HOA Lawsuit

[Ragnar Sigurdsson]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Of course they are involuntary members. "Mandatory" is a marketing euphemism for "involuntary".



The industry vendors benefit by brainwashing you into adopting their policies which are designed to create chaos, disputes, financial hardships, and lawsuits all of which the vendors profit from. The priority of payment scam, transfer fees, fining, various insurance schemes, .... there are plenty of "recommendations" that these vendors will make. CAI's policies start off with justifying any conduct or imposition under the pretext of aesthetics.

This makes no sense and isn't worthy of a comment other than this.


The seminars are taught by management companies and HOA attorneys that want you to adopt their policies which are designed to benefit the vendors, not the homeowners.

This makes no sense either. You haven't a clue.



Great, maybe I won't have to waste time responding to those that don't have a clue.

You are doing ust that, wasting time and not having a clue. Keep it up.

[Ragnar Sigurdsson]

Originally Posted by frewroad

"You did not pre-qualify your earlier absolute statements as only applying to neighborhoods under construction. Thus it's irrelevant.
Completely incorrect. See previous response.
There is that word "typical" again. Completely incorrect

§ 47F‑3‑103. Executive board members and officers.

(e) Not later than the termination of any period of declarant control, the lot owners shall elect an executive board of at least three members, at least a majority of whom shall be lot owners.

Only the court system in NC can affect lot ownership. Again you are incorrect.
This is an uninformed opinion being expressed as fact. It's simply incorrect.

Conclusion: You have not backed up your claims.

Have you ever lived in a HOA in NC? Are you planning to move to a HOA in NC? If not, then why are you here?

I believe we should ignore this person. I believe he is just trying to annoy us with nonsense.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by frewroad

"You did not pre-qualify your earlier absolute statements as only applying to neighborhoods under construction. Thus it's irrelevant.
Completely incorrect. See previous response.

??? The earlier statements did not need any further "pre-qualification". The posting set forth what happens at each stage including declarant control period, immediately after declarant control period, and then what happens once homeowner votes could become mathematically relevant.

There is that word "typical" again. Completely incorrect

§ 47F‑3‑103. Executive board members and officers.

(e) Not later than the termination of any period of declarant control, the lot owners shall elect an executive board of at least three members, at least a majority of whom shall be lot owners.

Just because the period of declarant control is over does not mean that the declarant does not own any lots. In addition, the declarant controls the sitting board through the process set forth in 3-103. The only thing the statute above addresses is the election of a board immediately after the period of declarant control - the statute does not address any other elections or votes. If the declarant owns lots the declarant can still control a majority of the board. This statute does not prohibit the sitting board from depriving owners of voting rights. Deprivation of voting "rights" is typically rationalized through the imposition of "good standing" requirements. The statute you quote has no bearing on the comments that you have taken issue with.

Only the court system in NC can affect lot ownership. Again
you are incorrect.

This is an uninformed opinion being expressed as fact. It's simply incorrect.

???? There are quite a few events that can affect lot ownership, however, your statement seems misplaced. Lot ownership only guarantees liability for assessments. There are HOA corporation boards and vendors that promote and practice deprivation of voting "rights" - usually to preserve their own power base and contracts. The litigation in this arena arises because boards do deprive owners of voting - even in North Carolina. In some cases the declarations (or bylaws) purport to authorize the board to "suspend voting privileges". Armstrong v. Ledges of Hidden Hills is a very prominent case that went all the way up to the NC Supreme Court. The folks promoting HOAs tried to impose an HOA with Bylaws that created assessment powers, liening powers, "fining", etc. The HOA supporters also sought to have the power to deprive the involuntary members from being able to vote. See the Bylaws that appear on a link at the following website:
http://www.ledgesofhiddenhills.com/what.html

Note §§ 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, (refers to "eligible" votes) and 4.8 (bylaws purport to give board authority to "prohibit" a member from voting under the pretext of "good standing". Note also §4.8 purported to permit the sitting board to prohibit others from running for a board position under the pretext of "good standing". In many HOAs an accusation of a breach of covenant is sufficient for the board (or its agent) to rationalize a lack of "good standing". Guess who counts the votes and makes the accusations?

Fortunately, the Armstrongs and their co-plaintiffs were able to tell the HOA promoters to take a hike. The HOA trade groups keep seeking legislation to enable them to burden the Armstrongs and virtually any other homeowner in North Carolina with involuntary membership and perpetual liens.

