I thought I'd heard it all - "my" HOA included a paragraph in the minutes concerning the legality of security cameras pointed at other resident's windows. And one of those people lives next door to me. So I reported the camera to the HOA. Their response is I should call law enforcement, it's "not their issue to solve." I asked why they addressed security cameras and mentioned the CC&Rs. They say they never did. I took another look at the minutes which I had saved. Then I went on line and looked at the minutes there. The info about security cameras was removed! So it's attorney time.
I was the secretary on my HOA board. I kept meeting minutes in a google doc. The president got voted out. She then said we owed her money. She went back into the minutes and updated the minutes to create a story of stuff that didn't happen like approving using her personal company for patrolling. She threatened to get lawyers involved. Problem was, she was old. Im young. Right away I just pulled up the edit history and showed all the edits she made after being voted out. She didnt realize changes were saved like that. Our lawyers sent her a strongly worded letter with screenshots of her edits and we havent heard from her since.
Wow - pretty much the same issue with "my" HOA Board. Two sets of minutes changed when two problems arose. Love the way you handled it. And, yes, attorneys end the bickering rather quickly.
I’m secretary of the board for a non profit and I’m so careful with the meeting minutes for exactly this reason. I’ll make the all the edits, I’m the only one with access to the docs in the google drive, I only send out the doc as a pdf, and if I need to reference them later I only open the pdf and never the editable doc. I don’t want to be accused of changing anything once the official documents go out, that’s how important the minutes are.
Yeah we now changed it so minutes are immediately put into a pdf and shared with everyone when done.
Just FYI, it's easy to edit PDF files.
Just gotta include a checksum of the original file then.
Ugh. I hate it when they get off scott free like that. Should get automatic prison time for pulling stuff like that.
Or at least an arrest in case there are issues with her in the future, there is evidence of a pattern.
I'm on my HOA. This is why you should PDF the minutes and email them with some regularity so that there is a paper trail of the accepted minutes.
Your HOA shouldn’t be changing minutes, and there isn’t anything you or the HOA can do about someone else’s cameras.
The HOA can make rules governing camera positioning and such.
They can try, but this has been beaten to death in court.
They literally can’t. They think they can but courts have said you can place a camera anywhere along the exterior of your house/property as long as it’s not pointed directly at let’s say a bathroom window where the owner of the camera can’t prove it’s there to protect their property. If my camera on the side of my house is there to protect my side but it also happens to see into your back yard, fair game.
Could you please cite a handful of those cases where the Courts have said cameras can be placed along the exterior of a house as long as it's not pointed at a bathroom, etc., window. I am familiar with "were there's an expectation of privacy" and cannot find what you are referencing.
All of this falls under “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Katz V US. Driveway, sides, front of house, visible from the street…you have no expectation of privacy. I have a camera that captures primarily my back yard, rear doors, fence entrance. It just so happens to also capture 2 other neighbors back yards but only maybe 20% of it. Perfectly fine to do so.
This isn’t a specific case like a camera on someone’s home but a pole camera set up by LE. Remove all thoughts about LE or if it was right or wrong and look at it strictly from a reasonable expectation of privacy stand point. They weren’t zooming in through the bathroom windows, bedrooms etc, just coming and going.
US V Moore-Bush
US vs Moore-Bush is about POLE CAMERAS. KATZ addressed hidden cameras/microphones outside public phone booths and specifically didn't address private property. Interesting use of precedence.
You’re missing the point. Look past their use for LE. Remove pole and just read “camera”. The SC shot it down because there’s no reasonable expectation coming and going which they clearly stated that is what they were watching. Same thing for cameras on your house if what they are capturing is primarily your property.
I don't know if or where you went to law school, BUT you cannot reference a Court decision and cherry pick. Both cases you cited are VERY specific. There is a BIG difference between a camera mounted on a pole and one 10 feet from your bedroom window, eye level. Again, law school? Criminal justice degree?
I’m not sure what you’re getting on about or what you’re not understanding. I’ve pointed out multiple times and very clearly that you obviously can’t claim you’re securing your property if you point a camera directly at a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 10 feet from a window, pointed right at it is one of those instances. Can I put a camera on the back corner of my house that captures my side yard but happens to have some neighbors windows in view (but clearly can’t see in them)…yes, yes you can. Just not getting it and that’s fine. Is what it is.
What I am saying is the references, the decisions, you are quoting have nothing to do with the issue at hand. A camera near a public phone booth has NOTHING to do with a camera 10 feet from my window. Citing case law which is not pertinent does nothing but confuse the situation. I fail to see how you putting a camera on "the back corner of [your] house ... but happens to have some neighbors' windows in view (but you clearly can't see in them)" has anything to with a camera 10 feet away, pointed at my window.
