Applying the Oregon Planned Community Act

The Oregon Planned Community Act (ORS Chapter 94) was adopted in the early 1980s. The Act applies to any subdivision where the owners have collective obligations. Collective obligations include maintaining common property or paying assessments that are used for association operations. A community may be subject to ORS Chapter 94 even if created prior to the adoption of the Act and even if the governing documents make no mention of the statute.

The applicability of the Act depends on the year the community was created, the number of lots, and the total amount of annual assessments. The number of lots and the total amount of annual assessments determine the "class" of the planned community. Class 1 planned communities contain at least 13 lots with at least $10,000 in total annual assessments. Communities with 5-12 lots and at least $1,000 in total annual assessments are Class 2 planned communities. All other subdivisions with collective obligations are considered Class 3 planned communities.

For Class 1 and Class 2 planned communities created prior to 2002, certain provisions of the Act apply to the extend the statute is consistent with the governing documents. Here is a quick way to determine which portions of ORS Chapter 94 apply to your community (if created before 2002): https://calaw.attorney/ors94applicability

Adverse Possession

The doctrine of adverse possession can be found in the Code of Hammurabi, written around 2000 B.C.E. The doctrine was also observed by the ancient Romans. American property law (inherited from the British) recognizes the idea that one property owner can take title to land belonging to someone else. Adverse possession claims frequently arise in community associations. For example, suppose an owner’s lot is adjacent to common property, and over the years the owner gradually builds a flower bed, installs a play structure, and mows the grass several times throughout the year. If this continues for 10 years, the owner may claim adverse possession and take title to part of the common property.

Suppose there are two adjacent parcels. We’ll call them “Redacre” and “Greenacre”:

Now, suppose the owner of Greenacre decides to built a fence. But when the fence is constructed, it’s on Redacre’s property:

After a period of 10 years (and assuming the requirements of adverse possession are met), the owner of Greenacre may take title and ownership of the 20’ strip of land:

In order to establish a claim for adverse possession, the claimant must prove that the use is:

1. Open and Notorious
2. Exclusive
3. Hostile
4. Continuous

Open and notorious means that the claimant has left no doubt in the mind of the true owner of the potential adverse possession claim. The type of use or occupation must be consistent with the nature of the land. For example, planting trees on property that already has shrubs, bushes, and trees, is not open or notorious. That wouldn’t be an obvious adverse use. Limited use of property isn’t open or notorious, either. Occassional hiking or hunting on someone else's land doesn’t meet the requirement.

The next element is exclusive use. This doesn’t mean the claimant must use or occupy the property on a daily basis. Exclusive possession only requires occupancy that is characteristic of exclusive ownership. Building a fence is almost always considered exclusive use. But cattle occasionally breaking through a neighbor’s fence and grazing is not considered exclusive use. Cattle frequently wander onto adjacent parcels of land.

Things get tricky when it comes to proving the “hostile” requirement. Whether possession or use is hostile depends on the mindset of the claimant. In most cases, a mistaken belief of land ownership constitutes hostile. Suppose I purchase property and wrongly assume that my boundary line is 50 feet beyond the true boundary line. I then build a shed within the 50’, all the while believing it’s my land. That mistaken belief satisfies the hostile requirement.

Lastly, my adverse use or possession must be continuous. In most states, continuous means a period of at least 10 years. However, claimants may take advantage of “tacking”. Let’s say John builds a fence on the neighbors property and has satisfied all of the other requirements of adverse possession. After 3 years, John sells to Jill, who after only 1 year, sells to Jack. Using “tacking”, Jack may use the previous 4 years of ownership by John and Jill to meet the 10 year requirement.

Getting title through adverse possession isn’t as simple as declaring you’ve met all the requirements. Title is granted by a court through lawsuit to “quiet title.” In other words, the claimant must prove to a judge that each and every element of adverse possession has been satisfied.

