Southampton Board reviews policy on fines, finds it unlawful and issues refund

"The Board concluded that the late fee would be removed from your account and the collections practices would be reviewed and revised in order to ensure compliance with state statutes and recent court rulings." — Tom Markell, Senior Property Manager, July 30, 2013

The "late fee" violated ARTICLE IX, Section 5 of the Bylaws. Apparently the Board was unaware of this.

In late August, the Board issued a refund check, but they continue to show the unlawful late fee on the condo fee payment coupons.

If the Board believes the late fee is needed, they should change the Bylaws — lawfully, this time. They should return the fines unlawfully assessed against a homeowner for his red door.

County approves 22-story building, Whole Foods for Pentagon City

At its meeting on Saturday, the Arlington County Board gave the go-ahead for the construction of a 22-story apartment building in Pentagon City that will also house a Whole Foods.

A year on, trash container remains in public view

One year on, the trash can is still here. It's been moved from the back of the unit to the front.

Bylaws, Article X, Use Restrictions, Section 4 (h) is clear, "Trash and garbage containers shall not be permitted to remain in public view."

There was a time, under earlier Board of Directors, when the trash container would have been removed long ago — and it did not require fines.

Board stops enforcing the Bylaws?

We hear from those that attend Board meetings that the Board has stopped enforcing the Bylaws because they now realize they have no authority to fine homeowners. This is inexcusable — it amounts to a unilateral surrender of their fiduciary duty.

Past Boards found lawful ways to enforce the Bylaws without resorting to fines.

For example, if the outside mailbox is in violation of the Bylaws, the Board can give notice of violation to the homeowner and state the consequences.

In this instance, the consequence could be having a contractor remove the mailbox, leave it at the owners entrance, repair the wall if needed, and the Association would bill the homeowner. Bills not paid would eventually become a lien on the property or turned over to collectors.

The Board has been pretty creative when it comes to roof colors (we understand that homeowners weren't clamoring for a change, and the paint job cost double what it cost in the past*). Surely, it can come up with creative ways to enforce the Bylaws — past Boards did it.

*If this is incorrect, send us documentation with the correct figures.

Outside mailbox approved by Board?

Bylaws ARTICLE XI, Section 1 prohibits changes to the exterior of units unless "approved in writing as to harmony of external design, color and location".

Was it "approved in writing" by the Board?

Were homeowners advised this issue was on the agenda? Were homeowners provided the minutes of meetings? No.

Unlawful fines still being imposed on homeowners

The Board of Directors has yet to rescind its policy of imposing unlawful fees or fines on homeowners.

In a previous post, we reported on a "late fee" of $50 being imposed on a homeowner. The homeowner wasn't informed that a monthly payment had not been received, and the first notice to the homeowner was a collection letter from Cardinal Management.

Fees or fines, unless defined in the condominium covenants, may not be imposed.

Under ARTICLE IX, Section 5 of the Bylaws, any monthly installment "which is not paid within ten (10) days after it is due, shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed nine percent (9%) per annum".