Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The biggest thing on this thread is that someone in a very small neighborhood thought it was a good idea to form a rouge private government in order to bully the neighbors.
Following the rule of law works both ways and that's all the OP is asking. She has good representation now but I swear if they fight back I'm turning this over to reporter friends of mine
Agree with you on the rule of law works both ways. So, with that in mind why doesn't the OP or the "neighbors that are being bullied" use the court and resolve the threath of a "rough private government"? (an expression that you might agree is a little over the top for "a very small nabe").
Isn't this what this thread is about? Why explore the pros and cons of a HOA? If there are enough ppl. in that community that don't want it . . .get pro-active and use the court as a battlefield.
Agree with you on the rule of law works both ways. So, with that in mind why doesn't the OP or the "neighbors that are being bullied" use the court and resolve the threath of a "rough private government"? (an expression that you might agree is a little over the top for "a very small nabe").
Isn't this what this thread is about? Why explore the pros and cons of a HOA? If there are enough ppl. in that community that don't want it . . .get pro-active and use the court as a battlefield.
As you said "works both ways".
The OP was looking for guidance and got it. That included information about a very important case (Armstrong) and a way to deal with it hopefully without going to court.
Exploring the pros and cons was started by the naysayers who came on to the thread with their own ideas and then it grew to what we have now.
You shouldn't have to go to court over this though I most certainly would have in order to punish these people but I have a short fuse on this subject.
The fact that a "professional" management company would put on the bib and scoot up to the table for part of the feast is just one example after another after another after another of why I think these companies are either evil, or at least incompetent. But since these companies actually take peoples houses if they don't stand up for their rights I am forced to lean towards evil. If ignorance is no excuse then these companies and their lawyers (and for that matter the HOA boards that blindly follow their recommendations) have none either.
"Chapter 47F only applies to neighborhoods that were created in 1999 or later. Thus a 15 year old neighborhood would not be covered by it."
I think that's your quote. And, I also think calling people "luv" or "dear heart" comes off as at least patronizing when used in your posts.
First of all, a deeded easement is not a contract so this logic fails. An easement, is a property "right" that you extend to someone else in your deeded property record. This is why they are referred to as a deed restricted HOA. If you close on a piece of property and didn't realize the property you were buying had easements in it, including a HOA easement, then this is really your fault. It's no different than not bothering with an inspection and finding out later the house is sinking in the mud. If this easement isn't there, then nobody can come after the fact and force you to add one. Hence, this is something that you agreed to upon purchase.
The question that remains is whether the HOA who received the "right" via the property easement are following the rules and regulations of NC. Specifically the one you quoted from me. You took my comment out of context. I said that rule 47F only applies to homes built after 1999. This is clearly stated in the statute. It also says that HOAs that existed before this can adopt said rules if need be, but they don't have to. Furthermore older HOAs can have much different rules than what is stated in 47F. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. As I said before, the purchaser needs to understand the situation before they buy the property.
However nobody here can help because the story being given is bewildering to the point that no one can figure out exactly what the issue might be. One can't contract for a piece of property that was created with an easement, to not have one.
Last edited by yantosh22; 03-08-2011 at 12:26 PM..
Way to GO again and again GCHARLOTTE!! You hit the nail on the head with each comment!! THANK YOU SOO MUCH!!
It will be interesting to see if we ever get any kind of response from the Carolina Association Management lawyer. I contacted my lawyer to sue the HOA in my neighborhood but he said it wasn't necessary at this point. He said I had a "slam duck" for this but then said submissively that regardless of how much of a good case we have against the HOA they could try to fight the obvious anyway. He also said a lawyer could loose his license going against the law. He was confident this lawyer was reasonable. But I have my doubts since he offered FREE liens and encouraged the neighborhood to amend with the Planned Community Act 47F. He probably didn't dig but trusted the group to have done their homework..But it is obvious they didn't or just don't want to admit what they are doing is WRONG!
As for the 90% to form an HOA..not sure where I found it but I did somewhere read that. But you are correct that NO amount of votes can vote one in is what our lawyer said! The letter he had stated that clearly.
Good stuff you all! We just itty bitty!! Not big like you all seem to be!! Wow..500 homes?? whew!! We are just 34. No frills!
The VOLUNTARY makes their blood pressure rise. If everyone is not forced to pay the same..then they say it won't work! I have witnessed ignorance like this with many. Expect some NOT to want to pay. Regardless, the neighborhood can unite and actually finally get to know the neighbors if we work the issue together and stop lying about the VOLUNTARY statis. It's like a Church and all it's fund raisers. This is no different. Or we could just opt to tear it all down and forget about it all together..No signs..no fuss! Lots of options to choose from!
Sorry Luv, but you just made, as indicated by the underlining, a huge number of "unsubstantiated claims". Coming from someone who actually lives in Charlotte, knows what the NC statutes state, and has lived in and HOA, I can tell you that your claims are just that, claims.
