Homeowners Association

[quincy]

The FDCPA (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text) prohibits collectors from publicly “shaming” debtors by sharing collection actions with others. See Section 808, Unfair Practices.

The same public shaming principle applies to the publicizing of a homeowner’s delinquent HOA dues.

 

[JackLance]

You are not prohibited by law (possibly) but that does not mean that you are not prohibited in some way under the organization's bylaws. In addition, I would think that many homeowners would find it distasteful that one of the board members thought it was ok to discuss their financial business with other homeowners and might very well vote you off the board at the first opportunity.

Just because you possibly CAN do something, does not mean that you should take the risk of doing it.

I agree just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Our by-laws do not speak to this issue so there is no prohibition of release of any information.

The reason this came up is that our neighborhood for several reasons has an unusual number of vacant homes and homes that are in various states of disrepair. Being well known to be a Board member, being one of the more active Board members, I am constantly being asked about properties from people that flag me down or approach me when they see me outside. I think they have the right to know on top of it not being particularly convenient for them to attend our monthly meetings I tell them for the most part what I remember of the status of these properties.

Our property Manager is very covert and has repeatedly referred to this so-call state law that prohibits not only her but the Board in General from disclosing this information and gets peeved at me for the slightest indiscretions. She actually generates codes so she can refer to these people by this code instead of their names during our meetings. As you all have surmised, I'm a bit more transparent by nature and find this code of silence a bit inhibiting.

 

[quincy]

I agree just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Our by-laws do not speak to this issue so there is no prohibition of release of any information.

The reason this came up is that our neighborhood for several reasons has an unusual number of vacant homes and homes that are in various states of disrepair. Being well known to be a Board member, being one of the more active Board members, I am constantly being asked about properties from people that flag me down or approach me when they see me outside. I think they have the right to know on top of it not being particularly convenient for them to attend our monthly meetings I tell them for the most part what I remember of the status of these properties.

Our property Manager is very covert and has repeatedly referred to this so-call state law that prohibits not only her but the Board in General from disclosing this information and gets peeved at me for the slightest indiscretions. She actually generates codes so she can refer to these people by this code instead of their names during our meetings. As you all have surmised, I'm a bit more transparent by nature and find this code of silence a bit inhibiting.

If what you release about a homeowner’s status is in any way incorrect or false, you can be sued.

 

[Zigner]

As I said, it's best not to gossip. Regardless of what you feel, it's not your job to gossip.

If you feel it's inconvenient for members to attend board meetings, then push for a technology solution, such as live-streaming and/or recording the meetings which can then be published on an association member portal.

 

[adjusterjack]

Let's say that Bob of Bob's Mortgage Lending asks to see Joe's records. The board says "Heck no!". Then, Joe signs a release stating specifically that the board shall release the records to Bob...the board must comply.

Exactly.

But board member Jim can't say to homeowner Joe (or others) that homeowner Mike (without Mike's consent) is delinquent on his dues.

The FDCPA (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text) prohibits collectors from publicly “shaming” debtors by sharing collection actions with others. See Section 808, Unfair Practices.

The FDCPA refers to "debt collectors" and excludes "any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor."

See 803(6)(A) at the link you posted.

The same public shaming principle applies to the publicizing of a homeowner’s delinquent HOA dues.

The public shaming thing is prohibited by the state HOA statute, without the written consent of the homeowner.

Our by-laws do not speak to this issue so there is no prohibition of release of any information.

Your by-laws are trumped by the state's HOA law that we have been discussing.


.

 

[quincy]

If a person in possession of another’s personal financial information cannot keep that information private, they should not be given possession of that information.

 

[JackLance]

If a person in possession of another’s personal financial information cannot keep that information private, they should not be given possession of that information.

The Homeowners are the Association, the Board of Directors are merely elected by the Association to administer HOA affaires. I do not see any wall imaginary or otherwise between the information the BOD is privy too and the Homeowners that make up the Association.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree with everyone else. You really do risk being sued by giving out other people's private information.

 

[zddoodah]

You've elevated nitpicking to an art form.

Now, I expect, you'll argue the point incessantly.

It's not nit picking when what you wrote was unequivocally wrong.

You wrote that the manager "should have said [that] 'revealing any information to other Homeowners that are not on the Board of Directors, about any particular Homeowners standing with the HOA, without the consent of the particular[] homeowner, is against state law."

That's wrong. It's not against the law. The code section you cited contains no prohibition against the release of the information. "[N]ot required to release or allow inspection" is not even close tot he same thing as "revealing any information . . . without . . . consent . . . is against [the] law."

If I have a casual conversation with another member of the Association, I am not prohibited from releasing information I have become privy too through my membership on the Board of Directors. Thank you for this interpretation.

I don't think that was Zddoodah's interpretation and that's certainly not what the statute says.

That's exactly what my interpretation is. The statute says the release of information isn't required except in the specified circumstances. It says nothing at all about the release of information being prohibited or permissible, and we all know that, if it isn't prohibited, then it's allowed. It's certainly possible that the release of information might be prohibited by by-laws, but none of us have read or ever will read the by-laws. And whether it is or isn't a good idea is legally irrelevant.

(l)(1) says except that you MUST release the records if somebody asks and the owner expressly approves it in writing.

Which is the same as saying "you can't release the records without the consent of the homeowner."

Ummm...no, it's not.

 

[quincy]

The Homeowners are the Association, the Board of Directors are merely elected by the Association to administer HOA affaires. I do not see any wall imaginary or otherwise between the information the BOD is privy too and the Homeowners that make up the Association.

I understand.

The bottom line is that it is not smart to discuss with others that which you would not want others discussing about you. Personal information that you are entrusted with should remain private. If someone does not have a legitimate need to know, the information when shared with others becomes gossip and gossip can harm reputations.

 

[Zigner]

I understand.

The bottom line is that it is not smart to discuss with others that which you would not want others discussing about you. Personal information that you are entrusted with should remain private. If someone does not have a legitimate need to know, the information when shared with others becomes gossip and gossip can harm reputations.

I don't think any of us would disagree that it's a dumb idea to share personal information...but plenty of dumb ideas are legal.

 

[Zigner]

Exactly.

But board member Jim can't say to homeowner Joe (or others) that homeowner Mike (without Mike's consent) is delinquent on his dues.

There is no prohibition on it.

The public shaming thing is prohibited by the state HOA statute, without the written consent of the homeowner.

No, it's not.

 

[quincy]

I don't think any of us would disagree that it's a dumb idea to share personal information...but plenty of dumb ideas are legal.

Yes, but dumb ideas can get you sued and you can lose the suit.

Ticking off homeowners by violating their trust is also not the best way to get re-elected to the Board, either.

Running this particular dumb idea by an attorney experienced in HOA laws would be smart.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, but dumb ideas can get you sued and you can lose the suit.

Only if you did something illegal.

Ticking off homeowners by violating their trust is also not the best way to get re-elected to the Board, either.

Running this particular dumb idea by an attorney experienced in HOA laws would be smart.

I agree with both of those statements.

 

[quincy]

Only if you did something illegal ...

Invasion of privacy and defamation come to my mind.