Once voting begins at a meeting it must proceed to conclusion
Q. A meeting of the members of our association was called to vote on a matter that required the approval of two-thirds of all owners of the association. A quorum of owners was present, so the meeting was called to order. Unfortunately, only about 50 percent of the owners were present in person or by proxy (most by proxy). Therefore, even if every ballot were cast in favor of the matter, the matter being voted on would not have been successful. The board called for the vote and, of course, the matter did not pass. Could the board have postponed the vote, so the vote could take place at a later date?
A. By way of a motion, the meeting could have been continued to another date and time. However, this would have to be done before the voting on the issue in question began. Do note that once the voting begins at the meeting it must be proceed to conclusion. That is, a motion to adjourn the meeting cannot be made during the vote, and the vote on the issue requiring owner approval would proceed and stand.
More specifically, before the voting on the matter requiring owner approval began, the chairperson of the meeting can call for a motion to adjourn the meeting to a specific date and time. The motion to adjourn would have to be made, seconded, and voted on by the members present in person or by proxy. The motion to adjourn would pass upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners present in person or proxy.
A new notice of meeting, under this circumstance, would not have to be issued, although it would be useful to let owners know the date to which the meeting was adjourned. Importantly, any proxy that indicated it was valid for any adjournments of the meeting would continue to be valid when the meeting is reconvened. Continuing the meeting would permit the board to solicit more proxies so the matter requiring owner approval would have a chance of passing.
Q. I am president of a condominium association. Noise between units is not an issue for owners, except for the owners of one unit. The owners of this one unit are constantly complaining to the board about the noise from, and are harassing, the owners above them for normal everyday noise such as footsteps, television at a normal volume, and even normal conversations! The complaining owners pound the ceiling and walls in response to every sound from the unit above.
The board has had joint meetings with these residents explaining that these noises are part of everyday life and there can be no retaliation for them. The retaliation, however, continues, and several owners are bothered by their pounding. So far three owners in units near the retaliating owners have sold their units and moved. What can the board do here?
A. As you have noted, a certain amount of noise between units is simply a fact of life in a multiunit building. It appears here that the board recognizes this, and isn't taking action to address the seemingly unfounded complaints of the downstairs owners. However, it would also appear that the intentional conduct of the downstairs residents would rise to the level of violating typical covenants in an association's governing documents. If it's severe enough to have caused multiple residents to move, it is severe enough to require the board to take action. Since the informal approach did not seem to work, the board needs to be more aggressive in dealing with the retaliating owners.
This could begin with levying a fine for each violation, after providing written notice of the violations and an opportunity for a hearing. If this does not result in behavior modification, the board could consider legal action to enjoin the wrongful retaliatory conduct of the downstairs owners.
• David M. Bendoff is an attorney with Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit in the Chicago suburbs. Send questions for the column to him at CondoTalk@ksnlaw.com. The firm provides legal service to condominium, townhouse, homeowner associations and housing cooperatives. This column is not a substitute for consultation with legal counsel.