Nobody in NC is forced into a HOA and there are plenty of neighborhoods in Charlotte without them. However, most homes sold today are within HOA neighborhoods because of the advantages they offer to the homeowner. It's easy to make all the claims that one wants on an internet forum, so I aways say the proof is in the pudding. If HOAs were such evil institutions, then people would not be buying into them in droves in Charlotte, and developers would not create them. People vote with actions.
Yeah they are such great institutions that "choice" is determined by your legislature which mandates them for newer subdivisions. Kinda reveals the myth behind your "choice" claims. If you have a growing population, a significant portion of them will have no choice but to live in HOA-burdened property because that is all that is allowed to be built by your own admission. Calling that "choice" or "desirable" is hypocritical.
Developers use them to i) insulate the developer from liability, and ii) disenfranchise the homeowners. You'll find that the developer unilaterally controls the HOA for as long as the developer wants and that the developer (by virtue of controlling the HOA) is immune from being threatened by it in any fashion. The developer "taxes" the homeowners through assessments and spends the money as the developer wishes. The developer may also control the HOA to borrow money - and only the properties of the homeowners serve as the security for these loans. No doubt these are just some of the advantages you alluded to.
As to "advantages" for the homeowner, there really aren't any unless of course you are a board member. For the other 99% of the homeowners, perpetual liens on your property that can never be paid off are not things that add value to the property owner. The overt control that HOA boards (particularly when "professional" management companies are involved) inevitably engage in does not benefit the owner of the property, nor does the litigation vortex benefit any owner. The evidence is that HOAs do not preserve value at all for the owner of the property. 30+ years of false sales pitches doesn't make it true. The onus is on the HOA industry to prove otherwise. You would think with 30+ years of making such claims the industry might be able to come up with empirical evidence to substantiate the claim - yet they don't because they can't - the claims are myths.
Your own statements also reveal the fallacy of claiming that numerosity is equivalent to popularity. They are not the same at all. As to claiming that people are choosing the HOA by evidence that they are buying HOA-burdened properties mandated by your legislature, that's like claiming people really like contaminated air because they "chose" to breath it. They weren't given a choice. Involuntary memberships and legislative mandates speaks volumes about how "desirable" HOAs really are.
The HOA proponents also always fail to include the carrying costs of the HOA much less all the ways in which the HOA devalues the property to the owner. Don't worry about "property values" too much because it won't be long before transfer fees, certificate of compliance fees, entry fees, resale certificate fees, assessments, special assessments, private "fines", subdivision information fees, enhancement fees, etc. leave you owing money mostly to HOA vendors when you try to sell your HOA-burdened home. The laws were being written by the HOA vendors for the HOA vendors - not you. HOAs are all about money - how much of it can be taken from the owners for the benefit of the developer, municipalities, and vendors.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 03-08-2011 at 12:58 PM..
First of all, a deeded easement is not a contract so this logic fails. An easement, is a property "right" that you extend to someone else in your deeded property record. This is why they are referred to as a deed restricted HOA. If you close on a piece of property and didn't realize the property you were buying had easements in it, including a HOA easement, then this is really your fault. It's no different than not bothering with an inspection and finding out later the house is sinking in the mud. If this easement isn't there, then nobody can come after the fact and force you to add one. Hence, this is something that you agreed to upon purchase.
The question that remains is whether the HOA who received the "right" via the property easement are following the rules and regulations of NC. Specifically the one you quoted from me. You took my comment out of context. I said that rule 47F only applies to homes built after 1999. This is clearly stated in the statute. It also says that HOAs that existed before this can adopt said rules if need be, but they don't have to. Furthermore older HOAs can have much different rules than what is stated in 47F. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. As I said before, the purchaser needs to understand the situation before they buy the property.
However nobody here can help because the story being given is bewildering to the point that no one can figure out exactly what the issue might be. One can't contract for a piece of property that was created with an easement, to not have one.
I'm not sure if the OP used easement in the original post or not. I think so. But there is nothing in 47f that states anything about easements.
My home was built in 1989 and the HOA never adopted 47F. Yet, when threats to issue liens and foreclosures are done here it is done in the name of 47F because they are trying to collect fines and attach liens that are not listed in the CCRs yet you say I'm the one having a tough time understanding the law.
The lawyers for my HOA WROTE THE LAW. It CLEARLY states:
" For planned communities created prior to January 1, 1999, interest may be charged on any past‑due common expense assessment or installment only if the declaration provides for interest charges, and where the declaration does not otherwise specify the interest rate, the rate may not exceed eighteen percent (18%) per year."
Here's where I think you are lost:
"The Act is effective January 1, 1999 and applies in its entirety to all planned communities created on or after that date. . . . G.S. 47F-3-102 (1) through (6) and (11) through (17), G.S. 47F-3-107(a), (b) and (c), G.S. 47F-3-115 and G.S. 47F-3-116 also apply to planned communities created prior to January 1, 1999."
