R.J. from outside of Connecticut writes:
Dear Mister Condo,
I am living in a condo where the condo board has decided that we’re getting the decks enlarged. They claim “everyone wants this done,” but no such formal vote of the unit owners was ever taken. I know that a number of unit owners do not want larger decks and most certainly do not want to pay for them. Our responses fall on deaf ears.
First, we can push for an actual unit owner vote on this matter and may need to hire an attorney to make sure such a vote is taken. BUT, since this is not a matter of “maintenance,” as in necessary repairs, nor are the back decks uniform now by any means (because of the topography of the land) should those of us who do not want larger decks be forced to have them and forced to pay upwards of $10,000 each for them? Even if they get a majority vote, this does not seem fair, nor is it in the bylaws that an optional aesthetic improvement must be paid for by everyone – as it does for repairs or common ground improvements.
Mister Condo replies:
R.J., this is an interesting problem. Board Members are elected to office by democratic election of unit owners. Yet, they are taking action that a number of unit owners do not want taken. The real question here is: What do the majority of unit owners want and what do your by-laws state about this type of improvement? Depending on your by-laws and any state or local law dealing with common interest communities, the Board is likely within its rights to consider this deck enlargement program. They may even have the ability to enact it, again providing the action isn’t in violation of the condo documents. However, they do have to follow all protocols as outlined in the documents or, as you correctly state, disgruntled unit owners will hire an attorney to bring action against the Board. Many associations would require a vote of the unit owners for such an improvement because the Board is considering such a major expense. Replacing worn common elements is one thing; creating new common elements is quite another. You are on the path to getting the right action. Also, consider getting some like-minded folks on the Board during the next election cycle. If it can’t wait, and you think you have the votes to hold a recall election, you could attempt to recall and replace these Board members. However, if the majority of unit owners are in agreement with the deck expansion and improvement project, your efforts may generate little less than a thorn in the side of the Board as they continue to push the project through. Good luck!
are roofs considered capital repair and is there a law for voting on this repair before an assessment and before starting the project of replacing all the roofs in the association ?
G.S., I would think that roofs are almost always a long-term capital repair items although emergency roof repairs (storm or fire damage, for instance) are just that – emergency repairs. Assuming it is a standard end-of-life repair, it should have been scheduled and budgeted for in the Reserve Fund. As far as a law that requires a vote and/or an assessment before the repair, that would depend on your individual governance documents. If the roof was needed and there wasn’t enough money saved, it would follow that a Special Assessment would be needed. Your governance documents should cover the requirements for a Special Assessment and that very well could require a vote. The bottom line is that if the new roof was needed, the good news is that it is being taken care of. If the Board made a misstep in procuring the money needed, you could challenge the assessment. Check your governance documents to see what should have been done and then decide if it is a fight worth fighting or if you should simply be happy that a new roof is being procured. All the best!