Interpretation of condo docs by attorney

[Avalon]

What is the name of your state? NJ
I am on the Board of a small condo association in which half the owners have requested a special meeting to vote off the entire Board and elect new Directors. There is a debate about the interpretation of the Bylaws regarding where this meeting must be held. The disgruntled owners have consulted the attorney who wrote the condo docs, who supposedly supported their interpretation that the meeting must be held at the "offices of the corporation" (which is at the condos). The Board has consulted a different real estate attorney. We don't have any confidence in the attorney who wrote the original docs, since they contain numerous errors, inconsistencies, ambiguities, etc. Our attorney has interpreted the docs differently and we think correctly -- in the section on "Special Meetings" of the owners, there is no requirement as to location or even a timeframe in which it must be held after the request. The only meeting required to be at the condos is the annual owners' meeting in May. Our disgruntled owners think we must follow the interpretation of the attorney who wrote the docs. Not true, right?What is the name of your state?

[nextwife]

WHY are you holding it offsite? Is there meeting space available onsite? Is moving it offsite making it unattendable by a percentage of elder or other owners?

[Avalon]

Many reasons: Forgot to mention, these are vacation beach condos and people don't live there full-time; the disgruntled owners want to have it on a weekend but some of the Board members cannot make it due to business (tax season etc.) reasons; the Board wants to have it on a Mon. night at the attorney's office (free meeting space, plus he will be available to settle any questions/arguments about parliamentary procedure -- quorum, proxies, voting eligibility, etc.); the atty's office is not convenient to some, but neither are the condos which are 1-2 hrs. away for most; one of the owners has been known to be aggressive, we think the meeting could get ugly and we do not want to have it at one of the owners' condos (they are too small anyway); there is no meeting space at the condos. Either way -- weeknight or weekend -- lawyer's office or at the beach -- people have to drive a ways to get there, someone will be inconvenienced, and the Board certainly has the right to be there to speak for themselves before getting voted out. We have had other open Board meetings in PA (where most owners live) on weeknights and no one complained about those.

[IndianaOwner]

Follow the advice of YOUR attorney, not theirs. Let them sue if that is what they want to do. If they do, then hold the meeting when and where to your advantage. The situation seems contentious as it is so best to let things happen at the annual meetings instead of this special meeting nonsense....this kind of stuff reminds me of the couple of Seinfeld episodes where Jerry's dad gets kicked off the condo board...very funny.

[Avalon]

Our attorney has recommended giving them proper opportunity to vote (i.e., don't "win" on a technicality like ineligibility to vote for some reason or other, without giving them the opportunity to correct the ineligibility). We will do that. We will make sure they can submit proxies. I just wanted to make sure we're on solid legal ground with the meeting location. Actually, we COULD give them a choice -- have it now or wait til the annual meeting in May. But then guess who would get to do all the work involved in preparing for the annual meeting? US! Just so we can get voted out? I don't think so.

I don't WANT to win on a technicality. I don't even want to WIN, when it comes right down to it. I'm fine with being impeached -- let them do all the work, deal with all this crap and see how they like it. My concern is they are all owners who rent out, don't want the rules enforced lest their renters get upset, won't be around to enforce any rules anyway, and the place will get run into the ground. Oh yeah, and half of the petitioners have their units up for sale -- so I'm sure they'll have a really committed, stable Board. But unfortunately, the other owners don't seem to care enough and we just don't have the numbers we need.

I wish I could see the Seinfeld episode -- I need a laugh.

[BlondiePB]

Originally Posted by Avalon

Our attorney has recommended giving them proper opportunity to vote (i.e., don't "win" on a technicality like ineligibility to vote for some reason or other, without giving them the opportunity to correct the ineligibility). We will do that. We will make sure they can submit proxies. I just wanted to make sure we're on solid legal ground with the meeting location. Actually, we COULD give them a choice -- have it now or wait til the annual meeting in May. But then guess who would get to do all the work involved in preparing for the annual meeting? US! Just so we can get voted out? I don't think so.

