Legal Articles

Common Sensical
A homeowner association board of directors can often rely on the Business Judgment Rule when faced with a homeowners’ lawsuit over a particularly unpopular board decision. The Business Judgment Rule limits judicial scrutiny of actions of HOA boards when they act in good faith, exercise honest judgment, act with the best interests of the HOA and in an informed prudent manner.

The Business Judgment Rule serves to protect the types of decisions that boards must necessarily make in the course of fulfilling their duties. For example, in the frequently cited case of Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., the highest New York court refused to overturn a board’s refusal to permit internal architectural building modifications requested by an owner to relocate heating pipes. An HOA rule prohibited the proposed plan, and the board decided not to approve it. Before denying the proposed modification, however, the directors consulted a qualified engineer who confirmed that while the relocation was feasible but that change in the plumbing presented risks that should be avoided if possible. Although the board could have approved the modification, the court concluded that the board’s decision fell within its discretionary power.

Another frequently cited case from California, Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Condominium Association, addressed a board’s decision to use spot treatment of termites rather than a global "tenting" approach that the member proposed. The court determined that deference to the board was appropriate where the board’s exercise of discretion in selecting repair methodologies was "clearly" within the scope of its authority and the directors acted in good faith, upon reasonable investigation, and with regard to the best interest of the community.

The Colorado Court of Appeals has also held that the business judgment rule can be used to defend against a claim for failing to enforce covenants. Colorado Homes, Ltd. v. Loerch-Wilson, the court noted that the substance of the business judgment rule requires a board to make decisions in good faith and to not be arbitrary.

What steps can a board take to comply with Business Judgment Rule parameters?

1. Comply with the governing documents.
2. Use resources like management, attorneys, engineers or other experts before making decisions.
3. Consider alternative courses of action. The board has discretion to make decisions when in the best interest of the HOA.
4. Avoid conflicts of interest.
5. Consider how board conduct will be viewed by objective observers.
6. Properly document decisions and the basis for those decisions. Put it in writing for the record.
7. Adhere to established process requirements. For example, if a response must be made to an architectural application within 30 days, that time deadline should be met.

The Business Judgment Rule has a long tradition of protecting volunteer directors who make informed decisions that someone may not agree with. The operative word is "informed". Do your research and get good advice before making judgments on controversial issues.

Adapted from an article by Orten & Hindman BACK

Canine Companion
In California, a state regulatory agency handed down a ruling that gives individuals suffering from mental and emotional ailments the right to keep an "emotional support" dog with all the legal benefits that apply to animals such as seeing-eye dogs. This ruling mandates that exceptions be made to No Pet Policies to allow an emotional support dog (or cat, or ferret, or etc.). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has a broad definition of what constitutes disability:

1) Individuals with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
2) Individuals who are regarded as having such an impairment; and
3) Individuals with a record of such an impairment.

This definition includes "orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV infection, mental retardation, emotional illness, drug addiction (other than addiction caused by current, illegal use of a controlled substance) and alcoholism."

This definition is broad and most likely the board is not qualified to decide whether or not a resident’s condition fits within it. Under federal law, the board is entitled to obtain information that is needed to evaluate whether a reasonable accommodation is necessary to "verify that the person meets the Act’s definition of disability".

The board should require that all requests for accommodation be made in writing to avoid confusion. As long as an exception to rule or policy is being requested because of a disability, the board has a duty to investigate and respond. If the disabled resident (or his doctor) can show that an emotional support animal would reduce the effects of the disability, the board should look for ways to accommodate.

Once an accommodation is granted, the Board cannot levy extra fees in exchange for waiving the no pet policy. However the disabled resident remains responsible for the animal clean up and damage repair. If the pet proves to be disruptive, the Board can require removal if the resident isn’t successful in behavior modification.

Pets are as American as pumpkin pie. So don’t get "pie eyed" with power or "squash" the rights of disabled residents who need them for emotional reasons. Look for ways to accommodate those with real needs. BACK

Rule Revival
It may come as little surprise that some homeowner association boards fail miserably in rule enforcement, especially in self managed HOAs. Let’s face it, confrontation with neighbors is not something most people look forward to. So when "Who Let the Dogs Out?" runs rampant in the HOA, some Boards turn a blind eye or run for cover. So the dogs run wild. If this failure to enforce goes long enough, a reform group often appears to run for election and make a change.

