Articles

Following on the heels of Halloween, the Community Association Institute (CAI) released the findings of a research study that addressed the issues that pop up in planned communities on that holiday. According to the survey, 93 percent of respondents said their association hasn’t made any changes to its community policies regarding Halloween. However, 86 percent of those surveyed report their association doesn’t have special rules for the spooky day, and 83 percent report their community doesn’t have a policy for neighborhood trick-or-treating.

Facts: An association member complained to the community’s management company on three separate occasions that an unauthorized car was parked in his assigned parking space at the property. The manager told the member to call a towing company, but when the member contacted the company, he was told that an “authorized” representative of the community would have to request that the car be towed. However, the manager refused to call the towing company on the member’s behalf.

Facts: A condominium member suffered injuries after slipping on the sidewalk outside her building. She sued the association and the association’s management company for negligence, alleging that a defective drainage condition and negligent maintenance of the premises where the defective drain led to pooling of water and an unnatural accumulation of ice caused her fall. The trial court ruled in favor of the association and the management company; it said that the Illinois state’s Snow and Ice Removal Act provided immunity to the defendants.

Some of the national conversation and controversy regarding the 2016 presidential election has centered on the integrity of the voting process. Speculation that voting results can be influenced by hacking has been in the media. And whether high-tech interference with the voting process is a reality or an unfounded fear, it’s still worth considering. So is it a good idea to use technology for board elections at your community?

Community Associations Institute (CAI) recommends education and training for the 2.35 million volunteer community association board and committee members nationwide.

There are many rewards for community association managers, who get to see satisfied members enjoying a lifestyle they’ve chosen by buying a home or condominium unit in a planned community. However, there are some risks, like when a member or other party sues an association manager for alleged wrongdoing. The outcome in a recent case where an association manager was accused of involvement in illegal discrimination should give some peace of mind to professional managers though. Here’s why:

Much of the national conversation and controversy regarding the 2016 presidential election has centered on the integrity of the voting process. Speculation that voting results can be influenced by hacking has been in the media. And whether high-tech interference with the voting process is a reality or an unfounded fear, it’s still worth considering. So is it a good idea to use technology for board elections at your community? Most likely, issues like hacking aren’t even on a community association manager’s radar, but making the community run better certainly is.

To encourage member participation in community affairs, many boards permit association members to attend and speak at board meetings, even when the bylaws do not give the members that right. But if a member speaks too long, rambles off topic, or intentionally antagonizes the board or other members, he makes it hard for the meeting to be productive.

Q Some of the economically distressed members in the community I manage have decided to lease their homes to tenants to help cover their expenses. At the same time, the landlord-members seem to have made paying assessments a low priority and may have become delinquent. Can an association collect rent directly from a tenant to pay any delinquent assessments? If so, what is the best way to do this?

Facts: A married couple who owned a home in a planned community sued the homeowners association and its property management company for housing discrimination, negligence, and unfair business practices. They alleged that the overly broad community rules requiring adult supervision effectively prohibited their children from playing outside in the common areas, apart from a small playground onsite at the complex.

Decision: A California trial court ruled in favor of the members.