Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Default Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    My question involves real estate located in the State of: Connecticut

    Hello there, I'm doing a little research into how the different states have applied UCIOA in recent years, particularly as regards whether provisions in the documents of communities existing prior to enactment are superseded by those of UCIOA. In the case of CT, it looks to me like they don't, but I'm not an attorney and not sure of my interpretation.

    "Sec. 47-216. Applicability to preexisting common interest communities. (a) Except as provided in section 47-217, sections [listed], to the extent necessary in construing any of those sections, apply to all common interest communities created in this state before January 1, 1984; but those sections apply only with respect to events and circumstances occurring after January 1, 1984, and do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities."

    I read this as meaning that where HOA documents do not address the issues covered by the sections [listed], then the Act applies. Otherwise, where there is a conflict between existing HOA documents and the new law, the new law does not supersede the provisions of those documents. Am I right?

    In my state of WA, the provisions governing budget approval in the new law explicitly supersede those of our HOA documents in pre-existing communities, which we believe to be unconstitutional (as the public interest argument is weak). Trying to understand whether this is also the case in CT.

    Can anyone out there clarify for me? I would so appreciate this!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17,475

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Why?

    What is happening to you that gives rise to a very broad question?

    Explain your situation and maybe you'll get some helpful comments.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Thanks for responding, adjusterjack.

    I'm not sure what else to explain, to be honest. I am trying to determine to what extent provisions of UCIOA-based laws introduced in other states are applicable to communities created prior to enactment of the law.

    In Washington state, specific provisions of the new(ish) HOA law explicitly supersede our existing bylaws (our main concern is the voting requirements for budget ratification). I'd like to know if this has been the case in other states. In this case, Connecticut. If the law there states that the sections listed "do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities", doesn't that mean that existing bylaws take precedence?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    15,931

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Quote Quoting Martin18
    View Post
    Thanks for responding, adjusterjack.

    I'm not sure what else to explain, to be honest. I am trying to determine to what extent provisions of UCIOA-based laws introduced in other states are applicable to communities created prior to enactment of the law.

    In Washington state, specific provisions of the new(ish) HOA law explicitly supersede our existing bylaws (our main concern is the voting requirements for budget ratification). I'd like to know if this has been the case in other states. In this case, Connecticut. If the law there states that the sections listed "do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities", doesn't that mean that existing bylaws take precedence?
    Ok, let me try to explain...you are asking an incredibly broad question, with very little context. Therefore its very difficult to answer. However, from the little facts you have included...basically that you are looking at a Washington state law when you and your HOA are located in CT. A law from Washington State is not going to be relevant to CT. If you want more information than that, then here is what I suggest...

    Explain what is actually going on, then ask your questions.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Okay, I apologize, I'll try to make it clearer. It is a broad question, though.

    The Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act came into force in mid-2018. It explicitly superseded the bylaws of my preexisting homeowner's association in WA regarding the approval of dues increases. Before, our bylaws required a majority of 60% of voting members to approve a proposed dues increase (admittedly a high bar). Since WUCIOA, approval of a dues increase has not required a single vote in favor. Instead, 50% plus 1 of our entire membership (not just voting members) must vote against a budget in order for it to fail. Since then, our dues have increased by 67%.

    When the bill was going through the legislature, legislators were assured that it would not affect existing HOAs. However, a provision stating that budget ratification procedures in existing associations are superseded was slipped in during the very last committee stage and legislators have told us they voted on this unawares - it was not mentioned in the Bill Report.

    Many residents of my HOA feel that this provision is unconstitutional as it violates our contracts with the HOA.

    Because of this situation, I have decided to see how widespread this issue is in other states that have adopted laws based on the model act (UCIOA). Connecticut is one. I am analyzing the language in their code and finding it difficult to understand.

    Specifically, I'm trying to understand the part "do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities."

    There is a list of sections in the quote above (didn't bother with all the numbers) that are stated to apply to pre-existing communities. However, it then goes on to say that those same sections "do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities."

    So, if existing HOA governing documents already cover the budget ratification process, then does the law supersede them or not, given the statement that they "do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities."? It sounds to me like it doesn't, but I have seen anecdotal information to suggest that it does.

    Appreciate your input!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,613

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Connecticut's statute 47-216 is very nearly identical to 1-204 of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA). The drafters of the UCIOA provided the following commentary that explains how this provision works:

    1. This section states the general rules of applicability of the Act to common interest communities which were created before the effective date of this Act.

    2. The Act adopts a novel three-step approach to common interest communities created before the effective date of the Act. First, certain provisions of the Act described in Section 1-204 automatically apply to “old” common interest communities, but only prospectively, and only in a manner which does not invalidate provisions of declarations and bylaws valid under “old” law. Second, “old” law remains applicable to previously created common interest communities where not automatically displaced by the Act. Third, under Section 1-206, owners of “old” common interest communities may amend any provisions of their declaration or bylaws, even if the amendment would not be permitted by “old” law, so long as (a) the amendment is adopted in accordance with the procedure required by “old” law and the existing declaration and bylaws, and (b) the substance of the amendment does not violate this Act. In addition, as in the case of “new” projects, special exceptions are provided, in Section 1-205, for “small” projects.