For property owners who think they may be subject to an adverse possession claim, there are couple of options—all of which must be exercised before the 10 year period. First, the true owner may file a claim for trespass. If I notice my neighbor building a fence on my property, they are technically trespassers. Similarly, the true owner may preemptively file a suit to quiet title.

Florida Amends Statute Governing Termination of Condominiums

This year the Florida legislature adopted Senate Bill 1520, governing the termination of condominium associations. You can review the changes here.

Snow Removal in Community Associations

The Portland metro area and central Oregon are covered in snow and ice. As a result, dangerous conditions may exist in common area parking lots, sidewalks, or roadways.  What is the community association’s obligation to clear or remove natural accumulations of snow and ice?

Some states have adopted the “Massachusetts Rule”. This rule states that property owners have no obligation to remove snow or ice from common areas under an association’s control. However, if the association aggravates the natural conditions, there may be liability.  For example, suppose an association shovels snow from a walkway, but fails to put sand or salt on the surface. The walkway is now covered in a sheet of ice and has created an even more dangerous condition.  In that case, there may be liability.

There are dozens of cases in different jurisdictions dealing with a property owner or association’s obligation for snow and ice conditions. For instance, in a number of cases in which an individual slipped and fell on ice or snow while walking on or across a parking lot, the courts, reasoning in general that a defendant was not liable for slip-and-fall accidents on natural accumulations of snow but could be liable for unnatural accumulations or aggravations of natural conditions, held that it was or could be proven that there was liability because the defendant plowed, sanded, or otherwise cleared the snow in a poor manner, or left icy or slushy ruts or tracks in which the plaintiff slipped.

Many court decisions have found that It is unfair to make a landowner or community association absolutely liable for every slip-and-fall accident on snow in a lot, especially as this would require the owner or association to spend the entire winter clearing the lot on pain of losing a liability suit. Moreover, it is equally unfair to require the lot owner or association to shoulder the expense of plowing and replowing the lot during the course of a continuous storm. In this vein, many jurisdictions have ruled that there is no liability for an accident that takes place while a storm is still going on or a reasonable time thereafter, to give the owner a chance to clear out the lot.

Here are the general rules of thumb for community associations:

1. If the Declaration or Bylaws requires the association to plow, shovel, or clear common areas, the association must do so. Many community associations, particularly in central Oregon, are obligated under the governing documents to provide snow removal.  Use a licensed, insured, and bonded contractor to perform those services.

2. In the case where the association has no obligation for snow removal, there is a potential to create liability if the association engages in those activities.

3. If the association has common areas which are generally open to the public, there is typically an obligation to keep those areas clear of snow and ice, regardless of any requirements in the governing documents.

4. If the association has no obligation for snow removal, but decides to provide that service, it should hire a licensed, insured, and bonded contractor.  The removal of snow or ice must result in a safer condition than leaving the natural accumulation on the common areas.

Disclaimer: By reading the information above, you do not become a client of the firm. The information provided above is based on general legal principles, and may not be applicable to you. If you have a legal issue or question, you should speak with an attorney.

Free Speech in Community Associations

Condominium and homeowner associations in Washington and Oregon often deal with free speech issues.  Political signs are perhaps the most common issue. It is commonly misunderstood that owners have a right to display political signs.  Generally, there are no free speech rights in community associations unless granted under the governing documents or state law.  There are a few exceptions, though.

Some states, such as Maryland, have enacted statutes authorizing owners in community associations to display “candidate” signs. (Maryland Code Annotated, Section 11-111.2(c)). The Maryland statute specifically states that community association CC&Rs and rules may not prohibit the display of signs advocating for political candidates.  Illinois has adopted a similar statute. (765 ILCS 605/18.4(h)).

Another exception is the Federal Flag Act. (18 USC 700, et. seq.). The Act prohibits community associations from barring the display of the American flag.  Thus, if the association’s governing documents prohibit flags, that provision in the governing documents is void.

