Case No. 702-O, Anita Weiss v. Woodrock Homeowners Association (March 29, 2006) (Panel: Hitchens, Oxendine, Vergagni)
The homeowner (HO) filed a complaint against her homeowner association (HOA) claiming that it failed to act on her application to install a patio and retaining wall and failed to give her notice of hearings on her application. The HOA replied it had properly followed all the relevant rules, and also that the patio and wall as built were different from the ones that the HO had applied to build. However, at the hearing on the dispute, the HOA said it had no objection to the patio and wall actually built and only wanted the HO to submit a revised application on them for the record.The Commission made the following rulings:
1. The dispute over whether the HOA properly denied the application was moot because the HOA stated at the hearing it would approve the patio and wall actually built.
2. The HOA's procedures for giving notice of hearings and meetings generally comply with Maryland law and its own rules. However, the notice given to the members for the meeting that was to include a discussion of the HO's building application did not state specifically whose applications were on the agenda, and the Panel strongly recommended that the HOA specifically identify every application to be considered so that the applicants would have sufficient notice.
3. Neither party was entitled to an award of attorney's fees, because neither party acted reasonably to settle the case without a hearing, and both were at fault in causing confusion and delay.
Go to full text of Decision