I own a condominium and pay monthly association. Last year there was a plumbing problem and according to the HOA it was in the plumbing between my unit and the unit below. The assoication did have a plumbing contractor come out - they cut a whole in my closet wall and air handler, leaving the walls exposed. The issue continued afterward still - I then had a plumber come out and he replace my shower pan and drain. After the repair I have not since heard of any further water issues.
I was charged for the 2 repairs but never saw a bill. Should I pay for a bill that was not seen or corrected the water issue? Are the shared pipes between units not considered "common area"?

Tracing a leak down can oftentimes require a great deal of exploratory 'surgery', so having a Plumber out more than once isn't all that uncommon.

Should you have an opportunity to examine the bill(s)? Absolutely.

In most cases, stacks that receive waste from more than one unit are considered 'common' and are generally repaired from a communal fund that is funded through dues paid by all of the associations members.

The situation you describe, though, sounds like the leak emanated from either a fixture or branch line within your unit, which would make you responsible for both the actual repair and the exploratory work performed by the first Plumber -- Unless there were actually two separate leaks, of course.

Who charged you, the plumber or the HOA? HOA called the plumber and they should pay his bill. If they feel your are at fault they must show you through their covenants why the area is not considered common. In most covenants you only own from the drywall skin inward. Iam the President of an HOA and I can tell you that they sometimes operate from the gutt rather than the covenant so make them show you the parts of their document that says this is your problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

Who charged you, the plumber or the HOA? HOA called the plumber and they should pay his bill. If they feel your are at fault they must show you through their covenants why the area is not considered common. In most covenants you only own from the drywall skin inward. Iam the President of an HOA and I can tell you that they sometimes operate from the gutt rather than the covenant so make them show you the parts of their document that says this is your problem

---

I think you'll find that your situation is the exception, rather than the rule, Ball.

I've served as a representative for parties on both sides of situations similar to the one described by the OP and the rulings have always placed responsibility for fixture and branch line failures squarely on the shoulders of the homeowner.

Having said that, I would urge the owner to go over their contract very thoroughly before paying this bill.

I'm curious about your claim that the person or organization who called in the Plumber bears financial responsibility as well -- Would you, in your position as President, feel responsible for paying the bill if a Plumber was called in by you for an angle stop popping off or a burst braided supply line while the homeowner was at work or out of town?

Would the neighbor in a unit below the leak be responsible for all costs if they called and hired a contractor to clean up and repair the damages incurred by the leak?

If I called a plumber to do a job I have made a contract with him and yes I would pay the bill. I might then, depending on the circumstances, try to recover the cost from a home owner. If you don't take this approach you could be putting the plumber in the middle and he has done no wrong. From your side as a plumber, if a person calls you to fix his neighbors leaking septic line would you finish the job and then try to bill the property owner? Back to your example of the burst braided line, interesting scenario. That burst supply line is on his side of the drywall surface and is not going to be considered common property. If his burst pipe was damaging a threatening common property or property of other I would call the plumber, pay the bill, then bill the home owner. If he refused to pay the HOA I would then do one of several things allowed by the covenants. I would either put a lien on his condo or suspend his rights of the HOA if that is in the covenant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

If I called a plumber to do a job I have made a contract with him and yes I would pay the bill. I might then, depending on the circumstances, try to recover the cost from a home owner. If you don't take this approach you could be putting the plumber in the middle and he has done no wrong. From your side as a plumber, if a person calls you to fix his neighbors leaking septic line would you finish the job and then try to bill the property owner?? Back to your example of the burst braided line, interesting scenario. That burst supply line is on his side of the drywall surface and is not going to be considered common property. If his burst pipe was damaging a threatening common property or property of other I would call the plumber, pay the bill, then bill the home owner. If he refused to pay the HOA I would then do one of several things allowed by the covenants. I would either put a lien on his condo or suspend his rights of the HOA if that is in the covenant.

---

All good points.

When you say you would pay the bill, would that be you paying the bill out of pocket -- Or would that be you in your capacity as HOA President paying the bill out of the Associations General Fund?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, having seen a number of differing outcomes for the OP's original query, I'm genuinely curious how things are handled in other parts of the country.

I have to come down on Bob's side on this issue. I have owned condominium properties and also been involved in the management. I even have to agree him that "they sometimes operate from the gut". I think it would be fairly safe to say that the Master Deed will specify in detail what the boundaries of each unit are. I would expect to find detail descriptions of the common and the limited common elements. If the association called the plumber and it was necessary to open up the wall of a unit in order to effect repairs restoration of that wall would also be the responsibility of the association.

If OP engage a plumber to replace the shower pan that certainly would be his responsibility. If the source of the leak was indeed the shower pan then the first attempts to repair would also be OP responsibility. However, that is something that the association would have to prove, should OP decline to pay for the first repairs.
To say that the leak stop after the shower pan repairs is not sufficient. There could have been more than one leak. External signs of leaking would not stop until all leaks were repaired.