He’s seen every episode of Law & Order.
The best of the week! Great answer and probably true.
Please share State and County.
You're mistaking things. Courts have ruled incidental viewing of neighboring properties is fair game and not actionable. That is not the same as ruling HOAs cannot regulate placement of camera as to where on the exterior of the property they can be physically placed as part of their architectural modifications rules and processes which can include disallowing if they do not meet the reasonable rules placed.
HOAs have tried and failed. They have zero say where they are placed on your house since every house/property is different. Having lived in a few HOAs and currently in a stupidly strict HOA, placement of cameras doesn’t count under an architectural modification. They could perhaps say they either need to be black or white perhaps. But placement, nope.
HOAs have tried and failed to ban cameras. That is not what we are talking about.
This is untrue. They can place reasonable restrictions and rules on placement, color, size, etc. as long as those rules do not effectively ban cameras just like they can regulate any other exterior addition to a property.
Just because your HOA chooses not to does not mean they cannot.
You really should read something completely before commenting. You claim the poster was wrong then tried to prove it by stating something that the poster already stated as the exception.
You really should read something completely before commenting. The person I'm replying to specifically stated placement is not something am HOA can regulate and I'm saying otherwise.
🍿
Is this still r/fuckhoa ? I'm seeing an inordinate amount of simping for HOAs in this thread. OP has a valid legal argument and the HOA should be in trouble because of it. Letting things slide is how you get shitty HOAs.
Thank you - I think the category is called "Fuck the HOA if they hurt me, but if they hurt you, fuck you."
Reddit sold out and filled up with bots and sheep years ago, nothing here is as it was.
No doubt! I DO find it amusing, bots or not, that my post was about the HOA changing legal documents (and minutes are legal documents) 90% of the responses were about laws regarding privacy/security cameras.
Is this still r/fuckhoa ? I'm seeing an inordinate amount of simping for HOAs in this
threadsub-reddit.I think you’re seeing OP being a bit of an ass and trying to find a legal solution to something that probably doesn’t warrant it.
How does blatant fraud for enrichment not warrant a legal solution?
Where’s the enrichment?
Not enforcing a rule doesn’t create enrichment.
OP describes a situation where they approved a tree type, changed the notes to make it look like they didn't, and then fined the homeowner who planted the tree they had allowed
Thank you for taking the time to read my posts/.
In OP’s case though? Because it doesn’t sound like the person with the tree situation is looking to bring this suit.
It has become a pattern. How many other times have they succeeded in their enrichment based on their fraud now becomes the question. The board members have opened themselves up individually to both civil and criminal action.
HOAs should always be dealt with as harshly as possible
More than a bit, reading some of his other comments
In your mind, what specifically does "the HOA should be in trouble" mean?
And don't frame my question as some tacit support for HOAs, its not. But its so unclear what the end goal is here that it seems like you don't know how any of this works. Like what do you think is gonna happen, best case scenario? A judge dissolves the HOA because of a Board Member editing minutes?
Like, I think what is "gonna" happen is the Board isn't going to amend the Minutes in the future without following legal protocol. Like, that's what I think is "gonna" happen.
Im sorry, does the word gonna offend you or something? Why do you keep putting it in quotes?
Perhaps because it is a tad sophomoric.
My friend, we are in a sub called "fuckHOA", are you really looking for Harvard-level editing?
Just answering your question as to why it might be in quotation marks.
Wouldn't i sound like a real jackass if I said "that's not a complete sentence!" Yes, I would, this is reddit.
you'd sound like a real jackass no matter what came out of your mouth or fingers. it's about the source not the material
lol
I didn't say to let it slide. Jesus.
I mean, you seem to be by questioning why someone with a legal issue regarding their HOA would engage with their legal representative.
Jesus has nothing to do with this - to quote you - "Yeah sounds like a big waste of time and money on your part." That isn't letting it slide?
If you're gonna put words in my mouth then I guess the conversation is over.
Yes, if that's what I'm "gonna" do, quote you, then I guess the conversation is over.
Quote me where I said "you should let it slide". Im waiting.
“Like what do you think is going to [sic] happen, best case scenario”
That really sounds like you’re pointing out the futility of pursuing the matter. That seems like a very similar message to “well you can’t expect a good outcome so why fight it”.
What did you mean by asking what OP thinks will happen? And since you agree that letting it slide isn’t right, besides seeking legal representation what should OP do to not let it slide :)
I totally agree with you (and the OP), but I'm going to be pedantic here: when you use "[sic]" as you just did, what comes before it should be EXACTLY what the original source said - not your correction! So you should have left it "gonna." (Just taught this to first-year writing students.)
