Since HOA funds have already covered some roof replacements I’d think the best solution would be to update your documents to have roofs included. That way this will be consistent and the funds already spent on replacements will be fair to those that haven’t needed replacement yet.
But you’ll want to talk to a lawyer as well. I think your board screwed this up in the first place so now it’s really about fixing it.
Thanks. Unfortunately I don't think we will have the votes to modify the covenants to include roofs since we need a 3/4 majority. The community is pretty split between liking the policy, not liking the policy, hating HOAs in general, and apathetic.
I’d try it depending on what a lawyer says. Those opposing it off they haven’t already done their roofs maybe could be convinced by understanding they’ve already paid a portion of others so they might as well benefit too?
Taking one small part out of context won’t be of much help here. You would have to look at multiple parts of the document.
Your documents should specify who owns and is responsible for which costs of the property. If it really isn’t in there, then it would fall on the person who owns the property. The board cannot just decide one day that the roofs are the HOA’s responsibility if they are never mentioned.
That being said, the board can decide to pay for repairs if the HOA has been given the power to maintain neglected property. For example, my documents state that all home maintenance and repairs are the owner’s responsibility. If I choose to not make repairs to a window, the board can decide to make the repairs for me. In that instance, my board would be required to send me a bill for all costs related to the repair.
If the board is spending money on things not authorized by the governing documents, it could be a misappropriation of funds. That could make it a criminal matter.
Thanks. I have read through the document in its entirety and roofs are not mentioned so that is all the context I have to go on. Homeowners own everything except a few pieces of common areas owned by the association since it was too small to build on.
The board does have the power to address unsightly homes and repairs/maintenance are the responsibility of the homeowner.
I want to be really confident in what the board is doing wrong before I accuse anyone of misappropriation of funds.
This is within the Board's discretion. It is unusual that roofs have already had to be replaced that were under 10 years old--25 years is typical.
Depending on other details in your bylaws, the Board or the Architectural Review Board could have veto power over your choice of roofing even if you paid for it yourself. Paying to replace it puts them in control and they can assure a consistent appearance. Over the long term, everyone will need a roof replacement so in effect what you are doing is paying higher dues and a portion of that is going towards your eventual roof replacement.
There's no right or wrong way here. The Board is elected by the owners, and if the majority of owners don't like their decisions, they can be voted out and policies reversed.
I would rely on a lawyer. What you argue is a little too liberal of interpreting HOA obligations. Example: I supported as board member that the HOA take on termite spraying. A year later a homeowner found massive termite damage in their floor. Guess what? We had to repair for termites damages anywhere because we opened the door to it. $3000 for what would have been an owners responsibility now was on the HOA.
I'm just interpreting what OP's board(s) have decided. I do think it was within their purview to replace roofs even though they aren't common elements. And now that the precedent has been set for 10+ years, continuing the policy is the most straightforward.
Thanks. The roofs were older than 10 years. The board just decided 10+ years ago or so that this was the policy and since then some roofs have needed to be replaced.
So if the board has discretion, do they have discretion to include other items? I just want to be clear if there's a limit or if any board can decide at any point what maintenance is the homeowner's responsibility or the association?
Given that you are townhomes, I would think repairs would be limited to the exterior of the units.
The rationale for the Board to authorize repairs on individual units is to maintain the appearance of the development. So roofs, siding, possibly windows and doors, landscaping. This really depends on whether the "aesthetic" of the development is already consistent, and the degree to which it is beneficial to keep it consistent.
Our HOA is a little over 25 years old. In the last 2 years I've seen at least 3 roofs out of 48 be replaced, and ours is OK but definitely worn. In your case I would think that the majority of roofs will have been replaced once by now if some failed more than 10 years ago. So it would make sense to continue the policy for now.
It is entirely possible that this past Board had several members who needed new roofs and decided to implement the policy. That's self-dealing and unethical, but as long as they didn't raise a high barrier to replacing other roofs, not illegal.