Once elected, Big Questions arise like "How do we go about enforcing long unenforced rules?" and "How aggressive should we get?" Good questions.

All rules are not created equal so the Board should focus on those that degrade curb appeal, market values and livability. In the case of planned communities, for example, a homeowner’s failure to maintain roofing, paint, fences and landscaping has a direct impact on the market values of neighboring properties. So, issues that impact curb appeal and market value should be a high priority.

Livability issues are important as well. Does the HOA have a problem with, say, uncontrolled pets or loud and rowdy residents? While the police are the answer to extreme behaviors, the HOA can control the less extreme through warnings, and if necessary, fines.

To get a handle on the scope of the problem, the Board should make a list of violations by type and address and then prioritize by blatancy. While all violations should be addressed, focus attention on the big ones with a goal of getting compliance or compromise on all within a reasonable period of time.

To establish the Board’s position and intent, a written notification should be sent to all members. What follows is a suggested format which can be adapted to your use:

Dear Members of Nottacare Condominium,

The Board of Directors met on to discuss Nottacare rules compliance. In particular, there has been ongoing issues with parking, pets and architectural design issues.

In years past, and prior to the current Board taking office, rule enforcement has been inconsistent. The Nottacare Board is charged with and given authority in the governing documents to enforce rules, regulations and policies for the benefit of all Nottacare members. These rules, regulations and policies are design to enhance the livability of Nottacare and help sustain all member home values.

To that end, please be advised that the Board will begin regular and consistent enforcement of all rules, regulations and policies effective (date). Written violation notices will be directed to the violator (or landlord if the violation was done by a renter), a description of violation, the corrective action required, the penalty for failure to comply and a right of appeal.

Deadlines for compliance are based on the type of violation. The deadline may be immediate (as in the case of illegal parking) or days (as in the case of correcting an Architectural violation). See a copy of the rules, regulations and policies attached for the specifics.

The Board appreciates your understanding and attention to this matter. Our goal is to facilitate the best possible living conditions for all Nottacare residents by establishing reasonable standards of conduct and compliance. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Please don't hesitate to direct your written comments and questions to (email address) or (mail address). All feedback will be reviewed by and responded to by the Board within 30 days. We also invite you to attend the next Board Meeting (time) on (date) at (location) to express your views on this communication.

Sincerely,

I.M. Incharge
Board President - Nottacare Condominium

Rules in homeowner associations should be few and necessary. When reviving rule enforcement, focus on the ones that truly make a positive impact on value and livability. Treat your members with respect and understanding. Be prepared for compromise if it’s in the best interest of the HOA. Let's rule! BACK

Cigars, Cigarettes & Condos
Zack’s downstairs neighbor Ellen’s cigarette smoke curls into his open windows. Zack and Ellen have a cordial relationship, so he is unsure how to approach her with his request that she refrain from smoking.

Mrs. Bigley, an elderly woman with asthma, has lived in her condominium for years. Recently, the unit beneath hers was sold to a heavy smoker. Mrs. Bigley lodges complaints with the board, begging for relief. She reports that smoke aggravates her asthma. To make matters worse, the new owner refuses to compromise.

Condominium board members wring their hands trying to solve situations like Zack’s and Mrs. Bigley’s. Second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, has been documented as a known human carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute. The Center of Disease Control’s February 2004 Fact Sheet states that " an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke." FEMA lists careless smoking as the leading cause of fire deaths.

These facts make it difficult to dispute that resident complaints about second-hand smoke creeping into their condominiums are much more than an irritation. However, shouldn’t a person have the right to enjoy the legal activity of smoking in his own home? What’s a board to do?

Most homeowner associations have covenants that prohibit activities that create nuisances that interfere with the other members’ enjoyment of their property. The board has a fiduciary duty to enforce these covenants. Therefore, it may be possible for the board to order the smoking homeowner to cease by citing the nuisance restrictions.