Free speech rights in community associations were given articulate treatment in a New Jersey Supreme Court case. (Committee for a Better Twin Rivers vs. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association, 192 NJ 344 (2007)). While the case is not binding in other jurisdictions, the reasoning and basis for the Court’s decision would likely be followed by most state courts. I’m attaching a copy of the decision to this letter. 

I’ll explain the facts and discuss the outcome: 

Twin Rivers is a planned community consisting of condominiums, townhouses, single family homes and commercial buildings.  The community consists of nearly 10,000 residents. The Twin Rivers Homeowners’s Association is a nonprofit corporation created to oversee the affairs and operations of the community.  Each owner, upon purchasing property in the community, becomes a members of the Association. 

In early 2000, a group of owners formed the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers.  The committee repeatedly placed signs throughout the community, and the Association promptly removed the signs each time.   The Committee filed a lawsuit against the Association to invalidate its rules governing signs on the basis of free speech protection.  The Association’s sign rules prohibited political signs on individual owner’s property and in the common areas of the community. 

The case went through the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and ultimately to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In summary, the Court held that in order to enforce constitutional rights, there must be “state action”. This means that a governmental actor or entity must attempt to curtail an individuals free speech rights in order to trigger enforcement.  Here, the court held that the Association’s enforcement of its sign rules did not constitute “state action” and that the owners’ expressional activities were not unreasonably restricted. 

Emergency Planning in Community Associations

Today, Portland and SW Washington are in a winter storm gridlock.  If you have some free time over the next few days, take a moment to think about emergency preparedness and disaster recovery in your community association. Most importantly, make sure you have your insurance policy information and contact numbers handy at all times.

Here are some resources to review:

www.ready.gov

www.redcross.org/prepare

Here is a Red Cross family emergency planning chart: red-cross-disaster-family-plan

Here's a worksheet for community associations to review and fill out: disaster-plan-outline

Adverse Possession and Community Associations

There are several ways to acquire ownership of land.  The most common form, of course, is by purchase.  A buyer and seller enter into an agreement, and at the closing of the transaction title is conveyed to the new owner. But there’s another way to get land—without an agreement and without consent.  It’s called adverse possession.   

In Nickell v. Southview HOA, the owners purchased a lot in the subdivision in 1989. At the edge of their lot, shrubs and trees marked what they thought was the boundary of their lot. For many years the owners maintained the vegetation and even installed a sprinkler system.  Years later an adjacent owner surveyed their property. The surveyor found that the shrubs and tress maintained by the owners was actually on the HOA’s property.  The Washington Court of Appeals found that the owners had present sufficient evidence to establish a claim of adverse possession.

In a Maryland case, the court also found that owners in a subdivision acquired common property through adverse possession.  The HOA was created in 1959.  Much of the draw to the community was beachfront access.  The HOA common property included the strip of land between the water and the subdivision, and all owners were authorized to use the area.

The lots of most of the beachfront lots were marked and bounded by trees and shrubs. However, after a hurricane most of the vegetation was destroyed.  Several owners then built bulkheads, or retaining walls on the front of their property.  However, the bulkheads were actually constructed on the HOA’s common property.  The court found that the owners had title and ownership of the common property where the bulkheads were built.

Here’s what adverse possession requires:

1. Actual use or possession

2. Open and notorious

3. Exclusive

4. Hostile

5. Continuous

6. At least 10 years

If your association comes across an adverse possession claim, consider your options.  The association may demand removal of a fence or other improvement built on common property. If the owner refuses, the association would file a "quiet title" lawsuit.

The association could possibly enter into an easement agreement with the owner. The owner would be obligated to maintain the area and assume all liability for their use.  Another option is selling the portion of the common property which an owner claims they adversely possess.  These options often required a vote of the entire ownership.

In any event, consult qualified legal counsel to discuss the association's legal rights and options.

The First Amendment and Community Associations

My 15 year old son often argues that I have no authority or control over his right to say what he pleases. His justification is that he has First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. He’s correct that he has First Amendment rights, but he’s wrong that the First Amendment applies in my home. The rights granted under the First Amendment prohibit government interference with free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to religious freedom.  But, you see, I am not the government and therefore not bound by the First Amendment.