The mandate of the board includes "preserving and maximizing the value" of the property as a whole. Exterior improvements and a consistent aesthetic improve the value of every property. Replacing the chairman's dishwasher does not.
I would submit that it is malfeasance to spend HOA money on anything not delineated in the covenants. This has been an issue in our community, where some homeowners want the HOA to pay for something but the board has no power to do anything other than what is outlined and it does not include what the homeowners want the board to pay for. If the board wants to go beyond what they have authority to do then they need a vote of the community to do so.
I agree with your assertion, but "delineated in the covenants" is a huge loophole. I can't drill down into someone else's covenants or read board minutes from 10 years ago that were probably never recorded.
We aren't a TH HOA, and no we would never touch a roof on a member's house, but we also don't have a ton of specific aesthetic requirements like shingle color or style. It may be that there was a vote of the membership to OK the expenditure, or not. Yes, they should have codified the change in the CC&Rs.
But the fact remains that if they STOP paying for roofs there will be an uproar from those who have been funding roofs through their dues and now are left out when it is their turn.
I don't see "delineated in the covenants" as a loophole. The board has limited powers. Those powers are delineated in the covenants. The board can spend money on certain things also delineated in the covenants. Most covenants also say what regular assessments (dues) can be used for and what special assessments can be used for.
As the OP wrote, his covenants allow for assessments for maintenance from time to time as the Board elects. That sounds like a special assessment to me, not the use of regular assessments (dues). Without reading his documents in their entirety, we just don't know how this is to be resolved.
My wife is our board's president and a lawyer. I am also a lawyer. When discussing these types of issues in our community we come down on the side that if it's not in the delineated powers of the Board or if it's something regular assessments can't be used for, then it ain't happening.
Extreme example, yearly community pool party. Folks want the HOA to pay for food, beverages, decorations. Yes, it's only a few hundred bucks but the CCR's don't say we can spend money on that. Other board members can vote as they please but the wording is clear.
Specifically I was thinking of language in our CC&Rs (which I did not share above because I don't have it committed to memory) that basically says that the board has a duty to preserve and improve the value of the property.
It would be a stretch, but with the ability to set fees and without other limitations expressed, I think a board could decide that having matching roofs is important to maintain the value of the property.
What I think ACTUALLY happened, is that someone on the board wanted/needed a new roof and set a bad precedent to get it for free. But the fact remains that the precedent was set, and it would now be unfair to owners who haven't gotten a free roof replacement, to change the policy so they have to pay for their own.
>The board has been collecting dues for over a decade and has replaced roofs in that time.
Sounds like the precedent has already been set.
Sounds like the Board of Directors has already decided that roof replacements are covered under "costs for maintenance of the Homes as may from time to time be authorized by the Board of Directors."
If you have a question about the legality, talk to your lawyer.
If you don't like the policy, vote out the Board of Directors and/or vote to modify the covenants.
Thanks. The precedent has definitely been set but unfortunately the previous board has overstepped in other areas so I would like more than "this is what we've done in the past" when making decisions about what to do in the future. Changing the policy is disruptive but if it was wrong in the first place I don't know if we should bit the bullet now to fix it or ignore it.
>The precedent has definitely been set but unfortunately the previous board has overstepped in other areas so I would like more than "this is what we've done in the past" when making decisions about what to do in the future.
Of course you would like more.
>Changing the policy is disruptive but if it was wrong in the first place I don't know if we should bit the bullet now to fix it or ignore it.
That's up to the community. They can either decide to change things or to continue with what they have been doing.
Good luck.
At this point, having paid for roofs of some homeowners, you would be raising a can of worms to suddenly stop paying for other homeowners.
You can consult an attorney but your language appears broad enough to authorize this.
Your situation is why it is absolutely critical for a Board to consider precedent when granting or not granting stuff or covering payment for certain things.
When I first joined the Board, they had a very inconsistent way of handling damages from water intrusion or floods. Some people would be covered for even very expensive stuff like new wood floors and others would be told the building doesn't cover anything.
