Washington & Oregon Construction Defect Lawyer & Attorney : Barker Martin Law Firm : HOA's, Condos : Seattle, Portland

The last few years have brought with them a substantial upturn in development of large tower condominiums and multi-use condominiums in the Pacific Northwest, predominantly Seattle and Portland. Such condominiums often include multi-million dollar units, high-end retail stores and anchor hotel or grocery store chains. Each of these divergent segments is coalesced into a single master condominium association.

However, what is best for a hotel may conflict with the interests of individual homeowners. Public access and marketing efforts for a retail store may offend or intrude upon homeowners and hotel guests. Issues of parking, easements, common areas, pools and pets that involve most standard condominiums take on special significance and impact within tower and multi-use condominiums. Even rudimentary homeowner-to-homeowner disputes, such as excessive noise, are elevated to newfound consequences when multi-million dollar unit owners confront one another.

Recently, several multi-use condominium associations have contacted me regarding some of the exact issues highlighted above. In these instances, the condominium owners associations, with no prior formal legal representation, faced multi-million dollar sub-association entities with large corporate legal departments. If you are a homeowner or board member of a tower or mixed-use condominium association, in order to level the playing field, you'll want to ensure you have highly specialized legal counsel and other association professionals on your team.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently, I have been contacted by several Oregon condominium association board members and individual homeowners whose conversion condominiums are experiencing serious construction defects and substantial repair costs.  Some of these owners and board members have stated they don't believe they have any legal claims because the developer sold the condominium unit "as-is."

Oregon law, as in many states, provides statutory warranties or disclosure requirements for initial condominium purchasers--for both new condos and conversion condos:  

  *  A Declarant of a newly constructed condominium shall expressly warrant against defects in the plumbing, electrical, mechanical, structural, and all other components of the newly constructed units and common elements.  The applicable statute is ORS 100.185.

  *  A Declarant of a conversion condominium must provide a statement of the "present condition of all structural components and major mechanical and utility installations in the condominium, including the approximate date of construction and a reasonable estimate of the remaining useful life of, at a minimum, the roof, siding, plumbing, electrical, HVAC system, asphalt, sidewalks and decks."  The disclosure also must include a statement of whether the assessment of conditions was prepared by a licensed engineer, architect or home inspector.  The applicable statute is ORS 100.655(h).

Thus, there is no such thing as an "as-is" new condominium unit sold in Oregon.  Although Declarants may sell a conversion condominium unit without a warranty, or "as-is," that does not necessarily mean an owner or association foregoes all legal rights in the event construction defects or prior damages exist.  An owner or association may have claims for lack of proper disclosure in the Condominium Disclosure Statement, regardless of whether an "as-is" statement was included in the Condominium Disclosure Statement and/or Purchase and Sale Agreement.

Lastly, although there are no reported Oregon appellate decisions directly on point, courts in other states (including neighboring Washington) have rejected a Declarant's attempts to disclaim warranty and disclosure obligations through a general "as-is" statement.

If you have specific questions regarding your condominium's warranties or disclosures, feel free to contact the Portland or Bend offices of Barker Martin, P.S.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

[The following update includes newly released figures for 2007 and supplements my original entry posted 3/29/08]

I get that lawyer bashing has become a national pasttime and that plaintiff lawyers are as far down on our society’s popularity chart as politicians.   But what I do not understand is how insurance companies--the quintessential example of corporate largess--have rocketed up the chart.

Madison Avenue has done an amazingly effective job transforming large cap insurance companies into friendly, pro-consumer institutions in the eyes of many.

To emphasize my point, think of the three most popular insurance companies?

I bet Geico was one of the first names that came to mind. What image pops up? How about a docile animated gecko that speaks in a British accent? Or what about PEMCO Insurance, you know, the “We’re a lot like you, Greenlake power walker or blue tarp camper guy.” What about arguably the industry leader for this transformation change, the AFLAC duck?