If the board chooses to categorize second-hand smoke as a nuisance, it should take the same steps as it would for other types of nuisances. Case law instructs that the following factors play into whether a given activity qualifies as a nuisance:

1) type of neighborhood
2) the nature of the wrong complained of
3) proximity of those alleging injury
4) frequency/duration
5) continuity
6) damage or degree of injury; and
7) number of complaining parties.
The board will need to establish a thorough record of the complaints, including dates, times, complaining parties, and witnesses.

The board should also evaluate how the smoke drifts from one unit to the other, and health concerns that the complaining resident may have. If a health concern exists that can be defined as a disability, such as asthma in Mrs. Bigley’s case, there is an argument that if no steps are taken to abate the problem, the homeowner association may run afoul of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 which requires that HOAs make reasonable accommodations for their disabled members.

The board should also investigate means of curing the problem such as air filtration, caulking windows, and compromises between the residents (such as restrictions on smoking times and places).

In light of the growing anti-smoking sentiment, a proactive homeowner association board may want to consider a rule making it a non-smoking community. While the outcome of the smoking debate is hazy, what is clear is that the issue will not abate anytime soon. Boards should enact a smoking policy before the inevitable happens.

From an article by Orten & Hindman BACK

Beware of Dogs!
Jayne and Ed Elebiari said their dog "Pooky" helped them cope with debilitating depression which they both suffered and asked the board of their homeowner association to waive the "no-pet" policy so they could keep their tiny companion. The board said no – a decision that cost the association $12,500 in damages, awarded by a court that found the association had improperly denied the Elebiaris’ request.

Similarly, a Michigan court ordered an HOA to pay $14,000 in actual damages and $300,000 in punitive damages for refusing to allow an owner to keep a dog she said provided her with essential emotional support. In both cases, the courts were interpreting federal fair housing laws and parallel laws in many states, which require homeowner associations to offer "reasonable accommodations" to residents suffering from a disability. The Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHAA") defines a disability broadly as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities."

Problem or Pretext? What these cases illustrate is that the law also requires accommodations for owners suffering from emotional disabilities that while less visible, may be equally incapacitating. The obvious problem for HOAs is how to distinguish between the legitimate requests of owners who require the emotional support a "comfort animal" provides, and the requests of owners who want to acquire a pet or keep one, and are trying to get around a rule prohibiting them from doing so. What is to prevent any owner who wants a pet from claiming to have an emotional illness that requires the association to accommodate their request?

Good question. The fact that these disputes often center on requests to keep animals owners already possess simply complicates the discussions.

That said, HOAs can challenge a request for a comfort animal on two grounds:

The owner has not proven a disability for which the law requires an accommodation.
Because the requested accommodation is not reasonable.

If the HOA challenges a request, the burden of proof is on the owner.

Establish a Process. If your HOA prohibits pets and you get such a request, the process should require a request in writing and a letter from a physician or therapist describing the nature of the disability and explaining precisely how the pet they are requesting will help them cope with the limitations their disability creates.

The law restricts how much medical information you can demand. You can’t require a comprehensive medical history, a detailed analysis of the owner’s emotional problems, or a description of the treatment the individual is receiving.

However, the board can insist on enough information to verify that the disability meets the legal standard of an impairment that "substantially interferes" with the owner’s ability to function. You can also require evidence of a connection between the disability and the pet the owner is requesting. Questions like "How exactly will a boa constrictor help Mr. Jones cope with his bi-polar disorder?" and "Why does Mrs. Smith need a Great Dane to ease the symptoms of her depression? Wouldn’t a Chihuahua do as well?" get to the heart of the matter and forces the owner to properly frame the request.

While there are no clear legal lines inthis area HOAs can insist on a reasonable balance between the needs of a disabled owner and the safety and comfort of other residents. Even if an accommodation is indicated, the HOA can:

Require owners to keep their animals either in their units or on leashes at all times.
Bar animals from common areas, such as pools, spas etc.
Prohibit breeds recognized as "vicious".
Require owners to care for their animals and clean up after them.
Require owners to obtain and show proof of liability insurance to cover property damage or injuries to others caused by their animal.
Insist on the removal of an animal that threatens or disturbs other residents, for example, by barking incessantly or showing vicious tendencies or behavior.

