Community Association Institute (CAI) Will Play Whack a Mole in Opposing HOA CAM Accountability in HB 16-1133

HB 16-1133, HOA Manager Professional Responsibility and Disclosure, will be considered in the 2016 legislative session.  It will propose modifications to the HOA Property Manager Licensing Bill and will again surface the obstructive efforts by the Community Association Institute (CAI) in HOA and HOA Community Association Manager (CAMs) Licensing reform: but we hope not.  The Bill will also address problems with DORA administering the law and developing effective CAM operating rules.

Up front in this Bill:  Adds no additional regulation or government reporting requirements,  no new taxpayer contributions, no new fees or burdens to business, does not preclude CAMs from charging any justified fee, and doesn’t interfere with CAM or HOA operations.

In this Bill:  1) direct and definitive statements addressing requirements that CAMs comply with State HOA law and HOA governing documents  2) defines requirements for full disclosure of CAM fees and in particular for HOA Transfer Fees and addresses the problems of excessive fees and duplicate (and triplicate) charging for services already paid for with HOA dues  3) requires CAMs to provide a specifically detailed hardcopy receipt to all payees  4) provides financial relief for the smallest HOA CAMs in reduced fees and educational requirements but still requires they be licensed  6) requires DORA to provide improved transparency and functionality on their web site concerning CAM information and violations.

Opposition from the CAI is expected, again, in the form of empty and non-substantive arguments (just statements and declarations) that contend no changes are needed and all the issues in this proposal are already in the Bill (for whom?).

The CAI will oppose requirements to justify the CAM HOA Transfer Fee and other CAM billings.  This Bill doesn’t limit the amount of any fee or preclude charging any fee but requires meaningfully explaining, justifying, and receipting any fee.  It does begin to rein in the abusive Transfer Fee charged to sellers upon the sale of a home.  Specifically, what other business can bill a home owner and not provide justification based on work performed, not provide a detailed receipt, bill any amount with no questions asked, leave the consumer with no means to contest the bill or its’ amount, no requirement to comply with State restrictions of billing under the law, duplicate bill the home owner (and even triplicate) for services already paid for with HOA dues, and if the home owner doesn’t pay can’t close on their home?   The answer is easy: NONE.  The CAM licensing Bill was supposed to specifically define requirements on justification, legality, and documentation and it did a lame job at it ensuring this questionable CAM billing practices would continue.   The transparency and real disclosure in this Bill will not interfere with any collection of a CAM fee as long as justified and legal.

The fight for financial relief for small CAMs in this Bill was not supported by the CAI in the last legislative session. The cost of a license for small CAMs can equal a year’s income: it’s abusive and burdensome.  Previous misinformation spread was that the goal was to exempt small CAMs from being licensed: not true, never in any proposal but believed by too many.  This Bill provides fairness and relief to small business with reduced fees and educational requirements commensurate with knowledge to legally and competently service small HOAs of 30 or less units.  Educational providers are able to offer small HOA CAM courses at a reduced cost.  Costs for DORA to implement should be covered in the same manner as completed when the total licensing law was implemented.

This Bill also contains specifics on actions and requirements to comply with State law and HOA governing documents that are now ambiguous in the law.  Of importance is the requirement for a CAM to notify the HOA Board if they are in non-compliance with the law, suggest a corrective action, and if the Board continues their actions report the event to DORA.  This documents the event for potential home owner action and also protects the CAM from a complaint that they were complicit.  Will the CAI object to clarification on this issue to make accountability better defined?

HB 16-1133 simply makes the licensing law effective for home owners with no new burdens on business.  It defines accountability, transparency, and fairness that are lacking in the law and required for enforcement.  The objections to improvements in CAM licensing through this Bill will become the CAI’s latest whack-a-mole game in which they float  empty and deflective arguments to slam down any initiative that pops up for real HOA reform and CAM accountability.

Note: the CAI is an organization representing CAMs and HOA legal interests which comprise their membership.

Denver Post Article Again in Error on Construction Defects Issues

"Climate for construction-defects reform in Colorado much changed", Jan 12, 2016
They simply refuse to get input from any HOA home owner's organization


The Denver Post again allows those making millions from HOA Construction Defects (CD) litigation to represent the voice and rights of home owners and distort the debate in CD legislative reform. No input from any recognized HOA home owner’s organizations. Their point person again on home owner’s rights is isolated to none other than the Community Association Institute (CAI). The CAI represents the interests of property managers and HOA lawyers, NOT HOME OWNERS.  If CD legislation is ever be explained in a truthful, balanced, and productive manner it must first get by the CAI smoke screen that is all too pervasive in this issue.  

First, almost all HOAs created in the past 15 years mandate in their Declaration that arbitration vs our court system be used in CD dispute resolution. Of the 8,500+ HOAs in the State most are beyond the statute of limitations to sue over CD. As a percentage or relative number of all HOAs, those that changed their Declaration (at the encouragement of HOA lawyers) is very, very small. Thus precluding HOAs from changing their declaration and infringing upon homeowner’s rights is a weak argument. Furthermore, a recent Colorado court case has ruled HOAs can be prevented from changing their Declaration. The CAI would have the public believe the inability to change the Declaration will have a profound impact on home owner’s rights but the reality is that it would mostly impact the ability of HOA lawyers to promote litigation in our costly court system.

The other issue involves requiring home owners to vote on the approval of the use of their own funds on CD litigation. Currently, any HOA Board at the encouragement of their attorney can spend unlimited HOA funds on litigation without the knowledge or approval of home owners. The CAI opposes this empowerment of home owners as it would effectively reduce litigation.

We at the Colorado HOA Form offer the following CD legislative proposal to mitigate litigation and empower home owners: "HOA home owners are required to be apprised of and vote on the use of HOA funds in all litigation". Why is this so difficult!