But strip away the cute computer generated geckos and ducks, and the numbers reveal the truth about the insurance industry.

Fact: For the past three years and continuing into 2008, the insurance industry in America has achieved record-breaking profits. This fact is nearly astounding considering Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005.

The numbers:

• 2005: $43.0 Billion profit (Source: Insurance information institute [insurance industry trade group])  
• 2006: $63.7 Billion profit (Source: Insurance Information Institute)
• 2007: $61.9 Billion profit (Source: Insurance Informaiton Institute) 
• 2008 projected: "Analysts expect the industry’s profitability to continue in 2008. . .The ratio of losses and expenses to premiums for 2008 is projected to be 97.3, a deterioration from an estimated 93.8 in 2007. The 93.8 estimate for 2007, if accurate, would represent one of the top 12 best underwriting performances over the 88-year period beginning in 1920." (Source: Insurance Information Institute)

In light of these record-breaking profits, the insurance companies are paying out less and less in claims against builders and developers.  Wthin the past twelve months alone, several of our homeowner association construction defect clients with multi-million dollar claims are facing zero contribution from insurance, as the insurers have included stringent exclusions to policies, including no payment for losses involving “condominium” or “multi-family residential” construction.

Several of the developers and contractors allegedly did not realize they were without insurance on their construction projects.  The developers and contractors obtained CGL policies and paid CGL premiums, but when it came time for the insurance companies to indemnify the insureds for the losses, sued the policy holders in declaratory judgment actions to avoid payment.

As a result , homeowners are left holding the bag on multi-million dollar repairs with no source of recovery because builders have created single-asset LLCs and distributed all income after the project was sold, and less and less insurance is available.  This shift has occurred in the context of insurance companies obtainng record profits.

One possible answer to the current disparity in loss and recovery in Washington is through the Condominium Qualified Warranty program created by the Washington legislature in 2004. RCW 64.35, et seq. 

Under the program, there is a two-year materials and labor warranty, a five-year building envelope warranty and a ten-year structural defects warranty. The program allows an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the substantially prevailing party, yet in no event may such fees exceed the reasonable hourly value of the attorney's work. This provision should appease the lawyer-bashing critics.  Surprisingly, no insurers have funded the warranty program.  One can only speculate the lack of participation by insurers has everything to do with cutting into their bottom lines. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are very few volunteer homeowner association boards that do not communicate via electronic mail. Although most board members know not to take any board action via email, the line between casual communication and official board action easily can be blurred. As general counsel for homeowner associations, I routinely advise boards that to the highest degree possible, they should reduce email communication. However, practically speaking, I understand board members are like just about every other member of American business culture who rely upon email as a valued communication tool and timesaving mechanism. The reason email between board members should be reduced or eliminated altogether is because association board action must be conducted in an official meeting and not conducted “off the cuff” outside the presence of association members.

• Notice: Homeowner association board meetings must be properly noticed and open to all association members (with limited exceptions for emergency and executive sessions) (RCW 24.03.120; ORS 65.214).  Oregon law allows for notice of meetings to be sent electronically, while Washington requires notice via U.S. Mail for condominium associations and as noted in the bylaws (including electronic notice, if prescribed) for PUD homeowner associations.
• Meetings via Consent (Oregon only): Unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise, action to be taken at an association board meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all the members entitled to vote on the action. The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents describing the action taken, signed by all the members entitled to vote on the action, and delivered to the association for inclusion in the minutes or filing with the corporate records. Action taken under this Oregon Nonprofit Corporations Act section (ORS 65.211) is effective when the last member signs the consent, unless the consent specifies an earlier or later effective date.
• Alternative Meeting Methodology: Except as otherwise restricted by an Association’s articles of incorporation or bylaws, board members may participate in a meeting by conference telephone or similar communications equipment so that all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time. Participation by this method constitutes presence in person at a meeting.