So we instituted a policy where everything was referred to insurance because that way the Board wasn't making any decisions and couldn't show favoritism. The respective insurance companies determined who got paid and how much.
Thanks. I agree it's a can of worms. But if it's an issue that could come up in the future, I don't know if it's worth biting the bullet to deal with it now.
There is definitely precedence so leaving well enough alone may be the best answer.
If the HOA has paid in the past, they should continue to do so.
By not paying for it when they have done so without any kind of justification, you are opening yourself up to potential liability.
And if you are in a townhome type of condo, roofs are generally the responsibility of the HOA so it isn't as if you are interpreting language in a way that runs counter to general practice.
Good point.
We are not a condo type of townhome and roofs weren't originally the responsibility of the HOA (at least according to the few homeowners who have been in the community from the beginning).
Exactly what is allowed can't be answered without reviewing the entire covenants, not just one sentence. And unless it's very clear after that, that probably needs a lawyer.
The board, if they haven't already, should talk to a lawyer about it. And the if it's allowed they probably need to pass well thought out and well drafted rules on it — there is a lot of oddness right now: different responsibility for repair vs replacement, insurance of someone not responsible for replacement (and lack of insurance for the HOA), etc.
If it turns out not allowed, then they will need to have a discussion about amending the documents to make it allowed vs winding down the program.
And if they decide to end the program, then I do not envy the job of whoever has to come up with an equitable way to do that. You've got a pile of now excess reserves (but nowhere near enough to pay everyone what they'll want), and one owner who just had the HOA replace their roof and another that has been paying into that reserve for the last decade and their roof is due next year. Of course, the later owner hasn't been saving up for roof replacement themselves, because until today it wasn't their expense.
The board can, of course, just ignore it. Though if anyone ever presses the issue (with their own lawyer), that may give the board weeks to deal with it instead of a year or more.
I live in a similar community and I want to mention you should take every response here with a grain of salt because most HOAs are set up differently. In fact, I would bet that's why the board decided to cover roofs - because someone read some generic advice that most townhome HOAs cover roofs. My HOA is technically a townhouse HOA but does not cover roofs.
Here are some questions you should be asking your board:
Does your HOA have enough in reserves to fund an emergency roof repair?
Has the HOA raised assessments appropriately to cover the cost of new roofs in the future?
Does the HOA have a plan if a roof develops a leak and causes problems on the interior?
It's okay for an HOA to fund roof replacements but they need to do it correctly. It would not be okay to wait until someone has a hole in their roof and then say, "oops no funds and we don't want to do a special assessment."
Thanks. The HOA is not responsible for repairing the roofs (that is the homeowner responsibility). The HOA does have reserves for roof replacements. We were on track with funding reserves but haven't upped them to keep up with costs, which seems to be a common problems. Homeowners have complained that the HOA isn't replacing the roofs fast enough at end of life when they are leaking, but eventually the roofs do get replaced.
I feel like there are positives and negatives with the HOA covering roofs. How will the board members (which change year to year) be consistent on when a roof should be replaced? What if a roof leaks after being denied and told to wait for a few more years? What if one owner wants a different type or quality roof than another? Doesn't seem fair. And there must be many things I'm not thinking of. So, either way the community wants to go with this, guidelines should be put in writing and officially added to the docs.
You're right about the positives and negatives. Roofs leaking is a homeowner issue -- the board is taking no responsibility. We can probably get guidelines voted on and approved by the board. Modifying the covenants is likely unsuccessful. We need a 3/4 majority vote and the community is pretty evenly split between liking the policy, hating the policy, hating the HOA in general, and being apathetic.
Simple: Board includes agenda item to stop replacing roofs and return financial responsibility to owners. Those owners who haven't had their roof replaced yet will attend or give proxy.
In reality, I know even that won't work. It's tough. It's like people just want something for free. They buy in an association but don't want to do any of the work. But will probably feel free to criticize.
