We have always considered the process in Section 217(7) be fairly straightforward, and are pleased to have a Court of Appeals decision that supports our analysis.It's more important today than ever to make sure your amendment process complies with the Section 217(7) requirements, and to make sure that you comply before you end up with insufficient voter turnout.In fact the law on whether homeowners are necessary parties in homeowner association litigation has the possibility of being radically revised as the Supreme Court has granted review of the case discussed below. And when it does not say how tall one story is, there is a very good chance that language in the governing document limiting a structure to one story will be unenforceable as a restrictive covenant.In a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision, , 155 P.3rd 443 (Colo. 2006) the appellate court reversed the trial court’s granting a permanent injunction ordering the defendants to remove their A-frame addition to their home, which contained a bedroom loft suite.
While community association managers in Colorado have been working through the state mandated licensure process, the ‘hot button’ topic of discussion in Florida has been the Florida Supreme Court’s May 14, 2015 Advisory Opinion regarding the unlicensed practice of law by non-lawyer community association managers.
The lawsuit did not involve the Association, but was an action between two homeowners regarding an interpretation of the Association’s restrictions limiting structures to one story.
It was unclear whether the Association Board had the authority to enforce and there was no existing architectural control committee to enforce the restriction.
Those of us that work in the community association industry have been closely following the path of the New Jersey case of Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. On July 26, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced its decision, affirming the trial court and reversing the court of appeals, in determining that, under the New Jersey Constitution, the homeowners association’s rules restricting signage did not violate the right of free speech, that the constitutional right of free speech is not absolute, and citizens may waive or otherwise curtail their rights.
A little background is helpful to understanding this case, and what its implications are to those of us in Colorado.