Colorado Style HOA Manager Licensing

Colorado-style licensing of HOA property managers: let the fox watch the henhouse.  The business model to develop Community Association Manager (CAM) licensing legislation (and other HOA legislation):  1) legislators consult with the Community Association Institute (CAI)) to craft a Bill aimed at mitigating abusive practices of property managers who are the very folks the CAI represents 2) CAI lobbyist and their CAI “dependable” legislators become Bill sponsors 3) the Bill is assigned to Committees with CAI “dependable” legislators 4) the Bill becomes law with little to no home owner input, full of promoting CAI interests, and heavy on fees and costs and processes imposed on CAMs and 5) the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) implements licensing rules highly reflective of CAI efforts but fail to even contain explicit language for CAMs to obey State law or an HOAs governing laws or for CAMs to report observed violation of the law thus ensuring oversight is empty from the home owner’s perspective.  Then adding one final insult to home owners, DORA was supposed to address abusive, duplicative, and excessive CAM fees assessed home owners (pocketed mostly by CAI members) by requiring “full disclosure” of fees in licensing rules.  DORA mandate for full disclosure on fees:  only require a one liner buried in an HOA contract with the CAM or on home sale closing documents; no requirement to provide any explanation or justification of fees, no required detailed billing  documentation of charges to the home owner, no documentation of how the fee was determined or who retained it, and no mention that the fee is not legally mandated or how the law limits this fee to be charged.
  
The HOA Manager Licensing Bill, well intentioned and having the potential to clean up abusive practices and fees, has turned into a fees and license collection entity within State, a marketing tool for the CAI to sell its’ educational courses, a law to support the continuation of the HOA Transfer Fees, and a financial burden on small HOA CAMs that has resulted in many quitting the business.  Little can be seen in this Bill to complete the intention of the law: consumer protection.  If all this wasn’t enough in supporting the status quo, a few legislators and DORA working with the CAI have proposed a Bill  (even before the law is fully implemented) to change licensing rules to further promote CAI educational courses and membership, allowing the CAI to partner with and complete DORA responsibilities of credentialing, testing, and grading CAM applicants, and gaining exclusions selected CAI members.

Licensing of CAMs in Colorado is truly the fox watching over the henhouse and exemplifies why it is so difficult to bring trust and participation from citizens in our government. 

HOA Manager Licensing Law Empty on Content and Enforcement

HB 13-1277, requiring HOA property managers (PMs) to be licensed by July 1, 2015 has fell victim to special interests.  As implemented, the law has turned into more of a fees collection, license testing and issuance business, and a promotional tool to sell educational courses than addressing abusive industry practices and providing consumer protection. The law fails to explicitly require any PM to follow State HOA laws and the governing documents of the HOA managed.  It doesn’t require a PM who observes unlawful practices to pursue corrective action.  Licensing was intended to address abusive and unjustified fees charged by PMs through “full disclosure”.  DORA has defined as acceptable “full disclosure” to be a one line statement on home closing documents or a one liner buried in an HOA contract.  PMs will not be required to explain or justify fees or to issue a billing statement detailing charges.  Home owners, however, will continue to be required to pay fees no questions asked.  A further failing of this law is the resulting financial burden on the smallest of HOA PMs that has already resulted in business owners deciding to quit the business leaving such services unavailable to many smaller and rural HOAs.  As written and implemented, licensing will change little it was intended to correct and continue that which special interests did not want changed.

Footnote: even before the licensing law was fully implemented the Community Association Institute (CAI), whose members are the impetus for licensing, had private meetings with leadership in DORA and with legislators to craft a Bill to revise the licensing requirements. Not one thing in this proposed Bill addresses the deficiencies in ethics and rules, operating standards, disclosure of fees, or helping small HOA managers. It does include special exclusions for property manager licensing in some supervisory and executive positions (the very folks at the epicenter of industry abuse will now be immune from even the little accountability in the licensing law).

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.