Chapter 8 - § 8.10 • TROUBLESOME UNIT OWNERS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 8.10 • TROUBLESOME UNIT OWNERS

Sometimes the behavior of a resident will lead an association to contact local law enforcement. If they violate the civil rights of the resident, can the association be liable? A Colorado federal court explained that the federal Civil Rights Act only applies to those who both deprive another of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and act under color of law, and for private parties to be considered a "state actor" under color of law, they must be jointly engaged with public officials in the conduct allegedly violating the federal right. However, the private individual who merely reports an alleged crime to police officers who then take action based on the report is not acting under color of state law.²³¹

Few things are as frustrating for governing boards as they attempt to manage their association as a unit owner who harasses the board, the officers, association employees, or other owners.²³² The problem is, unfortunately, all too frequent. The renegade owner attends every board meeting, challenging every potential procedural flaw in the board's actions, combing the minutes for inaccuracies, and mining the documents and the CCIOA for missiles to hurl at the board. The target may be the whole board or selected members.

Sometimes this behavior stems from a long-standing fight between the board and the owner, or perhaps a faction of disgruntled owners with which he or she is allied. Often, there is at least a partly legitimate dispute about community issues. The owner believes that he or she has been maltreated by the board. Sometimes that is in fact the case. However, as professional association managers can attest, there are also owners who are simply incorrigible.

A Minnesota case is an example of how one court attempted to resolve the problems created by a troublesome unit owner.²³³ A trial court found that the unit owner annoyed neighbors with excessive noise; was rude to security guards who responded to noise complaints; contacted the security office without justification in the middle of the night; harassed security guards physically and verbally; did not attend meetings at which his behavior was to be discussed; assaulted the building caretaker; and harassed a tenant physically and verbally. A temporary restraining order was granted that prohibited the owner from communicating with the security staff except in emergencies and with association officials, except designated ones, and then only...