Q&A: Board Makeup Contrary to Bylaws

Q I reside and own shares in a co-op in Edison, New Jersey, which is experiencing many problems, including serious maintenance issues, due in part to poor service on the behalf of the current management company.

A group of residents and owners have banded together in an attempt to save our property values. Unfortunately, we have received serious, insurmountable opposition not just from the management company, but from our own board of directors as well. Let me preface this by saying that the current board, which consists of seven members, was appointed by a representative of the management company. Our bylaws state that: “the number of directors shall not be less than seven and not more than fifteen.” A three-year contract was agreed upon and signed to retain our current management company from 2006-2009, with only a three-member board present at the time. The board consisted of two resident owners and a representative of the management company. A representative of the management company occupies a seat on the board because of three sponsor-owned units.

The representative of the management company did not in fact vote, as she had a financial interest, but ultimately the two board members agreed to and signed the new contract in October 2006. Since we did not have the required minimum number of seven board members at the time the contract was signed, was this legal? Are there any quorum requirements regarding the number of board members needed, and do we have any recourse, legal or otherwise, to negate the contract?

—Exasperated in Edison

A “You may have options. The Cooperative Recording Act (N.J.S.A. 46:8D-1 et. seq.) requires the recording of the master declaration, which must include the bylaws among other things. The bylaws of the cooperative corporation generally govern the manner in which the board is legally authorized to conduct business. You indicated that the by-laws provide that the number of directors shall not be less than seven (7) and not more than fifteen (15). Also, you indicated that all seven (7) members of the board were appointed by the management company,” according to Attorney Mark D. Imbriani, who has his own practice in Somerville, New Jersey.

“The bylaws governing the board of directors should include a provision specifying what constitutes a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. According to the New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation Act, (N.J.S.A. 15A:1-1, et seq.) unless the bylaws provide for a greater or lesser number, a majority of the entire board shall constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting business. In your case, the board should consist of a minimum of seven (7) directors. Therefore, and assuming the bylaws governing your cooperative do not specify a lesser number for quorum purposes, a quorum for purposes of conducting business, i.e., approving a management contract, would be four (4) directors. In the absence of a quorum, the remaining two (2) members of the board did not have the legal authority to approve the contract, on behalf of the cooperative corporation, rendering the contract void. However, this legal defect may be cured if the contract is subsequently approved or ratified, at a meeting of the board of directors at which a quorum is present.

“Conducting business in the absence of a quorum, in violation of the governing documents is a legitimate concern. Conducting business in the absence of a quorum may adversely impact the management and administration of your property, e.g., decision making may be impaired, vendors may not be paid in a timely fashion, contracts may not be approved, services to the residents may suffer, etc. The directors have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to administer the cooperative in accordance with the authority granted by the governing documents. By acting in violation of the governing documents and without authority, the present board exposes both the corporation and members of the board to potential liability.

Read More...

Related Articles

Q&A: Proxy Problems

Q&A: Proxy Problems

Bad Apples

Dealing with Criminal Activity in Condos and Co-ops

Q&A: A Marriage of Convenience?

Q&A: A Marriage of Convenience?