Before
addressing the specific legal and financial traps in the proposed documents,
all residents must understand how these sweeping changes came to be:
Drafted
Behind Closed Doors:
The
Board spent Association funds to hire legal counsel and completely rewrite our
foundational community documents without ever holding a single open meeting,
workshop, or community forum to ask unit owners what changes were actually
needed or wanted.
Shutting
Out Homeowners:
These
governing documents belong to all 77 unit owners--not just the five individuals
sitting on the Board. By debating and
formulating these restrictive changes in executive/closed-door sessions and
attempting to force-feed them to the community without prior consultation, the
Board violated basic principles of open governance, democratic participation,
and transparency.
Rules
for Us, Power for Them:
A
Board that operates in secret to craft new powers for itself and new
restrictions for homeowners cannot claim to be acting in the best interests of
the community. Dismissing homeowner
concerns as mere "misunderstanding" while ignoring their own failure
to consult the community demonstrates a complete breakdown of fiduciary
accountability.
The
Board’s response to the Vote No flyer attempts to dismiss homeowner concerns by
claiming that the proposed restated documents simply codify existing practices
or current Minnesota law. However, a
close review of the proposed text reveals that the new Declaration and Bylaws
introduce significant structural shifts, financial liabilities, and enforcement
powers that disadvantage unit owners.
Below
is a point-by-point rebuttal to the Board’s assertions.
The
Board’s Claim: The Board claims the
current documents are unclear, that the new documents do not shift new costs to
owners, and that they merely coordinate the master policy with HO-6 policies to
avoid out-of-pocket costs and disputes.
Rebuttal:
Shifting
Financial Burden for Exterior Failures: Proposed Declaration Section 10.3
explicitly states: “The Association is not responsible for damage to the
interior of the Unit that is not covered by the Association’s master policy
even if such damage is caused by water infiltration through the roof or
exterior surfaces of the Units.”
Under
standard common interest community principles--and common sense--when a shared
common element like a roof or exterior wall fails, the Association is responsible
for repairing both the common element and the resulting proximate damage. This clause unfairly forces individual
homeowners to absorb repair costs for water damage originating entirely from
common element structural failures.
The
Board’s Claim: The Board argues this is not new because Section 8.3 of the
current Bylaws already allows acceleration after a 30-day default, and state
law permits it.
Rebuttal:
While
the timeline (30 days) may mirror older frameworks, the financial consequences
in an era of sweeping document rewrites are vastly different. Proposed Declaration Section 6.1(i) and
Section 8.4(a) permit the Board to demand payment of the entire remaining
balance of the annual assessment instantly upon a single missed monthly
installment.
For
a community of 77 units, accelerating a full year’s worth of dues over a minor,
short-term oversight or bank processing delay creates an immediate, severe
financial trap that pushes homeowners toward unnecessary liens and foreclosure
proceedings.
3.
Broadened "Nuisance" and Behavioral Standards
The
Board’s Claim: The Board states it already has nuisance powers under existing
rules and that Section 7.27 simply encourages civil, professional behavior
without prohibiting disagreement.
Rebuttal:
Proposed
Declaration Section 7.27 goes far beyond standard nuisance rules by
criminalizing subjective offenses, such as prohibiting "unwelcome
emails" or statements deemed to have an intent to lower the perception of
"the Association’s property manager."
Vague,
subjective criteria like "lowering perception" or defining
communication as "unwelcome" are easily weaponized. In practice, this gives a sitting Board a
chilling tool to silence dissenting owners, stifle legitimate criticism of
management performance, and penalize residents who voice opposition at meetings
or via email.
The
Board’s Claim: The Board argues it already has entry rights for emergencies and
notes that the new documents add a requirement for reasonable advance notice
for routine maintenance.
Rebuttal:
While
notice is mentioned for routine items, proposed Declaration Section 7.17 grants
expansive entry authority whenever the Board "reasonably believed" an
imminent danger exists, or to inspect for conditions an owner has "failed
to maintain."
The
documents fail to define what constitutes a valid "emergency" or
establish a hard floor for a minimum notice period (e.g., 24 or 48 hours) for
non-emergencies, leaving homeowners vulnerable to arbitrary intrusions into
their private dwellings under the guise of compliance checks.
5.
Application of Payments to Oldest Balances
The
Board’s Claim: The Board claims Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 515B.3-102(h))
dictates that payments be applied to regular and special assessments first,
asserting that disputed fines cannot be paid ahead of monthly dues.
Rebuttal:
Proposed
Bylaws Section 8.4(d) establishes that all payments received are automatically
applied to the oldest assessment or charge on the account, regardless of how
the owner designates the payment.
If
the Board levies a disputed fine or legal fee, any check an owner submits
explicitly for monthly maintenance dues will be seized and redirected to pay
off the disputed fine first. This instantly forces the owner’s regular monthly
assessment into a technical default, triggering compounding late charges,
interest, and statutory acceleration.
6.
Proxies and Voting Controls
The
Board’s Claim: The Board defends its control over proxies by citing statutory
authority and claiming that the Secretary’s unlimited proxy holding is meant to
be voted strictly as owners direct.
Rebuttal:
Proposed
Bylaws Section 3.3 empowers the Board to place strict caps on how many proxies
independent resident organizers or ordinary homeowners can hold from neighbors
who cannot attend a meeting.
Simultaneously,
it carves out an explicit exemption allowing the Association Secretary (acting
on behalf of the Board) to hold an unlimited number of proxies. This creates an uneven playing field,
enabling the Board to consolidate voting power to push through self-serving
amendments while locking out grassroots community representation.
Conclusion
The
Board’s assertion that these changes merely "modernize" operations is
misleading. The restated Declaration and Bylaws expand Board immunity, erode
homeowner privacy, create financial tripwires, and chill free expression. Owners should exercise their right to vote
"NO" on the proposed restated governing documents to protect their
property rights and financial well-being at Bremer Way.