Bill Introduced in Colorado Creating Ombudsman for Homeowners
On February 5th, House Bill 1278 was introduced by Representative Su Ryden in the House and is being sponsored in the Senate by Senator Morgan Carroll. The bill creates the Office of the HOA Ombudsman. Under the bill, as currently written, the Ombudsman would be empowered to:
- Advocate for the rights of unit owners in the governance of associations;
- Offer to mediate disputes between unit owners and their associations;
- Act as a clearing house for information concerning the rights and duties of unit owners, declarants and associations;
- Report to the Division of Real Estate suspected violations under the legislation or of the Division's rules; and
- Report other suspected violations of the law to the appropriate authorities.
►Do you think homeowners need an advocate to assist them with issues they have with their associations?
►Do you think creation of an Ombudsman is the way to go?
This is perhaps a decent enough idea if (and only if) the declarant is still in control of the association and its management. Once the declarant is out of the picture, the owners ARE the association and are responsible for its governance. Responsiveness to other owners is then implicit.
Continuing this program after the declarant leaves simply creates a platform for some very loud, disgruntled individual to disprupt and to interefe with the operation of an association. In short this could be the embodiment of a nanny approach to association governance... in other words, a very stupid idea.
Are these people out of their minds? In times of a budget crisis, what we don't need is another state bureaucrat organization spending our money solving a problem that doesn't exist. Most HOA docs have a mandatory arbitration clause in them these days. Between the courts, and arbitration I think the field is pretty well covered. Just plain stupid.
I don't think homeowners need an advocate. I think homeowners need to be active in their associations and work issues out with their neighbors.
No. Ombudsman positions invariably become bureaucracies with their own narrow self-interests. The things envisioned for this office are the things we expect Boards to do for their owners. We don't need more government.
Absolutely not needed. Use the tools that are available now, and there are plenty. Homeowners must inform themselves, then working with HOA officers becomes very smooth and productive.
NO & NO
No. The board of directors currently have the power to terminate the association. We don't need another fee and another industry to support.
Is this going to affect current hoa's? Why cant homeowners just act like homeowners and we could save hundreds of dollars for all of us!
Finally, a bill that makes sense, and that would leave resolving issues up to someone who knows about HOAs. This is exactly what I have been saying for years, and what I said should have been enacted in 2005 instead of SB100. They even use the same term I've been using. Eerie! Is someone reading my mind?
And the ombudsman would not be just for homeowners, but for boards and managers as well, if need be. Let it never be assumed that disputes will always be mediated in favor of homeowners. Indeed, most disputes arise out of a misunderstanding of rights, duties and obligations of all the parties involved. Once these are explained and understood, many disputes vanish into thin air.
How do I apply for this position?
No to both the questions. This bill is very pro owners, Shouldn't this be in the governing documents.
Looks like more government intervention into our lives. And spending money we don't have.
This may be one of the more idiotic new laws proposed. First, our State is extremely burdened with a budgetary deficit; our legislators should concern themselves with our State budget, and not with such frivolities. Second, the nanny-state needs no enhancing. We don't need another governmental autocrat or agency dictating to the private sector how to behave. Third,all HOAs have, or should have, appropriate Rules of governance, and those should be uniformly, humanely, and sensibly applied within their HOA. Remedies should be directed internally; for example, "kick the bums out" at the next election, or the aggrieved homeowners can call for a special election of directors under typical bylaws. Fourth, mediators invariably "split the baby" rather than have the courage to press one side more than another, if that is what the facts presented call for. Fifth, I don't understand how a few filing fees with the Secy. of State could raise enough money to fund a new governmental office and attendant overhead.
Most certainly there should be a resource for property owners to access should the HOA Board mis-use their power and resources. Something other than ultimately going to court which is costly for both the homeowner and the association.
Clearly one of the best pieces of legislation this session. Homeowners have no choice but to sue when dealing with unscrupulous Association Boards. This approach has the potential to save thousands of dollars in legal fees and to resolve problems far faster that the judicial system.
