HOA: "Tear down that house"

Page 3 of 4  

wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 10, 7:42 pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

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

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
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:55:15 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:42:36 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 12:22 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:07:38 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Nope. That's not what I said.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 11, 6:39 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

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

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

Keep saying that and maybe it will come true. I never said it.

Or not. In other words, it is NOT a slam dunk for anyone at this point which is why it will have to be settled through the courts.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Highly doubtful -- the CC&Rs/deed restrictions that enable the HOA to have a say in the first place are virtually always part of the title to the *land* parcel itself, and thus apply to anything done or built on that land.
If you picked up and moved a house that was on land subject to an HOA to a new non-HOA property, the HOA wouldn't have a say in that house (but they could, of course, require that an exact replica be rebuilt on the original land :-)
Josh
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You have to clear it first with the Architectural and Landscaping Committee
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Unless specifically permitted, you can't do it.
There is one subdivision in my vicinity that DOES permit it. The community consists of about 30 homes in an oval surrounding a 2,500-foot runway. Virtually all of the homeowners have private planes and contribute to the upkeep of the the runway and access areas (mow the grass, keep the drainage working, etc.).
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

re: What do the covenents say about a plane flying into your house?
and
re: There is one subdivision in my vicinity that DOES permit it.
The covenents allow you to fly your plane *into* your house? I think not.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

Bubbles says they do, and I believe him.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The problem probably wasn't coded items but appearance only. There's no way this house could have been built without the HOA stepping in sooner and stopping the process till they approved the plans. We will find out that there is much more to the story than has been told. If this HOA was like 99.9 percent of all HOA's, they would have come down on this homeowner after the first brick was laid incorrectly.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, that's what I meant - stricter. In other words, no need for a setback extender or square footage variance as far as the city was concerned, but the HOA increased setback distances by a foot, so he was in violation of HOA rules. I think we're on the same page here.

Yep, that's what I meant with my pick-up truck scenario.
BTW I had an interesting setback situation with my first house.
I got a mortgage approved by Bank A prior to closing after providing a survey map to the lender. There were no setback issues mentioned.
A year later, we tried to re-financed with Bank B and they said we needed a signed form stating that no one had complained about our setback "violation" in the past 18 months. It turns out that one corner the house was about 6 inches inside the required setback.
Bank B was aware that we had only been in the house for 12 months and wouldn't accept my signature for the 18 month time period. They told me to go find the prior owner and get his signature on the form. Luckily, I knew how to contact him and while he was surprised, he was more than willing to help out.
Here's the rediculous part of the situation:
They wouldn't accept my signature because I wasn't living in the house for the full 18 months, yet they accepted the prior owner's signature even though he hadn't been there for the past 12 months! They didn't want a form from him for the period he lived there *and* a form from me for the period I lived there, they just wanted a form from whoever lived in the house on the day that was 18 months prior to the closing, stating that no one had complained in 18 months.
Idiots.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There definitely has to be more to this story -- any CC&Rs that specify that the HOA that has control over "architecture changes" has some sort of approval process to go through with timelines specified. In our association, we have 30 days to approve or deny a submitted plan (there's a separate committee that reports to the board for this), or it's automatically considered approved. I can't imagine they would have considered this large of an application without detailed plans/lot maps/etc. So, what happened?
1) The plans were approved (perhaps by default), and now the HOA realizes it misapplied some of it's internal rules/guidelines. HOA at fault.
2) The plans were denied and the homeowner proceeded anyway, or the homeowner simply didn't bother to submit an application, either out of ignorance (but you really really need to know what kinds of restrictions you agreed to when you signed the title documents), or malice (and I include "hoping to play the sympathy card" in that).
3) The plans changed (homeowner said "I'm going to rebuild the same house" and then changed his mind) and weren't resubmitted. See #2
Look, I can see hoping an HOA will look the other way if I put up a new outdoor light fixture, change the landscaping a bit, etc, but the risk of having to undo is pretty small; I just can't imagine building a whole house without making absolutely sure I was in compliance with the rules of all legally interested parties (zoning, building codes, insurance company, mortgage company, HOA, etc) and had written proof of that.
I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.
Josh
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.