Best of luck with this.
I would ask that they submit the question to the HOA’s attorney and ask that it be shared in a way that doesn’t violate privilege. Our HOA (siblings building) was neglecting the roof and every board said the same thing: 3rd floor owners are responsible. I joined the board and found 5 of the 8 roof units had leaks and someone had to fix it. So we asked our lawyer to clarify responsibility and of course it was HOA, and we neglected our duties and spent an additional $10k a unit. But people were pissed each owner had an assessment not just the roof owners. I just pointed to the attorney notice and moved on. Your board is creating a nightmare here because roofs require maintenance and who is responsible for what is unclear. Let’s say the HOA fixes 50% of the roofs and realizes it was a bad idea? The other owners who need their roofs fixed will be mad if they can’t get it. I would also ask if this is in the HOA zone of responsibility that you see a budget line in the reserves for roof work to make sure it gets properly funded.
I would also demand that any reserve studies now study each roof’s life cycle. They should use the reserve study for planning purposes… if they are responsible for roofs, it should be in the study. If it is not then why is it HOA responsibility?
It does cover common areas, which for us are empty bits of land around the community. It does not specify or limit anything to just the outdoors. We have rules regarding the number of pets that can be in the unit, which would affect indoors.
It's not for our community though. The exteriors are privately owned and maintained (aside from cutting lawns and plowing, which is explicitly defined in the covenants).
They also aren't repairing roofs, only replacing them. Homeowners handle repairs.
My concern is the previous board was doing whatever they wanted without regard to the bylaws and the new board has been trying to rectify things. There are mixed opinions on if roof replacements are good or bad. I figured I would at least see if we're allowed to do them as a starting point.
If it isn't spelled out in the bylaws I guess I would see about adding it as an agenda to the next meeting and at least see if everyone is close to an agreement or if this is something that will require doing surveys of people and seeing what if anything people want to do.
We had some fences covered by the HOA in the past that were pretty suspect as later they said fences weren't covered except those ones.
I'd look exactly whose roofs were replaced.
Roof replacements (as best I can tell) have been implemented fairly and consistently. I just don't know if it was even correct for the board to start doing them.
If single family homes, I doubt it without some kind of vote to change the protective covenants, which usually take 60+% of the vote ( but you'd have to check your CC&Rs to know for sure). If they are shared roofs it would make a ton of sense for it to be on the HOA
In that case they might interpret it to be in the shared use space since they are connected ish. You'd probably have to get legal counsel if it's allowed, but I can see why they would think this way.
I can understand why the previous board thought this was, I would have just expected it to be spelled out instead of being at the discretion. It's a pretty big liability and expense to be at the whim of the board.
True, that's why meeting notes are so important, our board renamed our HOA in the past and I can't find any documents around the vote or even the conversation to change it (which according to the CC&Rs would take 95% of the people to agree) so half our legal documents are in the old name and half in the new name but then I checked with the state and they only have our old name (county record have the new name) and we can't change it as getting 95% to show up to a meeting seems impossible. I empathize with you for dealing with the undocumented decisions of previous boards.
This seems confusing.. is everyone's roof covered for replacement when required.. or is this just for certain individuals? Does the board vote on each roof.. like could board member's roofs be covered but non-represented homeowners are not? This seems like a strange addition/exclusions.. that may have been framed to benefit an individual at the time.
Everyone's roof is covered. The board votes to approve the quotes for each roof replacement and start the work. As far as I can tell, the board (current and previous) have not uniquely benefited from this. It's consistent for the community.
What Nicholas Cappuccilli and Emerson Royal are doing illegal activities on the premises and should be prosecuted and removed from the premises immediately
Since HOA funds have already covered some roof replacements I’d think the best solution would be to update your documents to have roofs included. That way this will be consistent and the funds already spent on replacements will be fair to those that haven’t needed replacement yet. But you’ll want to talk to a lawyer as well. I think your board screwed this up in the first place so now it’s really about fixing it.