Join us for our Colorado Springs HOA Town Hall Meeting, Feb 13, free admission-open to the public

The Colorado HOA Forum will be holding another of its’ HOA Town Hall Meetings, this time in Colorado Springs, CO. The Meeting is open and free to the public and is the only HOA presentation from the home owner’s perspective. The Meeting includes an HOA home buyer’s seminar (9-10 am) followed by an array of HOA topics ending with an extended question and answer session for attendees. Find out about HOA legislation, HOA property manager licensing and responsibilities, HOA Transfer Fees on the sale of homes, and other issues affecting the home owner’s living environment, quality of life, and finances. BROCHURE ON OUR WEB SITE

The Colorado HOA Forum is Colorado’s largest and most effective HOA home owner’s advocacy organization working to improve HOA governance through legislative reform. The Forum is a pro-HOA organization and the only Colorado home owner centric organization with nearly 1,000 members located in 80+ cities/towns throughout the State. It strives to ensure a balance in HOA governance that promotes openness and inclusion in HOA governance, protection of home owner’s rights, and address abusive and costly practices that are costly to HOAs and their home owners.

Questions: contact us at www.coloradohoaforum.com or email coloradohoaforum@gmail.com

Pikes Peak Public Library, Library 21C
1175 Chapel Hills Drive
Room: Venue 21C
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Saturday, February 13, 2016
9 am—12:45 pm
Plenty of free parking
Free to the public

Invited are all home owners, your legislators, HOA property managers, Realtors, the Community Association Institute (CAI), representatives from the State's HOA Office and DORA, and the media

HOA Issues Misunderstood by Legislators

Knowledge of home owner's association (HOA) issues acquired by State legislators continues to be dominated by special interest influence.  HOA laws, recent modifications to such laws, and attempts to legislatively improve upon HOA governance have been primarily written by or killed by special interest groups such as the Community Association Institute (CAI), large property management firms, and/or HOA lawyer groups for decades in Colorado.  None of these groups represents home owner's interests or has any particularly measurable membership from home owners or HOAs.  Thus, the misunderstanding and misinformation on HOA issues in our legislature is problem number one from the home owner's perspective.

Recent HOA issues exemplify the misinformation in our legislature making HOA reform a difficult task.  1) Implementing an out of court binding dispute resolution process for HOA complaints to provide an accessible and affordable venue to resolve most HOA disputes.  This process has been endorsed in a State study, would relieve our court system of case loads, instantly make our State HOA laws effective, and not require costly litigation for very simple HOA problems.  The "big lie" promoted is that the system would cost too much to implement and deny home owners the right to a court case, WRONG.  The process is mostly in place (and paid for) in the State's HOA Office, staffing and related costs would be paid for with HOA registration fees amounting to no more than pennies a "year" per home owner, complaint filing fees would also contribute to cost recovery, and home owners could choose either a court case or the State process.  Our court system would reduce case load and thus taxpayer costs and home owners and HOAs would save on legal costs far exceeding any minor increase in HOA registration fees.  A similar system has been implement for HOA Property Manager (PM) complaints.  2) HOA Transfer Fees cost home owners millions of dollars each year and are not only applied illegally based on State law and FHA/HUD rules but represent duplicate and triplicate charges to home owners and Title companies for services already paid for with HOA dues.  The "big lie" and defense of this fee: kill any effort or open discussion to limit or end the fee without defending it.  3) The HOA PM manager licensing Bill was to address full disclosure of fees charged by property managers: never happened and abuse continues.  Full disclosure has been defined by our legislature, DORA, and special interest to be a one liner in an HOA contract or on home closing documents.  No requirement to provide home owners a detailed receipt of charges or any explanation to justify charges, no need to ensure charges are lawful (just collected), no means to question any fee, and if such fees are not paid by a home owner they can be precluded from selling their home and liens can be placed on their homes.   4)  HOA PM licensing was implemented but look closer and one discovers the rules of conduct are weak and reflect the wants of the very industry to be regulated, the law was used to promote the sales of educational courses for a specific private company (CAI), it lacked specifics requiring compliance with State HOA law, exclusions were placed in the law to benefit large property management firms, time share property managers were excluded, etc.  5)  Legislators have been requested to provide financial and educational requirements relief to the smallest HOA property managers as the cost to get a license for many can be nearly equal to or greater than the annual income from their services.  Such reduced fees are provided to small HOAs in registering.  The "big lie" is that this type of proposal exempts small HOA property managers from licensing and such misinformation has stopped efforts to help small businesses and 6) All State HOA legislation, although comprehensive and mostly clearly definitive, lacks any meaningful process for enforcement other than our costly, litigious, and time consuming court system making enforcement of the most simple home owner's rights a "pay-to-play" legal system.  Thus legislators can brag about their efforts on passing HOA Bills but most are simply ornamental and feel good and will remain so until enforcement is included in such laws.

Legislative apathy and misinformation continues towards HOA Colorado home owners who make up nearly 60% (and growing) of the State's population living in nearly 9,000.  The thousands of complaints and inquiries received by the State's HOA Office and by DORA in the recently implemented HOA PM licensing program exemplify a problem and a problem ignored.  Until our legislators make an attempt to listen to and understand the facts on HOA issues and the flaws in the laws they created (with special interests) the road to HOA reform will be lean for home owners and lucrative for those that have been allowed to write and/or influence laws.