Carry on ... :)
Thanks. Username checks 👍
It was an actual question.
What would you suggest OP do? You’re full of negativity and so far no solutions. You’ve made it clear you don’t seem to expect OP’s current path to lead to much, and you say you don’t think they should just let it go/sweep it under the rug. So what would you be doing in their shoes?
I actually provided 2 solutions in another reply; 1. Keep original docs and 2. Run for the board.
No I don't really think an attorney will lead to much.
You're remarkably active on the Board for a person who guessed the conversation was over.
A similar thing happened to our HOA. We went from three cameras no one thought were working to around 75 with little accountability or transparency. Some residents (including my wife and I) were stalked by our HOA for five years and publicly shamed with images taken from the surveillance feeds by our HOA. Also, some residents appear to have been provided with cameras where the HOA had access to their feeds. These cameras appear to have been placed where HOA cameras would be hard to justify.
Now we are one year into a lawsuit against them. You can read more on this article, website, and Instagram.
https://muziquemagazine.com/northwood-estates-hoa-lawsuit/
www.NWElawsuit.com and #NorthwoodEstatesIrvine on Instagram.
Thank you! Amazing - and the question of the "who" behind the cameras (HOA?) has come into the conversation. I am not the only one who has found a camera within the past two weeks - That would explain the how/why of the HOA explanation that they never discussed the cameras, part of getting out from under concerning their knowledge of the cameras. Thanks for the info! There doesn't seem to be a pattern to the cameras, anything similar - so far.
[deleted]
The HOA actually posted a camera at the entrance of our street to do the same thing. They monitored our coming and goings for five years. There are also neighbors on our street who seemed to be reporting our movements to the HOA. Our association also recently admitted some ex-board members may still have access to these cameras.
This is the way.
“…included a paragraph in the minutes concerning the legality of security cameras pointed at other resident's windows”, which is a legal conclusion.
Perhaps the board removed this legal conclusion based upon advice from their own legal counsel. Their legal counsel likely informed them that they are not the arbiters of state law or finders of fact with regard to law and advised them to refer complaints to law enforcement.
Now the issue, it seems, is that they removed dubious legal conclusion without notice to the association. Perhaps merely an oversight and perhaps a pattern of arbitrary abuses. A court may be able to decide which. However, it is unlikely you’ll be awarded damages of any kind, including attorney’s fees, but perhaps your jurisdiction is rather lax in that regard.
In any case, regardless of whether you win or lose, the cost of litigation incurred by the HOA will be passed on to the members of the association, perhaps as a special assessment, which I’m sure will win you support from your fellow homeowners.
To be clear, I’m not defending the HOA changing official documentation improperly, but sometimes the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze. But I suppose those windmills won’t tilt themselves, so it might as well be someone like you, a former HOA board member.
It's not a "legal conclusion." It's the law in the County where I live. Could you define a legal conclusion, something not based on written law? Did the Board take my phone call, then call their legal counsel, then change the Minutes? I have no way of knowing. What does "a court may be shape to decide ..." mean. And "we" aren't asking for damages. "We" are asking for legal fees. I do realize that some of your quasi-legal advice has been removed from the Boards for statements exactly like this one - Don't be so sure how the Courts work.
“shape to decide” was a result of auto-corrupt, since corrected. My point remains that even IF offering cameras are against the law in your jurisdiction, it isn’t an HOA matter at all, but one of law enforcement.
I frankly do give two rips whether you ask for attorney’s fees or not, what I said remains to be true, that the cost of litigation incurred by the HOA, will be passed on to the association members, including yourself.
From your other responses, it is clear you’re not likely a good neighbor, one who’d rather be right, regardless of the impact on others…, in short, a typical HOA board member.
When your quasi-legal advice fails you resort to personal insults. We disagree on whether an HOA board can unilaterally change minutes after they've been posted, voted upon and approved. I say no. You say yes. And you are correct - I stopped being a good neighbor to this person when he began video taping through my window.
Stop attempting to change my position. I never said the HOA was in the right by changing its minutes improperly. However, all they would have to do is announce the chance in a public forum, bulletin board announcement or social media posting.
My issue is not what they did, but your tilting at windmills regarding their improper procedure, when the underlying issue isn’t one to be handled by the HOA at all, but by law enforcement.
On top of all of what the OP is getting on about it’s not even law enforcement related. Unless there is a camera pointed directly and I mean that damn thing is pointed literal line of sight and 2 feet from my window LE can’t/wont doing a damn thing.
