Quote:
Originally Posted by yantosh22
Exactly what obligations? Please provide some actual detailYou obviously do not understand the law in NC. The law requires all HOAs in the state to incorporate as a non-profit and the only members are homeowners. Sure there can be other easements on property including historic ones. They are irrelevant to this topic.
|
Your response was in regards to the remark that HOA corporations and restrictive covenants are not the same thing. Yantosh, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the the law in your own state.
Just because a corporation is a "non-profit" does not mean that the corporation is not operated for the profit of the board members or the developer of the subdivision. Non-profit does not equate to charitable. Finally, membership of the HOA corporation is NOT limited to "homeowners". The developer/declarant is invariably a member throughout the period of developer control - which could last forever. During the period of developer control, the developer controls the HOA corporation. Membership is limited to "lot owners" - not "homeowners" (see §47F-3-101 of the Act) Membership in the corporation is distinct from the issue of who controls the HOA. Developers also have unilateral control over the restrictive covenants during the developer control period which allows them to add more property (to extend control) or to withdraw their property (free from CCRs).
Incredibly you refuse to recognize a distinction between the HOA corporation and restrictive covenants. By the way, "easements" are not a generic term for restrictive covenants. As previously stated, one can have restrictive covenants without having an HOA corporation. Typically, if there is an HOA corporation burdening the property the property is so-burdened by imposing a restrictive covenant requiring involuntary membership in the HOA corporation. However, again there is no requirement to have an HOA corporation with restrictive covenants and property can be burdened with restrictive covenants without any specifically requiring involuntary membership in the HOA corporation.
Quote:
Not in NC. Please give some examples.
|
Your comment was in response to the remark that "these private corporations are running their own courts, police, legislature, etc." Are you kidding? What do you think private "fining" is? No court is making a determination of "violation". More often than not, management companies or HOA attorneys that profit from the fining and collections process are making such claims under the pretext of being "agent" for the corporation. HOA corporation boards and vendors are routinely attempting to declare "violation" without court intervention, assess "fines" without court intervention, make up "rules" that would never fly as ordinances and which wholly ignore property rights of the individuals. Are you kidding? Try this story and note also that some legislators (in North Carolina, by the way) hear more complaints about HOA abuse than any other issue. Note also the interim session hearings in the North Carolina legislature about abuses by the HOA corporations and vendors:
Woman's battle with HOA extends to her fence
Quote:
Note in NC. Please provide some examples.
|
Your comment was in response to the remark about HOA management companies and boards attempting to prohibit parking on public streets. Believe it or not it happens all across the United States including in the State of North Carolina.
Quote:
Read the statue above, and tell us which paragraphs were put there by trade groups? Again, this isn't relevant in NC.
|
Who are you kidding? The entire Act was written by the HOA industry trade group. The most active members of the trade group are HOA attorneys and HOA management companies. This trade group has sought to create a "Planned Community Act" or "Common Interest Ownership Act" in every state. The entire Act is designed to benefit the HOA corporation (and its agents) to the detriment of the involuntary members of the organization. You might want to look at section 47F-3-102 of the Act, or the heavily-weighted-in-favor-of-the-HOA leanings of the Act, and the lack of any meaningful remedies for homeowners.
North Carolina Planned Community Act
Consider that a few of your legislative candidates included HOA reform as part of their platform:
Candidates would consider limiting power of homeowners associations | StarNewsOnline.com
Quote:
I won't bother with the rest of your post as you are citing examples that don't apply with NC and as I said above, you obviously have not read the very act that you are commenting about.
|
North Carolina homeowners are not immune from the vagaries of the "community association" (i.e., vendor corporation) industry. The Act was was written by HOA industry players and deficient with respect to a number of things - particularly as to protections for homeowners with respect to unscrupulous boards and managing agents. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the problem go away.
In an attempt to reign in some of the unscrupulous management companies and boards, homeowner advocates are seeking a number of reforms including mandated open meetings and prohibitions against the "priority of payment scam" that the trade group is well known for engaging in. Here is one example of the opposition to reform being made by one CAI-affiliated management company:
Community Association Management | Legislative Update - NC HB 165
Looks like the management company opposes open meetings, a budget process that owners can participate in, and of course elimination of the "priority of payment scam". Catch a clue, the HOA vendor industry wrote the Act primarily for their benefit - not yours.
For the uninformed, the "priority of payment scam" is a scam whereby the HOA management company (allegedly on behalf of the HOA corporation) re-characterizes your assessment payments and applies them to fines, junk fees, and various other fees routed to the managing agent or the HOA attorney (i.e., the vendors). Because of the re-characterization scheme, your assessment payment is applied in part or entirely to fees declared by these vendors instead of the assessments. These vendors then claim that you are "in arrears" on your assessment which generates even more fees for the vendors (e.g., late fees, collection fees, attorney fees). Many HOA "professional" management companies have provisions purporting to allow the HOA management company to collect a late fee (for itself) for each month the homeowner is "in arrears". Needless to say, such management companies get creative about ways to create and maintain delinquencies for the benefit of the management company - certainly not for the benefit of the homeowner or the client HOA corporation.
Because the HOA corporation can foreclose for failure to pay assessments, the HOA management companies and HOA attorneys utilize the "priority of payment scam" to extort money from homeowners for the benefit of the vendors. This is a very common practice among HOA industry players all over the country - even in North Carolina. Many states have had to adopt legislation to protect homeowners - or are in the process of trying to adopt legislation to protect homeowners from these industry practices. At the link above, note the management company's concerns about how the proposed legislation would require the HOA (and its agents) to apply payments (thus putting an end to the priority of payment scam).
...not that anything like that happens in North Carolina, of course....