State HOA Office Requires Exposure and Enforcement Authority

Colorado has a State HOA Office but you would never know it.  The Office was created over two years ago with little fanfare and notice to the public.  The original efforts in creating the Office were to provide oversight of HOA communities, some enforcement of HOA laws, and to provide a comprehensive repository of State HOA information.  Unfortunately, the Office was never granted any oversight or enforcement authority thus only serving as an administrative entity.  To date the Office has provided a valuable service to home owners (those who know about it) by posting on its' web site a very comprehensive library of HOA laws and guidelines and educational sources;  conducting community HOA informational meetings; collecting, compiling, and reporting on the status of HOA housing in the State; administering an HOA registration program; and developing an HOA complaint filing system that has catalogued thousands of complaints/inquiries and surfaced major problems in HOA governance and in enforcement of HOA home owner's rights.  Note, the Office can't advise home owners on legal rights, provide legal opinions on the validity of any complaint, get involved in problem resolution, or provide any referrals to legal counsel.

The importance of this Office can be greatly enhanced and justified by granting it enforcement authority through implementing an out of court binding dispute resolution process.  This would allow home owner's complaints currently filed with the Office to be acted upon: vetted for referral to an out of court entity that would hear disputes and render an enforceable decision.  This process would be accessible to all home owners, affordable, efficient, and not require a lawyer on the most simple HOA issues related to non-compliance with the law.  Home owners could still choose to go to court vs using this process.  Currently, HOA laws and HOA governing documents lack enforcement provisions from the home owner's perspective other than our costly, time consuming, and litigious court system.  This process could be managed by the State HOA Office with no cost to taxpayers: paid for with HOA registration fees and/or complaint filing fees.  Note, much of the infrastructure such as staffing, a web site, complaint filing and review are already in place and paid for via HOA registration fees.  DORA, the State Agency that would implement this system,  already has similar systems in place for HOA  property manager complaints and other regulated professions making implementation familiar territory for DORA.  A State Study has been completed and supports the implementation of an out of court binding dispute resolution process and only awaits legislative sponsorship of a Bill to implement.  Empowering the Office with enforcement authority would immediately make our current HOA laws and HOA governing documents that are ineffective from the home owner's perspective highly effective.

Questionable HOA Fees Costing Home Owners Millions

If you closed on a home in an HOA you most likely noticed a few line items that are, well, just there.  Ask for an explanation of the fee and your Realtor in many cases has no idea what it is for, how the fee was determined, or who is charging and retaining it.  Worse yet you get no receipt or detailed invoice but are simply instructed to pay it or the home sale will not be completed.  Then there is another fee home owners pay and have no particular details about it: a Document Processing Fee.  You might be told it is a cost incurred by the Title company to provide the buyer documents about the HOA.  Still no receipt on who "really" receives the fee and what work was completed to earn it.  This practice robotically continues on tens of thousands of home sales each year not because it is all legal or mandated but "because it can" and our legislators dodge the issue at the cost of millions to home owners
.
The first fee is an HOA Transfer fee retained by and amount determined by the HOA Property Manager (Community Association Manager (CAM)).  The HOA doesn't require it and in most cases has no idea about this fee.  The fee is in actuality a "double" billing for services already paid for by the home owner via their HOA dues to the CAM: issuing a final bill (Status Letter) to the home owner showing any outstanding/delinquent dues or other obligations: providing copies of HOA governing documents (mostly in electronic form); and charges to change names on administrative records.  The fee is actually illegal based on State law, SB 11-234.  The law states this fee can only be charged to recover unreimbursed expenses by a CAM in the sale of a home.  Thus, why are home owners paying on average $300-350 in Transfer Fees when all the "justification" (based on work performed) for the fee has already been paid for by the home owner?

The Document Processing Fee, charged by the Title Company, makes some sense as it is charged to mostly cover the costs of acquiring from the CAM and providing to the home owner the Status Letter and governing documents.  Title Companies must register this process and fee with the State.  In some cases the CAM charges the Title Company a fee thus hitting the "trifecta" by being paid three times for the same services.

The Colorado legislature, along with the consent of DORA (Dept of Regulatory Agencies), passed a CAM licensing law and HB, 1254 Disclosure of Fees, to rein in this abusive fee.  The sponsors of both laws (highly influenced by CAM lobbyist) and DORA in writing licensing rules avoided requiring CAMs to justify the Transfer Fee.  No requirement to identify exactly what the unreimbursed costs related to the sale of a home were that justified the fee; did not require CAMs to document their services justifying the fee by other than a one liner on a home closing statement with amount; did not provide home owners a means to dispute the cost; allowed for unlimited amounts in the fee to over $1,000 without any means for home owners to contest; and didn't address the deceptive practice of CAMs duplicate and triplicate billing home owners.  In summary, home owners to continue to pay, CAMs continue to be enriched, and our legislators will again be asked to pass legislation to require legal justification of the fee and to limit the amount.

If you paid an HOA Transfer Fee the Colorado HOA Forum wants to know

If you recently sold your home in an HOA and paid an HOA Transfer Fee or Status Letter charge the Colorado HOA Forum wants to know.  The fee is charged to HOA home owners, condominium and time share owners, and mobile home park residents on the sale of their homes.  The fee is NOT assessed, retained, or amount determined by the HOA but by the property management company (PM).  Home owners are normally first apprised of the fee at home closing, provided no receipt or justification, amounts range from zero to over $1,000 with no relationship to work performed, and if you don't pay the fee your home sale will be stalled.  The fee is not required by law or to be part of the home closing.  These fees cost Colorado HOA home owners upwards of $10 million a year. 

The fee is assessed illegally!  SB 11-234 makes the transfer fee illegal unless it pertains to extraordinary costs incurred by a PM in the sale of the home.  The transfer fee is "supposedly" charged to reimburse PM's for costs in producing a final home owner's "status of financial standing" with the HOA.  Note, this is mostly no more than a final billing that is computer generated taking all of five minutes i.e. routine work.  Any justified status letter/transfer fee charges should not include services already paid via HOA dues including producing a statement as to financial obligations of the home owner with the HOA, researching any liens on the property, inspection of the property's condition, producing copies of official HOA documents (that are normally free upon request or involve only a minor fee by the HOA), or for administrative costs such as changing names in records, issuing new card keys or gate remote controls, or updating billing systems (this is all routine, paid for with HOA dues and no different than work required when residents marry, divorce, upon a death that don't result in additional charges to the home owner).  Thus, any transfer fee/status letter charge should be fully documented, involve only extraordinary and unreimbursed costs incurred by the PM, and not involve any charges for work already paid for by the home owner with HOA dues.