For the most part, community associations are not bound by the First Amendment, either. CC&Rs and Bylaws often restrict owners’ rights to display signs, even political signs. In a well-known Pennsylvania case a unit owner wanted to place a “for sale” sign on the window of their condominium. The CC&Rs contained a “no sign” provision which the Association attempted to enforce.  The owner argued that the Association had no right to enforce the prohibition under the First Amendment. The Court held that the condominium is private property and that the Association’s enforcement of its CC&Rs was not state or governmental action. Thus, the First Amendment did not apply.

A few years ago the New Jersey courts decided perhaps the most significant case involving community associations and free speech. Owners at a condominium posted flyers in the common areas, which the Association quickly removed. The owners argued that the Association had no right to remove the flyers under the First Amendment. They also argued that the Association acted more as a municipality, since the community contained approximately 1 square mile of townhouses, single family homes, condominiums and commercial shopping and was home to about 10,000 residents.  That court ruled that "the minor restrictions on plaintiffs' expressional activities are not unreasonable or oppressive...," and that the association's rules didn't violate the freedom of speech and assembly clauses of the state constitution.

Some forms of expression are legislatively allowed regardless of the restrictions in the governing documents.  For example, the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act was adopted in 2005. This federal legislation prohibits homeowner associations from banning the installation or display of the American flag. The Washington Homeowners Association statute incorporates the federal law:

(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of the flag of the United States by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property if the flag is displayed in a manner consistent with federal flag display law, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations, consistent with 4 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., regarding the placement and manner of display of the flag of the United States. (RCW 64.38.030)

In addition, some states mandate that associations grant freedom of expression regardless of the contents of the governing documents. Arizona passed a law that community associations may not prohibit the indoor or outdoor display of a political sign within 45 days of an election and seven days after an election. However, associations may regulate the size and number of political signs as long as their rules aren't more restrictive than city or county ordinances.

Community associations should strike a balance between the restrictions governing the community and owner’s rights to speech and expression.  Here are some things to consider when adopting amendments or rules which may impact freedom of speech or expression:

• Consult state statutes. State law may already provide the maximum restrictions allowed. If the state regulates political signs in community associations, the association's rules must be consistent with state law.

• Review city and county ordinances. If state statutes or court decisions don't allow association regulations to be more restrictive than those imposed by local government officials, the board members must follow the local regulations.

• Don't prohibit political signs without exception. If the association's regulations are reasonable, content neutral and consistently enforced, the board is more likely to avoid expensive litigation and preserve the delicate balance between the community's aesthetic values and individuals' free-speech rights.

• Remind residents of sign rules prior to election season or when they become effective. Use the association newspaper, website, a letter or a community meeting to remind residents of the rules at least 15 to 30 days before signs may first be displayed.

• Don't forcibly remove signs. This should be done only as a last resort.

• Approach enforcement reasonably and in a way that encourages compliance rather than acrimony or litigation. Don't feel compelled to measure the size of everyone's yard signs. If a sign obviously violates the size restrictions, then proceed with enforcement.

Drones in Community Associations

Drones are no longer exclusive to the military.  The prices continue to plummet and the technology has improved to allow even the not-so-tech-savvy consumer to easily pilot the flying devices.  But when drones land on the White House lawn or interfere with firefighting operations, public concern grows.

There are many practical uses for drones. Arial video and imagery are used by construction professionals, farmers, conservationists, and film makers. Most exciting: Amazon has announced that products will be delivered by drone in the near future.

