#554-G, Park Overlook Homeowners Association v. Barrick (March 27, 2003) (Panel: Reilly, Maloney, Bruce)

The homeowners association (HOA) filed a complaint against the homeowner (HO) alleging that she was in violation of the architectural rules of the community by allowing her home to deteriorate.

The facts produced at the hearing showed that the HOA first notified the HO of the problems in February, 2001, and she promised to make repairs.By May, 2001, she had not done so, and the HOA sent a second notice and set the matter for a dispute resolution hearing before the board of directors in July, 2001.The board concluded she was in violation and ordered her to make repairs by August, 2001.She did not do so and the HOA filed this complaint in January, 2002.The HO did not respond to the complaint until May, 2002, at which time she agreed her unit needed repairs and promised to make them by August.She also agreed to pay attorney's fees to the HOA.However, she did not make the repairs, and the dispute went to a hearing before the panel in January, 2003.At the hearing, the HO testified that her unit needed repairs and she promised to make the repairs within 90 days.

The hearing panel found that the HO was in violation of the rules, and ordered her to make repairs within 90 days, and advised her that if she did not do so she could be cited by the County and fined $500.The panel further found that the HO's conduct "substantially delayed the resolution of the dispute," and in accordance with Section 10B-13(d) of the Montgomery County Code, ordered her to pay $1175 in reasonable attorney's fees to the HOA and to reimburse the HOA its $50 filing fee.