By far, the biggest problem faced by a BOD and residents are negligent Property Mgmt Co's not performing inaccordance with their contracts. The second biggest are the contractors they hire, also not performing inaccordance with their contracts. Providing inaccurate service by both would round out the top 3.
I am firmly of the opinion that the vast majority of HOA Boards act responsibly in the best interest of their communities. This is often a thankless task which volunteers take up to fulfill the needs dictated by Covenants.
In an ideal setting, the Ombudsman would be a useful tool in resolving disputes. However, that person should acknowledge that many such disputes are the result of a lack of education on the part of homeowners on the requirements of their Covenants or a purposeful attempt to circumvent those requirements.
The success/failure of the Ombudsman proposal will greatly depend upon the choice of persons to serve in that capacity. The Ombudsman's office should not allow itself to be used as a lever to delay or circumvent legitimate actions by HOAs.
In this economic climate, concern should also be expressed about adding to the cost of operating HOAs. It is not appropriate to ask responsible homeowners to pay for institutions which serve the interests of those who are less responsible. It would better serve the industry if funding for the Ombudsman's office were proivded by requiring that a bond be posted at the time a complaint is filed, such bond being returned to those who prevail in resolution of the dispute.
I think homeowners and associations need someone to call with questions that understands the law and doesn't charge $200/hr (no offense). I don't like the idea of taxing me or my association to fund this new position, but I can't expect it to be free and obviously HOA's and their collective membership should have to fund such an office since they are the benefactor of its services.
This bill should be DOA. This is another level of bureaucracy which is not needed and serves no positive purpose. Further, HOAs do not need another unnecessary expense in the current economic situation. There are plenty of ways to solve problems between unit owners and the HOAs. Get educated regarding the HOA documents, understand your rights, go to board meetings, get involved and be heard.
I like it. As a homeowner currently involved in a suit against our developer for (allegedly) not pay dues, I am in favor of anything that gives more ability to deal with declarant-led POAs.
Sign me up. I'll testify!
Is the State of CO now going to tuck me in at night? Give me a break! Let's use the few tax dollars we have available, much more wisely. Private section JOBS anyone? Job Training? Mmmm ...
Definitely not. Homeowners have adequate avenues to address issues, and we do not need another government expense and interference in our lives.
No, small HOAs with minimal annual assessments don't have the income to support additional expenses.
At last a place homeowner can go that isn't costly and has some authority when they disagree with the board. Mediation and arbitration aren't cheap. Hopefully, the this option will allow all parties to reach an agreement.
I say yes & yes!!
Every state should have an HOA ombudsman empowered to levy punishment to boards, managers, and lawyers who abuse THEIR power. Until this abuse has happened to you, you can blithely say this is a waste of money, but it's far cheaper than continuing to pay the army of lawyers who make a killing off of dysfunctional HOA's. As of now, homeowners have absolutely no one to turn to to enforce their rights without hiring a lawyer. That's the definition of a flawed system.
As a member of an extremely dysfunctional HOA, I think this is a great idea. People are naive if they assume all HOA boards and management follow the rules correctly. In addition, more and more people wanting to own homes are forced into an HOA because it's hard to find a neighborhood built after 1990 than isn't an HOA. It's time for individual homeowners to have an option outside of mediation to help resolve HOA issues.
Yes, I believe this is a good start to help with enforcement. However, I'd add property management to the mix. People have been complaining that there is no teeth to current HOA laws. This bill will help. There are a lot of good property management companies, but there are some questionable companies. It takes a lot of work to find, hire, and get management staff up to date. Anyone can hang up a sign and be in control of millions $. In some communities like the mountains (2nd home properties) or smaller towns, these companies hang together and choice is limited. These managers thumb their nose at Owners, Boards, and current law. As far as Board, I believe most try their best. However if you end up with a bad Board, again help is needed. It takes a tremendous amount of time to organize and put a case together either against a Board or Management. The vast majority of Owners don't have this time, so abuse should be low. I believe the cost will be minimal for the office when all HOAs are included, but cost share must reflect property size and/or value or some other measure.