But for many individuals, drones raise safety and privacy concerns. Federal laws impose some expectations and regulations on drone pilots.  For example, the FAA encourages recreational or hobby users to follow certain guidelines:

• Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
• Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
• Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
• Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
• Don't fly near people or stadiums
• Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
• Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

Oregon has adopted legislation governing the use of drones which may be used to regulate the flying of drones. ORS 837.380 allows property owners to sue a drone operator if (1) a drone has flown less than 400 feet above the owner’s property at least once; (2) the property owner has told the drone operator that they do not consent to the drone flying over their property, and; (3) the operator then flies the drone less than 400 feet above the property again. If these three conditions are met, the property owner can seek injunctive relief, “treble damages for any injury to the person or the property,” and attorney fees if the amount of damages is under $10,000.

What can community associations do to limit or regulate drones? The answer is: not much.  Some associations would like an all out ban.  Other associations have taken a more moderate approach, and amended the governing documents to allow the board to adopt rules and regulations which govern the flying of drones within the community.  This allows flexibility as technology changes and unanticipated uses arise. If the use of drones in your community creates a nuisance or violates other owner’s privacy, there may already be tools in your governing documents to handle those types of violations.

Stay tuned for a sample set of rules and regulations governing the use of drones in community associations.

2015 Case Law Review

Lawyers depend on case law to provide advice to homeowner and condominium associations.  While cases in other states are not binding, they often provide guidance to lawyers and board members. The following is a short summary of cases from around the United States involving community associations.

Filmore LLLP v. Unit Owners Association of Centre Pointe Condominium - Washington

The association attempted to adopt a cap on the number of rentals in the community. While the governing documents stated that only a majority of owners were required to vote in favor of the amendment, the Court imposed a higher approval threshold of a supermajority of all owners.

Acorn Ponds Homeowners Association vs. DeBenedittis - New York

Pedestrian filed action against homeowners association and association's snow removal contractor to recover damages for personal injuries pedestrian allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice on property owned by association. The court found that the snow removal contractor did not substantially contribute to the injuries.

Neufairfield Homeowners Association v. Wagner - Illinois

The court in this case determined that two daycare businesses did not create sufficient traffic to violate a use restriction prohibiting frequent commercial traffic in the subdivision.

100 Harborview Drive Condominium Council of Unit Owners v. Clark - Maryland

An owner sued the association after the board refused to provide copies of it’s legal invoices. Under the law, communications between an association and it’s legal counsel are considered privileged. The court denied the owner’s request for copies of those documents.

Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Kapsokefalos - New York

An owner within the community claimed that the association did not have the authority to levy assessments. The Court found that the governing documents provided the authority to levy assessments and that the board had followed the proper procedures to levy and collect monthly assessments.

Arbors at Sugar Creek HOA vs. Jefferson Bank - Missouri

Owners of five lots in 18-lot subdivision brought action against lender that acquired from developer, through foreclosure, the 13 unsold lots and against contractor that agreed to build on the unsold lots seeking, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief relating to management of the subdivision. The court made the following rulings:

1 lender could establish a successor homeowners association for the subdivision;

2 lender did not violate its duty of good faith and fair dealing by amending subdivision's declaration of covenants so as to remove residency requirement for members of association's board;

3 sufficient evidence supported trial court's finding that board acted reasonably and in good faith in approving building plans for one of the unsold lots;

4 lender was not entitled to recover from the lot owners the expenses it incurred to maintain the subdivision; and

5 lot owners could not be held liable to lender for abuse of process or slander of title.

Belleville vs. Malvern Hunt Homeowners Association - Pennsylvania

The developer of the community recorded CC&Rs before starting construction of the homes. During construction, the developer decided that a portion of the community would receive certain services (snow removal, landscaping) and that other portions would not receive those services.  Shortly after that decision, an owner purchased a lot. The developer gave the owner an unrecorded and unsigned amendment to the CC&Rs. The Court held that without recording the amendment, it was not valid or binding on the owner.

Houston v. Wilson Mesa Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc - Colorado

An owner in the community began leasing his home using VRBO (a short-term vacation rental website). The association took the position that frequent short-term rentals violated the commercial use provision in the CC&Rs.  The Court found that even though the owner was making a profit, the rentals merely provided a place for others to eat and sleep—therefore the use was “residential” and not commercial.

