board governance, Abuses by Homeowners Associations and drafting/amendment of HOA documents including By-laws.



Showing posts with label HOA litigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HOA litigation. Show all posts

4.09.2013

HOA Embezzlement Prevention Bill (HB 3803) To Be Heard Today

San Antonio HOA Lawyer Trey Wilson wrote:


State Representative Ruth Jones-McClendon's HB 3803 is set for public hearing today before the House Committee on Business and Industry

As I previously wrote, the Bill (filed on 3/8/13) seeks to prevent Board-member fraud and embezzlement of HOA funds through a series of money management procedures and local government regulation. Pundits have predicted substantial testimony concerning the Bill.

It should be an interesting day, as sentiments on both sides of the Bill are strong. Among the most important concerns regarding the Bill are its financial implications upon the Texas Attorney General, cities and counties who would be granted regulatory authority over HOAs. According to the Fiscal Note prepared by the Legislative Budget Board, local governments, including the City of Houston, are uncertain about the financial impact of this new-found authority. 
  

2.18.2012

Judge, not ref, settles HOA hoop feud


More HOA litigation hijinks. This time, Association money was spent to litigate a homeowners right to keep her basketball hoop. According to reports out of Omaha, the goal-tending Mom "won a slam dunk victory in court."

Read the full story here: Judge, not ref, settles hoop feud - Omaha.com

7.25.2009

Subdivision residents vote to oust HOA board

A neighborhood association dispute is headed to court after homeowners met and voted to remove the association's board of directors and install a new and larger board.

Homeowners in the Ventura and Spring Meadows subdivisions in northeast Bexar County met June 30 and voted 221-1 to remove the association's current board members — President Lisa Pfeiffer, Vice President Vicki Pawelek and Secretary Kathleen Vargas — after a tumultuous eight months that saw the board close its monthly meetings to the public, remove lifeguards from the community pool and discontinue participation in the county Citizens On Patrol program.

The group of homeowners called a special meeting and gathered at Northeast Church of Christ on FM 78 and voted to remove the three board members, to enlarge the board to five members and to fill the board with a new slate of board members.

But attorney Susan Rice, speaking on behalf of the Ventura Homeowners Association, told those gathered that their votes didn't count and that any action taken that evening would end up in court.

“Basically, it's the corporation's position that this is not a properly called meeting, pursuant to the governing documents; nor are the votes that are going to be taken proper.

“It does not mean that tomorrow morning your votes are going to be honored,” she said, adding, “Those are going to be going through the court system and we'll be dealing with those through the courts.”

But Lanny Worel, one of a group of organizers of the special meeting, disagreed.

“We feel that this meeting is lawfully called and … in compliance with association bylaws, and that any and all business that takes place here tonight will be valid and binding,” Worel said.

The association board tried to file a restraining order to keep the meeting from happening, but a county judge found no validity in the association's complaint and allowed the meeting to go forth.

“In November, the board of directors closed the board meetings to all of us, none of us could go,” Worel said. “It was three months later that (they) began sending out invitations. Without an invitation, you couldn't attend.”

Worel was one of five Ventura/Spring Meadows homeowners elected to the board during the meeting. Also elected to the board were Tony Jones, Evelyn Nolde, Stephen Turner and Gary Siegel.

Worel said the board has done everything in its power to stop the group from meeting, despite the group's gathering of enough signatures to properly call a special meeting of the association. The board told Worel's group that the petition contained invalid signatures, but refused to give the group a list of any faulty signatures.

The group decided in May to call the special meeting, assured they had enough valid signatures to do so. A letter dated May 15 was sent to the board, citing articles and sections of the Ventura bylaws that allowed for such a meeting to take place.

Once a quorum was established at the meeting, a motion was made to remove all three current board members from their positions. A ballot vote was taken and the motion passed, 221-1. The next motion sought expansion of the board from three to five members, which was approved 223-0. Names of seven homeowners were put on a ballot and the five were selected.

Residents openly questioned why the board meetings were closed, and asked who was responsible for monitoring the board's actions.

Worel explained that the homeowner associations are governed under the non-profit corporation act and that board meetings are not mandated to be open, “but what we go by is the (people) who have been here for over 20 years, board meetings have always been open except for a short time in 2007, when they simply didn't hold meetings.”

Jones, a subdivision resident since 1999, said, “If you pay your dues, you should have a say in how your money is spent. If they take that away from you, you should also be allowed to say, ‘If I don't have a say, then why am I paying you?'”