The restrictions the HOA imposes on comfort animals must be reasonable, however, the HOA should not create unreasonable hurdles like an advance fee to cover anticipated damages.

Training Required? One interesting and unresolved question is whether pets must be specially trained to qualify as comfort animals. In the Elebiari case described earlier, the court ruled that "Pooky did not need special skills to help ameliorate the effects of the [couple’s] disabilities…it was theinnate qualities of a dog, in particular a dog’s friendliness and ability to interact with humans, that made it therapeutic here."

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and a U.S. District Court in Oregon have set a similarly relaxed standard for defining comfort animals, ruling that they need only be "individually" trained (by an owner, but not necessarily by a professional trainer), and that they must "work for the benefit of an individual with a disability." The West Virginia Supreme Court was considerably more demanding, ruling in a 2001 case (In re Kenna) that because a conventional service animal (a guide dog for the blind or an assistance animal for someone with physical impairments) must be "specially trained" for its work, "certainly some type of training is necessary to transform a pet into a service animal" for individuals with emotional disabilities.

A Hawaii court ruled similarly in a 2003 case (Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua) that an animal must be "particularly suited to ameliorate the unique problems of the mentally disabled." Both of these cases rejected the notion asserted in Elebiari and embraced by several other courts, that the innate capacity of dogs to offer unconditional love qualifies them to provide emotional support. "Although this may well be true," the Hawaii court acknowledged, that reasoning makes it impossible to set reasonable limits. "Every person with a handicap or illness that caused or brought about feelings of depression, anxiety, or low self-esteem would be entitled to the dog of their choice, without individual training or ability. And if certain people liked cats, fish, reptiles, or birds better than dogs, there would be no logical reason to deny an accommodation for those animals. The test would dissolve from ‘individually trained to do work or perform tasks’ to ‘of some comfort.’"

Litigation in Prindable is still ongoing, and the HOA has allowed the owner to retain the pet pending the outcome — a strategy that allows the board to continue the fight while limiting potential damages should the HOA ultimately lose.

Whether or Not to Allow Comfort Animals. HOAs that refuse requests for comfort animals obviously do so at some financial risk, as the examples illustrate. Therefore, HOAs should seek legal advice on the policies they establish as well as on their handling of specific accommodation requests.

Given the complexities in this area, it is often best to err on the side of being too flexible rather than too rigid. As with the enforcement of all rules, consistency and transparency are essential in handling requests for comfort animals. HOAs should establish clear procedures and follow them, administer their policies even-handedly, and document their decisions and their decision-making process. These measures won’t prevent the HOA from being sued, but they will reduce the litigation risks and strengthen the defenses if the HOA lands in court.

Published by www.HindmanSanchez.com BACK

Amending the Governing Documents
From time to time within the life of a homeowner association, the board will conclude that some revision is needed to the governing documents. Sometimes the catalyst for an amendment is a specific event or a specific topic, such as adopting a restriction on the rental of units or an amendment to restrict smoking. In other cases, the board may conclude that the governing documents are so out of date, or so out of touch with the actual practices within the HOA, that a comprehensive amendment and restatement is in order - a complete overhaul, in other words. If your HOA is considering amending its governing documents, regardless of whether you are considering a single amendment or a complete restatement, there are some practical tips that can help make the process go more smoothly, and that may result in a better work product at the end of the process.

Define Your Objectives Clearly. At the outset, it is important to know why you are embarking on the process of amending the governing documents. Are you simply trying to update old documents with accurate references to current law and procedures? Are there substantive changes that need to be made to your documents because your current documents don't accurately reflect the way your homeowner association is now operating? Amending governing documents can be a long, tedious, and sometimes expensive, process, full of hard work and lots of meetings. Make sure you have clear objectives in mind for exactly what you are trying to accomplish before starting that process. A corollary to this rule is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In other words, even if your governing documents may not be a model of clarity or brevity (and whose are?), if they still allow your HOA to function properly and efficiently, then it may not be worth the expense and hassle to go through an amendment process. Again, come up with a short list of important things that are "wrong" with your documents at the outset, and this will help you set clear objectives for your amendment process.

