Colorado Homeowners Association Law Blog

 Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are becoming more common methods for American communications. Sites that were once reserved for college students are now used by parents, grandparents, businesses, and movements to keep in touch and disseminate information. Many homeowners associations and condominium associations have joined the new media revolution, with varying degrees of success.

Facebook and Twitter can allow users to customize who can see information posted. While most association governing documents are matters of public record, if an association wishes to post other information, like meeting minutes or budgets, it may wish to limit access to association members. Any association that intends to make full use of the communications aspects of social media should take care to ensure that the site or page is regularly reviewed to grant access to members.

Earlier in this legislative session, we wrote about proposed new legislation, Colorado H.B. 1278, that was going to create an HOA Ombudsman as a State of Colorado employee. The earlier version of the bill required the Ombudsman to be an advocate for the rights of unit owners in their communities and offer to mediate disputes, but would not purport to give legal advice to any party; act as a clearing house for information concerning the rights and duties of unit owners, declarants, and unit owners’ associations under CCIOA; report suspected violations of the new law or rules of the Division of Real Estate; and report other suspected violations of law to the appropriate authorities.          

The proposed law went through many iterations, but was finally passed on third reading by both the Senate and House last week, and was sent to the Governor’s desk for signing. Assuming that the bill is not vetoed, it will become effective on January 1, 2011. On its journey, the bill was winnowed down to remove the advocacy provisions, and instead of creating an Ombudsman to advocate for everybody, now creates within the Division of Real Estate an HOA Information and Resource Center, the head of which will be the HOA Information Officer.

In today’s tough economic times, many associations are struggling to pay their expenses due to several delinquent homeowner accounts and, oftentimes, overlook the importance of enforcing their covenants.

The board of directors for an association has a fiduciary obligation to ensure that homeowners are complying with the covenants contained in the governing documents. Covenant enforcement does not always require an association to take legal action against its homeowners and there are several cost effective ways of ensuring compliance.

Oftentimes, a simple and courteous letter to the homeowner may suffice. If the letter is ignored, the association’s covenants may permit it to assess fines against homeowners for non-compliance. Before assessing a fine, the association must provide adequate notice to the homeowner and further provide to them an opportunity for a hearing before the board or fining committee to permit the offending homeowner to dispute the violation. If the board or committee is convinced that the violation exists, a fine may then be assessed. If a fine is assessed, it is typically beneficial for an association to continue to work with the homeowner to obtain compliance. It is recommended that the assessment of fines be used as a leveraging tool and not as a means of punishing the homeowners.

Occasionally, a fine and warning letters may not compel a homeowner to comply with the covenants. In this case, it is recommended that the association’s attorney send a demand letter to the homeowner. If the attorney demand letter does not result in the violation being cured a lawsuit, if authorized by the covenants, should be filed against the homeowner requiring them to remedy the violation. The association’s covenants may also permit it to enter a homeowner’s property, cure or remove the violation and assess the expenses incurred to the homeowner. As a part of this lawsuit, the association should request a judgment against the homeowner for all or part of the fines assessed and reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred.

One often overlooked method of enforcing the association’s covenants, particularly if the homeowner is a nuisance, is to institute a judicial foreclosure to remove the homeowner from the community. Of course, this option is only available if the homeowner has unpaid fines and assessment fees.

No matter which manner the association proceeds to enforce its covenants, it is recommended that they pursue so diligently and in a uniform manner to ensure that it is not precluded from enforcing its covenants in the future.

While this may not seem such a big deal to many of our readers, - read: nonlawyers -, HOA lawyers have a very difficult practice. Not only is it important to be well versed in the major areas of the practice, such as Real Estate, Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, Corporation and Non-Profit Corporate Acts, Contracts, Litigation, especially Collections, but also knowledgeable in other areas to seek expert advice to make sure the client receives the best and most accurate information. Examples include laws regarding fair housing, employment, bankruptcy, taxes and other esoteric areas.

With all the new laws being passed directly involving HOA’s (see Mark Payne’s most recent posting) and those affecting HOAs indirectly, it is important to be aware of situations that may have impact how we attorneys offer advice.

