Anthem Today Blog is featuring a topic named “Sun City Anthem Named to HOA Hall of Shame–Again”.  See this link:
[1] http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2335

The “Hall of Shame” web site is located at this link:
[2] http://hoaadvocate.homestead.com/index.html

Readers should review the topic and comments on Anthem Today, and then consider the following:

———–

The key issue on this case is “how do the fence extensions LOOK, from a neighborhood perspective?” The purpose of our ARC governing rules is to try to ensure our community stays looking “good”, and that should be the bottom line for such disputes.

If it is true that a dozen neighbors in the near vicinity do not object to the way the fence extensions look on both sides of her home, and if there are other examples of similar fence extensions elsewhere in SCA, a variance should have been granted by the ARC and Board to the homeowner.  No hassles for the member, and no fines would be appropriate.

It occasionally happens that someone on the ARC,  RMI staff or Board gets annoyed at a homeowner because they do not dot the i’s and cross the t’s perfectly, and they want to punish them for doing something “without full permission”.

It is the board’s “fiduciary duty” to this community’s shareholders to help them solve problems–even when the individual is mistaken or difficult to deal with.  Fiduciary Duty has nothing to do with “the corporation”–it is about the people who are the “shareholders” of the corporation.

This case  sounds like the “Directors” (not “the board”) who are individually charged with personal, fiduciary duties, are violating the Nevada Statutes, and they could be creating a serious SCA litigation risk (and possibly personal liability) for their misconduct.

If there are attorneys in our midst (particularly Ms. Small and Mr. Gardner who are serving as Directors) who agree or disagree with my conclusion, it would be good to see it in writing. We all want to be saying the right things about the laws and fiduciary duties.

Those Directors trained in the law are most likely to be personally challenged to explain their actions–before this is over.  As Ms. Small has proclaimed at board meetings before, she has special/higher  responsibilities  to the community because of being a member of the Nevada Bar.  Our community should expect the SCA directors to resolve this dispute or explain (without compromising privacy) why the SCA rules are being fairly and equally applied in this case.

Bob Frank, former SCA Director