    3. Elaboration of the principles described in the last Comment may be helpful.

    First, Section 1-204 provides that the enumerated provisions automatically apply to common interest communities created under pre-existing law, even though no action is taken by the unit owners. Many of the sections which do apply should measurably increase the ability of the unit owners to effectively manage the association, and should help to encourage the marketability of common interest communities created under early condominium statutes, or under common law. To avoid possible constitutional challenges, these provisions, as applied to “old” common interest communities, apply only to “events and circumstances occurring after the effective date of this Act;” moreover, the provisions of this Act are subject to the provisions of the instruments creating the common interest community, and this Act does not invalidate those instruments.

    Example 1: Under Section 1-204, Section 4-109 (Resale of Units) automatically applies to “old” common interest communities. Accordingly, unit owners in common interest communities established prior to adoption of the Act would be obligated after the Act's effective date to provide resale certificates to future purchasers of units. However, the failure of a unit owner to provide such a certificate to a purchaser who acquired the unit before the effective date of the Act would not create a cause of action in the purchaser, because the conveyance was an event occurring before the effective date of the Act.

    Example 2: Under Section 1-204, Section 3-118 (Association Records) automatically applies to “old” common interest communities. As a result, a unit owners' association of an “old” common interest community must maintain certain financial records, and all the records of the association “shall be made reasonably available for examination by any unit owner and his authorized agents,” even if the “old” law did not require that records be kept, or access provided. If the declaration or bylaws, however, provided that unit owners could not inspect the records of the association without permission of the president of the association, the restriction in the declaration would continue to be valid and enforceable.

    Second, the prior laws of the State relating to common interest communities are not repealed by this Act because those laws will still apply to previously-created projects, except when displaced. Some States at one point made certain provisions of their condominium statutes automatically applicable to pre-existing condominiums. In certain instances, this attempted retroactive application has raised serious constitutional questions, has caused doubts to arise as to the continued validity of those condominiums, and has created general confusion as to what statutory rules should be applied.

    Third, the Act seeks to alleviate any undesirable consequences of “old” law, by a limited “opt-in” provision, as provided in Section 1-206. More specifically, Section 1-206 permits the owners of a pre-existing common interest community to take advantage of the salutory provisions of this statute to the extent that can be accomplished consistent with the procedures for amending the project instruments as specified in those instruments and in the pre-existing statute or common law.

    Example 3: Under most “first generation” condominium statutes, unit owners have no power to relocate boundaries between adjoining units. Under Section 2-112 of this Act, unit owners have such power, unless limited by the declaration. While Section 2-112 does not automatically apply to “old” common interest communities, if the unit owners of a pre-existing community amend their declaration to permit unit owners to relocate boundaries, this section would validate that amendment, even if it were invalid under old law.

    1-204. Applicability to Pre-Existing Common Interest Communities., Unif.Common Interest Ownership Act (2008) 1-204. That's about as detailed an explanation for this provision as you are likely to find anywhere as no appellate cases have been decided in Connecticut regarding the application of this section.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Taxing Matters, I am overjoyed at this info, thank you so much! I had actually come across that document but had not seen all the explanatory material below the different articles. Unbelievably useful!

    I have a couple of follow-up questions but am dealing with a work deadline right now. Hope you can help me when I return.

    Thanks again.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Interpreting the Ct Common Interest Ownership Act

    Finally getting around to following up here after a work rush!

    So Taxing Matters, what you posted was incredibly helpful for me because it highlighted that the retroactive budget ratification procedures we have here in WA were not included in the original UCIOA model law, apparently due to a concern that they would be found unconstitutional.

    That still leaves me the task, though, of seeing which other states have retroactively applied the same kind of provision to pre-existing HOAs. And it still, therefore, leaves me struggling to understand the CT provision:

    "[...]sections [listed] [...] apply to all common interest communities created in this state before January 1, 1984; but those sections apply only with respect to events and circumstances occurring after January 1, 1984, and do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities."

    How can the sections (including budget ratification) apply to pre-existing communities (for future circumstances), yet not invalidate the existing provisions of their governing documents?

    Further insight really appreciated!


    "So, if existing HOA governing documents already cover the budget ratification process, then does the law supersede them or not, given the statement that they "do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws or surveys or plans of those common interest communities."? It sounds to me like it doesn't, but I have seen anecdotal information to suggest that it does.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Transferring Title: How to Transfer a Car Title With Joint/Common Ownership
    By rudderveronica966 in forum Vehicle Registration and Title
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-26-2018, 12:40 PM
  2. Co-Ownership: What is a Tenant in Common's Equity Interest in the Shared Property
    By ransomedbyfire in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-16-2017, 11:51 AM
  3. Co-Ownership: Co-Ownership-Tenants of Common
    By basicgrey7 in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 07:48 PM
  4. Homeowners Associations: California Common Interest Development Property Purchase Legality
    By CA Homeowner in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2008, 02:37 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources