What does "the voting property owners" mean? (Texas)

[quincy]

If there are 7 or 8 property owners who never vote, it might be smart to start by encouraging them to vote.

 

[Taxing Matters]

To include all voting property owners, there would need to be a statement saying something like, “if no ballot is submitted, it will be considered a ‘no’ vote.” And that would be problematic in many different ways, including legally problematic.

I don't necessarily see a legal problem with that kind of scheme. There are indeed some organizations that, at least for some purposes, use a rule like that. What I do see is the practical problem of getting truly needed things passed in organizations where a significant number of those allowed to vote just simply don't care to get involved, and thus their lack of votes then hold up those changes.

 

[Osmigo]

No it does not. If all you are doing is "interpreting" (b) then one person can "interpret" it one way and another person can "interpret" it another way. When there are conflicting "interpretations" you either end up in court or you follow the CC&R which is a binding contract.

The procedure for changing the amendment process is not addressed in the CCRs. ALL of the language in this section pertains to changing the amendment process, not to voting for amendments.

 

[Taxing Matters]

And as an aside, it's problems like this that have lead me to never want to buy a property in a HOA. It seems too often you either get a board that wants to dictate everything that homeowners can do making the HOA overly restrictive or you get HOAs that are ineffective at doing even some of the most basic things you expect them to do.

 

[Osmigo]

And as an aside, it's problems like this that have lead me to never want to buy a property in a HOA. It seems too often you either get a board that wants to dictate everything that homeowners can do making the HOA overly restrictive or you get HOAs that are ineffective at doing even some of the most basic things you expect them to do.

It's almost impossible to avoid sometimes, especially if you're in suburban or semi-rural subdivision. Very few developers would invest in an unrestricted subdivision, where people could trash the place out, bring in rotten mobile homes, junk cars, etc. But often, you don't really know what an HOA is like until you move in and get familiar with the members, directors and their personalities and politics.

But yes, overly restrictive HOAs are VERY common. That's why HOAs as a whole are a widely hated entity. A good friend of mine bought a beautiful new $75,000 "dually" pickup truck. The HOA had a restriction against "work vehicles" and forbade him to have it. He had to sell it. Another fined owners if grass or weeds in their yards were over 8" tall. When an overnight rain caused some wild onions to shoot up 12 inches, they were fined $75 for violating the 8" rule. I could go on. So many HOA boards get carried away with their "power," it's really appalling.

That's getting off-topic, though. What's impacting our voting here is that effective "no" vote granted to non-voters. That, combined with a couple of "no" votes from old diehard malcontents, effectively blocks the residents from ever passing anything.

 

[quincy]

It's almost impossible to avoid sometimes, especially if you're in suburban or semi-rural subdivision. Very few developers would invest in an unrestricted subdivision, where people could trash the place out, bring in rotten mobile homes, junk cars, etc. But often, you don't really know what an HOA is like until you move in and get familiar with the members, directors and their personalities and politics.

But yes, overly restrictive HOAs are VERY common. That's why HOAs as a whole are a widely hated entity. A good friend of mine bought a beautiful new $75,000 "dually" pickup truck. The HOA had a restriction against "work vehicles" and forbade him to have it. He had to sell it. Another fined owners if grass or weeds in their yards were over 8" tall. When an overnight rain caused some wild onions to shoot up 12 inches, they were fined $75 for violating the 8" rule. I could go on. So many HOA boards get carried away with their "power," it's really appalling.

That's getting off-topic, though. What's impacting our voting here is that effective "no" vote granted to non-voters. That, combined with a couple of "no" votes from old diehard malcontents, effectively blocks the residents from ever passing anything.

I suggest you work with the other residents to get that changed - and you might want to consult with an attorney in your area.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you. I would agree that the section in question refers to property owners who actually voted.

There is a chance that it means something else. Sometimes organizations have members who are non-voting members. While it is not all that likely in this case it still might be why the code was written that way.

Think about it? If only 5 people showed up to vote out of 100 HOA members, you wouldn't want just 4 of them to be able to decide matters for all 100 of them.

 

[Zigner]

There is a chance that it means something else. Sometimes organizations have members who are non-voting members. While it is not all that likely in this case it still might be why the code was written that way.

Think about it? If only 5 people showed up to vote out of 100 HOA members, you wouldn't want just 4 of them to be able to decide matters for all 100 of them.

One would expect that to be defined...yet it's not.

 

[quincy]

The law seems pretty clear but apparently the HOA has added a wrinkle that addresses non-voters. Non-voters are “no” votes.

 

[Osmigo]

The law seems pretty clear but apparently the HOA has added a wrinkle that addresses non-voters. Non-voters are “no” votes.

What the CCRs say in that regard is "2/3 of the votes in the Association" which they (as well as the management company we use) interpret as "2/3 of all eligible votes."

 

[quincy]

What the CCRs say in that regard is "2/3 of the votes in the Association" which they (as well as the management company we use) interpret as "2/3 of all eligible votes."

Oh. Well I think their interpretation is wrong - but they are unlikely to believe that coming from “quincy” on FreeAdvice.

I recommend you have an attorney in your area analyze and then explain the meaning of the wording to them.