Homeowners expressed anger over the board's decision to cancel its lifeguard contract at the pool and replace it with a camera-security system.

“I've never seen a camera give CPR,” Jones said. “By the time you see it on camera, what's happened has happened.”

“It was a total three-person decision,” Worel said. “It was not our decision to do away with the lifeguards and put a web-based camera in there for security.”

The pool was closed for a period of time following a June 11 investigation by the San Antonio Metropolitan Health Department. A resident who spoke during the meeting said she called the health district on June 8 following a weekend swim.

“I was disappointed with the condition of the water, it was filthy,” said resident Yvonne Rex. “That was Saturday; on Monday morning, I called the Metro Health Department and filed a complaint, because they (association management) didn't seem too concerned.

“They officially closed it down (June 11) because of the condition of the water. Come to find out, the filter was broken ... but my question is, how long had the filter been broken, and they were still allowing people to use the pool, with that disgusting water?” she added.

Lifeguards in neighboring subdivisions commonly perform hourly or bi-hourly water sampling in addition to enforcing hourly safety breaks and monitoring pool attendance.

Worel said that since the June 30 meeting, both sides have agreed to enter into mediation.

“We don't know where it will go from here; all we can do is do our best and then carry on,” he said.

By: Jeff B. Flinn, Northeast Herald

5.19.2009

R L Wilson Law Firm takes on Regency Park HOA

In October 2007, our clients commenced construction of a swimming pool in their back yard. However, this pool wasn't designed just for enjoying lazy days and working on their tans. Instead, it was an integral part of a flood control plan engineered to mitigate the effects of rushing water experienced each time it rained. The pool was recommended by an engineer, and even by the City of San Antonio -- each of whom had investigated the tendency of the property to flood as the result of run-off from a parking lot constructed directly behind the home.

Prior to commencing construction, our clients submitted plans to the Architectural Control Committee of the Regency Park Owners Association. Much to their surprise, they recived no response. Despite additional approval requests, the HOA's silence continued for months. Frustrated by the lack of response, and after reviewing the ACC's deadline for approving plans, our clients decided to proceed with construction.

Almost immediately, they and their contractor were accosted by a member of the Regency Park HOA Board, who verbally demanded that they cease with construction. So they did. Two days later, the contractor returned to the home to retrieve his tools and equipment. That same day, the HOA scrambled its legal team, and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the construction -- which by that time had already been voluntarily abated. The other portion of the HOA's suit sought a declaration that the pool was not permitted without ACC approval.

After various meetings, the plans were ultimately approved, and our clients were allowed to complete the pool with the blessing of the HOA. They did, and many of the flooding issues have been resolved.

Case closed...or so they thought.

Several months later, the Association came calling. This time they wanted their attorneys' fees, and lots of them. When the homeowners balked, the Association set the case for trial.

On the day before the trial, the homeowners realized that they need the help of an attorney with experince litigating HOA issues. So they called me.

After reviewing the CCRs, I noticed a provision requiring that disputes between the HOA and property owners within the Regency Park subdivision be referred to arbitration. Based upon this requirement, I filed a Motion seeking to compel arbitration, instead of trial in the Bexar County District Court. Judge Andy Mireles considered the Motion, and sided with our clients. Thus, the dispute has been referred to arbitration, where an arbitrator will determine whether the HOA is entitled to its fees, even though it never obtained a Judgment in the suit it filed. We are confident in the property owners' position, and disappointed that the HOA has decided to expend costs and attorneys' fees solely in pursuit of attorneys' fees.

Many times HOAs and their Board Members use the judicial system to advance personal grudges or to "flex their muscle." The laws relating to HOA litigation and restrictive covenants are complex and often favor the HOAs. If you believe that you are the victim of HOA abuses, you should immediately contact an attorney experienced with HOA litigation, and the Texas Property Code. The HOAs are represented by experienced and knowledgable attorneys. You should be too.

3.26.2009

Senator Royce West Files Multiple HOA Bills in the Texas Legislature

On February 18, 2009, Senator Royce West (D - Dallas) filed a flurry of bills that would impact the way HOAs transact business. The following is a brief summary of the Bills. I will post updates as the bills work their way through the 81st Regular Session of the Texas Legislature.

SB 234 by West
HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their association. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners can generate considerable acrimony and expense. This bill attempts to restore balance to the relationship between homeowner's association (HOA) boards and individual homeowners.

