Changing Director Qualifications

Source: Adrian J. Adams Esq. 

QUESTION: Our bylaws have only one qualification for serving on the board–that directors be members. By a rule change, the board added a new requirement that a director’s primary residence must be in the development. The change eliminates 40% of the membership from holding office. Some believe the president took this action because of disagreements with individuals who do not live in the complex who may run against her. Doesn’t a change like this need a vote of the membership?

ANSWER: Because of a recent court decision, it appears that boards can unilaterally add new director qualifications without input by the membership.

Friars Village. Friars Village HOA had only one qualification for serving on the board, the nominee had to be a member of the association. The board adopted a rule that no one could serve on the board with another director related by blood or marriage. It’s a good requirement but it was done without membership approval. A homeowner sued in small claims to invalidate the rule since it was inconsistent with the bylaws. The board moved the dispute to superior court and the case ultimately ended up in the court of appeals.

Reasonableness Requirement. The court of appeals concluded that boards have the authority to adopt additional director qualifications without the need to amend the bylaws, provided the qualifications are “reasonably related to the performance of the Board and will serve to protect its overall mission — protecting the best interests of the Association.” (Friars Village Association v. Hansing.) I’m not comfortable with the court’s decision but it’s now the law.

Residency Rationale. Is the residency requirement adopted by your board reasonable? Probably. The argument in favor of residency is that board members who live in your development will have a stake in the community and will be more inclined to act in the best interests of the membership.

RECOMMENDATION: Despite the arguments for a board-imposed residency requirement, a judge could easily decide that disqualifying 40% of the membership from serving on the board is not reasonable. Therefore, the safer course of action is to seek membership support for new director qualifications and then amend the bylaws. Doing so reduces the risk of a legal challenge and an adverse ruling.