HOA says no pickup trucks in driveway

Page 3 of 6  
Sanity wrote:

for unpaid monthly assessments. Only one has the owner living in the unit (four empty, three rented). One owner doesn't live in the US. The three who are in arrears on monthly assessments have NEVER resided in the units they own. I hope all the flippers burn in hell, slowly. They are the scum that tax money is being poured on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

One thing that associations CAN do is require the units to be owner occupied.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

was than the 2BR house next to our old place sold and the new owner finished the upstairs and put 2BR's in the basement and was suddenly renting out a 5BR house. Talk about putting 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What happens if the market is low, like now, and someone wants to move? While the people staying don't want the apartment to be rented, when they are in that situation, ready to move, retire, have to go to assisted living, they may not like it when the rule impacts them.
I will agree that rental units are often not well taken care of, but otoh if the price is low and that's the only reason the buyer can afford to buy, that can be bad too.
Of the 110 houses in my 30 year old HOA, I think 15 or 20 are rentals now and about 10 or 15 of them are owned by those who once lived here, and most are in as good a condition as those resident owned. Of course things vary widely.

That was probably illegal. Do you need certificates of occupancy where you live? Did he have a C of O for two families?
Long before Barack Obama got to Hyde Park/Kenwood in Chicago, it was a beuatiful neighborhood that was on the brink of being ruined by a combination of speculators and people who could no longer afford to live in their entire homes subdividing homes illegally to make room for one or two more families. The n'hood got organized.
One of the tools they used to stop this was getting members of the HPKCC, Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference to keep on the look-out for plumbing trucks. Of course some people need plumbing repairs, but if the truck was there for more than an hour, it was likely a conversion, and that always meant an illegal conversion. Then someone would call the building inspector, and I think in the 50's and early 60's that have to hound him because he was often in on it.
Another tool was the House Tour. There are loads of these around th ecountry now, but I think they originated in Hyde Park and Kenwood. It's not just about pride and bragging. The purpose was to show how beautiful the houses are inside so that people with money will buy one in the area. Even where the houses aren't as fancy as the ones in Kenwood, they are often much better than one's unseeing guess.
Anyhow, preventing illegal conversions and the other projects of the HPKCC is why the n'hood looks as nice now as it did 50 and 80 years ago. I'm not sure when the houses were built. www.hydepark.org
I used to live in Hyde Park, the part south of 51st St. In the dorm, the fraternity, and two years sharing an apartment with friends. Just a 2-bedroom with living room, dining room, large pantry, and sunporch. Very common in Chicago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norminn wrote:

Regrettable.
Which does not belong on the following list:
A. Syphillis B. Herpes C. HIV D. A Condo.
Answer is "A" - you can get rid of syphillis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

At least some proposals for mortgage aid are designed to exclude investment properties. Sometimes it's hard to write a law that does a good job targeting the intended target. But certainly it would require that the owner reside in the property.
BTW, I know that Bush and Paulson deserve some of the blame for giving money to banks which then didn't lend it to anyone (but bought other banks or paid dividends with it) but does the Congress deserve blame too. Were the restrictions supposed to be in the law, or in the contracts drawn up by the executive branch to implement the law?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Congress "trusted" the White House with the money...just like they did with the vote for Iraq.
The problems of the money being misused in each case lies squarely with the White House.
TMT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sorry, but you have me confused with someone who cares. I do not, and would not live in a HOA. Yes, when people don't get involved, the deserve what they get. Like our current situation in Washington. I voted and worked 14 hours on election day at a voting station.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. The main provision in buying is that you read and agree to follow the docs and bylaws. Otherwise, why would they have them?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If we are still talking about the original case posted, and even if we're not, here's some more information about that case from another forum. I'm neither of the people discussing this.
My quote starts with the actual court decision, which was given I think as a link in the news story:
---Start quote---
http://www.tampabays10.com/images/pdfs/pickup-truck-lawsuit.pdf
I'll be quoting from it, as it demonstrates a very common behavior typical of the arrogant, out of control HOAs in operation these days, which often disregard their own by-laws, remain in office while refusing to hold elections, and purport to change the rules of the HOA, without following the rules of the Association.
That is exactly what happened here.

