B
bejo
Guest
North Carolina
In a homeowners assn. a dispute arises over the use of common area. The board goes to its attorney for advice, then charges the attorney's bill to a homeowner as a special assessment. Homeowner refuses to pay. Says it is against public policy in N.C. to pass along attorney fees in this manner as it is an "oppressive" tactic. An anonymous donor pays the special assesssment -- without the homeowner's knowledge or consent. (We believe it to be a ploy by the board to end a controversy without admitting wrongdoing by the board.) Does the homeowner have standing to sue in small claims court for a refund of the money paid (if the assmt. was illegal it should show as a credit on the homeowner's "assessment ledger.") The logic is the money doesn't belong to the assn., so the assn. shouldn't be able to keep money wrongly obtained. It can't be refunded to anonymous. So logically it can only go back to the homeowner to discourage the assn. from continuing this practice. (Wouldn't it be similar to a disputed bill say with the telephone co. An anonymous payment is made. The bill is later found to be invalid. Wouldn't the telephone co. have to refund that money to its customer to whose account the payment is posted.) As you can probably tell, there's a principle here -- to stop oppressive tactics of a board. The only way to do it economically is in small claims court and there one has to sue for money -- not principle. Thanks for any input.
In a homeowners assn. a dispute arises over the use of common area. The board goes to its attorney for advice, then charges the attorney's bill to a homeowner as a special assessment. Homeowner refuses to pay. Says it is against public policy in N.C. to pass along attorney fees in this manner as it is an "oppressive" tactic. An anonymous donor pays the special assesssment -- without the homeowner's knowledge or consent. (We believe it to be a ploy by the board to end a controversy without admitting wrongdoing by the board.) Does the homeowner have standing to sue in small claims court for a refund of the money paid (if the assmt. was illegal it should show as a credit on the homeowner's "assessment ledger.") The logic is the money doesn't belong to the assn., so the assn. shouldn't be able to keep money wrongly obtained. It can't be refunded to anonymous. So logically it can only go back to the homeowner to discourage the assn. from continuing this practice. (Wouldn't it be similar to a disputed bill say with the telephone co. An anonymous payment is made. The bill is later found to be invalid. Wouldn't the telephone co. have to refund that money to its customer to whose account the payment is posted.) As you can probably tell, there's a principle here -- to stop oppressive tactics of a board. The only way to do it economically is in small claims court and there one has to sue for money -- not principle. Thanks for any input.