On 7/13/2025 10:33 AM, Len Skemp wrote:

When an HOA outsources all its operation to a management company (MC),
its members cannot bring their service requests grievances directly to
the MC because the service contract is between MC and the HOA, and
individual members have no contractual relations with the MC. The title companies, when transferring the properties for such an HOA in
Tennessee, mandate, besides other charges, a couple ones listed as paid directly to the MC, e.g., Transfer fee paid by Buyer and Statement of
Account paid by Seller. Would paying such a fee by Buyer, in the absence
of explanation of the scope of “Transfer”, give them a right to claim a direct relationship with the MC on the few matters where the HOA/MC
contract names individual members as beneficiaries (e.g., inspection of
the HOAs books and records, communications on service requests)?

When I lived in AZ, the transfer fee was always paid to the HOA. It was
done via the title company. The MC has no right to send you a bill for anything other than that authorized by the HOA.

In my subdivision we also had a water/sewer district with an MC. The
title company notified the MC of a pending sale. A day or so before the closing date, the MC read the water meter and sent the information to
the title company indicating the deal could go through and what money
was to be collected.. The seller was charged the water bill and thew
buyer paid the transfer fee.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Len Skemp wrote:

The essence of my question was: "Since the contractual relationship
requires a consideration, can we say that if consideration to an MC was required, it became bound by some kind of a contract with the payer (an
HOA member)?

That reasoning is logically equivalent to "Every cat has four legs,
my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat."

If X requires Y, the _absence_ of Y would tell you there's no X, but
the _presence_ of Y tells you nothing about whether X is present or
not.

"The contractual relationship (X) requires a consideration (Y)" does
_not_ tell you that a contractual relationship is always created by a consideration. Mathematicians and lawyers would say that a
consideration is a necessary condition for a contract, but not a
sufficient one.

--
After using my real address in 37 years of Usenet articles,
I am now reluctantly posting a fake address because of the
large number of sites scraping Usenet articles without
permission and putting them on their own pretend forum sites.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 05:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Len Skemp wrote:

Thank you for pointing out to this fallacy. Does the mandatory payment
to MC lead to its any future obligation at all? What legal mandate (or
clause in the real estate purchase agreement) allows MC to become a
mandatory payee, along with the state by the virtue of taxation and the
HOA?

I don't see any reason why it would be in a purchase agreement. The
logical place to look would be in the HOA bylaws or other HOA
governing document.(*) That document should give the HOA board the
authority to engage and supervise a management company. (If it
doesn't, that's an issue.) Since properties within the HOA area are
subject to HOA rules, the buyer will deal with the management company
in the manner that the HOA may direct. If the management company
behaves improperly, and you can't get satisfaction from them, your
recourse is to the HOA board.

California has laws governing how HOAs can operate and declaring some
things they can' do, regardless what their bylaws may say. (Examples: forbidding owners from installing solar panels, and failing to give
residents notice of board meetings.) Whatever state, province, or
country you're in may also have such laws, so you would need to
research those.

--
After using my real address in 37 years of Usenet articles,
I am now reluctantly posting a fake address because of the
large number of sites scraping Usenet articles without
permission and putting them on their own pretend forum sites.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/13/2025 10:33 AM, Len Skemp wrote:

When an HOA outsources all its operation to a management company (MC),
its members cannot bring their service requests grievances directly to
the MC because the service contract is between MC and the HOA, and
individual members have no contractual relations with the MC. The title companies, when transferring the properties for such an HOA in
Tennessee, mandate, besides other charges, a couple ones listed as paid directly to the MC, e.g., Transfer fee paid by Buyer and Statement of
Account paid by Seller. Would paying such a fee by Buyer, in the absence
of explanation of the scope of “Transfer”, give them a right to claim a direct relationship with the MC on the few matters where the HOA/MC
contract names individual members as beneficiaries (e.g., inspection of
the HOAs books and records, communications on service requests)?

I watched _The Paper Chase_ (TV series) when it was on. At one point
Professor Kingsfield told his class, "A contract is a meeting of minds."

That's actually half the definition. The other half is that it requires "consideration": each side gives up something to the other(s).

I go to the store and pick up a tube of toothpaste. I go to the cash
register and pay the asked price. A contract is formed at that point: I
give up some money, and the store gives up its ownership of that
particular tube.

The "something" you give up doesn't have to be material. I sign a lease
for an apartment and the landlord does the same. I give up my right not
to pay him $xxx each month, and she gives up her right to sole
possession of the apartment.

In a Non-Disclosure agreement, the employer gives up its right to keep
certain secrets from me, and I give up the right to tell other people
(some part of) what I know.

What right has the management company given up in return for your
payment? It gives up the right to not manage the property, but that is
given to the HOA, not to you as an individual member.

The payment you make to the management company is pursuant to your already-existing contract with the HoA.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Len Skemp <[email protected]> wrote in news:105aq7g$1bi35$3@dont- email.me:

Thank you for pointing out to this fallacy. Does the mandatory payment
to MC lead to its any future obligation at all? What legal mandate (or
clause in the real estate purchase agreement) allows MC to become a
mandatory payee, along with the state by the virtue of taxation and the
HOA?

Everybody is missing something. As an HOA member, you may well have the
legal ability to sue the property manager even if you don't have a
strictly personal contractual relationship with them.

There is a concept called "third party beneficiary." Very often two
people will make a contract that is, on some level, for the benefit of a
third person. That third person may well have the right to enforce the contract to the extent it benefits them, even if they, in particular,
haven't given consideration. Because the consideration came from someone
else.

On 7/16/2025 3:09 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 21:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Len Skemp wrote:

The essence of my question was: "Since the contractual relationship
requires a consideration, can we say that if consideration to an MC

was

required, it became bound by some kind of a contract with the payer

(an

HOA member)?

That reasoning is logically equivalent to "Every cat has four legs,
my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat."

If X requires Y, the _absence_ of Y would tell you there's no X, but
the _presence_ of Y tells you nothing about whether X is present or
not.

"The contractual relationship (X) requires a consideration (Y)" does
_not_ tell you that a contractual relationship is always created by a
consideration. Mathematicians and lawyers would say that a
consideration is a necessary condition for a contract, but not a
sufficient one.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)