It isn’t email, but if HOA board members have to conduct board action and they cannot convene together, I recommend that a conference call be conducted with provisions for association members to listen in.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The sub-prime lending tsunami has rippled across the US economy, even reaching the Pacific Northwest condominium and homeowner association industry. Theoretically, an Association’s obligation to follow statutory and common law disclosure requirements should remain constant irrespective of whether the Dow Jones Industrial Average and housing market are soaring or slumping. However, practically speaking in a rising market when most everyone is making money, disclosures have been known to loosen; whereas, in a down market, disclosure statements are scoured over with heightened scrutiny. Whether the current stock market’s and housing market’s corrections have subsided or will continue indefinitely, mortgage underwriting requirements have tightened substantially for the foreseeable future. This change in the real estate marketplace requires association boards of directors to pay particularly close attention to: (a) disclosure requirements for condominium resale certificates (in Washington); (b) managing accounts receivable; (c) overseeing rental restrictions; and (d) following strict collections policies.

A.        Condominium Resale Certificates

In Washington, under RCW 64.34.425, a condominium unit seller must provide a purchaser with a Resale Certificate that includes eighteen separate written disclosures. Now that the lending industry has shifted its condominium review from a “limited” to a “full” review, association boards must ensure each required item is completed to the greatest extent possible.  Areas of particular concern in the current market environment involve pending litigation, pending or anticipated special assessments, a statement which shall be current to within 45 days of any common expenses or special assessments against any unit in the condominium that are past due over 30 days, a statement which shall be current to within 45 days of any obligation of the association which is past due over 30 days, a balance sheet and revenue/expense statement current to within 120 days, statement of any violations of the health or building codes, and history of any warranty claims made under a qualified warranty (if so provided). Although the number of condominium construction defect lawsuits has diminished over its peak earlier this decade, cases continue. In the limited time since the underwriting requirements stiffened and submission of this article, I have noted a significant rise in requests from lenders for clarification and supplemental information on resale certificates, especially disclosures related to construction defect lawsuits.

The statute is quite clear as to what must be disclosed in a condominium resale certificate. Although unit sales likely will be adversely affected to a degree not seen in recent memory due to construction defect lawsuits, significant special assessments or well underfunded reserves, condominium association boards should be aware of the heightened attention placed on these disclosures and should work closely with their professional manager and possibly legal counsel to provide accurate, thorough and comprehensive information.

B.         Accounts Receivable

If a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) or condominium homeowner association seeks a loan to fund a capital improvement, major repair project or other large capital expense, banks and other lending institutions will be paying closer attention to the financial statement of the association.  A feature component of the statement is the number of units behind in assessments and aggregate amount of accounts receivable. Prior to the recent tightening of underwriting requirements, an association could get away with several owners whose accounts were past due without much adverse impact. Now, it appears an association may need to ensure it has a nominal balance in overdue accounts receivable, or at a minimum, ensure that foreclosure or collections proceedings have commenced on those accounts that are overdue.

Although an association should manage its finances and accounts receivable proactively and work to minimize overdue accounts regardless of lending requirements or trends in the marketplace, as stated previously, this area of an association’s finances could make the difference between qualifying for an association loan and being rejected.

C.        Rental Restrictions

Many condominium and PUD homeowner associations have imposed rental caps in order to keep the number of non-owner-occupied homes below the percentage required by federal underwriting requirements. This ratio ordinarily hovers between seventy and eighty percent and varies depending upon size of loan, size of down payment and specific lending program (VA, FHA FNMA, etc.). With tighter lending requirements, to help preserve property values, obtain financing and improve overall credit scores, an association may wish to impose rental restrictions in addition to rental caps, including lease approval requirements (e.g., ensuring leases are submitted in compliance with the association’s procedural steps, if a lease renewal, confirm positive track record of the tenant and confirm that the lease adopts all of the association’s CC&R requirements) and tenant screening procedures (including having the owner/leasor conduct a consumer credit report, verification of the applicant’s employment and rental history, and conduct a public records check). A board also may wish to adopt heightened enforcement procedures that provide the association with rights to act directly against tenants who violate the CC&Rs.