Law enforcement in my County doesn't agree with you. He's been cited. And it's 10 feet from my window.
Doubt it. Unless it was directly pointed at your window. But then you would have proof of that.
Re-read what I originally posted -".The legality of security cameras pointed at other resident's windows. And one of those people lives next door to me." Hints" "Pointed at other resident's windows." Second hint - " And one of those people lives next door to me." Translation - "... pointed at other resident's windows ... lives next door to me." I do have proof. Why do you think I don't have proof? I have a sightline camera, still photos and videos...taken outside and inside my bedroom window.
And, again, on this we disagree - maybe your issue isn't the HOA changing the minutes without so advising the residents. It is my issue. Why is my "tilting at windmills" upsetting to you? I am confused by your statement that I'm a "typical HOA board member." I'm not an HOA Board member, typical or not. I do notice the more agitated you get the more your spelling and punctuation suffer for it.
I don't live in an HOA but something similar happened in my town. There WAS an ordinance about keeping sidewalks clear after a snowstorm. People started complaining to the Alderman about non-shoveled sidewalks and instead of doing their jobs, the ordinance disappeared.
Why do you keep putting "my" in quotes? Are you not a member of the HOA?
Why are you more focused on "my" HOA than the HOA changing the minutes? Seems to be a fair question.
Because "the HOA" is not separate from yourself. Assuming you're an owner, you're a part of the HOA. If you mean a board member changed minutes, that's a whole other story and they should be voted out.
If the issue is one of legality, the h o a should not be involved is they are not law enforcement
What are you hoping to achieve with a lawyer?
My attorney, a step beyond me ("you") and a step beyond "hoping," is attempting to get an Order preventing the HOA (a not for profit) from changing Minutes which have been circulated, approved and published, without the required legal notice. Landscaping/building permits are also published in the minutes. Let's say "you" get a permit to replace windows. Months later the HOA cites you for replacing those windows. You go back to the published Minutes, no one had an issue. Now that wording is missing from the Minutes and it appears there was no discussion (standard wording) or permission. Once before a resident got permission to plant a specific tree. Posted in minutes, had tree planted. Got cited due to type of tree. Minutes no longer stated type of tree. But resident had the original minutes. End of argument about the tree.
Yeah sounds like a big waste of time and money on your part. Im not saying its good or appropriate what theyre doing but , the recourse is to keep documentation for what affects you as you should be doing anyway.
Or get on the board and be the secretary yourself.
I was on another HOA board before I moved. Where are you reading I didn't keep documents - did you read the part where I compared the two versions of the Minutes? The entire Board makes these decisions, not the secretary. You know, Roberts Rules and all ...
No it isn’t if they are altering the minutes removing stuff and then fining people that is a violation of law. They are defrauding folks by doing this. This minutes are a legal requirement and cannot be altered doing so is a major no no they can lose their status as a non profits.
I agree, it's wrong, I thought that was clear in my post
No it's not! They are trying to be cute and play like they are above rules.
Like… what other things have they gone back and changed after the fact?
The neighbor who got permission to plant a specific tree, planted the tree, got cited for "unapproved type of tree," went back to Minutes, specific tree not mentioned, pulled Minutes as originally passed and filed - and specific tree WAS listed, Minutes were changed.
Would not providing the original minutes be enough to get the HOA to drop the issue?
If this is happening repeatedly, calling them on it is probably the easiest way to get them to stop.
Cheaper for sure… maybe even post it by any community area.. how they changed the notes and “beware or approvals”
That’s probably the right answer. Because when you sue the HOA we all know who pays for that…
Absolutely, but the HOA denied the change until the attorney addressed it. The HOA kept repeating to me that "they never said anything about security cameras." For me it's about the HOA denying the language until they were confronted. It would have been an easy "fix" to just say there was an error, it shouldn't have been posted, etc. I felt (and feel) that the elected HOA board has responsibility to the residents, and that responsibility includes telling the truth.
Piss off the HOA board and neighbors
Well, the neighbor was pretty "pissed off" when he was ticketed and I don't care if the HOA Board likes me or not. The other neighbors think it's a good idea to stop the neighbor from videoing inside their homes, too.
Then maybe
three boatsthe board shouldn't do illegal thingsGood luck with an attorney unless you have your own money to throw away. There’s no money to be made by suing a HOA for a lawyer to take most cases
Thank you for your concern about my finances - all is good. I'd explain suing for legal fees but I'm not sure you'd understand the concept when the law is flagrantly violated.
Wish you well, OP. In my state, the ability to collect attorneys' fees exists, but, my understanding is, it's rare that the courts award them (they're discretionary). Other states have more robust fee provisions.
