law. Such legal authority also includes the association’s declaration, bylaws and articles of incorporation. Rules which are inconsistent with applicable laws or other governing documents generally will be unenforceable.
Third, rules must be reasonable. A well-established body of case law in Illinois and other states establishes a distinction as to how recorded covenants and rules are to be interpreted by courts. Covenants are to be presumed valid unless they are arbitrary, against public policy or violate fundamental rights, while rules are subject to judicial scrutiny as to their reasonableness. In other words, courts generally are not supposed to delve into the reasonableness of a restriction contained in the covenants, but a restriction established by rule can be invalidated if a court deems the restriction to be unreasonable.
Fourth, a board should keep in mind certain practical rulemaking considerations. The overall purpose of rules is to address operational details – not to restate restrictions already contained in the covenants. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a “standard” set of association rules. Rules must be customized to suit the type of association and the individualized features and issues present at a particular property. Associations that “borrow” rules drafted for other properties in most cases ultimately find that such a shortcut was an irresponsible choice. In addition, the overall breadth of the rules should be considered. A board should only adopt those rules it intends to enforce, and an unnecessarily extensive set of rules overregulating resident behavior can promote homeowner non-compliance or create a negative perception of the association within the community. In preparing rules, a primary objective should be to draft language which is specific and precise enough to be legally enforceable but at the same time not overly wordy or punitive in tone. An experienced community association attorney should be well equipped to assist in the drafting of rules which achieve this objective.
Rule Enforcement Procedures
Subsection 18.4(l) of the Condominium Act authorizes a condominium board to impose reasonable fines against a unit owner for violation of the declaration, bylaws or rules and regulations, so long as the association first provides the unit owner with notice and an opportunity for a violation hearing. Subsection 18.5(c)(7) of the Condominium Act states that the same procedure is required of master associations, and Subsection 1-30(g) of CICAA provides that this procedure applies to associations subject to that statute. Regardless of the type of association, care must be taken to check the governing documents to determine whether there are additional violation procedures which must be followed. For example, enforcement provisions in
association rules often prescribe certain time frames and forms to be used in connection with violation hearings and a schedule of fines for violations. While violation hearings may (and typically should) be conducted at portions of board meetings held in closed session, final decisions regarding violations must be voted upon at open portions of board meetings. It is a good practice to notify unit owners regarding the disposition of violation hearings via a ruling on violation report or similar form.
The Importance of Reasonableness Although perhaps an obvious point to community association industry professionals, it is indisputably essential that a community association board act reasonably. Adherence to this principle can be pivotal in the context of rulemaking and rule enforcement. Simply put, if a homeowner challenges an unreasonable rule, there will not be a strong likelihood of a successful outcome for the association in court. Similarly, excessive fines are disfavored by judges. Fines should be consistent with any fine schedule which has been adopted by the association and should be commensurate with the nature, scope and frequency of the violations. If a violation relates to actions which constitute a legitimate threat to the safety of residents, the physical integrity of the building or the quality of life within the community, swift, decisive enforcement action usually is appropriate and in most cases will be upheld if challenged. Conversely, inordinate fines for single, minor infractions will be difficult to collect if challenged, even when the association has obtained skilled, vigorous legal representation. Of course, rules should be applied in a uniform, consistent and non-discriminatory manner. If widespread sentiment within the community disfavors a particular restriction that is non-essential to day-to-day operations or legal compliance, the board should consider amending the governing documents to modify or delete the restriction. Decisions regarding these issues require that boards evaluate existing rules from time to time and at all times employ reasonable business judgment, as well as simple common sense.
CONCLUSION
Like the character Raskolnikov, association homeowners can and should be held responsible for their transgressions. However, community associations also must uphold their obligation to comply with rulemaking and enforcement procedures established in governing documents and applicable law. Ultimately, those boards which adopt reasonable restrictions through rules and apply the rules in a reasonable manner will have the greatest likelihood of achieving smooth association operations and minimizing avoidable disputes with homeowners.
|
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60