About This Document
Resolution No. 5, adopted by the SHOA Board on March 14, 2023, attempts to impose fines and penalties on homeowners for vague categories of behavior such as “noncompliance” or “disruption.” This resolution was never adopted by a vote of the membership, nor was it incorporated into the governing documents (e.g., Bylaws, CC&Rs, or Articles of Incorporation). Yet, the Board has repeatedly enforced it as if it carries the full weight of law.
This exhibit is critical because it forms the foundation of the Board’s escalating fine structure, culminating in the controversial $10,000 fine against Stephen and Michelle Short. The language in Resolution 5 is so broad that it raises fundamental concerns about fairness, legal enforceability, and abuse of power.
SHOA’s Board has claimed that Resolution 5 was legally vetted. However, no written legal opinion has been produced. Members are simply told, “Don’t worry. It’s been cleared.” But that’s not how trust is built.
Key Issues Raised by Resolution No. 5
- No membership vote: It was passed by the Board without community input or approval.
- Vague enforcement terms: Words like “disruption” and “noncompliance” are undefined, making enforcement subjective and open to abuse.
- No due process protections: The resolution grants the Board sweeping authority to fine members without clear standards or fair hearing procedures.
- Not legally integrated: It is not part of the CC&Rs, Bylaws, or Articles, which raises serious questions about enforceability.
This resolution has been central to multiple controversies and legal disputes. It is an example of the SHOA Board acting outside its authority and bypassing safeguards designed to protect members.
📂 Open Exhibit 106 (PDF)
📄 Click here to read the full exhibit
🔍 Want to understand why vague resolutions like this are legally risky? Read our 📄 sidebar on Allen v. Reed (CO) and Yogman v. Parrott (OR), which explains how courts treat ambiguous covenants.