1. Violating Open Meeting Requirements
Board meetings in Oregon (by statute) must be open to the membership. The same is true for Washington condominiums or any community association with open meetings requirements in the governing documents. The purpose of open meeting requirements is to allow the membership to witness the deliberation, discussion, and decision making of the board of directors.
There are exceptions to the open meetings requirements--namely, emergency meetings and executive session. But unless an exception applies, any time a majority of the board convenes and discusses association business, it's likely a "meeting". And if it's a meeting, it requires notice and observation by the membership.
Violating open meeting requirements casts a shadow on board transparency, causes suspicion among the owners, and increasingly, may cause a lawsuit against the association or board of directors.
2. Failing to Renew Incorporation
Most associations are incorporated as nonprofit corporations. In some cases, it's legally required that the association be incorporated. Incorporation may provide a shield against liability for board members and owners.
In a 2010 Alabama case, a homeowners association attempted to enforce its architectural restrictions against an owner who constructed improvements without approval. The Alabama Court of Appeals held that the association could only enforce the governing documents if the association was incorporated.
Georgia dealt with a similar case in 2007, when an association filed suit against an owner for delinquent assessments. The owner claimed that because the association had become administratively dissolved when it filed the suit, the association was prohibited from collecting assessments. During the course of the lawsuit the association filed the appropriate renewal paperwork and was reinstated with the secretary of state. As a result, the court allowed the association to pursue collections.
For Oregon associations, visit www.filinginoregon.com to check on the association's incorporation status.
Washington associations can search here: https://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_advanced.aspx
3. Failing to Enforce Governing Documents
Board members have an obligation to enforce the provisions of the association's CC&Rs and Bylaws. If a board fails to enforce provisions of the governing documents for an extended period of time, many courts will find that the association has "waived" its right to enforce the same or other provisions.
In an Ohio case, an owner built an addition on his property. The association sued the owner, arguing that the additional building violated the CC&Rs. The court said that because the association had allowed other owners to build unapproved additions, the association couldn't require the defendant in this case to remove the building.
Similarly, some governing documents require the association to make architectural decisions within a certain number of days. The association may waive its right to enforce those covenants if it misses the deadline to respond. In a different Ohio case, the association's documents required the board to respond to architectural applications within 30 days. When the owner didn't receive a response, he proceeded with construction. When the association told the owner he could not proceed, the owner sued and prevailed because the association didn't make a decision within the 30 day window.
4. Violating the Fair Housing Act
There are literally hundreds of court cases involving lawsuits against associations for violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Here are some examples:
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association v. Fair Employment and Housing Comm., 121 Cal App 4th 1578 (2004). A married couple suffered from depression and other disorders. The association's governing documents prohibited all animals. The couple bought a small companion dog to accommodate their mental condition and a lawsuit ensued. The association was found liable of discrimination.
Jacobs v. Concord Village Condominium X Association, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4876 (S.D. Fla., 2004). The court found that the defendant condominium association had violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow a physically handicapped resident to install a ramp so that the plaintiff could freely store, access and charge her motorized tricycle in a storage closet in the condominium building.
Sabal Palm Condominiums of Pine Island Ridge Association, Inc. v. Fischer, No. 12-60691-Civ-SCOLA (S.D. Fla. March 19, 2014). A Florida district court ruled that a condominium association violated the Fair Housing Act by its unreasonable delay in granting a request by a physically disabled resident to keep a service dog.
Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Association, No. 13-6434 (6th Cir. July 29, 2014). A Tennessee homeowners association may have violated the Act when it denied owners from constructing an exterior sun room which was designed to accommodate two children with Downs Syndrome.
Board of Directors of Cameron Grove Condominium, II v. State of Maryland Commission on Human Relations, No. 47 (Md. Mar. 28, 2013). A Maryland appeals court ordered a condominium board to pay damages to unit owners who were denied reasonable accommodation of their disabilities.
Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Association, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-1637-Orl-31DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2012). A Florida court found that a condominium association's intrusive search for more information regarding a unit owner's medical condition constituted a denial of his requested accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.
5. Filing Incorrect Liens / Collecting Inconsistent Assessments
May lawsuits involve associations levying assessments which are inconsistent with the governing documents. In a 2004 Texas case, an association's governing documents capped assessments at $50 per month. Nevertheless, the board unilaterally raised assessments to $75 per month. An owner sued the association and the court ordered the association to reimburse the owner for the overpaid assessments, plus pay the owner's attorney fees.
In another case, the owner of a commercial condominium unit in Georgia filed a lawsuit when the association levied assessments against the commercial unit to pay for expenses related exclusively to the residential units. The court's review of the governing documents concluded that the association was prohibited from assessing the commercial unit owners for residential unit expenses.
Make sure you read the assessment provisions of your governing documents carefully, and that all assessments are properly apportioned among the owners!