The new HOA property manager licensing law also precludes PM's from duplicative billing for services, unreasonable and excessive billing for services, and not fully disclosing and documenting work performed.  PM's in non-compliance can have their licenses revoked.  Additionally, transfer fees as discussed in this article are not allowed when they involve an FHA/HUD loan.

The Colorado HOA Forum wants to hear from anyone who sold their home in an HOA and paid a transfer fee or status letter charge.  Contact them at coloradohoaforum@gmail.com .  Home owners may be eligible for a refund in part or in full as part of an individual claim or class action suit.

Colorado HOA Forum Issues "HOA Manager Complaint Guide"

The Colorado HOA Forum has made available on its' web site a DRAFT copy of its' HOA Property Manager Complaint Guide for use by home owners who want to file a complaint against an HOA property management company under the new Community Association Manager (CAM) Licensing Law.  The Guide will make it easier to complete the State's on-line complaint form and also will help home owners write the justification for the complaint using references to State HOA laws.  For example, if a home owner is denied access to HOA records, has issues with the way meetings and elections are conducted, if their HOA is in total disrepair, or if the HOA is charging home buyers/sellers an HOA Transfer Fee they can file a complaint with the State Office (DORA).  The Guide provides legal references that can justify these issues as a violation of law requiring disciplinary action by the State.


The Forum understands this Guide is an ongoing process to develop additional legal references to support a laundry list of home owner complaints.  It has submitted a list of changes to DORA concerning changes to the on-line complaint process and to add additional features such as allowing complaints and documentation to be submitted via email and U.S. mail and a process to track and give feedback to home owners about filed complaints.


The Colorado HOA Forum also is available to help home owners on filing their complaints by filling a contact form on their web site:   www.coloradohoaforum.com .

HOA Foreclosures Allow for Selling Your Home for Pennies on the Dollar

Homeowner's Association (HOA) legislative reform has proven to be extremely difficult in Colorado. Whether the recent HOA manager licensing law, HOA debt collection policy, limiting HOA Transfer Fees, or requiring the justification of HOA fees the result has been watered downed or "killed" Bills by interest groups such as the Community Association Institute (CAI) to the detriment of home owners.


Possibly one HOA issue can gain success in our legislature with support from home owner's groups and the CAI: HOA foreclosure reform.   The abusive and not uncommon practice of HOA's foreclosing on properties for pennies on the dollar is financially devastating to home owners and financial institutions. Too often HOA's foreclose on a property and questionably, but legally, sell the home to speculators, investors, and sometimes privileged parties for a fraction of the home's value to gain payment of HOA debt. The buyer pays off all liens and obligations encumbered on the property, gains title to the property free and clear, and can then proceed to sell the home for fair market value. No requirement to for the HOA to pursue or accept fair market value offers. No net proceeds on the sale go to the bank to mitigate the loss on the defaulted loan nor will any proceeds be used to pay down the home owner's mortgage balance. Too often these foreclosures turn into absentee landlord rentals to the detriment of the community. All this courtesy of Colorado's HOA "super lien" law.


Nevada has recently addressed this problem with legislation. Basically, when an HOA sells, for example, a $400,000 home for $25,000, the mortgage company will have a 60 day period after the sale to intervene and pay off all previous liens, reimburse the purchaser of the property for the sales price plus identified costs incurred. Home ownership would be reverted back to the mortgage company and placed on the market for sale at or near its' fair market value. The net proceeds from the sale would reduce the outstanding mortgage balanced owed by the home owner, reduce the banks losses, and most likely result in a full-time home owner in the community. Thus the practice and incentive of foreclosing/selling HOA homes for pennies on the dollar is mitigated.


Colorado has an HOA "super lien" law promoting this predatory practice. In general, the law allows HOA's to foreclose on homes ahead of first-mortgage providers, giving HOA assessments “super-lien” status that extinguishes first deeds of trust upon foreclosure. Thus if the HOA lien is not paid and HOA foreclosure is completed the buyer is free and clear of any mortgage obligation. HOA legislative reform similar to the Nevada law would address this abusive practice. The Colorado HOA Forum, www.coloradohoaforum.com, will be asking our legislators to sponsor a Bill similar to the Nevada legislation to mitigate this abusive and destructive foreclosure practice

HOA Manager Licensing: Heavy on Fees Lite on Consumer Protections

The HOA Manager licensing law goes into effect July 1.  Expect little reform for HOA home owners.  Property managers (PM) will be greeted with new fees, higher operating costs, and costly licensing requirements.  This Law illustrates what happens when the industry trade group for PMs (Community Association Institute (CAI)) writes the law and uses it to promote its’ financial interests.

The law increases PM business insurance costs, requires recurring license renewal and educational costs, imposes new background check and testing fees and for those who want to avoid State educational requirements and testing they will incur CAI membership, educational, testing and seminar costs. These costs have already resulted in PMs that serve smaller (less than 25 homes) HOAs to go out of business.