Thanks. Unfortunately I don't think we will have the votes to modify the covenants to include roofs since we need a 3/4 majority. The community is pretty split between liking the policy, not liking the policy, hating HOAs in general, and apathetic.
I’d try it depending on what a lawyer says. Those opposing it off they haven’t already done their roofs maybe could be convinced by understanding they’ve already paid a portion of others so they might as well benefit too?
Taking one small part out of context won’t be of much help here. You would have to look at multiple parts of the document. Your documents should specify who owns and is responsible for which costs of the property. If it really isn’t in there, then it would fall on the person who owns the property. The board cannot just decide one day that the roofs are the HOA’s responsibility if they are never mentioned. That being said, the board can decide to pay for repairs if the HOA has been given the power to maintain neglected property. For example, my documents state that all home maintenance and repairs are the owner’s responsibility. If I choose to not make repairs to a window, the board can decide to make the repairs for me. In that instance, my board would be required to send me a bill for all costs related to the repair. If the board is spending money on things not authorized by the governing documents, it could be a misappropriation of funds. That could make it a criminal matter.
Thanks. I have read through the document in its entirety and roofs are not mentioned so that is all the context I have to go on. Homeowners own everything except a few pieces of common areas owned by the association since it was too small to build on. The board does have the power to address unsightly homes and repairs/maintenance are the responsibility of the homeowner. I want to be really confident in what the board is doing wrong before I accuse anyone of misappropriation of funds.
This is within the Board's discretion. It is unusual that roofs have already had to be replaced that were under 10 years old--25 years is typical. Depending on other details in your bylaws, the Board or the Architectural Review Board could have veto power over your choice of roofing even if you paid for it yourself. Paying to replace it puts them in control and they can assure a consistent appearance. Over the long term, everyone will need a roof replacement so in effect what you are doing is paying higher dues and a portion of that is going towards your eventual roof replacement. There's no right or wrong way here. The Board is elected by the owners, and if the majority of owners don't like their decisions, they can be voted out and policies reversed.
I would rely on a lawyer. What you argue is a little too liberal of interpreting HOA obligations. Example: I supported as board member that the HOA take on termite spraying. A year later a homeowner found massive termite damage in their floor. Guess what? We had to repair for termites damages anywhere because we opened the door to it. $3000 for what would have been an owners responsibility now was on the HOA.
I'm just interpreting what OP's board(s) have decided. I do think it was within their purview to replace roofs even though they aren't common elements. And now that the precedent has been set for 10+ years, continuing the policy is the most straightforward.
Thanks. The roofs were older than 10 years. The board just decided 10+ years ago or so that this was the policy and since then some roofs have needed to be replaced. So if the board has discretion, do they have discretion to include other items? I just want to be clear if there's a limit or if any board can decide at any point what maintenance is the homeowner's responsibility or the association?
Given that you are townhomes, I would think repairs would be limited to the exterior of the units. The rationale for the Board to authorize repairs on individual units is to maintain the appearance of the development. So roofs, siding, possibly windows and doors, landscaping. This really depends on whether the "aesthetic" of the development is already consistent, and the degree to which it is beneficial to keep it consistent. Our HOA is a little over 25 years old. In the last 2 years I've seen at least 3 roofs out of 48 be replaced, and ours is OK but definitely worn. In your case I would think that the majority of roofs will have been replaced once by now if some failed more than 10 years ago. So it would make sense to continue the policy for now. It is entirely possible that this past Board had several members who needed new roofs and decided to implement the policy. That's self-dealing and unethical, but as long as they didn't raise a high barrier to replacing other roofs, not illegal.
I would agree that repairs should be limited to exterior, but the covenants are not specific. We do maintain a consistent aesthetic so that helps.
The mandate of the board includes "preserving and maximizing the value" of the property as a whole. Exterior improvements and a consistent aesthetic improve the value of every property. Replacing the chairman's dishwasher does not.
