HOA Legi-Slate

On Friday, January 25, 2008, House Bill 08-1135, sponsored by Representative Morgan Carroll, passed the Colorado House of Representative by a vote of 61-1.  As we outlined in a January 16th posting on HOA Legi-Slate, the legislation: (1) references the Federal Fair Housing Act in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act; (2) Prevents homeowners associations from levying fines for a covenant or rule violation unless an association has adopted a policy governing the imposition of fines and a right to a hearing before an "impartial decision maker" is afforded before a fine is levied; and (3) Endorses and encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve association disputes.  The bill has been sent to the Senate where it is expected to be passed.  In the event HB 08-1135 is passed by the Senate and signed into law by Governor Ritter, the bill will go into effect on July 1, 2008.

Has anyone defined what the term "impartial decision maker" is. Is this another way to cause our Associations additional expense since Ms. Carrol is an attorney I expect that this person will probably have to be either a Mediator or and Atty. even though she only states that it is recommended that the bill encourages use of alternative dispute resolution.

Has there been a definition of an "impartial decision maker" in the case of a hearing being set prior to any fine being imposed?

Who will define: "impartial decision maker"?

Perhaps the new law will give rise to an entirely new industry: "impartial decision makers." In turn, these professionals will be regulated by Colo.'s Dept. of Regulatory Affairs. Licensing requirements for such professionals will be suggested. Ad infinitum . . .

Please define "impartial decision maker". This should be removed from this bill. Hopefully, someone in the senate will provide HOA's some assistance here.

Sounds to me like this bill would take away the Boards authority to enforce the covenants and restrictions. Its not as if there isn't adequate due process and appeal rights for the home owner. The homeowner also has the right to be reimbursed for legal costs if they prevail in court. There are adequate, existing protections for the homeowner now.

Please define "impartial decision maker". Hopefully, someone in the senate will provide HOA's some assistance here.
The home owners need some assistance.

I agree with the above posters. I am concerned how we will find an "impartial decision maker." Rep. Carroll says the board is fine, but, in my mind, the board is not "impartial." This one is headed to court, I can tell.

Once again, our illustrious politicians through in ambiquous terms in legislation without providing a clear definition of the meaning. These actions are constantly having an increasing cost on us.

The Supreme Court of Colorado has held that when a statute requires notice to affected persons and a hearing before an impartial decision maker, the action is almost certainly quasi-judicial. An impartial decision maker is any third party who has an appreciation of the legal rights of both parties and is not a home owner in the common interest community, and consequently not on the HOA as well. You can determine who the impartial decision maker should be through the covenants, but it cannot be someone being influenced by either the HOA or the homeowner. It often means that an arbitration group, an attorney (not connected with the HOA or the owner), or possibly a magistrate or judge will be the decision maker.

If you want to know about what a "impartial decision maker" is as well as other things mentioned in this article you might want to read the bill. There is a link in the first sentence. I found it to be very informative in answering much of what is being brought up.

Would this also allow the Association to not only impose the disputed fine but also the cost of the "impartial decision maker"?

I disagree with the griping about "impartial decisionmakers." I like the requirement of a right to review by someone like a mediator or arbitrator.

Do as Mark Skinner wrote above and read the bill!

Our HOA is currently in the process of revising our covenants to provide for better enforcement and mandatory dues. We hope to get homeowner approval this summer, but one of the biggest concerns is that the changes will allow our HOA to get fine-happy, lien-happy or worst, foreclosure-happy against homeowners. I don't see that happening, but what's wrong with giving homeowners the right to have a mediator - with no stake in the proceedings - review the issue before fines are assessed?

Plus, the HOA might actually SAVE lots of money, because a mediator could point out problems with the HOA's case that otherwise might not be exposed until well into litigation - when the homeowner might be entitled to have lots of legal fees repaid.

There's a reason this bill passed by such a lopsided vote of 61-1, with Republicans joining Democrats: it's reasonable! (And I don't agree with everything that Rep. Carroll has proposed - not by a longshot!)

I have read the entire bill and this may work for larger HOA's. But for those of us in smaller HOA's with volunteer boards, this is a nightmare. I have served for 2 years on an HOA board and even though we are very responsive and reasonable with our membership, we have members who regularly refuse to pay dues, violate covenants etc etc.. No one forces folks to buy into an HOA community, people VOLUNTEER to buy into one. This is going to seriously complicate my HOA, I know from experience. Before you get all worked up over this, start looking at new proposed legislation. there is a bill in draft to nullify all HOA restrictions on Green technology restrictions, swamp coolers, private power windmills, there are worse things that can happen folk's...