The fees, business costs and government involvement would be more tolerable if the law accomplished its’ intended goal of consumer protection.  However, the law is vague on the most simple demands and accountability for property managers: 1) there are no direct statements mandating PMs comply with all State laws and an HOA’s governing documents 2) no direct statements that require PMs to advise an HOA when they observe non-compliance with the law or to report to DORA when such advice has been ignored and violations continue  3)  no direct statements that hold PMs accountable when they carry out requested actions of a Board that are in non-compliance with the law or an HOAs governing documents  4) no mandates for PMs to provide home owners with a detailed explanation or legal justification of fees and assessments (such as the HOA Transfer Fee) they independently impose and retain and 5) no requirement to explain and justify in detail all PM fees in their contracts with the HOA.  Repeated requests to DORA (Department of Regulatory Services) and legislators from Colorado’s largest HOA home owner’s group, Colorado HOA Forum, to include these simple specifics have been rejected making reform and enforcement for home owners very difficult.  Legislators also refused to include in the Law assistance to smaller HOA PMs by reducing their licensing costs and requirements.     

Licensing also witnessed an unprecedented and disturbing legislative act.  The Law contains language directly promoting a private entity’s (CAI) sales products and educational courses.  It also allows the industry that is to be regulated (CAI) to develop and complete State educational, testing, and credentialing requirements none of which have been officially reviewed or approved by the State.

Then there is the missing legislative mandate in licensing rules to address meaningful “full disclosure” of all fees and assessments on home owners by PMs.  Specifically, the HOA Transfer Fee that cost HOA home owners millions each year will continue without any limits or justification.  DORA decided a one-liner on home closing documents with no receipt and/or detail of charges is “full disclosure” of this fee. 

Legislation/licensing that is crafted by the interest group to be regulated should be disconcerting to home owners and businesses.  The CAI has dominated the PM industry and HOA legislation in Colorado for decades.  Their influence and leadership has led to the need for licensing and reform.  July 1, 2015 was to be a good beginning on reforming the abuses in the PM industry but HOA home owners will sadly see little change.

Colorado HOA Form: an HOA Home Owner Advocacy Organization

 

Colorado HOA Manager Licensing Program Flawed

"HOA Exams Prove Tough", Denver Post May 17

HOA Exam Difficulty Related to DORA Incompetence

Exams based on educational requirements would not have this failure rate.  The educational courses promoted on the DORA web site and in State licensing legislation, HB 1277, have never been reviewed for content and relevance to the State exam. In fact the courses offered by the Community Association Institute (CAI), that represents the property management industry and makes a lucrative business by selling educational courses, got DORA and State legislatures to promote their courses (highly inappropriate) even before the final rules of conduct, requirements, and test exams were completed.  Property manager candidates believe endorsement indicated the proper study material.  Further, DORA has never completed an official review of CAI courses (that most candidates purchase to fulfill their educational requirements and acquire exam related knowledge) to ensure new HOA laws are even included in CAI material.

 

In our most recent legislative session a few legislators put together a successful Bill, HB 1343, to supposedly "streamline" and fix" the licensing process even though no known problems have been reported and no experience officially existed in the program (it is not effective until July 1, 2015).  The Bill was created with direct involvement of the CAI and DORA and once again it promoted only CAI courses that have never been officially approved for Colorado State testing relevance, it included licensing exemptions for executive types that surely need the training, and didn't "streamline or fix" any known problems officially reported by DORA with the educational courses or testing program. 

The actions by DORA and our legislators have resulted in property managers spending their time and money taking courses that doom them to failure in the exam and will drive many out of business.  The program has turned more into a fees collection and test taking initiative than a law about consumer protection and promoting competency and accountability in the industry.  Until DORA completes an official review and approval of course material that ensures educational material is relevant to testing the licensing program should be put on hold.   

HOA Bill Should be Downright Embarrassing to Colorado Legislators

HB 15-1343 was crafted to "fix and streamline" the HOA property manager licensing law" that will begin full implementation July 1, 2015.  To date, the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) that is responsible for implementing the law has reported no problems to be fixed, no problems with available financial resources to support the program, no lack educational course providers, no problems with their ability to develop exams and conduct testing and grading, nor has DORA reported that the program is too burdensome on business.  DORA has not completed one status report on the results of implementing the licensing law.  DORA's responsibility is to get the program up and running and comply with the law (not  make the law). 
Arrive the special interests.  The same special interests (Community Association Institute (CAI)) that represent the industry to be regulated.  This interest group basically wrote the licensing law and rules and even got legislators to insert verbiage into the law to promote their lucrative business of selling property manager classes.  It appears they have even influenced DORA to avoid a legislative directive to make licensing rules that include full disclosure of all property manager fees and assessments levied against home owners. 
Now the CAI working with legislators and DORA manages to get this Bill proposed as a "streamline and fix" to the licensing law based upon no experience with the program and no reported problems and even before the program is fully implemented.  They further convinced legislators and DORA to again promote the selling of specific CAI courses in this Bill and to allow anyone who pays for and takes CAI courses to avoid State testing mandates. 
This Bill should be downright embarrassing to the sponsors of the Bill and any legislator who votes for it.  To date the licensing program is heavy on fees and mandates on businesses and lite on the intended purpose of the law which is to address abusive industry practices and consumer protections.  Is it any wonder why citizens don't trust or participate in government. 

CAM Licensing Hearings Fall Short For HOA Home Owners

The final public hearings on developing rules under the Community Association Manager (CAM) licensing program surfaced little in the way of new recommendations but plenty on weaknesses in home owner protections.  The rules were absent of details that are the foundation for home owners to bring complaints against abusive practices:

a.  No specific rule that CAMs must comply with HOA governing documents or State law.

b.  No rule requiring  CAMs to take action when they observe an HOA Board in non-compliance with their own governing documents or State law.

c.  Disclosure requirements on CAM fees imposed no new requirements.  DORA was supposed to address disclosure on the costly and controversial HOA home sale Transfer Fee.  Disclosure will only require a one line statement in a CAM contract and/or on home sale closing documents; no requirement to explain or document the fee to the home seller or to provide a hard copy invoice detailing (disclosing) services performed for the fee; no mention that the fee can only be for expenses incurred by the CAM in relation to the home sale for which they have not already been paid.

d.  The issue of reduced fees and educational requirements for the smallest of HOAs (20 or less units) was ignored.

