Colorado Ct. Says HOA Can be Enjoined From Holding Special Board Meetings Without Proper Notice

by | Nov 21, 2016 | Board of Directors, Case Decisions

Colorado Appellate Court decision (November 3, 2016).

In this case, the owners of several separate interests within a common interest community sought injunctive relief from the court in an effort to enjoin the homeowners association from conducting special meetings of the board of directors that were being held in violation of the association’s bylaws because proper advance notice was not being provided to the homeowners. Through a review of minutes of past meetings, the owners learned that the board of directors had conducted special meetings regarding the drafting of an Amended Declaration for the community which contained provisions that the homeowners were opposed to without giving the homeowners the required advance notice of the meetings and the opportunity to provide input on the subject under consideration.

The trial court found in favor of the association in ruling that it had no legal authority to enjoin future violations of civil statutes (referring to the Colorado statutes that pertained to special meetings of the association’s board of directors). The homeowners then filed an appeal which challenged the findings of the lower court.

The appellate court reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings relative to the requested injunctive relief after finding that: (i) the statutes under consideration created a legally protected interest in open meetings; (ii) the purposes of the statutes were to promote effective and efficient property management; and (iii) the matter involved issues that were consistent with other cases that granted injunctive relief were there was a loss of a contractually negotiated right to control. Thus, the appellate court concluded that the plain language of the statutes in question gave courts the authority to enjoin the violation of their provisions where the moving party was able to demonstrate noncompliance and harm.

See case decision: Anderson_v._Applewood_Water_