I am naturally biased in the sense that when I believe a family member has been cheated in a contract, I need to 'check' myself to ensure that I have not overlooked anything: especially if I am to send a demand letter and bring the matter to small claims court.

That being said, is there a forum (unclear if this is acceptable here) to put forth the facts and have a community 'pick it apart' so as to overcome my bias?


Is this the right forum to check my bias? If not, I will edit my question to remove the details.

If an example is OK with the community, the issue is the incorrect share is distributed (issue in the numerator):

share = (Disaster Insurance Check / #unit-owners) - Uncle's damages

The HOA bylaws state:

enter image description here

I believes the shares should be:

share = [Disaster Insurance Check - sum(AllDamages)] / #unit-owners

Naturally, I understand that there is always the possibility there is more in the governing bylaws that could be relevant and flip the outcome, but I think I can say with confidence nobody here has the time, energy or inclination to read them if I posted it (I will email it to you if you ask).

What is strongest argument the defendant would make to justify the first formula over the latter?

I am looking forward to clever counter-arguments. Thank you!

  • As per (F)(2), shouldn't your formula be share = [Disaster Insurance Check - sum(AllDamages) - in_scope_repairs] / #unit-owners ? or why is in_scope_repairs outside the quotient? Please note that I am not acquainted with HOA matters. – Iñaki Viggers Sep 14 '18 at 19:22
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I should not have included the in_scope_repairs in the formula, because it is really not part of the share: it would be part of the total reimbursement check if the damages are paid by the uncle. – gatorback Sep 14 '18 at 19:28

What is strongest argument the defendant would make to justify the first formula over the latter?

It is hard to tell what the Association/board has in mind and/or what other laws/clauses apply, but based on this information, the Association seems clueless.

Here the decisive phrase --in (F) and then again in (2)-- is that the distribution of any remaining funds occurs "after payment of all costs of the reconstruction and repair".

The Association's formula is wrong because it reverses the sequence of [arithmetic] terms and thereby ignores the conditional premise for a distribution of any remaining balance. The Association's formula largely defeats the purpose of buying insurance, and it might end up giving negative "share" for some stakeholders. Hence my statement that the Association seems clueless.

  • Assume that there are no other clauses / laws (they could not or would not provide any). BTW, I really appreciate your well-written and thought out answers! If there is any additional feedback to improve my communication of the matter, I would be grateful. – gatorback Sep 14 '18 at 19:44
  • @gatorback You are very welcome, and kudos to you for helping your uncle. – Iñaki Viggers Sep 14 '18 at 20:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.