S.C. legislature to reload on HOA reform in 2009

Today's editorial, which includes a bit of original reporting, tells association homeowners why they needn't worry about the dreaded annual $10 fee to be collected by the state:

Across the Grand Strand, members of the associations that oversee many single-family and condominium communities are furious about Senate Bill 1283. The legislation, an attempt to bring the law governing such organizations into the 21st century, would have required every householder in every S.C. homeowners' association to pay the state a $10 annual fee.

The operant words in the preceding sentence are "would have." Senate Bill 1283 formally died on Election Day and will not be carried over into the 2009 legislative session.

Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, whose name appears on the bill's list of sponsors, says the senators most interested in reforming association law, Senate President Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Columbia, will likely introduce a new bill next year. Cleary adds that the new legislation likely will not include any per-household fee - an idea he says he never liked.

He asked to be a sponsor on the bill because his district, which includes parts of Horry and Georgetown counties, is home to many, many homeowners associations. He wants to protect the interests of local homeowners who are part of those associations.

The $10 fee idea, he said, emanated from the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs, which some legislators see as the logical agency to mediate disputes between disgruntled homeowners and their associations. As readers know, such disputes tend to end badly for the homeowners because Circuit Court is their only current recourse for disputes that can't be resolved at the association level.

The problem there is that lawsuits cost plaintiffs a bundle in attorney fees. And a plaintiff who loses often is forced to pay the association's attorney fees as well as his own. So many aggrieved homeowners who may be on the "right" side in such a dispute give up the fight rather than risk such bank-breaking costs.

Consumer Affairs' idea - a good one - was to provide aggrieved homeowners a less expensive path to resolving disputes with associations: nonbinding mediation. A counselor from the agency would sit down with both parties in an attempt to get to win-win.

However, says Cleary, the agency strayed way off the ranch with its $10 per-household-per-year fee idea, which found its way into the first draft of the bill. This can only be seen as a way to fatten the agency's budget at the expense of homeowners.

Sure, says the senator, the agency deserves to be compensated for the cost of providing mediation. But a better way to meet that need is for homeowners who apply for mediation to pay a fee - say $2,000 - up front. That may sound like a lot of money, but compared to the cost of going to court, it's chump change. A fee that size, however, would screen out homeowners whose grievances are frivolous.

The senator has the right idea. Current law does need balancing to give homeowners a fairer chance to air out their grievances. But any reform bill that the legislature eventually enacts should not make associations so weak that they become ineffective. Associations are an indispensable tool for protecting property rights and managing communities.

The S.C. Senate's first attempt at fixing association law obviously was imperfect. But chances seem good that attempt No. 2 will result in an improved law that doesn't impose pointless fees on S.C. homeowners who happen to belong to associations.

Across the Grand Strand, members of the associations that oversee many single-family and condominium communities are furious about Senate Bill 1283. The legislation, an attempt to bring the law governing such organizations into the 21st century, would have required every householder in every S.C. homeowners' association to pay the state a $10 annual fee.

The operant words in the preceding sentence are "would have." Senate Bill 1283 formally died on Election Day and will not be carried over into the 2009 legislative session.

Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, whose name appears on the bill's list of sponsors, says the senators most interested in reforming association law, Senate President Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Columbia, will likely introduce a new bill next year. Cleary adds that the new legislation likely will not include any per-household fee - an idea he says he never liked.

He asked to be a sponsor on the bill because his district, which includes parts of Horry and Georgetown counties, is home to many, many homeowners associations. He wants to protect the interests of local homeowners who are part of those associations.

The $10 fee idea, he said, emanated from the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs, which some legislators see as the logical agency to mediate disputes between disgruntled homeowners and their associations. As readers know, such disputes tend to end badly for the homeowners because Circuit Court is their only current recourse for disputes that can't be resolved at the association level.

The problem there is that lawsuits cost plaintiffs a bundle in attorney fees. And a plaintiff who loses often is forced to pay the association's attorney fees as well as his own. So many aggrieved homeowners who may be on the "right" side in such a dispute give up the fight rather than risk such bank-breaking costs.

Consumer Affairs' idea - a good one - was to provide aggrieved homeowners a less expensive path to resolving disputes with associations: nonbinding mediation. A counselor from the agency would sit down with both parties in an attempt to get to win-win.

However, says Cleary, the agency strayed way off the ranch with its $10 per-household-per-year fee idea, which found its way into the first draft of the bill. This can only be seen as a way to fatten the agency's budget at the expense of homeowners.

Sure, says the senator, the agency deserves to be compensated for the cost of providing mediation. But a better way to meet that need is for homeowners who apply for mediation to pay a fee - say $2,000 - up front. That may sound like a lot of money, but compared to the cost of going to court, it's chump change. A fee that size, however, would screen out homeowners whose grievances are frivolous.

The senator has the right idea. Current law does need balancing to give homeowners a fairer chance to air out their grievances. But any reform bill that the legislature eventually enacts should not make associations so weak that they become ineffective. Associations are an indispensable tool for protecting property values and managing communities.

