1. By a “substantive response” or
2. By giving notice that additional time is “reasonably necessary”.

1. When the inquiry needs to be reviewed by the Board AND the Board has regularly scheduled monthly meetings;
2. When it is an especially complex issue requiring up to an additional 30 days; OR
3. When the board needs to seek legal or other professional advice to be able to answer adequately.

• An Association CAN create rules regarding how inquiries are to be submitted.
• An Association CAN limit the number of responses available for each unit owner to no more than one a month.
• An Association CAN be awarded legal fees if a dispute arises around this rule and the Association prevails in the dispute.
• An Association CANNOT limit the number of individual questions in each inquiry to only one.
• An Association CANNOT ignore this new requirement.

Impact Of Future Applicable Provisions – 1/1/28

Impact Of Future Applicable Provisions – 1/1/26

Currently Applicable WUCIOA Provisions

1. RCW 64.90.525, which specifies the requirements for the adoption of annual budgets (comprised of both expenditures and assessments) and
2. RCW 64.90.080, which provides that the provision of RCW 64.90.525 supersede and overturn any provisions in a community’s current governing documents that call for any different process, procedure or voting requirements for the adoption of the community’s annual budget than does RCW 64.90.525.

2. Minimum Delinquent Amount. There must be at least the greater of the following amounts due prior to commencement of any lien foreclosure action: (a) 3 months of assessments or (b) $2,000.

3. Very Specific Notice And Timing Requirements. These revisions require very specific content in the notices and very specific timing for each step in the lien collection/foreclosure process.

4. Different Effective Dates. Some of the newly adopted provisions apply currently and some will not apply until 1/1/25 adding some additional complexity to the procedural requirements – see, for example, the time periods referenced in paragraph 2 above.

2. Bank Accounts. The respective provisions regarding Association bank accounts also remain essentially unchanged in the 2023 revisions.

3. Retention Of Records. Records that Associations now must retain include the following (and a few others not specifically listed below):
   • the current budget
   • detailed records of receipts and expenditures “affecting the operation and administration of the association” and “other appropriate accounting records” for a 7-year period
   • minutes of all meetings of both owner and the Association Board (other than “executive sessions” of the Board
   • records of all “actions taken by the owners or board without a meeting” or “actions taken by a committee in place of the board”
   • names and addresses for all owners
   • the governing documents of the community and amendments thereto
   • financial statements and tax returns for the past 7 years
   • list of the names and addresses of the current Board members
   • the most recent annual report filed with the WA Secretary of State’s office
   • Association contracts for the past 7 years
   • all materials relied upon in approving or rejecting any owner’s design or architectural approval request
   • all material relied upon regarding any decision to enforce the governing documents
   • warranties and insurance policies
   • voting related documents
   • notices to owners or to the Association per statute or governing documents

4. Owners’ Right To Inspect Records. Under the revised statutes owners (and their agents) have the right to inspect and copy all Association records and documents other than some specifically excepted categories of same.  Below are listed some of the excepted documents that owners do not have the right to inspect and some of my comments:
   • all owners have the right to obtain annually without charge the list of current owners (subject to some very limited exceptions). With respect to all other records requests the Association can charge a “reasonable fee” to produce records and supervise the requester’s inspection of the same.
   • records inspections are to be scheduled during “reasonable business hours” at the “office of the association or its managing agents” or “at a mutually convenient time and location”
   • the Association shall redact from any records produced information regarding “personnel and medical records”, contracts and agreements “currently being negotiated”, “existing or potential” legal proceedings, attorney communications, Board “executive session” related records, “individual lot/unit files” unless requested by the lot/unit owner, unlisted phone numbers and “electronic address” (presumably meaning email address) of unit owners/residents

5. No Duty To Create Documents. In response to records request the Association is not required to “compile or synthesize information”.  In other words, the Association does not have to generate something in response to a records request that is not contained in an existing record of the Association.

6. Electronic Transmission. An owner can request that the records be transmitted via “electronic transmission” if available.

1. An HOA which is granted “the power to charge and assess” is entitled to a grant of broad discretion in deciding the method of allocating costs to its members. The phrase “on an equitable basis” set forth in the Hat Island Covenants “serve[d] only to limit the range of options available to [the HOA]; it does not imply that there is one equitable basis that is better than another.”
2. An HOA has broad discretion regarding the establishing of assessments, but that discretion “must be exercised reasonably and in good faith.” In order for such exercise to be reasonable, the HOA must follow “the procedures laid out in the governing documents and in relevant statutes” and it also must utilize information that is “reasonably accurate” in making its decisions.
3. The Court held that when an HOA makes a discretionary decision in a procedurally valid way, the “Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the Association” unless there is a showing of “fraud, dishonesty or incompetence”. Additionally, the Court stated that “reasonable care is required” in the HOA’s decision-making.
4. In Bangerter both the trial court and the court of appeals (the lower courts) had considered what is referred to as the “Business Judgment Rule” in reaching their decisions. The Supreme Court observed that the application to HOAs of the so-called “Business Judgment Rule” is a “thorny question” that need not be decided in this particular case.  Thus, the Supreme Court provided no guidance on the applicability of that Rule to the case.  The Supreme Court’s decision was instead based upon other principles of law as set forth above.