D.        Collection and Foreclosure Policies

Foreclosure rates in the Puget Sound region increased forty-two percent in 2007 from the previous year, with more than 1.8 million sub-prime mortgages scheduled to reset to higher interest rates across the country this year and next. With such a large number of foreclosures pending and forecast, many homeowner associations in the region likely will experience in the near term bank foreclosures within their communities. During the upward housing market, many associations were reluctant to commence foreclosure proceedings or money judgment actions against homeowners within their communities who became past due on assessments, at least until the balance grew to a large sum. With the current tightened market, it is recommended that an association adopt strict collection and foreclosure criteria and protocol, and follow those protocols consistently.  

A homeowner association board of directors should take proactive steps and particular action to protect itself and its members from the legal risks associated with a down market. The steps described above may provide the general overview for such protections and help keep an association’s “head above water” in these turbulent times.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Homeowner associations often inquire as to their authority to tow vehicles within their communities. The following outline describes general Oregon law regarding homeowners associations’ legal authority and required procedures for towing vehicles. Please note that this posting contains general information and is not legal advice for a specific towing event, which would be unique to the circumstances surrounding that event.

The information below includes amendments to Oregon state law that became effective January 1, 2008. 

First, the board needs to determine if the streets within its community are public or private roads. This information should be contained within the Association’s Declaration and Plat. 

A.  Vehicles on Public Property

• Only a law enforcement officer or public official having jurisdiction over the property on which the vehicle is located has authority to remove and take custody of a vehicle located on a public right-of-way. A vehicle constituting a traffic hazard can be removed immediately. Otherwise, law enforcement must tag the vehicle and provide at least 24 hours’ notice before impounding it.
• To have a vehicle removed from a public right-of-way, a homeowner association’s options are limited to notifying the appropriate public agency of the location of the vehicle it wants removed. The public official may then arrange for and authorize the vehicle’s removal after 24 hours. The association may not authorize removing a vehicle from public property.

B.  Vehicles on Private Property

• A key issue is whether the vehicle is unlawfully parked at a “parking facility” or on “proscribed property.” A parking facility is any property used for motor vehicle parking. Proscribed property is any part of private property where a reasonable person would conclude that parking is normally not permitted at all or where a land use regulation prohibits parking, or property that is used primarily for parking at a dwelling unit (defined as a single-family residence or duplex). Oregon law prohibits leaving a vehicle on a parking facility if there is a no parking (or restricted parking) sign posted in plain view. In contrast, it is illegal to park on proscribed property without the permission of the owner whether or not a “no parking” sign is posted.
• Property owners may have illegally parked vehicles towed after notifying the local law enforcement. From a practical standpoint, however, tow companies generally will not tow vehicles from locations without “no parking” signs.
• Alternatively, property owners may tow abandoned vehicles from private property after: (1) posting a notice on the vehicle stating that it will be towed if not removed within 72 hours; (2) contacting the local law enforcement; and (3) completing a form setting forth the vehicle description, location from which the vehicle will be towed, and a statement that the above outlined requirements have been met. As of January 1, 2008, state law provides civil immunity for individuals or entities that tow the abandoned vehicle. 
• Additionally, a property owner in lawful possession of a vehicle with an appraised value under $500 may request the local authority to dispose of the vehicle. No certificate of title is required, but the local authority must verify the property owner’s lawful possession. The local authority must also issue certain notifications to the Department of Transportation and the person requesting the disposal. The advantage of this process is that it extinguishes all prior ownership and possessory rights. The property owner, however, may be charged a disposal fee.

