Legal > I am contemplating buying a condo in a building >

I am contemplating buying a condo in a building that has four units, two business, two residential. One residential would be mine, one business would be another new owner, and the remaining units (one bus, one res) belong to the builder and developer. The HOA agreement gives the builder 5 votes for his residence and 1.5 votes for his business unit. It gives me 2 votes for my unit, and the other business owner gets 1.5 votes. Since this constitutes an irrevocable majority on the part of the builder, and his position was that it was done on the basis of square feet per unit, is this an unlikely candidate for purchase? The builder suggested that I could add language to the HOA agreement that called for a "goal of unanimous consent or at least consensus" on all issues, which I wrote thusly: ""Inasmuch as the apportionment of voting rights as detailed in this document represents an irrevocable majority on the part of the owner, it is agreed that the overriding goal of all issues considered by the HOA will be to reach a unanimous agreement on the part of all tenants. If a unanimous agreement cannot be reached, a working consensus, at the agreement of all parties, can be utilized. If attempts an unanimity and consensus prove to be unsuccessful, the minority voting bloc retains all rights to appeal as outlined in the Bylaws and Rules and Regulations."

My question is, will an addition to the HOA agreement have any "teeth" at all?

Optional Information:
Denver, Colorado

Already Tried:
this is my first attempt at getting legal advice

Customer (name blocked for privacy)

I would not advise my clients to enter into any deal where the builder has so much control. A housing association group can divide votes any way it likes and in giving the builder so much control, 6.5 votes, he would always override your vote and there is no definition of a "working consensus" in the document, which could lead to more confusion.

The language you have crafted doesn't do anything since under the bylaws you still retain rights. Since one person still has all of the control, you are really getting nothing but the right to spend money if you have to go to court over an issue. If you want to do something, then consider a clause that would mandate impartial mediation in cases where there are disagreements and the irrevocable majority is the only one on the side of an issue to be paid for in equal shares by all sides.

I hope you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT for each of my answers. This is necessary for me to be paid for my work and so that I can get credit for assisting you. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!

If you have additional questions, please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.

Related Answers