Actually, this is in dispute, and the dispute was resolved in favor of Vizzi. The Vizzis only received a "Windsor Park Declaration" relating to the specific sub-part of the community they lived in, and allege that they never received a copy of the "Eagles Master Declaration," a document covering the larger set of communities, years after their purchase. This is, sadly, all too common.
This was found by the court in this case to be undisputed. Therefore, they were not on notice.

The rules he bought into were the ones he was actually provided a copy of and upon which he conditioned his purchase of the home. ... Incidentally, it is NOT the HOA in charge of Windsor Park Association, where he lives, which is attempting to enforce this agreement against him. It is an upper level HOA, in charge of the entire set of communities, which is attempting to enforce it against him.
His actual neighbors have no complaint. ... in this case, there were two separate documents, both contracts. The purchaser was only provided with one. The other was only provided years later, and only years after that did they attempt to enforce it against him. There's a very real question of detrimental reliance on their inaction, even had the purchaser ever agreed to the Eagles Master Declaration in the first place, which he didn't. ... The only rule to which the homeowner had agreed was in the Windsor Park agreement, which only prohibited parking vehicles in the driveway which are "primarily used for commercial purposes." It said nothing about pick-up trucks. The Eagles Declaration, the one that was never provided to the homeowner, did list pick-up trucks as impermissible. The Eagles Declaration also arguably forbids trucks in general from being parked in driveways. If this were true, then all the residents would be forced to get rid of their SUVs, which are, apparently, also considered legally to be "trucks." A fine kettle of fish that would be. ... This isn't all. Even if the contract in question were enforceable against this homeowner, there are doubts as to whether the officers of the homeowner association in question were even duly elected. If they were not duly elected, they have no business issuing fines or enforcing rules against anyone. The plaintiff homeowner alleges that the board has failed to hold elections at all, as required by the bylaws, and that therefore, the current holdover board has no legal right to hold office. This part of the suit is stayed pending administrative proceedings on the same issue.
--- end quote ---
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NOPE!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Zootal wrote:

An HOA is a corporate equivalent of a government, and it controls the community. Signing the agreement is mandatory when purchasing into the community. For those people who wonder if government would be better if it were run like a business, look at HOAs before deciding if that alternative is preferable.
Dissolving an HOA usually isn't as simple as voting it out of existence. The development of the community carried a lot of costs that were not born by the local governments but were carried up by the developer, who passed that responsibility onto the HOA. Those development expenses are usually only partly included in the costs of the houses. A lot of it is also structured into the HOA fees, along with the maintenance costs. Even if the HOA were dissolved, the debts remain, and somebody has to pay them. The local governments usually don't want to, which is why they encourage HOAs in the first place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Abiding by the terms are mandatory. In Maryland at the very least there is no method of signing an agreement, at least for some HOAs, but I'll bet all. A well organized HOA might want to make sure that all prospective buyers knew there were covenants on the land, but the seller would often want them not to know, depending on whether a buyer would be happy with such covenants or unhappy to have them.
(My seller was afaict scrupulously honest, and he didn't say a word. I don't know why not. It might have slippped his mind and I didn't think to ask. Nor did his real estate agent tell me, but they may have violated real estate law when I wanted to make an offer but they said he wouldn't be interested. I should have insisted, because the law required them to relay good-faith offers.)
And even if a state had an agreement, and somehow a buyer never signed it, the conditions go with the land and are binding whether he signed them or not, unless the owner can show that he didsn't know and needn't have known about the terms. That's hard to show. In other long post today by me, it turns out in the OP the owner knew about and agreed to his local n'hhood's terms and had no reason to think there were additional terms by a higher level HOA that his own local HOA was a member of. How could he know there were two sets of documents?

I agree with you here. The problem is in people more than the form of government. That's why "checks and balances" are so important, why each part of government being subject to investigation or overruling by others is important.
A corrupt or badly informed HOA doesn't have much of that, except in the civil courts, wyhich can be very expensive about cases which are often "not that important".