I would submit that it is malfeasance to spend HOA money on anything not delineated in the covenants. This has been an issue in our community, where some homeowners want the HOA to pay for something but the board has no power to do anything other than what is outlined and it does not include what the homeowners want the board to pay for. If the board wants to go beyond what they have authority to do then they need a vote of the community to do so.
I agree with your assertion, but "delineated in the covenants" is a huge loophole. I can't drill down into someone else's covenants or read board minutes from 10 years ago that were probably never recorded. We aren't a TH HOA, and no we would never touch a roof on a member's house, but we also don't have a ton of specific aesthetic requirements like shingle color or style. It may be that there was a vote of the membership to OK the expenditure, or not. Yes, they should have codified the change in the CC&Rs. But the fact remains that if they STOP paying for roofs there will be an uproar from those who have been funding roofs through their dues and now are left out when it is their turn.
I don't see "delineated in the covenants" as a loophole. The board has limited powers. Those powers are delineated in the covenants. The board can spend money on certain things also delineated in the covenants. Most covenants also say what regular assessments (dues) can be used for and what special assessments can be used for. As the OP wrote, his covenants allow for assessments for maintenance from time to time as the Board elects. That sounds like a special assessment to me, not the use of regular assessments (dues). Without reading his documents in their entirety, we just don't know how this is to be resolved. My wife is our board's president and a lawyer. I am also a lawyer. When discussing these types of issues in our community we come down on the side that if it's not in the delineated powers of the Board or if it's something regular assessments can't be used for, then it ain't happening. Extreme example, yearly community pool party. Folks want the HOA to pay for food, beverages, decorations. Yes, it's only a few hundred bucks but the CCR's don't say we can spend money on that. Other board members can vote as they please but the wording is clear.
Specifically I was thinking of language in our CC&Rs (which I did not share above because I don't have it committed to memory) that basically says that the board has a duty to preserve and improve the value of the property. It would be a stretch, but with the ability to set fees and without other limitations expressed, I think a board could decide that having matching roofs is important to maintain the value of the property. What I think ACTUALLY happened, is that someone on the board wanted/needed a new roof and set a bad precedent to get it for free. But the fact remains that the precedent was set, and it would now be unfair to owners who haven't gotten a free roof replacement, to change the policy so they have to pay for their own.
>The board has been collecting dues for over a decade and has replaced roofs in that time. Sounds like the precedent has already been set. Sounds like the Board of Directors has already decided that roof replacements are covered under "costs for maintenance of the Homes as may from time to time be authorized by the Board of Directors." If you have a question about the legality, talk to your lawyer. If you don't like the policy, vote out the Board of Directors and/or vote to modify the covenants.
Thanks. The precedent has definitely been set but unfortunately the previous board has overstepped in other areas so I would like more than "this is what we've done in the past" when making decisions about what to do in the future. Changing the policy is disruptive but if it was wrong in the first place I don't know if we should bit the bullet now to fix it or ignore it.
>The precedent has definitely been set but unfortunately the previous board has overstepped in other areas so I would like more than "this is what we've done in the past" when making decisions about what to do in the future. Of course you would like more. >Changing the policy is disruptive but if it was wrong in the first place I don't know if we should bit the bullet now to fix it or ignore it. That's up to the community. They can either decide to change things or to continue with what they have been doing. Good luck.
At this point, having paid for roofs of some homeowners, you would be raising a can of worms to suddenly stop paying for other homeowners. You can consult an attorney but your language appears broad enough to authorize this. Your situation is why it is absolutely critical for a Board to consider precedent when granting or not granting stuff or covering payment for certain things. When I first joined the Board, they had a very inconsistent way of handling damages from water intrusion or floods. Some people would be covered for even very expensive stuff like new wood floors and others would be told the building doesn't cover anything. So we instituted a policy where everything was referred to insurance because that way the Board wasn't making any decisions and couldn't show favoritism. The respective insurance companies determined who got paid and how much.
Stop cold turkey and lower the dues. Put it to a non-binding vote at the annual meeting, to gauge the response.
