HOA legal issue

Milo74 said:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA.

I had recently purchased a condo with plans of making minor fix ups, some cosmetic. One of the changes I planned on making was to the airconditioning units, replacing them with newer more energy efficient ones, as they were very old. I was not sure in regards to the HOA rules if this was something I could do or not, the HOA book I recieved was not of help. I called my HOA office directly to speak with a representative regarding the matter, I was told it is ok and that I can go ahead and replace the units. The entire change spread over a month + period, the old ACs were removed first, and the final step was placing in the new ones, in between those 2 steps (during the month+ period) all other changes to the condo were made, flooring, kitchen, etc. Now, 2 months after I had moved in, I am being contacted by my HOA and being told that I violated an HOA rule by changing the AC (taking out the old units is changing the outside exterior which I am not allowed to do.) I was told to restore everything to original condition immidietly. I simply don't have funds to revert everything to previous condition now. I am in need of help as I'm not sure what are my options now, or if I have any.

Click to expand...

Milo74 said:

Thanks for the reply Homeguru, I just recieved a letter from the HOA's legal representative. Following to his letter below, my question is- what am I to do if I simply don't have funds to make this change in 30 days? It is just not realistic to me at my current situation.

Here is the main excerpt from the letter

While this office (and the board) appreciate your efforts to achieve energy efficiency, and do recognize the clean stucco patch job performed around the areas where the original A/C units used to be, the fact remains that you are in violation of Section 4.04 and 4.07 of the *** **** CC&R's. These sections specifically state that prior approval from the Board must be given before you are allowed to make any changes to your balcony and/or the exterior of the building which may impair its unifor appearance.

Regardless of whether or not you did a good job in your re-construction efforts, allowing your unapproved changes to remain as they are would potentially open the door to alternations of this nature being made by multiple tenants of the building, threatening the overall uniform and pleasing aesthetic of the *** **** facade.

As we see it, you have two options:

OPTION 1: You have thirty (30) days from the date of this letter within which to request a hearing with the Board at which time you may state your reasons why you believe the Board should grant you a variance. Should the Board allow your alternations to remain unchanged, one of the terms would include you agreeing to bear the responsibility of any costs that may arise out of any potential conflicts or problems created by said alteration.

OPTION 2: You have thirty (30) days from the date of this letter to restore the exterior of the building to the way it was. This means removing your new A/C units, patching the new holes with stucco of the same color and appearance as the rest of the building, and re-installing A/C units (of similar size to the original units) in their original locations.

We need to hear from you within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, in writing, as to which option you would like to proceed with.

Is there a point for me to bring up the fact that I did get permission verbaly by a HOA office representative on the phone before proceeding, or will that not hold? My HOA manager said his representative "thought" I ment replacing the exsisting units with newer ones, which is not what I asked. A confusion on her part is now putting me in a bad situation.

What are some exaples of potential costs that could arise if I opt for OPTION 1? It is a bit alarming to take responsibility for something that is up in the air.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

Milo74 said:

you agreeing to bear the responsibility of any costs that may arise out of any potential conflicts or problems created by said alteration.


This is the only thing backing me off option 1. I'm not sure what I'm looking at as "potential conflict" costs...I don't want to put myself in a situation where I end up with enormous costs having to restore someone else's alteration. Sounds very strange to me.

Click to expand...

Cedrus said:

Do Sections 4.04 and 4.07 specify "prior approval" or "prior written approval"?

Click to expand...