I don't WANT to win on a technicality. I don't even want to WIN, when it comes right down to it. I'm fine with being impeached -- let them do all the work, deal with all this crap and see how they like it. My concern is they are all owners who rent out, don't want the rules enforced lest their renters get upset, won't be around to enforce any rules anyway, and the place will get run into the ground. Oh yeah, and half of the petitioners have their units up for sale -- so I'm sure they'll have a really committed, stable Board. But unfortunately, the other owners don't seem to care enough and we just don't have the numbers we need.

I wish I could see the Seinfeld episode -- I need a laugh.

That was a good Seinfield episode. Just curious (and may be sorry I asked), why do these members want to remove the BOD?

[Avalon]

This condo is a small motel at the beach that was rehabbed and converted 3 years ago. The Board consists of 4 owners who don't rent out their units, and one who does but usually has good renters. The most common complaint is that the Board is not "renter-friendly", because we enforce the rules when the renters hang towels all over the railings, or invite outside guests to the pool, or exceed the maximum occupancy of the unit, etc. They feel we are too rigid and should cast a blind eye to these violations. Admittedly, some Board members are a little more "zealous" about enforcing the rules than others; but we do have the right to enforce them. The owners who rent either show no interest in running for the Board, or they get on the Board and quit. But there are few instigators who've been trying to engineer a mutiny, and I think our dues increase for 2007 was the straw that enabled them to get more owners involved in their efforts. (Everyone thinks they could manage the money WAY better, you know how that goes.) Since the owners-who-rent are in the majority, they will probably be able to get enough votes to pull this off. I have another year left on my term and honestly, will be happy to be out of this crap. But it will be interesting to see how they manage to run the place when they're absentee owners and half of them have their units up for sale. Depending how this summer goes, I may be looking for a condo complex where most of the owners don't rent out their units.

[BlondiePB]

in the section on "Special Meetings" of the owners, there is no requirement as to location or even a timeframe in which it must be held after the request.

Typically when there is no specification, the rule of law is in one's state statutes/codes.

The most common complaint is that the Board is not "renter-friendly", because we enforce the rules when the renters hang towels all over the railings, or invite outside guests to the pool, or exceed the maximum occupancy of the unit, etc. They feel we are too rigid and should cast a blind eye to these violations. Admittedly, some Board members are a little more "zealous" about enforcing the rules than others; but we do have the right to enforce them.

Correct, so don't you have fines for infractions of the house rules? I'm not sure what you mean by outside guests; however, if my guests that are visiting me or are staying at my condo are not allowed to use the pool, I'd be upset. Just a suggestion, if possible, install a clothesline in back/side of the bld & tell these hoolagans to use it for their towels.

The owners who rent either show no interest in running for the Board, or they get on the Board and quit. But there are few instigators who've been trying to engineer a mutiny, and I think our dues increase for 2007 was the straw that enabled them to get more owners involved in their efforts. (Everyone thinks they could manage the money WAY better, you know how that goes.)

Quite frankly, my BOD are a bunch of imbeciles who think they know what their doing. We owners never even received the last budget, nor was there a budget meeting. They will all be removed by me single-handedly, without a special meeting. It's just a matter of when I decide to do have them removed.

Since the owners-who-rent are in the majority, they will probably be able to get enough votes to pull this off. I have another year left on my term and honestly, will be happy to be out of this crap. But it will be interesting to see how they manage to run the place when they're absentee owners and half of them have their units up for sale.

No one is stopping you from resigning. Then, you will be of the same stature of the disgrunted owners. Who knows, perhaps that would help with them listening to you.

Depending how this summer goes, I may be looking for a condo complex where most of the owners don't rent out their units.

That certainly would reduce your stress.

BTW, I'm not an attorney and not sure you'd believe what the idiots on my BOD have done and what they should have done....2 words: gross negligence (following a casualty).

