People often focus on the negative ramifications associated with litigation.  It can be costly, time consuming and often not the most efficient method of resolving disputes.  Associations will sometime actively avoid dealing with an issue because it might result in litigation and often fail to consider the ramifications of not pursuing, or at least considering, litigation. 

For example, associations will sometimes avoid investigating the extent of a problem because they fear what they might find. An association may become aware of water intrusion and avoid investigating the extent of their problem, fearing it might lead to extensive repairs, insurance claims and perhaps litigation.  Avoiding the issue will never make it go away.  Associations do not avoid issues by ignoring them.  The issues and resulting damage compound while the options for relief become more limited.  Eventually, a potential insurance claim or litigation is barred by applicable statutes of limitation and repose.  Increased damages and no ability to pursue relief is not a good combination.

Property damage issues are not the only claims that associations sometimes try to ignore.  Community associations sometimes battle governance and compliance issues for decades instead of initiating litigation to force resolution.  For example, a homeowner might violate the covenants by installing a hot tub on their deck or security cameras in the common elements or keep an animal that doesn’t comply with applicable restrictions.   The Association’s first approach should generally be to fine the owner to promote voluntary compliance (absent the need for immediate action).   But what if the owner refuses to pay the fine, remove the hot tub, cameras, or animal?  If an owner refuses to voluntarily comply then the Association should consider the litigation option.  Otherwise, they risk getting caught in a never-ending cycle of pursuing an owner who has not and will not comply.    

Litigation isn’t always the answer, but it is sometime necessary.  You might consider it a dilemma.  By definition, a dilemma involves options, none of which are what you really want.   Homeowner association’s never want to be involved in litigation but sometimes litigation is the best option. 

Consideration of litigation is of course very fact specific.  Avoiding the issue is rarely if ever the right solution. Barker Martin attorneys can help your association’s board of directors evaluate the facts and legal issues, consider options and develop a strategy.    

People often focus on the negative ramifications associated with litigation.  It can be costly, time consuming and often not the most efficient method of resolving disputes.  Associations will sometime actively avoid dealing with an issue because it might result in litigation and often fail to consider the ramifications of not pursuing, or at least considering, litigation. 

For example, associations will sometimes avoid investigating the extent of a problem because they fear what they might find. An association may become aware of water intrusion and avoid investigating the extent of their problem, fearing it might lead to extensive repairs, insurance claims and perhaps litigation.  Avoiding the issue will never make it go away.  Associations do not avoid issues by ignoring them.  The issues and resulting damage compound while the options for relief become more limited.  Eventually, a potential insurance claim or litigation is barred by applicable statutes of limitation and repose.  Increased damages and no ability to pursue relief is not a good combination.

Property damage issues are not the only claims that associations sometimes try to ignore.  Community associations sometimes battle governance and compliance issues for decades instead of initiating litigation to force resolution.  For example, a homeowner might violate the covenants by installing a hot tub on their deck or security cameras in the common elements or keep an animal that doesn’t comply with applicable restrictions.   The Association’s first approach should generally be to fine the owner to promote voluntary compliance (absent the need for immediate action).   But what if the owner refuses to pay the fine, remove the hot tub, cameras, or animal?  If an owner refuses to voluntarily comply then the Association should consider the litigation option.  Otherwise, they risk getting caught in a never-ending cycle of pursuing an owner who has not and will not comply.    

Litigation isn’t always the answer, but it is sometime necessary.  You might consider it a dilemma.  By definition, a dilemma involves options, none of which are what you really want.   Homeowner association’s never want to be involved in litigation but sometimes litigation is the best option. 

Consideration of litigation is of course very fact specific.  Avoiding the issue is rarely if ever the right solution. Barker Martin attorneys can help your association’s board of directors evaluate the facts and legal issues, consider options and develop a strategy.