A Bill will be submitted this legislative session to make changes to the licensing law.  The above shortcomings were requested for inclusion.  Unless these items are resolved the licensing law could end up being another HOA law that appears to help home owners but has little enforcement capability from the home owner’s perspective. 

Construction Defects Legislation: home owners await final version, changes required!

To date, the Colorado HOA Forum, Colorado's largest HOA home owner advocacy organization,  has mostly commented on the Colorado Construction Defects Bill, SB 15-177, by refuting empty contentions from the opposition.  We favor the Bill in principle as it could provide protections and empowerment for home owners in the use of their funds for litigation.  This Bill is still in the development stage and our FINAL approval must await the FINAL Bill.

 

It appears the primary purpose of this Bill was to mitigate the number of construction defects law suits and to provide for an environment to promote the building of affordable housing.  This is to be accomplished by changing State HOA law and further defining the rights of home owners and authority of HOA Boards.  Our recommendations, listed below, have been submitted to the Bill's sponsors and Legislative Committees that will review the Bill. Our final support for this bill will be determined by the inclusion/exclusion of our recommendations.

 

1.  This Bill will modify State HOA Law and thus should not limit the requirement for home owner approval on the use of HOA funds in litigation and/or approving legal action to only construction defects litigation but all litigation/court cases.  This will provide home owners with broader protections against using HOA funds on costly litigation without their knowledge or approval and still accomplish the intended purpose of reducing the number of law suits.

 

2.  The process to gain home owner approval through voting on the use of HOA funds in litigation and/or to pursue litigation must include a process of voting similar to that used by the HOA for other referendums and  this includes the right to proxy vote.  Without the use of proxies those not capable of attending a meeting in person to vote on litigation will have their rights violated as described in their HOA governing documents.  The specific groups to be harmed by precluding proxy votes are the disabled, seniors, and in particular military personnel (who quite often are deployed and not available for in person voting.  Additionally, proxy voting precludes using scheduling as a means to control the outcome of a vote whereby a date/time is chosen to conduct the in person vote when most can't attend.  Thus gaining a majority outcome, pro or con, is highly unlikely; this is an anti-home owner practice. We also find no precedence in HOA law to exclude proxy voting.

 

3.  It should be clear in the Bill that both plaintiff and defendant must agree upon the arbiter.

 

4.  A clause indicating that any sole home owner can pursue litigation using their own funds to bring a law suit in their behalf.

 

5.  Defined procedures to give both developer and home owner opportunities to resolve the construction defects issue prior to proceeding to litigation.

 

6.  The Bill indicates that a vote of home owners can't negate/remove the mandate in the original Declaration to use arbitration for construction defects litigation.  Although this is problematic as it limits the right of home owners to change the governing documents it also can serve to keep costly litigation out of the time consuming and costly court system.  There is no evidence that such clauses are changed in significant numbers so the impact of this mandate may be more insightful than have any real impact.  Also, home buyers are made aware of this restriction when they purchase the home like any other HOA restriction.

Colorado Construction Defects, SB 15-177: "protect the home owner" opposition in question

Let's be honest by acknowledging that any proposal on Construction Defects legal reform will not be ideal for either home owner or developer.  The high costs of unrestrained litigation, all fully funded on the backs of home owners without their knowledge or approval, simply needs change. Too often HOAs have their reserve funds depleted for legal costs and too often home owners are left with costly special assessments to pay for legal fees.  Then there is the argument by contractors that the proliferation and high cost of litigation associated with and instigated by HOA's thwarts the building of affordable housing. The system is broken, let's progress towards fixing it.

 

The predictable opposition to the Bill is from the Community Association Institute (CAI) and HOA trial lawyers.  They enjoy the current legal environment that results in a plethora of HOA court cases and unlimited funding of these cases through HOA bank accounts (and all without any involvement, knowledge, or approval of home owners).  The other opposition also comes from legislators on the "protect the home owner" band wagon. Their arguments are simply not consistent with their legislative actions.  Those legislators opposing SB 15-177 under the guise they want to "protect HOA home owners" have continually refused to support or sponsor Bills that would save home owners money, make current ineffective HOA laws effective, and improve HOA governance.  This legislative session they were asked to sponsor legislation to allow for an out of court binding dispute resolution process that would empower home owners in enforcing HOA laws with an affordable, expeditious, and accessible venue to resolve disputes (a process recommended in a State HOA Study);  end the abusive, excessive, and illegal HOA Transfer fee on home sales that costs home owners millions of dollars each year; to limit the excessive collection of fees and lawyer assessments on HOA debt; and most recently provide financial relief to small HOAs in the property manager licensing program.  It is difficult to understand and accept the "protect the home owner" argument when they have avoided every opportunity to do so in the past.  This is called being inconsistent.

 

The latest legislative contention is that this Bill would require a home owner to "seek a majority vote from all other home owners in the HOA to acknowledge their construction defect claim".  This is at best a half truth.  SB 15-177 does not to require home owners to acknowledge the validity of the construction defects claim but requires a Board to inform home owners of their intent on litigation (for any one or all home owners) and gain a majority of home owner approval to use HOA funds for litigation.  Thus, a vote is required if the individual home owner wants the HOA to use HOA funds to sue in their behalf.  This will mitigate the practice of HOA Boards and their lawyers taking on narrow and special interest litigation that is funded by home owners without community approval or benefit.  This is called open governance and protecting home owner interests.

 

Legislators on the "protect the HOA home owner" bandwagon must be challenged as to the validity of their opposition to SB 15-177 and also why, if they are so concerned about helping HOA home owners, they have failed to sponsor any substantive HOA reform over the past several years.

