top of page

 

 

The better solution is the HOA Dept described by Proposed Legislation #2

ADR wastes homeowner money and time and doesn’t necessarily create an agreement.


ADR costs are not recoverable if the homeowners wins, and Board Members dont pay the mediation costs even if they lose, the whole HOA pays. So win or lose the homeowner is in effect fined.

Even if the HOA is required to pay the total cost of the ADR, the fact that the HOA is paying an outside vendor of ADR services, means that ADR organization will get more business if they rule in favor of the HOA, there can be no neutral parties as ADR agencies.

Even if the government agency is the ADR, why bring in another agency when you need the HOA Dept anyway.  Make good laws and let the HOA Dept enforce the laws and if needed be the mediator.

During ADR, the HOA can say anything they want to you including threats, and that information can not be presented in court. This allows the HOA high levels of intimidation in ADR.

In most situations ADR doesnt make sense. If the homeowner is fined for a CCR violation but there is no applicable CCR, or there is no proof that the homeowner violated the CCR, or if the issue is whether the HOA is responsible for repairing a common area asset like a roof, all of these are yes or no questions. Either the HOA is following the law or it is not. Why would the HOA be allowed to intimidate the homeowner into paying a smaller fine or to agree to pay for part of the roof repair, if the HOA is wrong?

The ADR attorneys, as the only thing they do is enforce HOA laws, will know the HOA laws much better than any ADR administrator.  Thus the decisions will be more fair for all parties.

Using an HOA Dept as described in our #2 Proposed Legislation is a much better solution.

bottom of page