Disrupting The HOA Industry—Part I: Identifying the “Us vs. Them” Syndrome

There is a dirty secret affecting the HOA industry that no one talks about. It is pervasive, destructive and afflicts most homeowner associations across the continent. This ailment fractures communities, drains countless hours of board members’ and managers’ time, and wastes millions of homeowner dollars. Why isn’t anyone pushing back against this systemic trap? Because they have been brainwashed; we all have been brainwashed.

Homeowner association board members, owners, managers, and even many attorneys have been programmed in the “us versus them” mindset. “Us” being the board and managers, and “them” being the individual homeowners. Or if you wish, you can flip it around: “us” is the homeowners and “them” is the board and manager.

In almost 20 years of representing both associations and individual homeowners in HOA disputes, I found the “us” versus “them” dynamic appeared universally—literally in almost every one of the hundreds of disputes where I represented one side or the other. See, I just did it. I framed the conflict as “one side or the other.” In reality, both “sides”—the board and the homeowner—are part of the same organization . . . the same neighborhood . . . the same community. They are not necessarily on different “sides” of an issue as much as they possess differing perspectives.

This is an important distinction: the difference between two separate “parties” disputing an issue versus two separate people or groups of people within the same organization expressing diverging perspectives. In the former the individuals come to the dispute from dissimilar contexts and affiliations; in the latter, from a shared interest (the organization itself).

Perhaps an example may help:

John has lived in Anytown Gardens HOA for twelve years. He previously served on the board for six years, has never been accused of any rules violations, and gets along with his neighbors swimmingly. Longtime homeowners praise John and believe he is a good neighbor and fixture of the community. One day the board receives a complaint from a new neighbor of Jim’s alleging he walks his dog without a leash (HOA rules require dogs on leashes in common areas). The board, following its Enforcement Policy, sends John a warning letter. John responds stating he always walks his dog with a leash and there must be a mistake. He requests to know who complained. The board ignores John’s request. 

Two weeks later, the board receives a second complaint and sends John a Notice of Fine. John, per the HOA’s Enforcement Policy, requests a hearing which is conducted the following month. During the hearing, the board outlines the evidence against John and hears his defense. After deliberating, they uphold the $100 fine.

John retains legal counsel who writes a three-page letter to the board contesting the board’s “discriminatory treatment and actions against her client.” The board submits the letter to the HOA’s attorney, who responds in kind. The parties engage in acrimonious discussions and debate lasting several months leading to threatened litigation. Meanwhile several board members and John revert to shouting matches in the street. Many of John’s neighbors refuse to talk to him, and look down when they see him, upset that he “lawyered up” and is “wasting the HOA’s money.” Over a decade of peaceful living at Anytown Gardens has been shattered for John and many of his neighbors. Legal fees on both sides balloon to several thousands of dollars. Litigation looms.

Sound familiar? Have you seen this type of scenario play out in your community?

Upon the initial complaint, the board perceived John as an adversary. They were forced into this mindset by the HOA’s documents and policies. John, an esteemed, longtime member of the community, is treated as if he were a stranger—an accused. The board, following its guidelines, sent a “Warning Letter” which, however politely phrased, still consisted of an allegation of wrongdoing with notice to correct. Upon receipt of the letter, John felt ostracized and singled-out by his board. After denying the “charge,” he received a second more threatening notice of fine. All communication between the parties was limited to formal written correspondence.

The board acted exactly as it was trained by its attorney and governing documents: follow the CC&Rs, Rules, and Enforcement Policy. John acted in the way he was supposed to: politely oppose the accusation(s). Where did this lead the parties? Into a slippery, protracted conflict resulting in squandered expenditure of time, bad feelings, turmoil, and spiraling attorney’s fees.

Ever wonder why this happens? “Why we can’t all just get along?”

In Part Two of “Disrupting The HOA Industry: Why is it ‘Us vs. Them?’” I discuss how we got in this adversarial dissonance.