Gonon v. Community Management Services, Inc. - Indiana

Law firms or agencies which handle the collection of assessments are subject to the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. In this case, an owner sued the association’s management company for violations of the Act. The Court found that because the owner was not delinquent at the time the association hired the management company, the management company was not subject to the Act.

Walker I Investments, LLC v. Sunpeak Association, Inc. - Utah

In this case the Court found under the state’s nonprofit corporation law, the homeowners association was not obligated to provide an owner with the email addresses or phone numbers of the other owners in the community.

Security Cameras in Community Associations

Much of the case law involving an association’s duty to provide security relies on long standing landlord-tenant laws and cases.  In general, an association has a duty to provide safety and security against foreseeable risks.  There are many cases involving security cameras and community associations.  In one case the court held that an association had a duty to install cameras because of frequent and repeated car break-ins and other criminal behavior in the common area parking lot. Keep in mind that placing security cameras on common property may very well impose or create a duty on the association that may not otherwise exist.  Of course, cameras don’t prevent crimes, they merely record crimes.  But the understanding of the average person assumes that cameras provide some form of actual security.

If the association is aware of repeated criminal acts on common property, it may make sense for the board to install security cameras.  But, there should be actual knowledge—and thus foreseeability—of future acts which a security camera may curtail.

What about signs that say there is surveillance, but there are no actual cameras? The major concern is that owners or guests at the community will see those signs and have a false expectation of safety or security.  In the event a crime occurs on the property, the Association may be exposed to liability if the victim asserts: “I thought there were cameras and video footage may have prevented the incident or allowed the assailant to be identified.”  Generally, it is not prudent to use signage suggesting there are cameras when there are not.

Before making a decision to install security cameras or other security measures, talk with a qualified attorney.

Ventana Partners, LLC v. Lanoue Dev., LLC (Or. App., 2014)

For some interesting reading on a planned community association's authority or ability to convey common property, take a look at Ventana Partners, LLC v. Lanoue Dev., LLC (Or. App., 2014). Especially interesting is the section of the case which reads:

"Common property" includes property "designated in the declaration for transfer to the association." ORS 94.550(7) (2005). Accordingly, ORS 94.665(1) allowed the MOA to transfer common property, even if it had not yet been transferred from the declarant to the association.

Finally, plaintiffs contend that the amendment to the declaration was ineffective to convey title to Lot 1 to LaNoue because "the recorded [amendment to the declaration] was not fully executed" because the signature line for the City of Portland was not filled in. However, a signature from the city is not required on an instrument conveying title to common property under ORS 94.665(1). See ORS 94.665(6) (formal requirements for an instrument conveying common property do not include signature from the city). And, as noted above, the city gave the approval required by the declaration.

Thus, the trial court correctly construed ORS 94.665(1) in accordance with the plain meaning of its text. That provision allowed the MOA to convey the townhouse owners' interests in the common areas in Lot 1 to LaNoue after receiving consent from 80 percent of the townhouse owners.

Click here to read the full case: Ventana Partners, LLC v. Lanoue

How Covenants Are Created

Covenants are promises made by the purchaser of property to do (or not do) something upon the land. The most common form of covenants are CC&Rs: covenants, conditions and restrictions.  Almost always in writing, covenants may attach to the property in several different ways: 1. Deed

When the purchaser of property takes title, it is usually done so through a written and recorded deed.  The deed itself may contain covenants preventing the purchaser from certain activities, like mining for minerals or creating a nuisance affecting adjacent land owners.

2. Declaration

A declaration refers to a "declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions"--the full title of CC&Rs. The declaration subjects multiple lots or parcels in a subdivision or community to the same set of covenants prior to the developer or "declarant" conveying the first lot in the community.  Often, the declaration is incorporated or referenced in the deeds to individual purchasers.  In most states, the recording of the declaration is sufficient without having to incorporate or reference the declaration in each individual deed.

