HOA: "Tear down that house"

Page 2 of 4  

On Sep 10, 7:59 pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:02:57 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 6:38 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:56:30 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

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?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

1. The homeowner will have to pay something to defend his claim. Whether he spends $100 or $10,000 is almost irrelevant because the HOA will win irrespective of the outcome. They will win because of the deterrent effect on others who might want to hippie-up their houses.
2. The HOA HAS to take steps else their inaction will be held up as precedent in future confrontations. In matters of empire, even the bleakest of deserts is not forsaken.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, keep moving the goalposts, Bub.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

I will just as soon as you get close.
When Solomon was asked by his father David whether he was still putting stumbling blocks in the path of the the blind, Solomon was believed to have said: "It wouldn't do any good to put stumbling blocks in front of someone who could see them! Duh!"
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 9:38 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:58:08 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Keep re-reading what I said until you understand EXACTLY what I said.
The word "might" makes a huge difference when you don't ignore it. If there wasn't a possibility of the court finding that the house might be allowed to stand, then there would be no lawyers or courts involved. Guess what? This will be decided in courts, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. I have said repeatedly that it ain't over until the judge rules and all appeals are exhausted. That's not an opinion. That's a FACT.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clipped

Wrong. The parties may settle before it gets to court.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You be sure to let us know when THAT happens. LOL
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 10:37 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

So, you still think a house is a member of a HOA? It isn't, that's a fact.
Sure the case may very well be decided in court. But your argument that someone can go into court and have a valid case that the house is an HOA member and that once the house is destroyed, the property is no longer under the HOA jurisdiction shows you don't understand how HOAs are legally bound to the property. That argument has about as much likelihood of prevailing in court as claiming the land is part of some alien empire.
Simple yes or no question. Do you deny that on a property with a HOA, the HOA governance and authority are included as restriction on the recorded deed?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I never said that a house is a member of an HOA. You hysterically made that up.

It might help your argument slightly if you were actually arguing against what I really said, rather than your made up strawman.

No.
Doesn't change a thing, though.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 11:19 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Here, in your own words:
""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. "

Seems it's not just me, but several others in this thread who read what you posted and concluded that your argument is without merit.

Well of course it does. Because the HOA governance and restrictions that are part of a recorded deed obviously survive and continue to be enforceable despite the house having been destroyed. It doesn't get much more basic than that. It's pretty silly to think that because a house is destroyed in an HOA community, that the owner can do whatever they please, because the house was the HOA member.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:18:36 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No. your misrepresented statements of what I said are without merit.
I said it MIGHT NOT be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. Untill a court rules, you don't know the answer to that q uestion any better than I do. Nobody does. Not even the judge who will eventually hear the case and make a ruling knows the answer yet. All I said was a good lawyer might be able to prevail.

It's not enforceable until it gets enforced, Bubba. Lots of "iron clad" contracts get invalidated in court.

Yes that would be silly.
Not what I said, though.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 1:12 pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Yes, we know. But you based that on your novel legal assumption that the HOA membership goes with the house and could perish with it. That's the absurd part. Might as well speculate on the house being owned by aliens and subject to alien law.

Sure but that isn't the issue. There could be some valid legal basis for what the homeowner did. But it's extremely doubtful that the HOA restrictions just died when the house was destroyed, which was your silly point.

Show us one where a court said the HOA wasn't enforceable after a house was destroyed because the house was the HOA member.

OK, here's exactly what you said:
"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. "
So, let me rephrase what I said. It's pretty silly to think that because a house is destroyed in an HOA community, that the owner can replace the house with one that doesn't meet the HOA standards because the house was the HOA member.
Happy now?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:41:35 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No, you still have it wrong.

Nope. Keep trying though. I understand that there is a theory about monkeys with typewriters that may apply to you.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:48:45 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:
Salty,
I'm trying to follow this. The property is still on the Tax Rolls; regardless of the house.
To sever the covenants and the owners responsibility, the property needs (?) to be removed from the tax rolls. Not going to happen!
House, or no house the HOA first enforces the CC&Rs when assesment/taxes are recorded...in my neck of the woods!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 10:48 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

From post #9:
Quote: (sa)
HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's obviously going to be needing one regardless.
Unquote.
That you think...or rather thought...that the covenants went with the house is as clear as the nose on your face.
That you deny that you claimed that and are busy trying to divert attention onto your claims about court is also clear.
Waffling and weaseling over "might" and "may not" doesn't change the fact that you were (and still are) wrong.
Harry K
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm glad you were able to read what he agreed to because the rest of us are just speculating. I'm guessing the property, not the house alone, is covered under the agreement. But if you saw the agreement and all the terms perhaps you can declare it null and void.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.