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.
On Sep 10, 7:42 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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.
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
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.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:42:36 -0400, email@example.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. ...
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.
On Sep 11, 12:22 am, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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.
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.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, email@example.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 :-)
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
re: What do the covenents say about a plane flying into your house?
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
As long as the HOA code meets or exceeds local code, it takes preference.
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.
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.
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
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
I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.
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.