Enforcement of the CC&Rs for Owners in a Condo Association

Deleted.

 

Yes...kind of. Individual condo associations have their own CC&R's and consequently, they are the first line of enforcement. They fall under Title 10 of the Arizona statutes and have certain obligations and to neglect their duties puts them (the officers) in harms way. It's just one of the reason's some associations struggle to find officers. A good number of the COA's rules and regulations include a provision extending enforcement to SCHOA, however that does not negate their obligation to pursue violations of their CC&R's.

That said, SCHOA has a broader perspective. There was a Condo Association that passed rules they don't have to adhere to the obligation to at least 1 person being 55. While that may have been their wish, it wouldn't hold water. SCHOA's CC&R's were written for the entire community and if a COA willfully broke them or neglected to enforce them, SCHOA would take them to task.

The CC&R's are there to protect the entire community. With a third of the homes being attached and part of their own associations, there are literally two lines of defense against people who think they are above the documents they sign at closing.

Hope that helps.

 

CC&Rs are recorded and "run with the land". They bind all subsequent owners. CC&Rs of a sub association , such as a condo association located in Sun City, could not override the Sun City CC&Rs.

 

Spot on fj. The very idea a COA would even attempt to pre-empt the community standards was offensive. But then if you knew the history of this association and the person who was president it would all make sense.

 

I stand corrected if the article is accurate. There are differences between CC&Rs written for condominium associations and CC&Rs written for HOA's. Primarily in common elements, limited common elements and shared roofs, walls, etc. Condominiums often have more restrictions, while HOAs have fewer restrictions.
If enforcement is left to each association's board there will be inconsistent results.
Doubtful that the CC&Rs vary a great deal between the many condo associations. However over the years the CC&Rs could have been amended or even re-written.
Thank you for forwarding the article.

 

I meant to add that deed restrictions and CC&Rs are not the same thing. For example in a community that has age restrictions those restrictions should be recorded on the deed and "run with the land". Those restrictions could be included in the CC&Rs.
Amending or re-writing the CC&Rs would not negate any deed restrictions.

 

Let me jump in here, and I'll start by saying Tom Wilson as SCHOA is one of the nicest human beings on the face of the earth. However, when this article came out the earlier in the year, I was stunned at the position he took. We've been down this road too many times to become wishy-washy about compliance.

When several of us got elected to the SCHOA board back in 2007, we had 75 cases sitting on the compliance managers desk waiting for something to be done. Residents in the community were screaming at us to do our job and so we went to work. By year's end the entire paid staff had quit and we rebuilt it from the ground up. At the heart of the organization was a simple philosophy. "compliance matters."

We produced a magazine that was distributed to every household, and we targeted example of people who were willfully violating the CC&R's. We even highlighted some businesses who were dragging down community standards. While some felt we were too aggressive. most applauded our efforts. Single home owners were told clean it up or go to court. We cannot fine violator's, but we can assess costs. Owners who had previously ignored us, were brought before the compliance committee and told in no uncertain terms, clean up or pay up.

We had one owner who said that same thing; "it's my property, and you can't tell me what to do," Wrong. We went to court and within minutes the judge awarded SCHOA damages, costs and clean up...which came in at $18,000 plus dollars. We put a lien on the property and every year added a substantial interest charge to what he owed us. The most important thing was he had to come into compliance.

Guess what, every other case settled within months. We weren't playing around and they knew it. During that same period we built a softer side to SCHOA. a fund and committee that helped those who couldn't afford to do to take care of their property, In the coming years an internal process was built to work both the hard side and soft side of the organization.

I don not agree with Tom Wilson. SCHOA has inordinate reach and clout. The problem is to enforce it, they need to spend some money. The COA is an advisory group who can not force anyone to do anything. Condo's fall under Title 33 and the management of them is strictly governed by State laws. They have the right to their own CC&R's, but they do not have the right to willfully break the covenants and conditions of the community.

It's become way too easy for organizations to say "sorry there's nothing we can do. Let me be blunt...bull shoot.