Phantom Opposition in Media on Colorado Construction Defects Bill

Colorado SB 15-177, construction defects reform, is aimed at reducing the number of law suits entered into by HOAs and to define, improve upon, and reduce the cost of dispute resolution.  This particularly impacts HOA home owners as it requires the approval of home owners prior to the HOA spending its' funds on litigation.  Too often HOA Boards at the encouragement of their lawyer enter into costly litigation without the knowledge or approval of home owners.  The consequences can be burdensome special assessments and increases in HOA dues to pay for the litigation and replenish reserve funds.

 

The Colorado HOA Forum, representing home owner interests, supports this legislation as currently proposed.  The Bill is opposed by the Community Association Institute (CAI) with a membership comprised mostly of property managers and HOA and trial lawyers. 

 

Lakewood, CO and most recently Lone Tree, CO have enacted local ordinances similar to the proposed SB 15-177.

 

We have monitored press releases on both the Lakewood and Lone Tree efforts.  The press (Denver Post, Denver Business Journal, and TV news) has again mentioned that opposition to the subject Bill is strong among HOA organizations and HOA home owners.  We challenged the media to identify just one HOA organization (members being HOAs) and/or one HOA home owner's organization (mostly home owners as members).  TO DATE NEITHER COULD IDENTIFY ONE!  THERE IS NO HOA OR HOA HOME OWNER's ORGANIZATION IN THE STATE TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OR THE MEDIA'S EXCEPT THE COLORADO HOA FORUM, NONE, LET ALONE ANY WHO OPPOSE SB 15-177.

 

This happens time and again with HOA issues: those representing the home owner's opinion being organizations and trial lawyers that are a hindrance to and block any HOA legislative reform such as the CAI.

 

This misrepresentation of who represents HOA home owners exemplifies why our issues for legislative reform and SB 15-177 have such controversy and difficulties in gaining support:  the opposition identified basically doesn't exist and/or misrepresents itself as supportive of home owners.

 

Below is a link to the latest article from the Denver Business Journal that suggests opposition from phantom organizations such as home owner groups and HOA entities:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/real_deals/2015/02/lone-tree-to-take-up-construction-defects.html

 

We ask the press to once again get it right and verify who represents home owners and those who reject legislative reform that promotes home owner's rights and good governance.

CAI Threatened Over Empowering HOA Home Owners on the Use of Their Own Funds in Litigation: SB 15-177

The Community Association Institute (CAI), long incorrectly identified as a home owner centric organization in the press and by State legislators, is at it again in attacking HOA home owner’s rights.  The CAI represents the interests of property managers and HOA lawyers and not home owners.  This time they are objecting to a provision in proposed Colorado SB 15-177 (construction defects) that requires HOA home owners to approve the use of HOA funds in litigation.  Why the opposition?  The CAI and HOA lawyers view the HOA as a profit center and easy money and empowering home owners on decisions on the use of their own funds is considered disruptive and meddling.

Too often HOA lawyers raid HOA bank accounts for legal fees and costly legal cases that should not have been litigated leaving home owners with depleted reserve funds, special assessments to pay legal costs, and/or increases in HOA dues to replenish reserve funds. HOA Boards can currently enter into litigation without apprising home owners of their intent, the cost and consequences of litigation or how they intend to finance legal fees. Boards can incur unlimited legal expenses and even take out debt instruments to pay legal fees. Home owners in too many cases only know of the financial consequences after the case has been litigated and they are stuck with the bill.  This Bill simply reins in the authority of an HOA Board (that is highly influenced by HOA lawyers and property managers) in making decisions on litigation that can have significant if not catastrophic financial impact.

SB 15-177 would not preclude legal action but require a majority of home owners to approve litigation. This would mitigate the number of law suits and the abusive practice of an HOA Board suing in behalf of a very few (as few as two) vs the community at large.  More cases would be handled in the less expensive legal venue of arbitration thus saving HOA’s significant sums of money. Home owners could still pursue individual actions using their own funds.

The CAI is fabricating a tall tale in contending that any legal fees paid to an HOA lawyer related to routine advice and counsel would take a majority vote of home owners. This Bill doesn’t get involved in regulating or interfering with the operations and daily functions of the HOA. Legal counsel on enforcing covenants, controls, restrictions, and debt collection or other issues involving common and routine HOA issues would not require a majority vote of home owners. It’s just not in this Bill.  Payment of routine legal counsel doesn’t require a law suit today nor would it under this Bill. This Bill is directed at legal cases filed in a court of law that are specific, unique, non-recurring and financially impacting. The CAI is attempting in what should be an embarrassing statement to say that any payment to an HOA lawyer would have to be voted upon: this is called desperation.

The winner in this Bill will be home owners in HOA community associations (not the Community Association Institute) who will now be empowered with more control over the assets of the HOA and still retain the right to litigate construction defects.  This Bill does not impair the ability of any HOA Board to govern but contributes to open governance.