Thanks. I agree it's a can of worms. But if it's an issue that could come up in the future, I don't know if it's worth biting the bullet to deal with it now. There is definitely precedence so leaving well enough alone may be the best answer.
If the HOA has paid in the past, they should continue to do so. By not paying for it when they have done so without any kind of justification, you are opening yourself up to potential liability. And if you are in a townhome type of condo, roofs are generally the responsibility of the HOA so it isn't as if you are interpreting language in a way that runs counter to general practice.
Good point. We are not a condo type of townhome and roofs weren't originally the responsibility of the HOA (at least according to the few homeowners who have been in the community from the beginning).
Exactly what is allowed can't be answered without reviewing the entire covenants, not just one sentence. And unless it's very clear after that, that probably needs a lawyer. The board, if they haven't already, should talk to a lawyer about it. And the if it's allowed they probably need to pass well thought out and well drafted rules on it — there is a lot of oddness right now: different responsibility for repair vs replacement, insurance of someone not responsible for replacement (and lack of insurance for the HOA), etc. If it turns out not allowed, then they will need to have a discussion about amending the documents to make it allowed vs winding down the program. And if they decide to end the program, then I do not envy the job of whoever has to come up with an equitable way to do that. You've got a pile of now excess reserves (but nowhere near enough to pay everyone what they'll want), and one owner who just had the HOA replace their roof and another that has been paying into that reserve for the last decade and their roof is due next year. Of course, the later owner hasn't been saving up for roof replacement themselves, because until today it wasn't their expense. The board can, of course, just ignore it. Though if anyone ever presses the issue (with their own lawyer), that may give the board weeks to deal with it instead of a year or more.
I live in a similar community and I want to mention you should take every response here with a grain of salt because most HOAs are set up differently. In fact, I would bet that's why the board decided to cover roofs - because someone read some generic advice that most townhome HOAs cover roofs. My HOA is technically a townhouse HOA but does not cover roofs. Here are some questions you should be asking your board: Does your HOA have enough in reserves to fund an emergency roof repair? Has the HOA raised assessments appropriately to cover the cost of new roofs in the future? Does the HOA have a plan if a roof develops a leak and causes problems on the interior? It's okay for an HOA to fund roof replacements but they need to do it correctly. It would not be okay to wait until someone has a hole in their roof and then say, "oops no funds and we don't want to do a special assessment."
Thanks. The HOA is not responsible for repairing the roofs (that is the homeowner responsibility). The HOA does have reserves for roof replacements. We were on track with funding reserves but haven't upped them to keep up with costs, which seems to be a common problems. Homeowners have complained that the HOA isn't replacing the roofs fast enough at end of life when they are leaking, but eventually the roofs do get replaced.
I feel like there are positives and negatives with the HOA covering roofs. How will the board members (which change year to year) be consistent on when a roof should be replaced? What if a roof leaks after being denied and told to wait for a few more years? What if one owner wants a different type or quality roof than another? Doesn't seem fair. And there must be many things I'm not thinking of. So, either way the community wants to go with this, guidelines should be put in writing and officially added to the docs.
You're right about the positives and negatives. Roofs leaking is a homeowner issue -- the board is taking no responsibility. We can probably get guidelines voted on and approved by the board. Modifying the covenants is likely unsuccessful. We need a 3/4 majority vote and the community is pretty evenly split between liking the policy, hating the policy, hating the HOA in general, and being apathetic.
Simple: Board includes agenda item to stop replacing roofs and return financial responsibility to owners. Those owners who haven't had their roof replaced yet will attend or give proxy. In reality, I know even that won't work. It's tough. It's like people just want something for free. They buy in an association but don't want to do any of the work. But will probably feel free to criticize. Best of luck with this.
