Michael,
I believe our separate readings of today’s ruling are compatible.
Your blog touches on a key part of the ruling:
In the same way that the powers of a homeowners’ association are limited to those powers granted to it by the original declaration, an amendment should not exceed the purpose of the original declaration.
If I read Justice Wainwright’s intention correctly, the Supreme Court examined whether the amendment was “reasonable,” given the content of the the original declaration. Otherwise, no homeowners’ association could ever amend its rules for assessments.
Wainwright and his colleagues found the language I quoted earlier — that the association would charge assessments …
… for the general purposes of promoting the safety, welfare, recreation, health, common benefit, and enjoyment of the residents of Lots in The Ledges as may be more specifically authorized from time to time by the Board —
to be “unreasonable.” That finding was based on the limitations of the original declaration.
I suspect that if the homeowners’ association had decided to amend its assessment procedure to deal with some sort of change in the lighting system for the subdivision sign, that change would have met the “reasonable” standard.
Instead the italicized language I quoted opened the door for many different types of assessment. Homeowners had not signed on to that more open-ended language when they bought their homes. The high court is saying that the homeowners’ association cannot change the rules in such an open-ended manner.
That’s why I took this case to be a (probably small) victory for homeowners.
