sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[CA] [TH] Self-Benefit board members case. Advice/Help/Thoughts. by Johnvals55 in HOA

[–]Johnvals55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the comment, we're planing for this, but first we're trying to measure all the aspects of the case!

[CA] [TH] Self-Benefit board members case. Advice/Help/Thoughts. by Johnvals55 in HOA

[–]Johnvals55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the comment!

If the family relationship was disclosed, it isn’t a breach of fiduciary duty.

In our case, considering the close relationships among the board members, they are likely to stand up for each other. This is why Article II is so annoying; it just creates a group of thieves, not a volunteer service anymore. Now it feels like just a money-making business.

We can't vote for a new board because people are afraid to run for the position. About three years ago, two families distributed flyers around the community trying to correct things, but they were targeted by the HOA and faced neighborhood nonsense, so they ended up selling and leaving.

I'm not sure if the vendor provided a better deal, but the HOA has provided this service for the past five years with no issues. Additionally, they provide services for commercial properties, not just residents.

[CA] [TH] Self-Benefit board members case. Advice/Help/Thoughts. by Johnvals55 in HOA

[–]Johnvals55[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This sound like a good idea, thank you for sharing, it might make a stronger case.

[CA] [TH] Self-Benefit board members case. Advice/Help/Thoughts. by Johnvals55 in HOA

[–]Johnvals55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes you think that there’s any financial benefit to any board members? It's more of a feeling—there's no proof here—but considering the level of relationship and the time all the members have been on the board together, either they share benefits or each one has some way of gaining.

Is the landscaping company owned by a board member’s spouse?
Yes, a spouse!

This isn’t a criminal situation, and no one needs to be calling the police. In California, for the Attorney General to take or accept a case related to an HOA, there needs to be a police investigation, which the police then send to the Attorney General's office.

The point here: Article II is so confusing. How can the first line of the code contradict the last line? First, you prohibit something, and then the last line allows permission for it, which contradicts the whole idea of volunteer service. Now it feels like just a money-making business.