This is part 10 of Randy Sawyer’s 16 Part series on UCIOA. You can read previous posts here.

Section 87, subsection (k)

’87(k) – If the association fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section, such failure may be asserted by declarant as a procedural deficiency. Upon a judicial determination that the association failed to comply with the provisions set forth in this section, the association’s complaint shall be stayed for an appropriate period of time to permit the association to cure any non﷓compliance.

This provision allows the developer to exploit a technical non-compliance with any of the provisions of Section 87, or use any of the ambiguities previously discussed in parts 1 through 9 of this series, to argue there was non-compliance even though there was none, and file a motion to dismiss a subsequently filed lawsuit by the Association. If successful in that motion, the developer could force the Association to go all the way back to square one and do it all over again.
At a minimum, this section should have been written to require that the Developer assert this procedural deficiency in a pre-Answer motion or be considered to have waived the defense. Otherwise, the Developer can allow the Association to invest considerable resources in the litigation and then bring such a motion which, if granted, could send the Association back to square one, crippling its financial footing and its ability to keep the unit owners united.