First of all, a deeded easement is not a contract so this logic fails. An easement, is a property "right" that you extend to someone else in your deeded property record. This is why they are referred to as a deed restricted HOA. If you close on a piece of property and didn't realize the property you were buying had easements in it, including a HOA easement, then this is really your fault. It's no different than not bothering with an inspection and finding out later the house is sinking in the mud. If this easement isn't there, then nobody can come after the fact and force you to add one. Hence, this is something that you agreed to upon purchase.
The question that remains is whether the HOA who received the "right" via the property easement are following the rules and regulations of NC. Specifically the one you quoted from me. You took my comment out of context. I said that rule 47F only applies to homes built after 1999. This is clearly stated in the statute. It also says that HOAs that existed before this can adopt said rules if need be, but they don't have to. Furthermore older HOAs can have much different rules than what is stated in 47F. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. As I said before, the purchaser needs to understand the situation before they buy the property.
However nobody here can help because the story being given is bewildering to the point that no one can figure out exactly what the issue might be. One can't contract for a piece of property that was created with an easement, to not have one.
That's the whole point. We have an easement that was created after all but two homes were sold saying the "easement was to convey RIGHT of way to allow all 34 homeowners access to the property to plant, mow, replace, etc. for maintaining it." In finishing stating "owners of each lot being legally obligated and responsible to pay 1/34th of the normal and reasonable expenses of such maintenance and repair."
That is not language for an automatic HOA..No language in the CC&R supports any type of HOA of any kind. So the folks were given a letter with the easement from the Developer after all lots were sold and said "Here is the RIGHT to enter upon the entranceway property for the purpose of maintaining same"..
What then happened, confusion among the neighborhood. What do they do with the front?? How do they manage this? They made a GARDENCLUB and told everyone you have to pay for the TOTAL maintenance of the front and left the front lot owners OUT of it altogether. WHY?? Reasonable expenses would have been electric, water and paint. Instead, RIGHTS became OBLIGATIONS.. They were ignorant of the law and didn't realize the Developer did what was easier for HIM...without regard to the homeowners. He couldn't pass on future obligations. NC does not support that contractual agreement. The owners didn't know. They never asked or questioned the Developer.
Over time..original homeowners sold their homes and half were not saying any group or expenses existed. Then SHOCK to be given a bill for dues to support everything in the front..So folks were refusing to pay since they wanted no HOA dues and nothing in our home purchases mentions any such obligations or HOA dues. And where was the agreement among the homeowners what the dues really should be if any..NONE.. Just a small group claiming club statis for front. They demanded the dues. And folks paid it thinking they had to.
When I came in I questioned the whole thing and contacted a few REAL ESTATE lawyers who said the easement was created several years after the CC &R and was therefore VOLUNTARY. When I reported this, the dues collector said NO..it was MANDATORY..and we could never agree on anything after that. So the MESS and the unreasonableness of it all!! Others had also felt the same as I and stopped paying..so they tried to form a legal HOA to force us to pay for VOLUNTARY front support and to fine us if we don't..GET the picture??? It is CRAZY.. You can't reason with these folks.
Take them to court..YOU BET..but my lawyer says no..this letter should work and if not..sue for abuse of process and slander to title. That limits our immense cost in suing them for all this HOA stuff and puts it back on them. BRILLIANT!! Mr. Michaux is AWESOME!!
.....
"The Act is effective January 1, 1999 and applies in its entirety to all planned communities created on or after that date. . . . ....
Sorry no cigar for you. The rest of that sentence says..... unless the articles of incorporation or the declaration expressly provides to the contrary, and and do not invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws, or plats and plans of those planned communities. (referring to communities before 1999)
On your question about "deed restriction", this must mean you still don't believe it. However it's in section 47F-1-103 section 23. "Planned community" means real estate with respect to which any person, by virtue of that person's ownership of a lot, is expressly obligated by a declaration to pay real property taxes, insurance premiums, or other expenses to maintain, improve, or benefit other lots or other real estate described in the declaration.
The "declaration" is in the property record referred to by the deed you signed.
To make it clearer..The front lot easement was never AMENDED to be included with CC&R . The easement for front maintenance only exists with lots 1 and 34. It is not contractually tied to any of the other lots. If the Developer really wanted us to be obligated he should have done the AMENDMENT as he states he had in his letter to the original homeowners. But he didn't. To AMEND he just needed a majority of the lot owners to sign with him. How hard was that? I blame the Developer for being naughty!! He shouldn't have mentioned obligation in the easement for the front lot owners to give them false impression..But afterall, he wanted to sell the burden of the easement.. What a salesman!!!
We are NOT in any way a PLANNED COMMUNITY my lawyer clearly states and we do not qualify for the 47F nasties! !!!
Last edited by TouchingGrace; 03-08-2011 at 01:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