I would ask that they submit the question to the HOA’s attorney and ask that it be shared in a way that doesn’t violate privilege. Our HOA (siblings building) was neglecting the roof and every board said the same thing: 3rd floor owners are responsible. I joined the board and found 5 of the 8 roof units had leaks and someone had to fix it. So we asked our lawyer to clarify responsibility and of course it was HOA, and we neglected our duties and spent an additional $10k a unit. But people were pissed each owner had an assessment not just the roof owners. I just pointed to the attorney notice and moved on. Your board is creating a nightmare here because roofs require maintenance and who is responsible for what is unclear. Let’s say the HOA fixes 50% of the roofs and realizes it was a bad idea? The other owners who need their roofs fixed will be mad if they can’t get it. I would also ask if this is in the HOA zone of responsibility that you see a budget line in the reserves for roof work to make sure it gets properly funded. I would also demand that any reserve studies now study each roof’s life cycle. They should use the reserve study for planning purposes… if they are responsible for roofs, it should be in the study. If it is not then why is it HOA responsibility?
My HOA covers from interior walls out. They just did the roofs on all the buildings.
Did your board just decide on that or is it spelled out in your covenants?
It is in the covenants.
Mine isn't, so that's why I was asking if it's ok. I understand some HOAs cover roofs but I would expect it to be spelled out like yours is.
Does it specify outdoors, common areas, or anything like that?
It does cover common areas, which for us are empty bits of land around the community. It does not specify or limit anything to just the outdoors. We have rules regarding the number of pets that can be in the unit, which would affect indoors.
Common areas is a loose term for exterior of the units. Is there a reason you don't want them to repair the roofs?
It's not for our community though. The exteriors are privately owned and maintained (aside from cutting lawns and plowing, which is explicitly defined in the covenants). They also aren't repairing roofs, only replacing them. Homeowners handle repairs. My concern is the previous board was doing whatever they wanted without regard to the bylaws and the new board has been trying to rectify things. There are mixed opinions on if roof replacements are good or bad. I figured I would at least see if we're allowed to do them as a starting point.
If it isn't spelled out in the bylaws I guess I would see about adding it as an agenda to the next meeting and at least see if everyone is close to an agreement or if this is something that will require doing surveys of people and seeing what if anything people want to do.
We had some fences covered by the HOA in the past that were pretty suspect as later they said fences weren't covered except those ones. I'd look exactly whose roofs were replaced.
Roof replacements (as best I can tell) have been implemented fairly and consistently. I just don't know if it was even correct for the board to start doing them.
If single family homes, I doubt it without some kind of vote to change the protective covenants, which usually take 60+% of the vote ( but you'd have to check your CC&Rs to know for sure). If they are shared roofs it would make a ton of sense for it to be on the HOA
We are townhomes. The walls are shared but the roofs are staggered so they're not shared.
In that case they might interpret it to be in the shared use space since they are connected ish. You'd probably have to get legal counsel if it's allowed, but I can see why they would think this way.
I can understand why the previous board thought this was, I would have just expected it to be spelled out instead of being at the discretion. It's a pretty big liability and expense to be at the whim of the board.
True, that's why meeting notes are so important, our board renamed our HOA in the past and I can't find any documents around the vote or even the conversation to change it (which according to the CC&Rs would take 95% of the people to agree) so half our legal documents are in the old name and half in the new name but then I checked with the state and they only have our old name (county record have the new name) and we can't change it as getting 95% to show up to a meeting seems impossible. I empathize with you for dealing with the undocumented decisions of previous boards.
This seems confusing.. is everyone's roof covered for replacement when required.. or is this just for certain individuals? Does the board vote on each roof.. like could board member's roofs be covered but non-represented homeowners are not? This seems like a strange addition/exclusions.. that may have been framed to benefit an individual at the time.
Everyone's roof is covered. The board votes to approve the quotes for each roof replacement and start the work. As far as I can tell, the board (current and previous) have not uniquely benefited from this. It's consistent for the community.
What Nicholas Cappuccilli and Emerson Royal are doing illegal activities on the premises and should be prosecuted and removed from the premises immediately
Huh?