[Avalon]

Hey Blondie -- can't figure out how to respond individually to each of your points (with the quotes), so here goes:

We have no room (literally) for clotheslines. We use fines sparingly, try to get the owners to correct the violation first....sometimes hard to tell who even owns the towels to know which unit to fine. I have a wooden drying rack in my unit and other owners should provide stuff like that to help the owners deal with beach towels, wet suits, etc.

Renters are not allowed to bring outside guests to the pool if it exceeds the max occupancy (e.g., unit for 4 has 8 people at the pool). However, we do have a few of those "zealous" Board members who don't think renters should be allowed to bring guests at all. We were planning on resolving it this year with pool bands -- a unit of 4 would get 4 bands, problem solved. I would've, I'm sure, lent my extra bands to a neighbor who maybe had some extra family members down -- but I guess it won't be an issue now 'cause the new Board will probably chuck the bands entirely. That will allow the one family of disgruntleds to resume their practice of renting out their unit, staying at their other larger house with no pool, but still coming over to use our pool (even when their unit is rented) AND bringing guests to boot. And you know what? Had they not been so in-your-face about it (bringing the guests with THEIR kids, kids screaming and annoying everyone), probably no one would have b*tched about it. And the people who complained were NOT Board members but of course they blamed us when we put a stop to it.

You are correct -- I will not resign because I'll then be as bad as those quitters who let me and another young lady run the whole d*mn place by ourselves for 6 mos. because they all quit and nobody else would volunteer to help. If they want me out, I will not make it easy for them.

Budget -- don't your condo docs require the BOD to provide the budget to the owners???

If you don't mind my asking, what was the casualty and negligence situation? We're always concerned about that, especially because of the pool. Our first season, we found out our liability insurance didn't permit alcohol at the pool -- man, did THAT cause a stink with the disgruntled owners, who I believe thought we were just killjoys. Betcha one of the first signs they'll take down is the 'no alcohol' sign and they'll be celebrating their 'win' with beers around the pool....and jeopardizing our insurance.

Thanks for sharing your experiences...always good to hear from impartial observers.

[IndianaOwner]

Originally Posted by Avalon

Our attorney has recommended giving them proper opportunity to vote (i.e., don't "win" on a technicality like ineligibility to vote for some reason or other, without giving them the opportunity to correct the ineligibility). We will do that. We will make sure they can submit proxies. I just wanted to make sure we're on solid legal ground with the meeting location. Actually, we COULD give them a choice -- have it now or wait til the annual meeting in May. But then guess who would get to do all the work involved in preparing for the annual meeting? US! Just so we can get voted out? I don't think so.

I don't WANT to win on a technicality. I don't even want to WIN, when it comes right down to it. I'm fine with being impeached -- let them do all the work, deal with all this crap and see how they like it. My concern is they are all owners who rent out, don't want the rules enforced lest their renters get upset, won't be around to enforce any rules anyway, and the place will get run into the ground. Oh yeah, and half of the petitioners have their units up for sale -- so I'm sure they'll have a really committed, stable Board. But unfortunately, the other owners don't seem to care enough and we just don't have the numbers we need.

I wish I could see the Seinfeld episode -- I need a laugh.

I was in almost the same situation. If I had to do it over, I would have sold and gotten the heck out of there since it simply was not worth my time volunteering. But I stayed the course, became condo president and turned the place around --- in a little over a year the place went from a neg. 10% to a pos. 20% --- a 30% increase! Very little thanks though, but I did get a few owners who didn't rent give me thanks and trusted me 100% after that. But again, I'd move out instead. The "invester-owners" don't care about the neighbors and are totally thankless to those that contribute their free time to improving property values - they are "leaches" who suck out the property values by renting and expect you to manage their tenants since they live out of town and want you to give their tenants keys, mailbox keys, etc. One invester-owner threatened to sue me personally, etc. --- totally outrageous. Resign and sell your place....and you'll be free!!!

You MUST watch the Seinfeld episodes (it was two episodes in all)...I still laugh when I see them on TV. I learned a lot but would have preferred staying ignorant!!! :-)

[IndianaOwner]

Let me reiterate ---- it will NEVER be worth your time. Resign and sell and let the ungrateful people have their property values decline. Seriously, do not waste your time...

