There’s no limit to number of proxies an owner can gather
Q. I have a question regarding proxy voting within my association. A great number of units in our condominium association are investor owned and being leased. The board president claims she has the voting proxy for about 30 units. Given the size of our association, it appears that she controls who is elected to the board. Is this legal? Isn’t there a conflict of interest?
A. Unless the association’s declaration imposes a restriction on the number of proxies that one individual can have, there is no limit on the number of proxies that any member of the association can obtain, including the board president. It is not a conflict of interest.
If the proxy was distributed by the association, it gives the unit owner the opportunity to designate a proxy holder. The proxy also permits the unit owner to identify the candidates for whom the owner wants the proxy holder to cast a vote. If an owner does this, it really should not matter to whom they give a proxy. Of course, the unit owner could be persuaded by the proxy holder concerning how to complete that information.
As an owner, you do have the right to examine and inspect the proxies after the election, and you should do so. See if they are in compliance with the law. Your request would have to be in writing and state a proper purpose for wanting to examine the proxies. That is a relatively low threshold to meet. Further, you, or any other owner, can solicit proxies from the owners as well.
Q. I recently attended an executive session of the board concerning my upstairs neighbor. We were there to discuss that unit owner’s noncompliance of a floor covering rule. The accused unit owner brought her ex-husband to the meeting to speak on her behalf (he is not a unit owner). Should the owner’s ex-husband been allowed to attend the executive meeting, and to speak on her behalf? Just before we entered the meeting, I was told that the property manager approved his attendance.
A. Association violation hearings are relatively informal proceedings. As such, the board of the association can determine who can attend the hearing and who can speak on behalf of the accused owner. That said, most associations would limit attendance to the accused owner, possibly the accused owner’s attorney, and witnesses to the conduct described in the complaint. A spouse or boyfriend who is not a witness is sometimes permitted to attend to provide “emotional support,” but often would not be permitted to participate in the hearing.
The association’s rules enforcement procedures should address the issue of who can attend rules violation hearings. This will avoid participants of the hearing from being surprised about who is permitted to attend.
Q. Until recently, I lived in a condominium governed by the Illinois Condominium Property Act. I recently purchased a unit in a cooperative housing corporation. I have been unable to find a statute governing co-ops in Illinois. Does such a statute exist in Illinois?
A. Illinois has statutes that specifically govern condominium associations, master associations, and common interest community associations. However, there is no Illinois statute that is devoted solely to the governance of housing cooperatives.
Housing cooperatives are generally governed by their articles of incorporation, bylaws and proprietary lease. Depending on how the cooperative is organized, it may also be governed by the General Not for Profit Corporation Act or the Business Corporation Act.
There was an attempt in the 1990s to bring all types of Illinois homeowner associations and housing cooperatives under the umbrella of a single uniform statute. However, the entire legislation was defeated at the eleventh hour by influential members of the housing cooperative community.
Q. Our homeowners association amended a provision in the declaration regarding windows. The original provision of the declaration placed responsibility to replace windows on the association. The amendment makes the individual owner responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement costs of windows. Does the amendment invalidate the original provisions?
A. If the amendment was properly adopted, the shifting of responsibility for maintenance, repair and replacement of the windows from the association to the unit owners would be valid. The amendment, and the amendment provisions of the declaration, would have to be reviewed to determine if the amendment, at least on its face, was properly adopted.
Ÿ David M. Bendoff is an attorney with Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit in Buffalo Grove. 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.