C.  Summary

This posting does not provide an exhaustive list of Oregon law regarding towing vehicles and each association should review the local ordinances controlling for their jurisdiction. In general, state law requires that a homeowner association contact a public official, most likely local law enforcement, to have a vehicle removed from public property. An association may remove vehicles located on private property under its control immediately if the property is posted or if it qualifies as residential property. On unposted nonresidential property the vehicle may be towed after it has been abandoned for seventy-two (72) hours.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 4, 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued notice that it would implement its proposed ban on the use of exclusive contracts for existing video services in community associations and other multi-family housing developments. The ban would prevent cable companies from enforcing exclusivity clauses in video service contracts commencing in March 2008.

Previously, the FCC had issued an order confirming an October announcement that the agency would ban the enforcement of exclusivity clauses in existing video service contracts. An exclusivity clause is a contract term giving a provider, usually a cable company, the exclusive right of access or the exclusive right to provide video service in a community. As written, the order may affect community associations across the country.

The order applies to cable operators, telephone common carriers, and open video system operators. Providers of Direct Broadcast Satellite services and "private cable operators," which are companies that provide video service without using local rights-of-way, are not covered

Several industry groups have challenged the FCC’s authority to implement such a ban and the challenge will most likely delay implementation of the ruling into summer.

If your association has a contract with a video or cable programming distributor, you may want to review its provisions to determine if there is an exclusivity clause, and if so, what the effect on the contract will be once the FCC order goes into effect, assuming industry groups are unsuccessful in blocking the ban.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Every so often I am asked to help pick up the pieces after an association’s repair project went awry because the board utilized a cut-rate contractor. In the July-Aug 2007 edition of the Washington Community Associations Journal, I wrote an article entitled, “The Pitfalls of Hiring Your Brother-in-Law.” This posting summarizes the article, which can be found at: Barker Martin Articles. 

·        The Business Judgment Rule predicates that an association board should conduct a basic level of due diligence prior to entering into vendor contracts. A board should obtain a referral or reference from its management company (if professionally managed) or from other association boards, and not just pick the contractor from the Yellow Pages or a Google search, or worse, because the contractor is the brother-in-law of a board member.

·        Once a vendor is identified, ensure they are insured, licensed and bonded. But what do these terms mean, and what protections, if any, do these requisites provide?

·        “Insured” means that the entity or individual has appropriate insurance to cover the vendor’s negligent acts. Most insurance policies exclude intentional conduct. Also, insurance often does not cover general breaches of contract, unless the breach results in bodily injury or property damage resulting from an unforeseen, sudden event or occurrence. For example, insurance would not cover a painter who only applies one coat of paint instead of the contracted for two coats, or the landscaper who overzealously prunes the association’s favorite rhododendrons. Insurance should, however, cover the cost of repainting a car that was covered with overspray from painting the condominium exterior, or for bodily injuries suffered when a plumber neglects to set the parking brake and his truck rolls over a homeowner’s foot.

·        For major contracts, it is important for the association to insist on an adequate dollar amount of coverage and to be a named insured on the vendor’s policy. It is not enough to simply be identified as an “Additional Insured” on the vendor’s insurance certificate or declaration page. The Association should require the vendor to provide a copy of the “named insured” page of the vendor’s policy. 

·        “Licensed” simply means the vendor or service provider is registered to conduct business in the state. For more specialized vendors, such as general contractors and specialty contractors, it is imperative to know that the individual or company has followed the regulatory requirements to conduct its specific type of business. Although not a guarantee of quality or proficiency (because most state licensing requirements are simply a revenue generating process rather than a testing methodology), it is more of a red flag if the vendor is not licensed. Plus, many insurers require the policy holder be licensed in order for coverage to apply.

·        “Bonded” is another form of insurance, ordinarily for vendors who have access to client’s personal items or other similar losses. Bonded coverage is ordinarily limited to a nominal dollar amount, such as $5,000 or $10,000, and often covers intentional acts such as theft. This coverage would apply to a painter who has a bond and steals a homeowner’s $3,000 diamond watch. In such a case, the homeowner or association could file a claim directly against the painter’s bonding company. 