Be Realistic About What You Can Accomplish. In many states, the law regarding homeowner association operations can change in some respect almost every single legislative session. So even if you were to update your documents after the current legislative session ends, at least some of those provisions will be "out of date" in a year or two. Keep that in mind as you set your goals for what you want to accomplish with your amendment, and do not expect that your governing documents will always be perfectly current and up to date in every respect. In this regard, keep in mind that continuing board education (including your association manager) is an important part of the total package of efforts needed to have a well-functioning HOA. While your documents need to be reasonably up to date, almost none will be perfectly current.

Don't Be Your Own Lawyer. Most HOA lawyers will ask their boards or committees to develop a simple, bullet point-type list of changes to be made, written in plain English. After whatever discussion is in order, the lawyer can then translate that wish list into the proper language for an amendment to the relevant governing document. In most cases, this will be much more efficient and cost-effective than having the board or committee attempt to do the legal drafting itself, and then have the lawyer review it. The board should lead by clearly indicating what they want to accomplish, then let the lawyer do the legal work.

When You Vote, Separate Housekeeping Items From Controversial Topics. If your process is going to involve several separate amendments to your governing documents, especially if it involves a complete restatement to a governing document, take special care when preparing your ballots or proxies for the owner vote on these matters. Consider allowing owners to cast separate votes on general cleanup-type amendments on the one hand, and individual votes on separate amendments that may involve some controversy. For example, if your condominium is amending and restating its Bylaws simply to correct mistakes and update references to applicable law, but in addition, you are considering one amendment that would make the condominium smoke-free, and another amendment prohibiting rentals, then

perhaps your ballot should provide for three separate votes on each of those three matters: the general restatement, the smoke-free amendment, and the rental ban. Otherwise, your homeowner association runs the risk of having all of your hard work in drafting the general cleanup amendments rejected - even if most owners favor it - simply because owners might not favor one of the other, more controversial amendments.

Following these tips can save you time, money, and wear and tear in what is usually a time-consuming task.

By Steve Russell of Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP BACK

Three Legged Stool
The Business Judgment Rule (BJR) is one of the most important things a homeowner association director should understand because it protects from personal liability while serving on the board. However, well-meaning directors can accidentally stray outside of its protections and leave themselves exposed to risk of personal liability.

The Business Judgment Rule. If operating under the BJR, a director is personally protected from liability. The BJR, a common legal protection in almost every state, states:

"A director shall perform the duties of a director … in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation (homeowners association) and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances."

Good Faith. Good faith is not simply good intentions or a pure heart. Good faith is also simply not being in bad faith. The people who ultimately decide whether something is in good or bad faith are judges and jurors. So what is important is not what you think, but what they think of the action and the evidence about it.

For example, could someone claim a board decision was based retaliation, like a member who criticizes, complains and abuses the board? The law requires that all members be treated consistently. So even abusive members are entitled to the same treatment as reasonable members.

Sometimes statements or emails issued by the board can be taken out of context with dangerous results. Make sure every statement made at board meetings is carefully worded. Avoid intemperate or sarcastic remarks and never include such in the minutes.

In the Best Interests of the HOA. Every action by a board should be in the homeowner association's best interests. But a judge or jury would decide if the board’s motivation was correct by looking at board actions, statements and relevant facts.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest. Avoid preferential treatment in rule enforcement and renovation projects. If a director stands to benefit from a board decision, he should not attempt to sway or vote on the matter and make sure the minutes reflect that fact.

Reasonable Inquiry. The board must have appropriate qualified input before it makes a decision. A manager's input may be all that is required if the matter is simple. However, if the matter is serious, large or complex, more expertise may be needed (reasonable inquiry). Well-meaning directors sometimes violate this requirement by either providing their own expertise ("I think that wall is structurally sound") or by refusing to endorse the hiring of the an expert consultant ("Engineers are too expensive. Can't we just figure this out?").

A director should make decisions based on sufficient and qualified information appropriate to the decision. Sometimes, the board must spend money to get knowledgeable input.