3. Plat

Similar to a declaration, a developer may place covenants on the recorded plat of the community. The plat is a graphical depiction of the lot lines, roads, and common property.  For condominiums, the plat will also show the elevation profile of the units and common elements.  Covenants contained in plats are typically noted in the narrative portion of the plat or referenced on the affected parcels.

Understanding Common Interest Developments

“Common Interest Developments” or “CIDs” is a broad term used to identify condominiums, cooperatives, planned communities, or other housing developments where more than one owner shares in ownership or control of property. Chances are, you or someone you know lives in a CID. In 2006, there were approximately 57 million people living in some form of a CID. While news coverage of CIDS typically focuses on overbearing board members or angry owners, CIDs do offer advantages. Owners often share the expenses of utilities, maintenance and replacement of common property or facilities and in some communities, owners don’t have to worry about maintaining their yards or the exteriors of their homes. Gated communities offer security and high-rise condominiums offer a unique and enjoyable social setting. Most importantly, purchasing property in a CID usually comes with the benefit of knowing that your property value will be maintained.

With the increase of CIDs, most states have adopted laws which govern the operations and creation of these communities. Most states have very specific laws containing the requirements to form and operate a condominium, and there has been an increase in the number of states which have adopted legislation governing planned community developments in which owners own their lot and structure, but have a collective ownership interest in common property such as a recreation center or golf course.

It’s important to know the type of CID in order to know which statute may apply. A condominium is a form of legal ownership (not an architectural style) whereby owners own the “sheetrock inward” of their unit and are joint owners of the remainder of the buildings and structures, often referred to as “common elements.” Condominiums may take the form of a high-rise building, a townhouse style development, or even an office complex.

A cooperative is similar to a condominium, but in a cooperative a corporation holds title to the units and the common areas, and owners or members receive an exclusive occupancy right for his or her unit through a lease agreement.

Planned communities, on the other hand, are developments where individual owners own their land in “fee simple”, but are obligated to pay assessments used for maintaining common property typically owned by the homeowners association.

Both types of CIDs usually have recorded documents which bind the owner to certain obligations and restrictions. These documents are often referred to as “CC&Rs”, an acronym for “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.” This document may restrict owners from painting their homes certain colors, requiring approval by the board prior to building fences or other structures, or prohibiting loud or obnoxious noises or behavior.

Most CIDs also have Bylaws which may or may not be recorded depending on the jurisdiction. The Bylaws contain the provisions on how the CID is to operate, such as how many individuals serve on the board of directors, when and how to hold the annual owners meeting, and the required number of votes in order to approve certain actions. If the CID association is incorporated, which many states now require, the CID will also be governed by its articles of incorporation.

Boards of Directors, with authority from state law or its governing documents, may also adopt rules and regulations. The rules and regulations must be consistent with the other governing documents, and are often used to interpret ambiguous language or set forth procedures for issues like violations of governing documents or failure to pay assessments.

CIDs are typically governed by a board of directors. The board is elected each year by a vote of the entire membership at an annual meeting. Although the board members may volunteer owners in the community, the law requires these board members to exercise “fiduciary duties.” This means that board members must act in the best interests of the association and the membership at all times, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure that common property is maintained, repaired or replaced when needed.

Owners also have obligations to the association. The primary obligation is the payment of regular assessments or “dues.” These assessments are used by the association to purchase and maintain insurance, pay for common area landscaping, maintain recreation facilities, and for professional management of the association.

Most states and governing documents allow the association to place a lien on the property which may be foreclosed upon if an owner fails to pay these assessments. Although foreclosing on an assessment lien may sound harsh, it’s important to remember that when an owner fails to pay his or her assessments, the rest of the owners must make up that difference in order for the association to continue to operate.

Other owner obligations may include avoiding activities that may be a nuisance to other owners, and maintaining their unit or lot so that the aesthetics of the community remain consistent.

Ultimately, the goal of a CID is to foster a community, preserve property values, and create an enjoyable place to live.