HOA Home Owners Snubbed Again Over Ending HOA Home Sale Transfer Fees

Our legislators can pass a bill naming the State Pet but treat HOA home owners like feral cats.  The Colorado HOA Forum, the State’s largest home owners advocacy organization, has lobbied legislators for  the past eighteen months to limit/end the illegally applied and costly (upwards of $10 million a year) HOA Transfer Fee on the sale of HOA homes.   Last year lobbyist killed a bill to limit this fee.  Realtors, legislators, many property managers (PMs), and home owners voice objections to this abusive and excessive fee.  Many believe the fee is a mandatory fee for expenses incurred by the HOA/PM in the sale of a home: not true.  The fee has been called extortion and highway robbery by PMs and legislators.  When interviewed, The Colorado Association of Realtors didn’t understand the fee and wouldn’t object to having their clients pay it at home closing.   A Denver News Channel 7 consumer reporter indicated if home owners are stupid enough to pay it they only have themselves to blame even if not paying it means no home closing.   The fee is deceitfully presented to home sellers on sales documents as levied by the HOA, the amount determined by and pocketed by the HOA, and benefits the HOA by their recovering additional expenses due to the home sale:  all not true.  The law states the fee is assessed for expenses uniquely incurred by a PM in relation to a home sale else it is illegal.  However, homeowners are never provided with an explanation or detailed invoice of transfer fee charges.   The fee is well known to supplement PM income, charged “because it can” be, and used to low bid HOA contracts with the expectation of subsequent Transfer Fee income.  Fees range from zero to over $1,150 with no relation or justification for work performed.  The fee can preclude approval of FHA/HUD loans if part of the home sale transaction.  The state agency in charge of real estate transactions (DORA) places no requirements for justifying the fee based on the law or even suggests a detailed receipt be provided the payee at closing thus enabling the fee to continue.  Finally, the main justification for charging the fee by some large PM companies is that if home buyers want accurate information upon closing on a home as to any amounts owed the HOA they must pay extra for it.  Otherwise, they will simply get the regular monthly billing produced for the home owner that has the same information: what is on the regular billing, inaccurate information!  What else need be said to end this abusive fee!

Yes, this fee is a big deal.  It is costly, abusive, unjustified, and amounts to an unwarranted tax on HOA home sellers.  It should be easy to end/limit through HOA legislative reform but is viewed less important than identifying the State pet which passed without objection.  The Colorado HOA Forum will continue to fight to end this fee.

HB 15-1040 Would Remove Protections under Property Manager Licensing

A Bill, HB 15-1040, was introduced for legislative consideration and could have the affect of derailing HOA home owner protections from abusive practices in the property management industry.  The Colorado HOA Forum has reviewed the Bill in its' original form and we urge legislators vote against it.  The Bill would effectively reduce the number of HOA property managers (aka Community Association Manager (CAM)) required to be licensed by about 80% thus nullifying HB 13-1277 (the CAM Licensing Bill).  HB 15-1040 would require only those  CAMs in HOAs with 200 or more homes to be licensed.  Thus approximately over 7,700 of the 9,600 registered HOAs would be exempt from their CAM being licensed and allowing the CAM to operate without any oversight, guidelines, and with little accountability: the very problems that prompted licensing. 

Licensing was implemented to provide oversight and prevent abusive practices in the CAM industry in ALL HOAs and improve the skills and credentials of ALL CAMs.  There is no relationship between the size of an HOA and vulnerability to abuse.  In fact the opposite may be true as smaller HOAs more heavily rely on the CAM for all facets of asset and financial management  The reasons prompting this Bill have not been mentioned but surely won't be corrected by simply excluding smaller HOAs which is an arbitrary solution to an undefined problem in the licensing law.  As with any law there can be improvements when it causes unintended problems.  Minor changes to the law may be needed as we suggest below but NO consideration should be given to excluding CAMs from operating rules and guidelines simply because they manage a small HOA, 

A very important feature of the licensing law is that it provides for HOAs and home owners in small and large communities with an out of court dispute resolution process that otherwise requires complaints to be resolved in our costly, time consuming, and litigious court system.  The out of court dispute resolution saves HOAs and home owners on legal costs and allows an affordable and accessible venue for home owner and HOA problem resolution.  This right should be afforded to ALL HOAs but this Bill would exclude this process to home owners in smaller HOAs.

Smaller HOAs deserve the same protections afforded to those in larger HOAs and this Bill would do the opposite.  The educational requirements, cost to acquire a license, and/or type of license for those serving small HOAs (under 50 homes) might be revisited with just cause based on experience with the law but under no circumstances should CAMs serving smaller communities be allowed to operate outside of and not accountable under the CAM licensing law.

HOA Property Manager Licensing: Fees Transparency is a License to Abuse

The Community Association Institute (CAI), HOA lawyers, and large property management companies know one thing is certain: laws on transparency and disclosure will not inhibit abusive practices in the HOA property management industry.  In 2014 these groups combined their legislative, political, and financial efforts to kill a Bill (HB 14-1254) that would have ended or limited the dollar amount of the illegal and unjustified HOA home sale transfer fee.  They legislatively completed this by changing the Bill to address the transfer fee as a "disclosure item" in the upcoming property manager licensing law.  This was completed to avoid any direct oversight, scrutiny, or rules to ensure no change took affect.  Even the idea of real disclosure and accountability on justifying the legality/use of the transfer fee were so feared in the watered down Bill that ALL definitive language was removed:  no requirements to disclose why the fee was charged, who determined the amount and pocketed the fee, who benefited from the fee, what work was performed that was extraordinary/unique due to the sale of a home that was not already paid for by HOA dues, that the HOA did not mandate the fee and it was neither a mandatory or legal requirement, and that if not paid could hold up the sale of a home.  The modified Bill also avoided stating that that any excessive and unjustified fee COULD NOT be challenged by the home seller/buyer and if found to be inappropriate by the State property manager licensing authority COULD NOT be directed for refund or reduced in amount .  Thus the crafted disclosure Bill had nothing to do with justifying the fee or reining in abuse but only to ensure its' unabated continuance.

So the lesson in Disclosure and Transparency Legislation 101: A Bill portrayed to rein in abuse and misuse through disclosure will present the illusion of change, enforcement and consumer protection but change nothing with the most significant impact being that the abused be informed (and only minimally) of how they are to be abused.

The Colorado HOA Forum will continue its' efforts to educate the public and legislators on HOA issues and to legislatively end/limit the HOA Transfer Fee to save Coloradans millions each year.