Communication window opens wider in June

Q. Every year our condominium sends out two mailings to the owners concerning the annual budget. The first is a copy of the proposed budget, the other is the notice of the board meeting where the annual budget will be adopted. This is time-consuming and expensive. Is there a way we can avoid the multiple mailings?

A. Under the current law, to avoid multiple mailings here, both the proposed annual budget and the notice of the board meeting to be held to adopt the budget must be issued to owners exactly 30 days prior to the board meeting. One day more or one day less is a problem. This is because a copy of the proposed budget needs to be issued at least 30 days before its adoption, while that written notice of the board meeting to adopt the budget must be given to owners not more than 30 days before the meeting.

However, effective June 1 of this year, the window of time within which both of these documents can be issued in one mailing is expanded. After June 1, each unit owner must receive a copy of the proposed annual budget at least 25 days prior to the adoption of the budget by the board. As a result, there will be a six-day window within which to issue both the proposed budget and the board meeting notice together.

Remember, too, the board can adopt a rule that permits owners to agree to accept such notifications by email. That is something that all associations should consider.

Q. The board of our condominium is preparing an amendment to the declaration and bylaws to bring them into conformity with the current provisions of the Illinois Condominium Property Act. We understand this can be done by the board without owner approval. The amendment language in our declaration requires that notice of amendments be sent to every unit owner's mortgage holder. Does a copy of this update amendment really need to be sent to all mortgage holders?

A. I contend that a copy of the update amendment, adopted by the board under Section 27(b) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, does not have to be provided to mortgage holders. This is clarified in an amendment to the act that is effective June 1.

The amendment to the act underscores that any provision in a condominium instrument, requiring the mortgagees or other lienholders of record be given notice of an amendment to a condominium instrument, is not applicable to an amendment to the extent that the amendment corrects an omission, error, or inconsistency to conform the condominium instrument to the act, or to another applicable statute.

Q. The board of our association adopted a rule authorizing electronic delivery of notices to each unit owner. One of our unit owners sends daily belligerent emails, or makes daily phone calls, to our property manager complaining about everything the board and management does, and this owner frequently misquotes the law in these communications. The board issued a letter to this owner advising that all communications to the association in the future must be in writing, and delivered by U.S. regular mail, except in an emergency. This owner opted into our electronic notice rule, and says the association must allow him to communicate to the association by email. Is this correct?

A. This is absolutely not correct. The Condominium Property Act permits the board to adopt rules authorizing electronic delivery of notices and other communications required, or contemplated, by the act to each unit owner. However, this provision of the law does not concern notices or communications by unit owners to the association. The association is not required to accept owner communications by email. While email communications from owners is often convenient for both the owner and the association, owners have to understand that there are consequences for abuse.

• 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.