Perpetual liens that can never be paid off, having your house be the security for someone else's spending, the litigation vortex, the false claims of "preservation of property values", the absurdity of placing the myth of "property values" over basic property rights, ... there are lots of reasons to avoid HOA-burdened property in North Carolina wherever possible.

The HOA trade group's bogus "survey" might claim that "80%" of HOA-burdened homeowners are "happy" being slaves to an HOA corporation. You won't find any rainbow bits or unicorns in the courtroom. There is no support for those numbers because jurors are real people that live in the real world (Another reason why the trade group promotes alternative dispute resolution in its Public Policies).

[frewroad]

^Dear Heart, you don't seem to be a lawyer so I'm not going to get into a legal debate with you over the NC Statutes. Since you didn't answer the question about living in a NC Hoa, or planning to move into a NC HOA, then my conclusion is that you are simply anti-HOA and not here to assist people moving into the area. Furthermore, you avoid anything that disproves what you are claiming. It's not worth my time.

My experience in Charlotte is that I' have lived in a HOA neighborhood for close to 20 years and NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE of your wild claims have ever happened here. Not to me, not to anyone I know, not to anyone that I've heard of. This is anecdotal, I know, but I do live here, and see how it works. People are not forced into living in a HOA neighborhood in Charlotte as you keep implying.

My recommendation. Take your crusade elsewhere. Nobody here is buying it.

[paulosfm]

Originally Posted by chicagocubs

Yes. I have a friend who is a part of that class action lawsuit. The HOA illegally foreclosed on a bunch of condos...don't remember the number, now, but, I think that it was in excess of 30. When people got behind on their HOA dues, they simply foreclosed...no notice, nothing. In my friend's case, she had less than 30 minutes to get out of her home. They allowed her back in to get some stuff, but, it was only for a short period of time. She not only lost her home, she lost a lot of her personal effects because she had no time to pack anything up.

At the time, she had been laid off from her job for the second time in a year. She kept up the mortgage payments, but, could not pay the HOA dues. She planned on catching them up (in full) with her tax refund which would arrive in a month or two. She contacted the HOA people and proposed this, explaining her situation. (she had lived there for some time with no previous history of being delinquent...she was one of the very first owners in that complex). They refused to accept the terms even though she offered to give them a promissory note. Then, she offered to pay the delinquent dues (borrowing the money from relatives)...with the fees to be paid with the tax refund. They refused that, also. Next thing you know, the sheriff was at her door!

I would look for another property simply for the actions of the HOA. They are crooks.

OH...and, it is not likely to be settled anytime soon. They are still finding victims of this whole foreclosure mess...

I understand the Board's decision - they were protecting themselves and the other homeowners who do pay their monthly fees. The fees are what keeps the property values up. On the other hand, if there are too many delinquencies, anything over five percent of the total units, smart lenders would refuse to finance a unit in the development. As one who has owned in a HOA managed development, I can attest to the fact that some people ignore their monthly fee. It's just like paying your taxes; don't pay and the City or Council will start foreclosure. If I were a homeowner or board member in the community, I cannot make her problems the problems of the other homeowners. That would be irresponsible.

Keep in mind that getting a foreclosure case to court, in some states, can take up to a year, and in the meantime the unpaid fees add up and in the end, it's the banks who win out because they are first in line when the property is sold at auction or on a short sale. I have seen this happen in my former association. The homeowners end up with nothing - no back fees, period. So, the HOA is trying to cut their losses. The sooner they move on delinquent homeowners, the less the association loses over the long haul.

Harsh? Yes. It's business.

[labrams]

Not commenting on all the foreclosure stuff, I came across this thread through another search.

YES, the HOA IS in a lawsuit with the builder/construction team who built the building. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and agents who represent sellers and buyers in there need to disclose this fact. There is not much known as of now, the scheduled court date is March 2014 but the HOA says it is hoping to resolve the matter by the end of 2013, assuming they mean a settlement.

There has also been discussion in the complex of an assessment to owners for repair work the HOA is doing but I think they are waiting for the lawsuit to settle before deciding on that.

As a broker I have seen the values continue their slide in the complex. And financing in a complex with ongoing HOA litigation is hard because many times Fannie/Freddie won't underwrite the file.

[Suncc49]

Who is the property management company there?

[labrams]

Currently I believe it is Henderson Properties.

[south.charlotte&union]

Yep, you would likely need to be a cash buyer in there right now.

[mkforu]

The lawsuit is over and there was a settlement to help pay for the damages. The HOA is in the process of getting recertified with the FHA. Yes Henderson Properties is the manager.