Absolutely - in theory the Courts cannot/do not award attorney's fees to "punish" a litigant, UNLESS the litigant's conduct is outrageous. Other homeowners are now interested in how this plays out ...
I mean, a board "discussing" the legality of cameras in the window doesn't mean they made up a rule or enforce anything regarding it. Maybe the end result of the board discussion was that they were going to tell member to "let the police handle it".
What do you hope the attorney will do? Force them to revise the CC&R (at great expense) to have a section telling members to call police for suspected legal violations?
No. I expect an attorney will keep the Board from posting accepted Minutes and then, when there's a problem, amend the Minutes. It's that simple. The Board - in the Minutes - advised the residents what is and isn't legal in the HOA community. When notified of the violation the Board chose "we never said that" as opposed to "we made a mistake." The Board discussed the possibility of an issue with cameras, posted a policy, there was an issue, they erased the policy statement. Where are you seeing a need to amend the CC&Rs? My attorney believes that posting a statement and then removing that statement without explanation is illegal.
Homie, there are so many possibilities for this one, how could anyone even begin to lay it all out? Maybe what you saved is a "draft" version. Maybe the minutes were legally altered with a later action. Maybe some of so many other possibilities. You never relayed what was even in the minutes. It could simply be a line that said "HOA considering security camera installation at tennis courts. Bob from 420 Meadows Dr. advised Board that cameras pointed at resident house windows are illegal".
A CC&R isn't going to contain an exhaustive list of all the illegal things someone could do. Does yours have a section about not breaking and entering a neighbor's place? If your city has some ordinance that says "cameras pointed into windows is against city code", then that alone is sufficient and you don't need the board minutes to back up anything. Just go tell the neighbor that the camera is illegal. Presenting them with a copy of some Board draft notes isn't going to do jack shit to make them comply. Unless the board has some rule about security cameras that they can enforce through letters and fines, then they can't do shit- they're right to tell you to call the cops. Because the Board doesn't operate the camera and they can't solve your problem.
Good luck with your windmill.
And maybe pigs can fly - just for starters, yes, I have the published minutes. I'm not arguing CC&Rs. I'm arguing minutes that are posted circulated and approved and then changed without notice. And, yes, why did the minutes mention the cameras in the first place if they have no control or interest?
Published minutes a "draft". NOPE. That's the dumbest bootlicker thing ever. Once it's published- they should amend not alter.
What an unhinged and daft thing to say. You also can't read for shit. OP compared a screen clipping or some shit he had to something online. Could be user confusion or simple didn't turn the page. No way to know. Draft versions are also a real thing, and if you deny that, this is extra hilarious. That's why minutes are officially adopted at a following meeting, not at the current one. I hope you're his attorney. Please post the arbitration video for chuckles. But, I smell a sock in puppet form here.
Here to argue bullshit, are you? You need to stop pretending how smart you think you are and get a life outside of Reddit.
that does NOT explain deleting meeting minutes.
[removed]
Rule 4 Violation:
Keep it legal. - Do not suggest illegal activities.
It’s not necessarily illegal to point a camera at someone else’s house. if it's in plain sight and captures areas visible from public view, as there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy,"
You have a legal issue that needs to be addressed via law enforcement. Address the matter via the correct legal method.
During the HOA in this instance is not only illogical, it's dumb.
I didn't say I didn't notify law enforcement. The HOA changed the Minutes after they were posted, approved and disseminated. I think that's fraudulent. You don't. My attorney does. I guess we have to wait and see who is better informed, you or my attorney.
Def can't change meeting minutes but why not call cops and have them just make the other homeowner change the angle. Why pay for a lawyer
Because a) the HOA needs to be legally fucked into never changing minutes again and b) camera setups on property they supervise is 100% within their purview and not always a law enforcement issue.
In your mind, what does "legally fucked" entails? Specifically.
They are committing fraud against their membership and trying to profit from it. This goes beyond the scope of their duties and breaks any liability shielding the HOA may have for the individual board members and makes them individually legally liable for their actions. What they are doing is not only civilly actionable but criminally as well.
It's not dumb as the issue is not the cameras. The issue is the HOA changing minutes after they are approved without following mandated procedures. They are changing association records to reflect whatever argument they are trying to make. Whoever is responsible for this should be removed from the board or fired if they are with a management company and lose their license. Depending on the state it would be a lot less expensive to file a claim with whatever state agency oversees this, but it needs to stop.
The issue is 1000% the cameras.
There are two issues: the camera and the minutes being changed without process
Attorneys cost money. Try something else before that.