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 one thing in that article I noticed (if that is the same article) was that when banks foreclose on a home they do not pay HOA dues. Is that always true? If the HOA can foreclose on a homeowner for nonpayment of HOA dues then why can't they foreclose on the bank?
Here's the funny thing about the article (or that particular situation).
There must have been some conversations or something behind the scene for the HOA to fine the guy for planting pansies.
For instance, I know of an association and a particular couple who've planted flowers and helped w/the upkeep of the "common area". They've worked w/the people on the HOA and discussed what they wanted to do to help improve the common area...(this was above and beyond what the landscaper were contracted to do....) The HOA said no problem and welcomed the improvements...
My point is, again, there is more to the story than the HOA "blindly fining" the guy for doing this.....
The one thing in that article I noticed (if that is the same article) was that when banks foreclose on a home they do not pay HOA dues. Is that always true? If the HOA can foreclose on a homeowner for nonpayment of HOA dues then why can't they foreclose on the bank?
According to an article I read recently, an HOA has successfully sued a bank for non-payment of HOA fees. If I remember correctly, this occurred in Florida (in a neighborhood w/ lots of bank-owned houses). Sorry - I don't have a citation at the moment. BUt you may be able to find this case by googling for a while.
Well, what I have seen in this article (despite my thoughts regarding the despicable behaviour of the HOA) was the promises of reform that appears to be coming out of legislation regarding these types of situations. If there is more regulation surrounding these associations and requirements for fairness & equality, maybe the concept of the HOA would not be quite so distasteful to people like me!
Whilst I aplaud the clarity that legislation should (note the word should) bring to the HOA sphere, I have a concern over what legislation might do to exixting HOAs. By this I mean that we may see a turn towards companies running HOAs rather than residents.
This is, of course, quite common in condominiums and apartment complexes already but I am quite sure that many HOA management companies would just love to play the "complex legislation" card in order to wrest HOA responsabilities away from the current (sometimes annoying) amateur/resident HOA commitees having a management company running 00s or 000s of HOAs in exactly the same way with no flexibility whatsoever.
Banks are respsonsible for paying HOA dues once the take title to the property. They are not responsible for any dues or assessments owed prior to their taking title. For this reason many banks have foreclosed on properties but never taken title to them so the properties remain in limbo in terms of ownership.
2). Insurance company generosity does not fill me with hope and glee. I wonder why?
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.
