|RE: bylaws/lenders/consensus -bylaws advice||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)|
|Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 13:50 CDT|
Jean Pfleiderer made several good points about keeping your legal issues straight and she is absolutely right. They are a fall back, when consensus or trust fails. A good example of this sort of thing is in our architectural section of our Declarations. We have developed our own process of doing things as far as architectural control and as long as everyone agrees and is happy with that way then things are fine. However, if someone comes in a blows off the process and paints their house bright orange the Declarations give us another option. According to the legal rules, the board must approve all modifications to the house. According to our legal documents the board can hire contractors to undo any unauthorized remodeling work and charge that cost to the owner. Would we ever do this? God I hope not, but we could. What is interesting to me is how few people in our community have actually read the Declarations or have even the slightest clue about what they contain. For our day to day life they are meaningless, and are basically insurance against mass failures of trust or decision making. It really does pay to have that insurance, even if you never use or need it. That's why we paid a whole bunch of money to a very high priced attorney - so we can do what we want to and have our butts covered if somebody comes along who doesn't want to play. We just finished another consultation with another attorney. One of the things he assured us is that we are only legally bound and liable for the things in the Declarations. In his opinion, if we create house rules to the contrary of the Declarations and someone sues us for those rules, we are not liable for anything except what is spelled out in the Declarations. However, in the case of an area where the house rules are in agreement with and refinement of the Declarations, the house rules are valid. For example we have a pretty strict pet policy. The Declarations state that the board may adopt policies on pet ownership. Since the board minutes actually state the adoption of the pet policy, it is a legally binding covenant. There are a large number of processes and situations which are not covered in the Declarations upon which we might be on shaky legal ground to enforce. For example we set up an agreement on the storage and disposal of toxic materials, including burning trash and other such things. This is an example of an area not covered by the Declarations at all, and which may be subject to dispute, although since it is a house rule, and the Declarations clearly give the board the right to create house rules, It may actually be as tight as anything else. In terms of voting, Jean brings up a good point. What is in your Legal docs is going to be what the courts will uphold if there is ever a dispute over a vote. Make your voting majorities 2/3 not 51%. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood (One of the few who read the fine print) Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.