HOA: "Tear down that house"

[gfretwell]

This is the right answer. My guess is he didn't get the final plan approved or the HOA didn't know how to read plans. If this is the former he is stuck modifying the house to meet the covenants. If he has a plan that matches the house as built with an approval on it from the HOA he has a case ... even if they did screw up. I would sue the HOA for the money to bring my house into compliance if they approved the plan I built from ... with a backup offer of accepting a waiver and they leave me alone but I would not start out with that. The best way to get their attention is to put them in jeopardy of losing substantial amounts of money.

[Norminn]

clipped

No agreement ......he became a member when he purchased the property. There is a separate statute in Florida just for HOA's. They are a form of government based on land ownership in the community.

[Norminn]

You are very wrong......they are invincible and omnipotent as long as they govern within the laws and the HOA documents. Board members can come into my condo any time they want - reasonable hours . Even cops don't have that power.

[salty]

Talk to a lawyer. The agreement he signed is for something that materially no longer exists. They may still have control over what color he paints his original picket fence if it's still standing. Other than that, this is FAR from cut & dried. I'm speculating as well, but the point is that untill this makes it's way through the courts, my theory is just as sound as anyone elses. Several here have stated categorically, that he is out of luck no matter what. You can take your snide comments to them.

[salty]

You are a sheeple.

[Harry K]

The ones pointing out that you are speculating are no more 'stating categorically' than you are. FWIW - you are full of it. The covenants are what rule and until you can quote from them, your adamant insisstance that that apply only to the house is BS.

Harry K

[gfretwell]

This is what a typical deed restriction looks like (actually the ones we had tossed) Article 1.

1. All lots in the Subdivision shall be known and described as residential lots and no structure shall be erected on any residential lot other then one detached single family dwelling, and a one or two car garage, and suitable accessory buildings or ground improvements, such as garden house and trellises, to be used by the family and bona fide guest occupants of said dwelling. ...

yada yada

Notice it says "lots" and the other subsequent restrictions also address the lot and simply define what can be built on them or whatever else is regulated for that "lot". When they enforce the covenant they put a lien on the lot by the legal real estate parcel number.

[RVer Don]

Finally, someone who knows how and is considerate enough to trim the original message and all subsequent answers so we don't have to scroll through everything to get to a one or two line comment. Thank you Norminn.

Don

[salty]

That's not what I said. I said that it may turn out that because the original "property plus buildings" in the agreement no longer exist as they did in total, there MAY be grounds for an argument IN COURT. I have not adamantly insisted on anything except the fact that there may be a workable argument that will prevail when he gets to court. I

*will* admantly claim that this will be decided in a court, as it is not nearly as open & shut as many seem to think.

[Dick Adams]

Unfortuanately I have served on an HOA Board. I write "unfortunately" because it was not an experience I'd wish upon anyone. The general rule is that the HOA agreement applies to what the owner can and can not do.

HOA Boards are a haven for politically-correct nerds who are unpromotable in their employment. Too many of these failures in their quest of authority find power in being elected to positions for which they ran unopposed.

Back to the issues: To build a building, you need a permit. HOA rules usually state the plans have to be approved. Were they?

IMRHO it is difficult to fathom a judge ordering a new house to be torned down. But the roof may have to be redone.

Dick

[Caesar Romano]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:59:25 -0400, [e-mail] wrote Re Re: HOA: "Tear down that house":

The lawyers for the plaintiff will win. The lawyers for the defendant will win.

Everyone else loses.

[trader4]

It would be extremely rare for the HOA covenants not to specifically limit what could be done in the event that a house is destroyed and needs to be rebuilt. The whole purpose of the HOA is to limit what type of homes can be built as well as what else can be done with the PROPERTY. Also, as others have pointed out, the HOA covenants are tied to the deed, which is for the LAND, not any structures that might or might not be on it. If it were tied to only the existing house, all kinds of chaos would ensue. For example, a guy who has a house, wants to put a big purple shed on his property or put up a pink fence. If the restrictions only applied to an existing structure, he could do it. But obviously HOA covenants are there specifically to prevent this type of thing from happening.

As to this case, I would agree with Derby, who said there must be a lot more here that we don't know about. First among them is that since the guy clearly was not just rebuilding what was already there, did he run it by the HOA and get approval? I'm betting the answer is no.

[trader4]

Exactly. The HOA covenants are tied to the deed, which is for the LAND and anything that is on it. Following the logic that the convenants were only tied to the house, how about somebody decides they want to put up a purple fence. That isn't part of the existing house, so according to SA's logic, that could be OK too.

[salty]

We'll just have to wait until the courts rule, Dick. Despite what they would like you to think, HOA's don't always win these things when they get to court.

[salty]

As I have said from the beginning, this will be decided in Court, and it's quite possible the homeowner will prevail. We have to wait until the judge rules and all the appeals on both sides are exhausted before we know the outcome. All I've said is that the HOA may NOT win this case.

[salty]

Nope. That's not what I said.

[Harry K]

m

If you read the OP carefully, you will see that those covenants cover set backs amongst other things. His new house violates that. As for court? Any 'win' he gets will have to be an overrule of the specific parts of the covenant he violated. Not very likely.

It is time you gave up on your adamant insistance being wrong.

Harry K

[trader4]

m

What you said that apparently everyone but you agrees is wrong was this:

"If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any longer. "

A house isn't a "member" of the HOA. Every HOA I've ever seen, the HOA is tied to the DEED for the LAND, because that't the only way you get a legal, binding agreement that has restricitions that survive from owner to owner. The owner of the property is a member of the HOA and when it's sold, the next owner becomes a member.

[Harry K]

What you have said _repeatedly_ is that the covenant only applied to the original house and is no longer binding.

Give it up already.

Harry K

[salty]

I have only been adament that the final decision will come in court, and that the results are not a foregone conmclusion. Anyone who thinks that is wrong is a fruitcake. Are you a fruitcake?