The association is probably using the logic that since the shower pan repairs stop the signs of leaking it must have been the shower pan, therefore it is OP responsibility. Seems to me that the association must also have a statement from the first plumber that he open up the walls but did not find the leak and made no repairs.

OP should have a copy of the Master Deed, if not should be able to obtain one. No question in my mind that the Master Deed will specify what the common elements are.

As an aside, in the state of Virginia, state law requires that the co-owner be provide reasonable avenue of "due process" in such disputes.

I should have been more detailed when I said if I call then I pay the bill. In both cases the work "I" means the HOA. The association pays the bill and then would enforce an association covenant to collect the money. In truth, I personally would never be making those calls since we employ a General Manager to actually run the day-to-day operations. Board members and Presidents have to remember they are no body until I gavel down a meeting with a quorum. They should be policy makers but many get big heads and try to change too many rules. That is why I got on the board to straighten out a few of them

I hear you Bob, but more likely the property manager is trying to get an item off the desk and taking the easy route. I think I am safe in saying that as a general statement, property managers know nothing about the physical aspects of properties.

P.S.
If you really want my opinion about property managers see this post.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/plumbi...um-469161.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

I should have been more detailed when I said if I call then I pay the bill. In both cases the work "I" means the HOA. The association pays the bill and then would enforce an association covenant to collect the money. In truth, I personally would never be making those calls since we employ a General Manager to actually run the day-to-day operations. Board members and Presidents have to remember they are no body until I gavel down a meeting with a quorum. They should be policy makers but many get big heads and try to change too many rules. That is why I got on the board to straighten out a few of them

---

I'm all too familiar with the 'busybody' mentality. I had to threaten one board member with a no-contact order after he refused to accept my findings and then harassed me over the phone for several weeks.

It turned out much later that he had ties to the Builder who was being sued from every direction.

I finally got paid for my services three years later when the bank stepped in and seized the property from the investors -- This was 7 or 8 years ago, the last time I drove by it, it was still draped in plastic sheathing and surrounded on all sides by scaffolding.

Read your thread Harold, don't hold back on them, LOL. Property managers can be bad but our GM is on merit pay and does a bang up job. Sad to says its only the 3 of us here, Hagin has not returned so we don't know if he has read anything yet. Those darn covenants will be the determining factor. Funny but most folks think the covenants were written to protect them, in truth they are written by the developer to make the porperty sell quicker. Our HOA covenants locked out rates unless 2/3 of all property owners voted yes and then you must wait 3 more years before it goes into effect. We almost never get 2/3 of the owners to even vote let alone vote yes on anything. Damd developers.

Widdershins, my year as Pres just ended so reins have been handed over. After 4 years on the HOA board the community now considers me to be one of those jerks who make all those darn rules. You just can't win, maybe I should run for Governor of IL and make some money at being a jerk. LOL BLAGOJEVICH REMOVED: Impeached Blagojevich has been removed - chicagotribune.com

Bob,

Quote:

---

Damd developers.

---

On that we are in complete agreement.

At one association we couldn't change by-laws without the consent of every person having a financial interest. Can you imagine trying to find and get the consent of a bank holding a second trust.

Developer gave a seven year contract to company providing laundry machines, with an option to renew for another seven years.

It's really not that property managers are bad, the management company assigns more properties than any one person can possible handle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengerb1

Those darn covenants will be the determining factor. Funny but most folks think the covenants were written to protect them, in truth they are written by the developer to make the porperty sell quicker. Our HOA covenants locked out rates unless 2/3 of all property owners voted yes and then you must wait 3 more years before it goes into effect. We almost never get 2/3 of the owners to even vote let alone vote yes on anything. Damd developers.

---

Those covenants are for the most part a joke.

We have a law firm here on the Left Coast that is thriving, in no small part, because of the vagueness of these covenants.

The problem is, for lack of a better word, 'boilerplating'.

Basically, plagiarizing a covenant written for one type of structure for another.

I've seen a number of them thrown out because they bore absolutely no resemblance to the structure they claim to describe. One was tossed only a few months ago because it had no less than 6 references to Stucco siding -- The building in question is sided with old growth cedar.

Another 38 unit structure was tossed for the same reason -- All of the siding is Hardie-Plank.

Other examples:

Misspelling Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.

Misspelling Polyvinyl chloride.

Installing Kemperol (a vastly superior product) instead of torchdown.

Exceeding spec: Using type 'L' copper instead of the spec'd type 'M' copper.

The list can go on and on.. . The sky is the limit.

I imagine we'll see a lot more covenants tossed out as the movement builds up steam -- A late arrival in the scene will be insurance companies looking to avoid paying claims.

Y'know, on the one hand, I'm embarrassed to be picking at these carcasses, OTOH, a guy has to eat, put a roof over his head and sock money away for a rainy day.