It Takes a Judge to Invalidate an Election

While it takes a judge to invalidate an election, generally owners may recall a board. Recently, we attended an annual meeting with a very close election. Nine candidates were nominated to fill four positions. While all the proper election procedures were followed, several of the candidates were unaware of their ability to solicit proxies from their fellow homeowners. As a result, two incumbents were re-elected as well as two candidates who generally favored the actions of the current board. The election results were achieved even though the vast majority of owners in the room opposed the current board and their courses of action.

Two days after the elections, a few of the defeated candidates circulated a petition among the owners aimed at calling a special meeting. The defeated candidates not only wanted a new meeting, but also wanted a new election.

The bylaws of every association must be carefully reviewed in the instance of a contested election. At this association, signatures of 25% of the owners are required to call a special meeting. The defeated candidates had no trouble getting the 25% owner signatures, however the bylaws make no provision for invalidating an election. As a result, the only way the defeated candidates could invalidate the election would be through judicial proceedings. (remember Bush v. Gore)

Bylaws of most associations do contain a provision for removing board members. At this association, removal of board members requires a vote of a majority of owners in the entire association. Last week, the special meeting of the owners was called and 85% of the owners were present in person or by proxy. Again, the results were very close, however, only 45% voted to remove the recently elected board members, while 40% voted they retain their positions. While some may think the vote to recall the board succeeded, it is important to note that the bylaws mandate that a “majority of the entire association” is needed for removal and the 45% obtained was shy of a “majority of the association.” As a result, the recently elected board members remain in their positions.

If the governing bylaws had been silent as to removal, the disgruntled owners would have been left with no alternative but to go to court to invalidate the election. However, as history has shown and caselaw clearly indicates, absent out right fraud, forgery, or gross procedural injustice, courts are weary of mandating a new election.

Categories

Three bars icon gold

Recent blog Posts

Three bars icon gold

Community Associations Not Required to Comply with CTA in 2025

As Kaman & Cusimano clients are likely already aware, earlier this year, the US Treasury Department ...
Read More →

Shannon McCormick presented at the 2025 Ohio Lake Communities Association’s Annual Conference

Partner Shannon McCormick gave a presentation at the 2025 Ohio Lake Communities Association’s Annual Conference. ...
Read More →

Kaman & Cusimano Firm and 5 Attorneys recognized by The  Best Lawyers in America® 

Kaman and Cusimano is excited to announce that we have been recognized as a Best ...
Read More →

Big Projects / Big Decisions: Should your Community Association hire a Project Manager?

Hiring professional community association management is key to running a condominium or homeowner association – ...
Read More →