Q–Following her election, the president of our self-managed 151-unit condominium association became extremely dictatorial and secretive. She has failed to respond to requests for records, has used questionable judgment and opposed positions held by association members.
She occasionally resorts to legal procedures to accomplish personal objectives. The board is a rubber stamp group that provides a majority vote for the president without discussing issues facing the association.
The president spends association funds without obtaining prior approval from the board. Rather, she requests board approval for payment a month or two after incurring the charge. She also refuses to explain the details of legal work performed for the association, as well as the need for other expenditures.
What directives are provided by statute regarding the necessity for prior approval for expenses and attorney involvement?
A–Both the Illinois Condominium Property Act and the Illinois General Not-For-Profit Corporation Act require the board of directors to approve all expenditures of association funds.
Section 103.20 of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Act states that a director who incurs an unauthorized expenditure is personally responsible to the corporation for the unauthorized charge.
Neither statute specifically requires prior approval of an expense, but approval at a meeting of the directors is the general format used by most associations.
The board can ratify business expenditures made or authorized by an officer before the meeting.
Proof of your claims regarding unauthorized expenditures are contained in the board meeting minutes.
Under Section 19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, you have a right to inspect and copy minutes. If the board or the president refuses to provide the minutes to you within 30 days from written request, the board faces a lawsuit and a claim for attorney fees.
The extent of board discussions and the members’ decision to vote with the president are solely within the discretion of the directors. If board members want to limit discussion on matters and approve most of the decisions made by the president, they have the right to do so.
After inspecting association records, owners may call a meeting to discuss the decisions made by the president and the board. The owners also have the right to remove the directors by a vote of the ownership, set forth in your documents.
As with similar complaints regarding any condominium board, your ultimate remedy is at the ballot box. At the next annual meeting, organize a slate of candidates who view operation of the board in the same light as you.
Q–Our declaration is 25 years old. It allows owners to file a petition by at least one-fourth of the units objecting to an adopted rule within 30 days of adoption by the board.
The rule then is rescinded unless later approved by at least two-thirds of the voting members.
A petition of one-fourth of the owners is easy to obtain, but obtaining the vote to reinstate a rule is much more difficult.
Does this section of our declaration conflict with the Illinois Condominium Property Act, which gives boards the power to make rules and regulations? The law doesn’t seem to provide any provision for unit owners to override a board decision.
A–You’re right. The provision in your declaration conflicts with specific authority granted to directors under Section 18.4 of the Condominium Act.
Section 18.4 specifically authorizes the board to make rules.
To adopt a rule, the directors must call a meeting of the ownership. Owners have a right to explain their views on the rules, and the board may consider their input in determining whether to modify or not to adopt a rule. If there are significant objections, the board can choose not to formally adopt the new regulation.
The absurdity of your document is that the owners elect the board to administer the property, which includes the power to adopt regulations. Why, then, would the owners object to rules adopted by their own elected representatives?
Q–We recently bought a new condominium. When we moved in, the air conditioning system for the unit was installed and working, but the system for the common elements wasn’t.
We have a unit on the top floor of the building. We were very happy with our unit, until the developer installed the condenser and the water pump on the roof.
Ever since, we have been subjected to a constant humming vibration 24 hours a day. We have not been able to sleep. We contacted the builder, who did some work on the condenser to lessen the noise somewhat, but not entirely.
I’m afraid my health is starting to be affected. How do we solve this problem?
A–Appeal to the board of directors to exercise the warranty rights given to the association by the builder for the common elements. The board has the power to require the developer to eliminate the noise to the extent technically possible.
You should be aware, however, that it may not be possible to eliminate the noise entirely.
While the board is obligated to eliminate a nuisance from the common elements, a nuisance is defined as what a reasonable person can expect to tolerate.
Noise from equipment in a high-rise building is not uncommon. I would expect that you are going to have to tolerate some degree of noise from the equipment located above your unit.
———-
Mark Pearlstein is a Chicago lawyer who specializes in condominium law. Write to him c/o Condominiums, Real Estate Section, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611. Sorry, he can’t make personal replies.
