ILNews

Courts tend to side with HOAs on disputes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

No one disputes that Country Squire Lakes Community in Jennings County has decayed from a pleasant welcoming place to live into a mess of broken down mobile homes where there is fear of crime.

They disagree if the change is radical enough to excuse homeowners from paying dues and assessments to their homeowners association.

In August, the Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court had erred when it abrogated CSL resident Clarence Ray Meador’s obligation to pay the Country Squire Lakes Community Association Inc. dues that he owed. However it was not a unanimous ruling and Judge Terry Crone dissented, arguing the changes have been “far more radical than a mere ‘lack of recreational facilities.’”

bomberger Bomberger

The decision is not surprising since the courts often rule in favor of homeowners associations on appeal. Scott Tanner, the attorney representing CSL, does not expect that to change despite those times the trial courts have sided with the homeowners.

“I think it’s just because at the trial court level, a sympathetic judge is trying to give somebody a break and the homeowners association says that’s not the law,” he said.

A sad demise

CSL was founded in the 1970s as a gated residential vacation and retirement community on 1,400 acres dotted with woods and lakes. Early on, the community offered residents an array of recreational amenities such as an Olympic-sized swimming pool, tennis courts, playgrounds, beaches and a campground.

Today, the swimming pool has been filled in, the tennis court is rubble, the pavilion was burned down by arsonists and, according to Meador’s attorney John Gay, the main lake is contaminated with raw sewage and is so shallow a boat dock is resting on dry land about 20 feet from the water.

“I suppose if you could get out to (the lake’s water), you could fish on it if you wanted to fish in sewer-infested water,” Gay said.

Financial troubles are at the heart of the demise. The community has changed from owner-occupied to tenant-occupied and an estimated 60 to 65 percent of owners are not paying fees and assessments, leaving a $3 million to $4 million hole in the association’s budget. In addition, a budget shortfall of $450,000 was discovered in 2005, the association borrowed $950,000 in 2008 to repair deteriorating roads, and insurance money for repairing the pool was used for a different purpose.

Fifteen-year resident Meador stopped paying his annual dues and assessments of $375 and asked the trial court abrogate his obligation to pay on the grounds that the association had not maintained the amenities.

Reversing the trial court’s order, the COA agreed with the homeowners association’s claim that the absence of recreational facilities is not such a radical change that would justify the abrogation of a private contractual property covenant.

In court

The courts’ reluctance to rule against homeowners associations comes from its view that the covenant between the association and the property owner is a private contract, said Jon Bomberger, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Therefore the courts are hesitant to interfere with these contracts unless the circumstances have drastically changed and defeated the entire purpose of the association.

Instances of a growing commercial development surrounding a subdivision and limiting access or of a hospital expanding to become a medical center and transforming the nature of the neighborhood are examples of radical changes.

Bomberger leads the real estate practice at the firm’s Fort Wayne office, and he has been the president of his homeowners association for 20 years.

Homeowners associations are commonly established when a developer transfers control of a subdivision over to the residents. The primary purpose of these associations is to take care of the common areas, like the parks and streets in the subdivision, and to maintain the property values.

Even without a radical change, tensions can develop. Homeowners associations are about people and their homes, Bomberger said, so disagreements get personal.

Gay has concerns about these associations, seeing a risk they pose to taxpayers. Specifically, the organization collects fees, which Gay described as a “private tax,” but no one is watching how much money is collected or where the money goes. If the association fails, the taxpayers pick up the tab.

Recently, Jennings County agreed to take over the maintenance of the main road in CSL so school buses and emergency vehicles will have access.

“A lot of government money, taxpayer dollars, have gone into trying to fix that place,” he said.

In the CSL case, the court found the property owners were still in a position to benefit from paying dues and assessments since funds could be used to make payments on the $950,000 loan or to make repairs to a dam.

Moreover, Bomberger pointed out, while the court acknowledged the revenue shortfall and the deterioration of recreational amenities, it concluded that removing homeowners’ obligation to pay the association would not remedy the problems. In a footnote, the court offered potential alternatives that Meador and the CSL could investigate including putting the association in receivership or filing for bankruptcy.

Summing up the COA’s ruling, Tanner said, “You don’t get out of paying dues just because you’re not getting the services you think you should be getting.”

A new law

beller Beller

Homeowners can turn to the courts, but until July 2011, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General had no ability to regulate homeowners associations.

Although complaints from property owners kept the office examining the statutes, little could be done because the nonprofit statute does not include homeowners associations, according to Jennie Beller, assistant deputy director of licensing enforcement and homeowner protection unit.

A new state law enacted in mid-2011 gives the attorney general very narrow authority. The state can bring an action against an association’s board or individual board members when there has been an intentional misappropriation of funds or a board member has used his or her position on the board to commit fraud or a criminal act against the association.

“We don’t want to be involved in the things that we can’t fix like (disputes over) the color of curtains or the acts of day-to-day management,” Beller said. “We’re looking for the instances where there’s actual fraud.”

In August, the attorney general filed the first lawsuit under the new law. The case was filed in Clark Circuit Court against The Harbours Condominiums Association in Jeffersonville. The allegations include board members paying a former manager of the association without verifying the time she spent on the job. Also, a board member is accused of not having a building permit when he combined two units into a large one and then, when he re-separated them, constructing a substandard wall that ran through the middle of the shared kitchen sink.

The Harbours is a particularly egregious situation and Beller said other cases would not have to rise to that level. Even one violation is enough to attract the attorney general office’s attention.

Going forward

Tanner believes the COA ruling will greatly help Country Squire Lakes. In particular, other court actions on delinquent homeowners, many for $1,000 or less, have been on hold, waiting for this decision.

“If we could just get people to pay their dues and assessments like they’re supposed to, a lot of those amenities would come back,” Tanner said.

Gay, meanwhile, is drafting an appeal, although he is not sure if he will try to have the case transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court or ask for a rehearing. In his view, the community has failed to maintain property values and failed to provide recreational facilities.

“It is a mess out there,” he said.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT