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.
No, that's NOT what I said. You are picking and choosing what excerpts of what I said can be applied to your erroneous conclusions.
This case will be decided in court, and you have zero control over how the covenant and the other facts of the case may end up being construed. All I said was that the outcome has the possibility of being different than what YOU think.
OJ Simpson didn't kill Nicole, according to a court ruling.
You can win a large sum of money for spilling hot coffee on your lap.
I'm sure you can think of many other examples.
It's not a slam-dunk for the HOA is ALL I really said.
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?
In article , snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote: nk.
Actually I would suggest that you are pretty much engaging in the same fallacy as the others. Knowing what it said w/o knowing what it said. As was noted, depending on how the thing is written it very easily could be a slam dunk for the HOA.
Perhaps it is just the story that came out within weeks of the completion. He may have been told that he was in violation when the house was being planned and he chose to ignore the rules.
""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.
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, 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.
The homeowner's attorney was interviewed on a local radio show. She said they are getting close to a resolution with the HOA.
How it happened: after the plane crash, the homeowner was, naturally, homeless. He found a place to stay, but has moved twice since the crash. He was eager to rebuild on his lot, but he wanted the design of the home revised so it wouldn't be exactly what the previous home looked like prior to the plane crash. He also wanted to get the house finished by the first anniversary of the crash, so he was in a hurry. And that's when the trouble started.
The homeowner submitted his plans to the HOA. He didn't hear back from them, so he and the builder thought it was okay to go ahead. The problem was, the HOA was having a hard time getting in touch with him. They had been sending him notices about his plans, but he didn't receive them, probably due to his having moved.
The HOA finally caught up with him, which is when he first learned of their concerns over his plans. They told him they wanted him to return the LOT (my emphasis, since folks were arguing whether the covenant applied to the house or the land) to its previous condition. At which point he and his lawyer began meeting with the HOA. And again, the lawyer says they're getting close to settling this, so it sounds as though the HOA is trying to be reasonable without creating any precedents it may have cause to regret in the future.
By the way, the HOA had set up financial assistance accounts for the plane crash victims, arranged for lodgings for the victims families when they came for the funerals, and even arranged for translators for one victim's relatives from a foreign country. So they're not totally heartless.
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.
The homeowner will have to pay something to defend his claim. Whether he spends 0 or ,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.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.