October 6, 2026 | Mark Luis Foster
Tsk tsk. Those big bad HOAs. When I read stories that are one-sided (typically 99.8% of the time), it makes me furious, especially when some two-bit reporter doesn’t ask the right questions when some 81-year-old lady gets kicked out of her house because the board decided to fix something that costs money.
From the New York Post:
Owners at the 198-unit Vilamoura at Rancho San Clemente condominium complex were hit with the special assessment to fund a major roof replacement project, according to ABC7.
Ok — so a special assessment to fund a major roof repair is at issue. What could go wrong? Read on:
An 81-year-old California homeowner says she will be forced out of her longtime home after her condo association slapped each resident with a $26,000 emergency assessment — as furious neighbors fight back against the massive bill.
I always wonder if it had been a 41-year-old couple from Reno who was affected. Would it still make the news?
And “slapping” a special assessment onto homeowners is also another way of saying that the reporter disagrees with the decision of the board, whose role it is to maintain property values. Now, should they have done it years ago? Sounds like the issue was kicked down the road until now, causing consternation in the ranks:
Residents contend the roofs were a long-known maintenance issue and therefore should not qualify for an emergency assessment that can be imposed without a homeowner vote. “It was not an emergency; it’s deferred maintenance,” homeowner Noah Martin told ABC7. “And so, then we as members should have a vote on how we want to take care of the roofs.”
Maybe the governing docs of this association would specify such a vote under non-emergency situations, but again, this is not clear as the reporting on most HOA issues is very sloppy. I suppose insurance doesn’t factor in, since it was not storm damage, but overall degradation. I’m no expert; however, a roof is a mighty big emergency if you ask me, especially if the engineering decision is potential interior damage. The board must act — and act now.
Did the board offer payment options? Cough it up, as the reporter says…
Residents say they were given several ways to cough up the money: pay the more than $26,000 bill outright, split it into two payments or enter a payment plan that initially adds more than $2,000 to their monthly costs.
Why the rush since this has been a longer term issue already?
James R. McCormick, an attorney representing the association, told The Times that an independent expert found deteriorated waterproofing and problems with the original tile installation and warned that delaying replacement could lead to serious interior damage.
The more things fall apart, the more they stay the same. Best summed up here:
“The unfortunate reality is that this recall process will not change the status of the roofs or otherwise obviate the need for immediate roof replacement,” McCormick said.
Read the whole nightmare HERE.
