HOAs MUST Disclose Board Member Emails

Today, I’ve sent notice to the Poudre Overlook HOA Board regarding the failure to disclose documents requested on 2/25/22. This request is regarding our former CAM, Trademark, and specifically the actions related to both them, and the hiring of our current HOA General Counsel, VF-Law.

I lay out my case in an email, which is being sent in advance of sending via Certified Mail to meet the criteria of HB21-1229. It does not appear to me that my document request should have been denied. It’s relevant to the current consideration of new legislation, HB21-1239, which is about CAM licensing.

We will see if they respond, or if this becomes a test of the enforceability of this law which went into effect in September of 2021. Our former CAM had difficulties performing duties, and when asked questions, they treated them as a burden – and claimed that to answer questions they would literally have to charge $4000 per month.

The POHOA Board, who claimed to “partner” with Trademark, then told the association they deserved a 40% raise and put it into their 2022 Budget, which a majority of POHOA members voted for. Trademark quit the day before the vote, so we literally have a budget for a CAM that we are not using. The POHOA Board has not yet disclosed where those budgeted funds now go.

But, more importantly, Trademark created legal expenses without knowledge or authorization by the Board. I am seeking the documents leading to that decision, which they are trying to claim is privileged (its not legal advice from the attorney, but how this situation came to be).

I started a proper CAMICB complaint, which requires that the POHOA Board perform an investigation. However, the Board refused to perform the investigation on behalf of CAMICB, and then rationalized that when Trademark quit, that was a satisfactory conclusion to the investigation.

When I tried to continue in spite of POHOA refusing to perform this duty, CAMICB refused to proceed because . . . Trademark had never actually had the CMCA credential, and that theoretically resulted in no action (other than a trademark violation, since Trademark made the claim/reference on their website).

This is exactly the type of thing that Rep. Titone’s HB22-1239 was designed to do. Those faking credentials or using deceptive working to make it appear as though they did, is something deserving action by DORA. Such companies or persons should have a record of such behavior, and perhaps be disqualified from getting a license if that bill passes.

In the meantime, the question at hand is whether an HOA must retain and disclose emails between Board members, particularly the ones leading to Action Without A Meeting. I have written a fairly thorough analysis of the topic, including references to the relevant prior legislation (HB12-1237).

It is hard to believe that POHOA is once again taking a hard stand on the wrong side of compliance of CCIOA, but I suppose that instead of looking things up before they respond in writing is still just too much to ask. They continue to get it wrong before getting it right – and consuming lots of time and energy of homeowners who are tasked with enforcement by CCIOA.

This is a strong reason for having a DORA with enforcement powers, ADR, and the tools we find in states like Nevada. We are still a long way away from having a comprehensive set of statutes that fixes all of this completely, but the steps being taken in 2022 are very good.