Last year Congress passed Public Law 111-22, Title VII –Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, effective May 20, 2009. The law was passed to protect bona fide tenants against immediate evictions by the successor in interest of “any foreclosure on a federally-related mortgage or loan or on any dwelling or residential real property after the date of the enactment [May 20, 2009]…” The law appears to focus on public trustee foreclosures on mortgages covered under federal law. But, because of the inclusion of “…or on any dwelling or residential property after the date of enactment…,” I would interpret the intent of “or” to include all foreclosures on dwellings and residential real property with or without it being a “federally-related mortgage,” - including HOA lien foreclosures as well.

Like the changing of seasons, our legislature has returned, and with it, numerous ideas on how our lives can be better regulated. Over the last several years, we have had several legislators who take a particular interest in the operations of homeowners associations. They have an interest in protecting what, in their minds, are under-represented homeowners.

Along those lines, this year Representatives Ryden and M. Carroll have introduced HB10-1278, which, if passed, will create an HOA ombudsman in the Colorado Division of Real Estate. The HOA ombudsman would be appointed by the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies. The ombudsman would be required to have at least five years of experience working with issues arising under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), or in the operation or management of associations as either an attorney, accountant, a member of an executive board or any combination thereof.

             The Colorado  Supreme Court held that the non-developer owner of a parking space did not receive an unrestricted title that would allow it to sell the space to a third party non-condominium owner B.B. & C. v. Edelweiss Condominium, 218 P.3rd 310 (Colo. 2009)

You will remember from a recent posting that we discussed the new Fannie Mae guidelines, and the anticipated HUD regulations. As noted,  HUD did in fact adopt new temporary regulations that went into effect on December 7, 2009, and remain effective until December 31, 2010, at which time the new permanent HUD regulations will become effective. The new HUD temporary regulations are found in HUD Mortgagee Letter 2009-46 A, and can be found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/mortgagee/files/09_46aml.pdf. The new HUD permanent regulations are found in HUD Mortgagee Letter 2009-46 B, and can be found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/mortgagee/files/09_46bml.pdf. It is important to note that condominium projects under developer control and under construction or being converted have different standards. This posting does not address those standards.

The fallout from our current economic crisis is hitting all of us, sometimes in ways we least expect. While many homeowners are struggling to hold onto their homes, many are faced with the prospect of having to sell. In the present economy, that is difficult enough. However, for those whose homes are condominiums, Fannie Mae has implemented new guidelines that can make it more difficult than previously to complete a sale. HUD has adopted similar new temporary regulations which went into effect on December 7, 2009 and remain effective until December 31. 2010, at which time more restrictive permanent regulations become effective.

In a recently reported appellate court case, Clubhouse at Fairway Pines v. Fairway Pines Estates Owners, 214 P.3d 451 (Colo. App. 2008) the appellate court based on prior court holdings stated that joinder of an indispensable party can be raised for the first time on appeal. The appellate court pointed out a decision in the Colorado Supreme Court that held, “….a court of appeals should, on its own initiative, take steps to protect the absent party, [by ordering joinder of the unnamed party] who of course had no opportunity to plead his interest below [in the trial court]” (cite omitted) at p. 455. The Court of Appeals then reasoned, that if the Court could on its own initiative protect the interest of an absent party, then there should be no reason a party should be foreclosed from raising the same issue on appeal. 

Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 19, Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication, provides for the addition of parties who are necessary for a complete adjudication of all issues. This column does not answer the question of who is an indispensable party necessary for joinder in a lawsuit. The intent is to discuss the timing of when homeowners can be added as indispensable parties during pending litigation. The case cited below does talk about homeowners as indispensable parties, but it does not focus on the factors that make the owners indispensable to the litigation. In fact the law on whether homeowners are necessary parties in homeowner association litigation has the possibility of being radically revised as the Supreme Court has granted review of the case discussed below. 

But we are all just volunteers! We all have regular jobs to do too! They can’t expect us to do everything!

We are surprised by the number of times that we’ve heard these statements from board members when they are being challenged for actions they’ve taken, or decisions they’ve made. However, Colorado law does not make any explicit distinction between board members who are volunteers as compared to board members who receive compensation for serving on the board (such as for other types of non-profit corporations).