Would one of you who recently purchased a home in Sun City take a look at your facilities agreement and see what if it says anything about the CC&R's. If it doesn't, it should. And to fj's point, the deed restrictions should include provisions tying the new buyer to the adherence of the CC&R's...condo or single family.

 

Two mistakes associations can not afford to make; non enforcement and selective enforcement.
Especially true in age qualified communities.

 

Here you go, right at the top of the agreement:

 

Thanks V. and so we are clear, every home buyer, attached or detached signs one of these.
Can I get an amen to that?

 

Amen :smug:

 

Praise the Lord for that Amen aggie. Now can someone please tell SCHOA, Tom Wilson and their board they have the clout to enforce those CC&R's even for those living in the Condo's.

 

Here's a recent article I found regarding some the the horrendous financial burdens HOAs face when trying to carry out their duties. An organization like SCHOA which only gets a voluntary $20 per year per household would be wiped out with massive legal fees. I think SCHOA knows they have the clout to enforce the CC&Rs but is very cautious in taking every possible measure to cure situations before the court is involved. It would also be nice to see more than the 5-10 people show up for the monthly Board meetings(and that count is being generous).

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2015/09/01/experts-urge-homeowners-get-involved-hoas-prevent-conflicts/71526492/?fb_action_ids=10153619118062682&fb_action_types=og.comments

 

I understand being judicious with the resources of the organization a, what I don't understand is comments like this one made in a newspaper:

"Unfortunately, there is little either SCHOA or COA can do to address those situations. COA is only an advisory group and has no regulatory authority over condos. The same is generally true for SCHOA.
“The general Sun City CC&Rs do not apply to any of the condos,” Mr. Wilson said."

There's a lot of folks who worked their butts off over the last 8 years to get SCHOA on solid footing to start trotting out the lame old argument: "there's nothing we can do" crap. There is and over the years we've gone after those who thought their property was their own personal toilet ad felt it only right their neighbor should suffer through the stench of it along with them.

We cannot let Sun City fall back into that malaise of doing nothing because it's cheaper.

 

One thing that could clear up the confusion is wording of the following on the SCHOA CC & R's overview (http://www.suncityhoa.org/cc-and-r-overview/):
"...For neighbors who live in condominiums, you have CC&Rs for the condo community." This wording makes it seem like they are separate, and one doesn't effect the other.

Which means if "...270 of the current 368 Sun City associations are members of the COA.", there are people in 98 associations that could believe they are not governed by any of this.

 

There's no question SCHOA does an amazing job with what they have to work with. The problem is when statements are made by those in charge, it only fuels the flames of those who think they can do what they please. SCHOA has established it's right to take abusive owners to the wall when need be. I'm not a fan of beating people up with rules, but when owners want to try and ruin the community, step up and take them to task...whatever the cost.

 

Wonder how many of the many condo associations in SC have expired CC&Rs. ?.
CC&Rs generally have an expiration date, they may have wording that would allow an extension.
Governing docs written decades ago could violate Federal Fair Housing Acts.
Lack of enforcement over time could invalidate restrictions.

 

Here's the good news fj: Several years back a good friend of mine was the president of the COA and worked his butt off with condo associations to get their act together and straighten them out. Obviously not all did, and let's face it, some of them are poorly run. Getting officers is tough and when you do, God knows what you are getting.

Things have gotten so bad, many have turned over either the financials or all management to property management companies. While that's helped, it's more costly, and they still have to follow state statutes. Difficult when you consider too many of them have owners who pay no attention.

The COA tries to assist them, but it's an uphill battle. SCHOA periodically gets calls, but tend to try not to get involved. There's been lots of discussion of the two merging, but for the time being, personality problems between them still exist. Too bad, because one organization would be way better for everybody.

 

Often wondered why the RCSC and SCHOA were not one org.

Are your condo CC&Rs permanent or term, if they are term, how many years before they are required to be rewritten?

 

I had coffee yesterday with Ben and we were talking about this thread. I told him of your comment and he said they don't expire, so your anwer would be permanent. Obviously there are other apsects that would need be voted on as changes have been made over the years.

As i understand Title 33, all of those kinds of changes have to be made and done in accordance with said statutue. Who knows how often they get that right?