The Business Judgment Rule is a three-legged stool. Lose one of the legs, and the result can be painful. Know the elements of the BJR and be protected as you do your best to help your HOA.

Kelly G. Richardson - Richardson Harman Ober PC BACK

Resale Certificate Considerations
Although they differ in form and substance, many states have enacted Consumer Protection Laws. Their purpose, in the words of the Virginia law, for example, is "to promote fair and ethical standards of dealings between suppliers and the consuming public."

When we analyze these laws, even practicing attorneys consider them as protecting the consuming public from bad acts from merchants - car dealers, grocery stores and even mortgage brokers and lenders.

However, on April 30, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that even a condominium could be held to violate the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. (MRA Property Management v Armstrong).

The case is complex and goes back many years. Twenty five condominium unit purchasers sued their association and its property manager, claiming that the resale packages each plaintiff received violated the Consumer Protection Act because the budgets spelled out in those packages "had the capacity, tendency and effect of misleading" the potential purchasers."

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit when their association imposed a special assessment to pay for water damage to the buildings. The Plaintiffs alleged, among thirteen counts, that even though the budget in the resale package they received reflected that repair expenses were declining, the association and management knew - as far back as 1996 - the extent of that damage.

In the majority of states, if you plan to buy a condominium unit from a current owner (not the developer) your seller (and the association) is required to provide you with a package of information, called a "resale certificate". This would include, for example, the association’s legal documents, insurance information, and an updated budget which contains the income and expense of the association for the coming year, a statement of how much money in held in reserves, and in some jurisdictions, a statement of any planned expenditures and assessments.

The trial judge found for the Plaintiffs, issued a million dollar judgment against the defendants, basing the ruling that the association and management violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

The Maryland High Court issued a 34 page opinion, which can be instructive to condo owners, managers as well as attorneys. The court reaffirmed an earlier decision that there "simply does not exist contractual privity between the condo association (called ‘council of unit owners in Maryland) and the buyer of a unit." The buyer has a contract to purchase a unit from a unit owner, not from the association.

However, the court went on to state that the association does have a duty - imposed by the Maryland condominium act - to provide buyers with the "resale certificate". One of the items required to be disclosed is "the current operating budget of the condominium including details concerned the reserve fund for repairs and replacement and its intended use, or a statement that there is no reserve fund."

And the Consumer Protection Act prohibits "false, ...misleading oral or written statement... which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers..."

Why is the association and the manager considered a "supplier"? According to the opinion, the statutory obligation under the condo act "injects (the manager and) the association into the sales transaction as central participants because where they to have failed to provide these materials, the contract for sale would not have been enforceable." In the words of the court, both the manager and the association are "sufficiently involved" in the sale.

The Court sent the case back to the trial judge. Having determined that the consumer protection act could apply, the lower court now has to decide if the statements contained in the resale package were, in fact, deceptive. Unless the case is settled, that’s yet another round in a court of law.

The resale certificate is an important document, and unfortunately is not always taken seriously by either boards of directors or their management company. The laws in each of the three jurisdictions differ slightly as to what must be disclosed.

For example, In Maryland, the buyer must receive the package no later than 15 days before closing, and has the right to cancel within 7 days of receipt. In the District, the buyer must be provided the package 10 days after the contract is signed, and has 3 days to cancel. In Virginia, the package must be given to the buyer within 14 days after a contract is signed. If the package is hand-delivered or emailed, the contract must be cancelled within 3 days from receipt. However, if it is mailed, the rescission right is extended to 6 days.

If the resale package is not complete, and does not comply with applicable state law, a potential buyer can walk away from a sales contract, and get a full refund of the earnest money deposit. And in today’s economy, where buyers are having second thoughts about buying real estate, it’s easy to back away from a contract if the resale certificate is not complete.

But more importantly, it also has to be accurate. The laws require that the association - not the property manager - provide the certificate. Accordingly, while management should review the form at least once a year, it should be signed only by a board member.

We are a litigious society. Make sure your resale certificate complies with your state law and that it is absolutely accurate.

By Benny L. Kass BACK