In a grossly twisted misrepresentation of facts, homeowners in residential associations are told that their relationship with the association is a contractual one.  They are told that “they agreed”.  OK.  Let’s assume this is correct (although I still maintain that no sane person would ever agree to the conditions in homeowner associations if they actually knew what they were getting into).  The “contract” in this case says that the homeowner agrees to pay the corporate entity a certain sum of money either monthly, quarterly or annually and in return they will get certain services.  Sounds straightforward enough, doesn’t it?  The contract usually includes a list of remedies available to the HOA in the event the homeowner breaches his or her end of the bargain.  However, there is no corresponding list of remedies available to the homeowner when the HOA fails to uphold its end of the contract.   The only option they have is to hire an attorney and go to court.  So why isn’t there a list of cheap remedies for the owners  when they are not getting what they are paying for?   Can they fine the HOA or withhold their assessments?  Maybe that should be part of every “contract” that comes attached to a home.  

John Cowherd joins us On The Commons.  John is a Virginia attorney who represents owners who find themselves having to defend their rights in their associations.  He is a blogger.  He writes about current cases and court decisions affecting property owners in Virginia.   His blog is called Words of Conveyance   In his latest posting he writes about Lambert V. Sea Oats where the condo owner scores a victory in court. It’s a classic breach of contract case that involves a broken door jamb, of all silly things.  It was the condo’s responsibility but they failed to live up to their end of the sacred contract.  The condo owner, Martha Lambert, had to sue the condominium to collect the $500 she spent fixing the door jamb.  And that’s when it starts getting interesting.  We talk to John about the ins and outs of the case and start realizing that judges may be somewhat reluctant to award fees in the thousands of dollars to settle a $500 item.  The case went up to the Virginia Supreme Court and was remanded to the lower courts who had awarded Martha only $350 of the approximately $9,000 in legal fees it has cost her.  So, should these contracts be more equitable and provide remedies for the owners in the event the associations is in breach of the governing documents?  What do you think?