[BlondiePB]

Hey Blondie -- can't figure out how to respond individually to each of your points (with the quotes), so here goes:

Highlight the text you want, then click the quote icon.

We have no room (literally) for clotheslines. We use fines sparingly, try to get the owners to correct the violation first....sometimes hard to tell who even owns the towels to know which unit to fine. I have a wooden drying rack in my unit and other owners should provide stuff like that to help the owners deal with beach towels, wet suits, etc.

A small outside clothes line won't require a lot of space. If you have a common laundy room is there a spot for a clothesline? Using fines sparingly is not working. Can't notice be posted in a common area, like the mailboxes and laundry room (if there is a laundry room), on each individual door AND notice to owners via mail?

Renters are not allowed to bring outside guests to the pool if it exceeds the max occupancy (e.g., unit for 4 has 8 people at the pool).

Occupany in the pool is different than how many people can be at the pool area.

However, we do have a few of those "zealous" Board members who don't think renters should be allowed to bring guests at all.

Rubbish.....

We were planning on resolving it this year with pool bands -- a unit of 4 would get 4 bands, problem solved. I would've, I'm sure, lent my extra bands to a neighbor who maybe had some extra family members down -- but I guess it won't be an issue now 'cause the new Board will probably chuck the bands entirely.

IMO, wait until this all plays out.

That will allow the one family of disgruntleds to resume their practice of renting out their unit, staying at their other larger house with no pool, but still coming over to use our pool (even when their unit is rented) AND bringing guests to boot. And you know what? Had they not been so in-your-face about it (bringing the guests with THEIR kids, kids screaming and annoying everyone), probably no one would have b*tched about it. And the people who complained were NOT Board members but of course they blamed us when we put a stop to it.

Okay, that's what you meant by outside guests. What a load of crap.

You are correct -- I will not resign because I'll then be as bad as those quitters who let me and another young lady run the whole d*mn place by ourselves for 6 mos. because they all quit and nobody else would volunteer to help. If they want me out, I will not make it easy for them.

It's your decision.

Budget -- don't your condo docs require the BOD to provide the budget to the owners???

Yes, and minutes of all meetings, including BOD meetings (they don't do that), an end of fiscal year accounting report done by an independent CPA using good accounting practices which is to be sent to each owner, which also is not done. The Association received $400,000.00 in insurance monies early last year. It was all used up around Thanksgiving, which explained why work stopped. Supplemental insurance monies were recently received, so now repairs have resumed.

If you don't mind my asking, what was the casualty and negligence situation?

Hurricane Wilma (Oct. 24, 2005) caused the casualty. The BOD screwed up from the very first decision, as dictated by the By-Laws for a casualty. On Nov. 4, 2005, the Prez annouced my bld was now leak proof. The next rain (Nov. 9), rainwater began pouring through electric fixtures, a/c ducts, and down through the walls. Nine people were still living in my bld running electricity and no one thought this was a fire & safety hazard except me. I unnecessary lost personal property, flooring, etc. due to the negligence of the BOD & contractors. The roof was still leaking into the electrical wiring for a year, as documented by me calling the fire inspector. The roof was approved by a bld inspector (via a picture sent by roofing contractor) Jan. 20, 2006. The roof is NOT done to code and still leaked into the wiring until recently. Despite my complaints to the BOD, they did nothing, except tell me that this was even my imagination. This is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more, activate your private messaging and send me one. There's way too much and it's not appropriate to chit chat about it on the forum.

We're always concerned about that, especially because of the pool. Our first season, we found out our liability insurance didn't permit alcohol at the pool -- man, did THAT cause a stink with the disgruntled owners, who I believe thought we were just killjoys. Betcha one of the first signs they'll take down is the 'no alcohol' sign and they'll be celebrating their 'win' with beers around the pool....and jeopardizing our insurance.

Then, you can remove them from the BOD.

Thanks for sharing your experiences...always good to hear from impartial observers.

You're very welcome.