FACTS OF THE CASE. The Association’s board of directors decided that it was time to amend its CC&Rs and Bylaws. Both documents required that any amendments be approved by 75 percent of the owners.
Voting was conducted entirely by mail. As of the time set for the close of voting, many owners had not yet sent in their ballots, so the Association extended the deadline and sent another ballot to each non-voting owner. When the ballots were finally counted, only 52 percent of the owners had voted in favor of the amendments, while a full 25 percent did not even bother to vote.
The Association requested that the court approve the amendments. However, one member objected, arguing that the Association intentionally failed to seek additional votes since it knew that any further solicitation of non-voting owners was likely to lead to the “outright defeat” of the proposed amendments.
Do you think that the court ruled in favor of the Association by approving the amendments, or did it rule in favor of the member by sustaining her objections?
THE RULING OF THE COURT. The court ruled in favor of the Association in the case of Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Association v. Seith (2008).
The Court approved the amendments because the Association had made a reasonably diligent effort to permit all eligible members to cast their votes. Specifically, the Association mailed a reminder to all non-voting owners, placed another voting reminder in the Association’s newsletter, held an informational membership meeting about the proposed amendments, extended the voting deadline, and sent a second ballot to each owner who had not voted.
On the other hand, the objecting owner submitted no evidence about the Association’s allegedly improper motives in failing to seek additional membership participation in the election.
Although it would not have been difficult for the Association to try reaching each non-voting owner by telephone, this was not necessary as the Association’s other efforts to convince these apathetic owners to cast their ballots were sufficient. Therefore, the vote in favor of the amendments was proper and should be approved.