UPDATE: If you are fighting a Crime Free Lease Addendum in Arizona that gives your association the right to terminate your lease, the 2014 Arizona Legislature has provided you all the necessary ammunition you'll need. The legislature added ARS 33-1806.01 which provides that "Owner may designate in writing a third party (e.g., residential property manager) to act as the owner’s agent with respect to all Association matters relating to the rental unit, including the official recipient of legal notices." This means that as of 2014, an owner can easily argue before the DFBLS that his/her HOA is attempting to re-interpret the law such that an owner "must" (forcibly, and under the threat of fine or lien) designate the HOA as a third party beneficiary to the lease. This is a clear violation of an owners right as defined in ARS 33-1806.01.
This will be my last post for 2012 so that I can set my frustrations aside and enjoy Christmas and New Years with my beautiful family. Merry Christmas every
Pedro Lopez is quite the anomaly. According to the board, Pedro's term began in February 2010 as the 1 year director per Article 3.2 of the Bylaws. Pedro is allowed to continue serving until he is succeeded by another member of the community, and as the 1 year director, his seat must be renewed at each of the November member meets. Yet in our November 2012 meeting which will be resumed in January 2013 per a reschedule, Pedro was neither required to resubmit a candidacy form, nor did our Management Company or the board acknowledge that his seat is available for re-election.
I asked why the board was suppressing Pedro's succession on October 21st, and again on November 1st. My inquiries would have allowed the board and our Management Company to correct it's assertion that Pedro's seat was not available, but the questions went unanswered.
This week I have asked our Management Company and the board for the third time to correct it's assertion that Pedro's seat is not available. In the coming weeks, they will reveal their answer via the distribution of new candidacy forms. As the 1 year director, I expect to see Pedro draft a candidacy form in order to be re-elected to the board in January 2013.
If this does not occur, I'll be forced to seek answers through the courts, whereby our homeowner fees will be wasted to defend the indefensible - once again padding the pockets of Chander Travis.
There are two extremely frustrating points to this latest violation of our By-laws and CC&Rs by our board:
First, the board, our Management Company, and Chandler Travis believe that they can remain silent and defiant without any repercussion, and they are quite right - when they violate the documents, ultimately a homeowner must seek a costly judgement for which any litigation fees and any civil violations will be paid either through insurance, or by homeowners dues. For rogue board members, there is nothing to be lost by silently defying the community documents, and for Chandler Travis, it is a huge payout.
Second, neither our Management Company or the Association's lawyer holds the board accountable for violating the community documents. Consider what occurs when a homeowner leaves a trashcan out, parks on the sidewalk, or has a slight emergence of weeds after a monsoon storm. In these cases, our Management Company and Chandler make an aggressive and cooperative effort to force the member to correct the violation. How is it that the association's lawyer has no allegiance to the homeowners when the board violates the community documents? Is Chandler a paid representative for the association, or a paid representative of rouge board members? How is it that the Management Company offers no sound advice to a rouge board?
No comments:
Post a Comment