·        A “Performance Bond” is another type of bonding insurance. Unlike standard business or commercial general liability policies, performance bonds are designed to provide coverage to the aggrieved association or homeowner who suffers a pecuniary loss resulting from the contractor’s malfeasance, breach of contract or intentional act. As with standard bonds, the dollar value of performance bonds is quite low and may not cover the total value of damages suffered by the association.

·        To avoid employment tax and human resource issues and heightened litigation risks, it is important for the vendor to be an independent contractor, and not an employee of the association. The contract should be clear on its face that the relationship is between a client-vendor, and not between an employer-employee.

·        Lastly, association boards should be cognizant of conflict of interest issues. If a board is contemplating contracting with a family member or close personal friend of a board member, certain precautions should be taken, including recusal of the affected board member from voting to hire the individual or entity.

As with most board decisions, common sense is the most effective tool in the decision making process. Due diligence, prudence and following the foregoing steps should also keep association boards and managers from falling into the brother-in-law vendor trap.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In late 2006, I wrote an article that unintentionally created a minor maelstrom of backlash from several association management companies in Oregon and Washington. Although published in 2006 in the Community Associations Journal and Regenesis Report the topic is as relevant today as it was almost two years ago. Many management companies continue to serve two masters (homeowners and developer/declarants) without taking proactive steps to minimize the perceived, and sometimes actual, conflict of interest as demonstrated below.  

Property management companies retained by developer clients often have to walk a tight-rope as they balance the interests of their two clients: the developer and the homeowner association. In the perfect world, this dichotomy of client interests would not be at issue because the developer and homeowner association would share parallel interests. But practically speaking, inherent conflicts arise between developers and homeowners regularly, which place the property manager squarely in the middle of an undesirable situation. 

A.        Conflict in the Making

            A developer will hire a property manager to take the association through the transition from developer/ declarant control to homeowner control with an intention for the property manager to stay on as the association’s management company. At the time the management company is hired, it is clear the client is the developer. But soon thereafter, the manager has to begin working with the homeowner association members and must consider the interests of the homeowners.

            In large projects or master plan communities, a property management company may be retained many months prior to establishment of a homeowner’s association in order to manage the physical property and assist in creation of the association. As the development sells out and homeowners begin populating the association, additional duties are initiated, including management of operating and reserve financial accounts, coordination of association meetings, administration of vendor contracts, oversight of physical maintenance, et cetera. At the point of formal transition from developer or declarant control to homeowner control, the pendulum shifts and the property manager works almost exclusively for the association.

            But just as during initial retention by the developer, the property manager should begin to consider the interests of the ensuing homeowners, following transition, the manager may find it difficult to ignore the interests of the developer—the party that initially hired him or her. This dual master relationship creates a less than enviable challenge for the property manager. 

B.         Actual Examples of Actual Conflicts

            At or shortly after transition, an association becomes aware of potential construction defects within its condominium. The developer is notified and offers to repair problems. This scenario presents an immediate conflict of interest between the homeowners and the developer. It is in the interest of even the most honest developer to minimize the repair, as once the project is sold and turned over to the homeowners, the project shifts from a profit center to a cash drain. Thus, there are very few developers who would conduct an exhaustive investigation to determine the extent of the problems, choosing instead to effectuate the most minimal repair possible. This interest clashes head-on with the interest of the homeowners, who should conduct an independent, comprehensive investigation to determine the exact nature and scope of the problems or defects. The property manager is placed directly in the cross-hairs between the two competing interests. If the manager sides with the developer and recommends that the association accept the developer’s offer to repair the problem, then it is possible that he or she is compromising the interests of the homeowners. Conversely, if the manager recommends that an independent investigation be conducted, then the manager will surely aggravate the developer.