As proposed, S.B. 234 requires a court to allow the prevailing party in an action on a breach of a restrictive covenant reasonable attorney's fees and cost and claims. S.B. 234 requires the seller of residential property that is subject to membership in a property owner's association to provide certain information and notice to a buyer, including a resale certificate. S.B. 236 sets forth certain requirements relating to the content of and fees for such resale certificates.

SB 235 by West

HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. Developers often retain control over most aspects of an HOA while construction and sale of houses within the development is still ongoing.

As proposed, S.B. 235 strikes a balance between the developer's interest in the ultimate completion of a development and the need to prevent discriminatory housing practices. The bill provides that a restrictive covenant providing a right of first refusal for the sale or lease of a residential unit or residential lot in favor of the HOA or its members is void.

SB 236 by West

HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, individual homeowners have become frustrated with what they perceive as unduly restrictive HOA board policies regarding the installation of solar energy devices.

S.B. 236 strikes a balance between the community's interest in maintaining consistent aesthetics, and the freedom of individual homeowners to make sensible investments in clean energy.

As proposed, S.B. 236 prohibits a property owners' association from imposing or enforcing a restriction against solar energy devices, except under certain listed circumstances. S.B. 236 provides that restrictions that violate the provisions of this Act are void.

SB 237 by West

HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Many homeowners lack confidence in the conduct of board elections. Additionally, some HOAs operate under extremely cumbersome provisions for the amendment of their declarations. S.B. 237 attempts to restore confidence in the HOA election process and to provide a uniform standard for amending a declaration.

As proposed, S.B. 237 provides that a declaration may be amended on a vote of 67 percent of the total votes allocated to owners of property in the subdivision, unless the declaration creating the subdivision specified a lower percentage. It also establishes that the right to vote in board elections cannot be limited and states the conditions under which a person is disqualified from serving on the board. The bill requires the use of a neutral third party to count election ballots under certain circumstances and sets forth the requirements for the conduct of elections. S.B. 237 sets forth certain property owners' associations to which certain provisions of this Act do not apply. S.B. 237 prohibits a person from serving on the board of an HOA if the person has been convicted of certain offenses and requires an HOA to obtain criminal history information on candidates for HOA boards. Finally, S.B. 237 provides for the use and content of an association's bylaws.

SB 238 by West

HOAs are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Often, they feel frustrated in attempts to challenge an HOA board decision due to a lack of information. S.B. 238 attempts to restore balance to the relationship between HOA boards and individual homeowners.

As proposed, S.B. 238 sets forth remedies available to a homeowner if an HOA board fails to comply with its statutory duty to make its books and records, including financial records, reasonably available to a homeowner.

SB 239 by West

(HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their HOAs. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the board for violations of deed restrictions. The manner in which the board notifies the individual homeowner is at times the subject of some disagreement.

As proposed, S.B. 239 sets forth the required content and manner of delivery of a notice of enforcement action by a property owners' association . The bill also requires that the homeowner be given a date certain by which a violation must be cured.

SB 240 by West

(HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the board for violations of deed restrictions. The actions of some HOA boards can cause such fines to become insurmountable burdens for the homeowner. Additionally, because foreclosure is a remedy available to an HOA board for delinquent assessments, the order of application by the HOA board of payments received from a homeowner is a critical issue.

As proposed, S.B. 240 sets forth certain requirements and restrictions regarding a fine imposed by a property owners' association. The bill also requires a property owners' association to adopt reasonable guidelines for an alternative payment schedule, sets forth provisions relating to the priority of application of payments by a homeowner, and sets forth time limitations relating to collection actions against a homeowner. S.B. 240 repeals Section 202.004(c), Property Code, relating to an assessment of civil damages by a court for the violation of a restrictive covenant.

SB 241 by West

HOAs) are intended to maintain common areas in residential neighborhoods and to protect homeowners' investments in their property by enforcing certain aesthetic guidelines. In recent years, however, many homeowners have become dissatisfied with the operation of their associations. Disputes between HOA boards and individual homeowners often begin with the imposition of relatively small fines by the HOA board for violations of deed restrictions. Such fines, when combined with assessments and legal fees, can quickly become insurmountable for a homeowner, ultimately resulting in foreclosure. Currently, a homeowner is not guaranteed access to the courts in a proceeding for the foreclosure of an assessment lien.

As proposed, S.B. 241 requires a property owners' association to obtain a court judgment foreclosing an assessment lien and providing for issuance of an order of sale before the foreclosure of the lien, unless judicial foreclosure is waived in writing by the homeowner.