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/17/08 06:02 pm Sanity wrote:

I've read of cases where prospective purchasers have been denied the opportunity to read the HOA rules before purchasing the property and thus being bound by them: "This is proprietary information."
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh..I would think that you wouldn't need that sharp of a lawyer to get out of that one. Unless they signed a statement agreeing to follow the rules sight unseen.
HOAs are evil. I personally would *never* buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA. But I guess some people like them, so what-evah....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:55:10 -0800, "Zootal"

Not so sure. If the buyer knew there were HOA rules and he bought the house without reading them, he may have waived his right to read them in advance. The remedy would have been to insist that the seller provide the docs in advance, to give him time to read them. Didn't the seller have a copy? If for some reason the seller didn't have a copy, couldn't he get a copy from a neighbor? If not, what's the seller going to do? Maybe try to sell the house to someone else. But let's say he already signed the contract with the first guy?
If there are 100 members of the HOA, why should 99 of them forfeit their rights under the HOA docs because one seller, or the HOA board, refused to show the docs to a buyer. I don't think a court would allow that.
This is not just about a contract between the seller and the buyer. The seller rarely even cares anymore. But every member of the HOA is a party to this contract.
Maybe the buyer could argue fraud, and get the sale of the house reversed. Then the other members of the HOA would not suffer. But to find fraud the misrepresentation has to be substantial, more than trivial. Even then, this is not a case where the buyer didn't know there was an HOA. He knew and he didn't have to buy. He just didn't know what they contained. I think it would be a very hard case to win.
BAck when I was eligible for the draft, a friend had some serious physical problems that wouldn't be visible during the quick physical that the Selective Service gave potential draftees. The law provided for a Medical Interview, which was a one-to-one meeting with a doctor where the doc would mostly read the medical record, and maybe -- i odn't know -- run tests of his own, to see if the person was still draftable (The army doesn't want people who are already sick.) And the courts held that if one requested the interview but couldn't get one, and one showed up at the regular army physical anyway, he had waived his right to the Medical Interview. My friend found out that the doctor doing them in his city had resigned. He didn't want to go to Viet Nam but he took a chance and went to the army physical anyhow, and showed the doctor there the medical history, and was deferred. But by showing up, he had effectively waived his right to the Med Interview.

You don't have to sign anything, not the HOA rules nor an agreement to follow the rules sight unseen for them to be binding. They are binding in many states, maybe all but one, whether you've signed anything at all as long as you own the property they apply to.
Compare it with zoning laws. You might want to run a beauty salon in your basement, or an insurance agency in your den, or an antique store in the whole first floor, but if the property is not zoned for that you can't do it legally. Whether you agreed to the zoning laws or not.
Certain HOA rules can probably be ignored if no one complains, but others someone is likely to complain and unlike zoning, which allows for individual variances, HOA, condo, and co-op law likely don't.
For example, the architecture committee or the board here is supposed to review all the plans for fences. Fences have to made of real wood and not painted. But I noticed recently that a house at the far corner of the n'hood from me has a plastic fence. I guess no one objected.
In another case, fences were built around the back yards of two houses, one from the end of one building and the other from the facing end of the next building. They normally would have left 6? feet in the middle, which is the public easement, for everyone in the n'hood to use, especially people who want to go around to the back of their houses without going through the house, like to take a lawn mower back there, or to deliver a piano. Instead, one of the two neighbors said, People can go through my side gate, my yard, and the back gate, and I'll never lock either gate. And that's good enough, but someday the house will be sold, and sold again, and the new owner won't know or won't want to obey. And new people will move in next door who won't want to go 6 houses in the other direction. He'll lock the gates, and will be outraged when someone tells him he can't. Maybe his home was broken into through a rear window at his previous location, and it's important to him to lock the gates. Who will pay to have part of the fence moved, parts of both fencs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I meant here "the remedy that a court would likely say the plaintiff had", not the right to disobey the rules after he went through with the purchase.
I'm not saying this is a good remedy, not at all. I was just predicting what a court would say in the case raised.
I don't even consider getting a copy of the documents at the closing to be of much value. Who is going to stop and read them at that time, with everyone waiting, and who is going to delay the closing to give himself time to read them and consult with his family about the effect they will have on them, or with a lawyer about the legal obligations?
Getting them at the closing, which seemed to be supported by some posters, even at the start of the closing, is pretty much worthless in terms of deciding whether to buy the house. 99%+ with go ahead with the purchase.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

bylaws, rules, etc.. Minutes of board meetings would not be available to prospective buyer from the association, but any seller in their right mind would furnish copies. Unless the assn. is a hell hole and the seller doesn't want that disclosure. It would be a very good guage of the issues that arise, how business is transacted, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

There's only one thing to do in a situation like that: RUN.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You'd have to prove that to me and everyone here. It's an illegal act and any idiot that would sign without reading and agreeing to them is exactly that, an idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.