Board members are bound, at minimum, by a duty of care. Some state statutes go further to require a fiduciary duty.
Ken Harer's Condo Law Handbook provides an thorough introduction with multiple legal references:
Board Members and officers of Common Interest Communities owe a duty of care to their Associations and to individual Owners. They owe a lesser duty of care to members of the public. An Association can be held liable if its Board Members breach their duty, but courts avoid holding a Board Member personally liable unless the member engages in intentional misconduct, self-dealing, or otherwise operates in bad faith.
While the governing statutes and at least one Washington Supreme Court case imply that Board members are protected from liability from innocent mistakes and errors of judgment, the duty imposed by statute still requires that decisions and the exercise of discretion be “reasonable.” Board member actions are likely to be considered unreasonable and in breach of the duty of care if Board members fail to adequately investigate before acting or make decisions based on inaccurate or unreliable information.
In any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty of care and breached that duty. Atherton Condo Apartment-Owners Ass'n Bd. of Dir. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 528, 799 P.2d 250 (1990). The determination of the existence of a duty is a question of law...
If you'd like to know more about duty of care, you might enjoy reading the landmark court case Riss v. Angel which was ultimately decided by the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the 2020 WA appellate court and 2022 WA supreme court decisions in Bangerter v. Hat Island Community Association .
- Discretion is not reasonably exercised when:
- the procedures laid out in the governing documents and relevant statutes are not followed
- the information used in the decision-making process is not reasonably accurate
- Courts do not owe deference to an association's interpretation of its governing documents, but courts do owe appropriate deference to an association's reasonable discretionary decisions.
- Riss suggests that when a [CIC] makes a discretionary decision in a procedurally valid way, courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the association absent a showing of "fraud, dishonesty, or incompetence (i.e., failure to exercise proper care, skill, and diligence). Reasonable care is required."
Board members are expected to conduct their actions in an ethical manner, making decisions based on reasonable discretion observing applicable statutes, governing documents, and established processes. Eschewing a principled approach for a 'make-it-up-as-we-go' and/or 'what's most popular?' line of reasoning is unlikely to promote the best interests of your community.
In Washington State, the Nonprofit Corporations Act (RCW 24.03A) includes the certain standards of conduct that exceed the obligation of good faith required by RCW 64.34.090 and 64.34.308 and WUCIOA statutes 64.90.055 and 64.90.410. These nonprofit corporation standards are also known colloquially as the " business judgment rule."
The supreme court said that the scope of the business judgment rule in Washington was somewhat unclear, and the supreme court declined to rule on whether the business judgment rule applied to corporations or only individuals.
Learn more about duty of care by reading the following:
- Riss v. Angel (a landmark case related to duty of care)
- Follow your North Star
- Legal Lessons & Disclosure Requirements
- Recommended "Do's & Don'ts"
- There's Only One Sandbox: EVERYONE Gets a Shovel
- WEB SEARCH: Duty of Care