The S.C. Senate's first attempt at fixing association law obviously was imperfect. But chances seem good that attempt No. 2 will result in an improved law that doesn't impose pointless fees on S.C. homeowners who happen to belong to associations.

The operant words in the preceding sentence are "would have." Senate Bill 1283 formally died on Election Day and will not be carried over into the 2009 legislative session.

Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, whose name appears on the bill's list of sponsors, says the senators most interested in reforming association law, Senate President Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Columbia, will likely introduce a new bill next year. Cleary adds that the new legislation likely will not include any per-household fee - an idea he says he never liked.

He asked to be a sponsor on the bill because his district, which includes parts of Horry and Georgetown counties, is home to many, many homeowners associations. He wants to protect the interests of local homeowners who are part of those associations.

The $10 fee idea, he said, emanated from the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs, which some legislators see as the logical agency to mediate disputes between disgruntled homeowners and their associations. As readers know, such disputes tend to end badly for the homeowners because Circuit Court is their only current recourse for disputes that can't be resolved at the association level.

The problem there is that lawsuits cost plaintiffs a bundle in attorney fees. And a plaintiff who loses often is forced to pay the association's attorney fees as well as his own. So many aggrieved homeowners who may be on the "right" side in such a dispute give up the fight rather than risk such bank-breaking costs.

Consumer Affairs' idea - a good one - was to provide aggrieved homeowners a less expensive path to resolving disputes with associations: nonbinding mediation. A counselor from the agency would sit down with both parties in an attempt to get to win-win.

However, says Cleary, the agency strayed way off the ranch with its $10 per-household-per-year fee idea, which found its way into the first draft of the bill. This can only be seen as a way to fatten the agency's budget at the expense of homeowners.

Sure, says the senator, the agency deserves to be compensated for the cost of providing mediation. But a better way to meet that need is for homeowners who apply for mediation to pay a fee - say $2,000 - up front. That may sound like a lot of money, but compared to the cost of going to court, it's chump change. A fee that size, however, would screen out homeowners whose grievances are frivolous.

The senator has the right idea. Current law does need balancing to give homeowners a fairer chance to air out their grievances. But any reform bill that the legislature eventually enacts should not make associations so weak that they become ineffective. Associations are an indispensable tool for protecting property rights and managing communities.

The S.C. Senate's first attempt at fixing association law obviously was imperfect. But chances seem good that attempt No. 2 will result in an improved law that doesn't impose pointless fees on S.C. homeowners who happen to belong to associations.

Across the Grand Strand, members of the associations that oversee many single-family and condominium communities are furious about Senate Bill 1283. The legislation, an attempt to bring the law governing such organizations into the 21st century, would have required every householder in every S.C. homeowners' association to pay the state a $10 annual fee.

The operant words in the preceding sentence are "would have." Senate Bill 1283 formally died on Election Day and will not be carried over into the 2009 legislative session.

Sen. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, whose name appears on the bill's list of sponsors, says the senators most interested in reforming association law, Senate President Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, and Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Columbia, will likely introduce a new bill next year. Cleary adds that the new legislation likely will not include any per-household fee - an idea he says he never liked.

He asked to be a sponsor on the bill because his district, which includes parts of Horry and Georgetown counties, is home to many, many homeowners associations. He wants to protect the interests of local homeowners who are part of those associations.

The $10 fee idea, he said, emanated from the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs, which some legislators see as the logical agency to mediate disputes between disgruntled homeowners and their associations. As readers know, such disputes tend to end badly for the homeowners because Circuit Court is their only current recourse for disputes that can't be resolved at the association level.

The problem there is that lawsuits cost plaintiffs a bundle in attorney fees. And a plaintiff who loses often is forced to pay the association's attorney fees as well as his own. So many aggrieved homeowners who may be on the "right" side in such a dispute give up the fight rather than risk such bank-breaking costs.

Consumer Affairs' idea - a good one - was to provide aggrieved homeowners a less expensive path to resolving disputes with associations: nonbinding mediation. A counselor from the agency would sit down with both parties in an attempt to get to win-win.

However, says Cleary, the agency strayed way off the ranch with its $10 per-household-per-year fee idea, which found its way into the first draft of the bill. This can only be seen as a way to fatten the agency's budget at the expense of homeowners.

Sure, says the senator, the agency deserves to be compensated for the cost of providing mediation. But a better way to meet that need is for homeowners who apply for mediation to pay a fee - say $2,000 - up front. That may sound like a lot of money, but compared to the cost of going to court, it's chump change. A fee that size, however, would screen out homeowners whose grievances are frivolous.

The senator has the right idea. Current law does need balancing to give homeowners a fairer chance to air out their grievances. But any reform bill that the legislature eventually enacts should not make associations so weak that they become ineffective. Associations are an indispensable tool for protecting property values and managing communities.

The S.C. Senate's first attempt at fixing association law obviously was imperfect. But chances seem good that attempt No. 2 will result in an improved law that doesn't impose pointless fees on S.C. homeowners who happen to belong to associations.