            Another example of developer-homeowner conflict involves financial accounting. Frequently, at time of transition, there are operating or reserve account questions. Although Washington law requires an audit and Oregon law requires a financial audit be conducted, for a substantial percentage of associations residual financial questions remain, such as whether and how much the developer contributed to homeowner dues during the time they owned units, maintenance costs that might have been attributable to the developer involving expenses related to finishing the project, or other administrative reimbursable expenses. More often than not, these types of questions are not answered, and seldom raised, during an audit or financial review.

Another condominium association was less than a year from transition when it discovered possible construction defects. The association obtained legal representation and was attempting to work with the developer and his attorney to resolve the problems short of litigation. Unbeknownst to the association’s attorney, and done behind counsel’s back, the developer met with the property manager and told her that he had two new properties that were coming on line within the next year and he was looking for a management company. In the same breath, the developer asked if the manager could arrange a meeting with the current association’s board of directors so he could pitch a repair plan “without the need to get the attorneys involved.”  

C.        How to Avoid the Conflict Conundrum

There are certain conflicts of interest that are inherent in the business world. Some professions, such as physicians and business facilitators, handle these conflicts through implementation of strict guidelines and rules. Other professions, such as the legal, accounting and real estate brokerage industries, are heavily regulated by state statutes or administrative codes. There are no such laws or guidelines in the property management industry—yet. Therefore, property management companies might consider self-regulating themselves until such time as more formal rules or policies are enacted. The following guidelines are suggested for those property management companies who are hired by developers or declarants and then continue to serve as the homeowner association management company.

            The most obvious and cleanest way to avoid this conflict is simply to avoid acting as both the developer/declarant manger and ensuing association manager. A property management company could either specialize in pre-transition properties on behalf of a developer/declarant, or post-transition properties on behalf of an association, but not both. Once control of the association shifted to the homeowners, the developer’s management company’s services would be terminated. The obvious drawback to this option is revenue. There are not many management companies that voluntarily choose to work only for developers or only for already established associations.

            The next best alternative would be for the property management company to state up front when hired by the developer that the manager would work for the developer up through time of transition, but once the control of the association shifted to the homeowners, the manager would act solely on behalf of the interests of the homeowners. This arrangement should be clearly defined and articulated in the services agreement with the developer/declarant. A possible drawback to this option is that there may be developers or declarants who would not be amenable to this arrangement, and would not accept the fact that the property manager’s allegiance would shift to the homeowners (even though the developer/declarant would no longer be paying the property manager post-transition). It likely would only take one example of the property manager siding with a homeowner association against the developer post-transition for the developer to abstain from using that property management company for future projects.

            The last option (and apparently most common in today’s industry) would be for the property management company to try to balance the interests of both clients simultaneously throughout the period of management. Although discouraged, when a property management company proceeds in this manner, it is highly suggested that the manager inform both the declarant/developer and homeowner association in writing of such dual representation and potential conflict of interest. It would be further recommended that the manager obtain written consent from both parties.

            If acting for both the developer/declarant and association, the property manager should also make it a practice to rely on independent consultants, rather than try to resolve the dispute or potential conflict internally. This custom would minimize the likelihood of perceived or actual wrong doing or unintentional favoring of one client over the other. For example, if a legal question arises, the manager should recommend that the association seek independent legal advice, and not advice obtained by the property manager and passed on to the association. Or, if construction or defect issues are suspected, then the manager should refer the association to an independent inspector with expertise in the field. If financial questions arise, it would be wise to conduct a review or, under severe circumstances, an audit of the association’s financials by an independent, certified CPA.

D.        Conclusion

Property management companies are placed in difficult situations every time they are hired by developers or declarants and carry on as the association’s manager. A substantial number of management companies’ business plans include such a portfolio of properties. For those companies who do not desire to become entangled in the conflict of interest quagmire, than they should ideally refrain from dual representation. For those companies who pursue such clients, they should take proactive steps to minimize the potential for conflict and to ensure they provide sufficient notice and even receive written consent from their clients. All property managers should refer questions or issues to independent, qualified consultants who should be hired by, and report directly to, the association board of directors, rather than pass information through the manager.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks