U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2012, 12:06 AM
 
2,815 posts, read 3,325,276 times
Reputation: 3014

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
You apparently are not reading the quotes of other posters. Your definition is in conflict with Colorado statutes definition:

FWIW, *in Colorado*, all "common interest communities" are covered by the same statutory framework, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), C.R.S. 38-33.3-101 et seq.

The CCIOA rules include the three common interest types of communities to which it applies - they are (1) condominium communities, (2) cooperatives and (3) planned communities (what you refer to as SFH HOAs).


The law is the same regardless of how someone defines their initial structures (common walls or no common walls for instance) and it applies equally to each common interest community. Because whether you are an individual homeowner, a townhome owner, or a condo owner, every common interest community has SOMETHING held in common (parks for instance, or the streets on which everyone drives).

And as for you despising homeowner management companies--they work well for many. But how the whole concept was sold to local governments in the early days by builders was "We wil make the owners in the community responsible for sidewalk, street repairs and for mowing around or plowing those streets because they will have a common interest." Local governments saw they wouldn't have to repair sidewalks/streets, provide snow removal and similar services--thereby saving government money. Should make those who are opposed to government very proud. Less "socialism" amd
taxation.

And since individuals living in those communities are rarely able to spend the time to hire contractors for shoveling streets in the winter, mowing grass in the summer, making repairs to various community buildings (a clubhouse) or jointly owned property (roofs), and to take care of the detailed accounting necessary--guess what, a business is born. There are quite a few out there. Some are better than others. Some fit certain communities better than others. So like it or not, its a reality with almost all new "planned" communities.

Your option: don't buy into one.
Such things are not "held in common". In an HOA burdened subdivision, the HOA corporation owns the property. In a condominium project, the unit owners have an undivided interest in the "common areas". The use of the term "common areas" outside of the context of condominiums is another marketing gimmick - used to make you think the property is worth more than it is. You have no ownership of the "common areas" in an HOA-burdened subdivision. The areas are not owned "in common" either.

Interesting that you refer to the HOA management companies as "homeowner management" companies. All too often, that is the attitude of the management companies. Somehow the management companies believe it is their job to manage the homeowners or to manage the homeowners' properties.

There is no dispute with the proposition that HOA-burdened property isn't a choice, it has been public policy of local government to get tax revenues without providing services. There hasn't been much of anything besides "planned communities" being built for some time. Numerosity is not a result of popularity but rather the result of local government mandates. But then that illustrates the absurdity of the "option" suggestion.

The "option" you refer to is rapidly disappearing and all but non-existent in many areas of the country. Certainly a significant percentage of homeowners has little choice but to be involuntary members of an HOA corporation if they want to have housing. Given that finding non-HOA property has become a difficult proposition, an alternative to avoiding one might be to put the management company, the HOA corporation, and the board where they belong. The theHOAprimer website does a good job of exposing myths about HOAs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2012, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,091 posts, read 5,435,945 times
Reputation: 4009
Default HOA corporations are exempt from CCIOA Sec 103(8)??

I'm thinking that someone out there apparently believes that they are exemept from 103(8) of Colorado CCIOA which does not specify whether an HOA is a non-profit or a corporation. It simply says "real estate described in a declaration with respect to which a person, by virtue of such person's ownership of a unit, is obligated to pay for real estate taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance, or improvement of other real estate described in a declaration-----."

Unless somehow participants must continue to buy "increasing" amounts of stock into the corporation (monthly or annual dues) which would then throw the balance of power to those residents who had lived in such a community longer.

I think if you pick an example and call the attorney general's office and tell him that community is exempt from CCIOA, he would clarify that very quickly for us.

As far as living in HOA's. I loved not having to worry about grass-mowing, snow-shoveling and minor repairs. I despised the internal politics within the association itself. I'll never forget getting a call at 1000 hrs telling me "I", as HOA president) was wasting HOA money because the snow removal contractors were shoveling only two inches of snow, and within 20 minutes getting another call from a resident complaining her area hadn't been shoveled and she couldn't walk out on the sidewalk!!! All snow shoveling was on a contractural basis of how much snow was declared to have fallen in our metro city area! LOL.

Good luck, IC. I'm done with this thread.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-26-2012 at 10:09 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2012, 04:35 PM
 
2,815 posts, read 3,325,276 times
Reputation: 3014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
I'm thinking that someone out there apparently believes that they are exemept from 103(8) of Colorado CCIOA which does not specify whether an HOA is a non-profit or a corporation. It simply says "real estate described in a declaration with respect to which a person, by virtue of such person's ownership of a unit, is obligated to pay for real estate taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance, or improvement of other real estate described in a declaration-----."

Unless somehow participants must continue to buy "increasing" amounts of stock into the corporation (monthly or annual dues) which would then throw the balance of power to those residents who had lived in such a community longer.

I think if you pick an example and call the attorney general's office and tell him that community is exempt from CCIOA, he would clarify that very quickly for us.

As far as living in HOA's. I loved not having to worry about grass-mowing, snow-shoveling and minor repairs. I despised the internal politics within the association itself. I'll never forget getting a call at 1000 hrs telling me "I", as HOA president) was wasting HOA money because the snow removal contractors were shoveling only two inches of snow, and within 20 minutes getting another call from a resident complaining her area hadn't been shoveled and she couldn't walk out on the sidewalk!!! All snow shoveling was on a contractural basis of how much snow was declared to have fallen in our metro city area! LOL.

Good luck, IC. I'm done with this thread.
Well you've gotten pretty far off topic. The point of distinguishing between "condos" and "HOAs" is because one reflects a purely statutory form of ownership integrated with the involuntary membership corporation. The point of asking the OP was to understand whether it was possible to just get rid of the HOA since it obviously offers nothing of value, nothing but liabilities, and nothing but points of contention among the homeowners.

As far as contacting the AG, feel free to. AGs don't give out legal advice and usually turn the other way with anything involving involuntary membership corporations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,091 posts, read 5,435,945 times
Reputation: 4009
Default Your off message

IC, I took the time to review many of your posts on quite a few threads. You are universally opposed to anything proposed by an HOA and supportive of anyone who has an axe to grind with one. My inductive reasoning is that some HOA did you what you conceive was a grievious wrong and you are attempting to "pay them back" through offering any negative thing that comes to mind regarding HOAs.

But the OP wanted to know what is possible. The solution you offer is absolutely ludicrous because it is so expensive beyond simply trying to work it out between the homeowners. And it's not that eliminating an HOA hasn't been tried before both in Colorado and other states. The courts appear to hold up the HOA's based on the LAW in each state. Regardless of "statutory" form, the Common Interest Act covers them all. So it appears your argument is intellectual at best, but impractical in every sense of the word.

I'm sure you've spent plenty of time researching your "solution" but if it were so great, it would be spreading all over the country. It's not. Either folks are more satisfied with their HOA's (more or less), or they realize raising the money to accomplish such a goal is financially irresponsible on their part. Have you got ANY examples of where this occurred? Just one? What were the circumstances surrounding it?

You can post negative reviews until your fingers fall off, but it's not going to change a damn thing. Better to encourage people to work from inside the HOA through their vote, talking to their neighbors, electing new association officers. That CAN work.

Even amending the declarations of an HOA requires a tremendous amount of joint effort because it frequently requires two-thirds vote of members and there are an awful lot of apathetic members in every association.

Now you have the last word, because I believe your anger has gotten in front of your political eyesight and it's necessary for you to have the last word.

I'm sorry for whatever perceived indignity you or yours must have suffered at the hands of an HOA.

And I didnt offer a hypothetical to send to the AG, I suggested that you send him a real life example of where that was working in Colorado. You won't, because you can't.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-29-2012 at 08:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 12:36 PM
 
2,815 posts, read 3,325,276 times
Reputation: 3014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
IC, I took the time to review many of your posts on quite a few threads. You are universally opposed to anything proposed by an HOA and supportive of anyone who has an axe to grind with one. My inductive reasoning is that some HOA did you what you conceive was a grievious wrong and you are attempting to "pay them back" through offering any negative thing that comes to mind regarding HOAs.

But the OP wanted to know what is possible. The solution you offer is absolutely ludicrous because it is so expensive beyond simply trying to work it out between the homeowners. And it's not that eliminating an HOA hasn't been tried before both in Colorado and other states. The courts appear to hold up the HOA's based on the LAW in each state. Regardless of "statutory" form, the Common Interest Act covers them all. So it appears your argument is intellectual at best, but impractical in every sense of the word.

I'm sure you've spent plenty of time researching your "solution" but if it were so great, it would be spreading all over the country. It's not. Either folks are more satisfied with their HOA's (more or less), or they realize raising the money to accomplish such a goal is financially irresponsible on their part. Have you got ANY examples of where this occurred? Just one? What were the circumstances surrounding it?

You can post negative reviews until your fingers fall off, but it's not going to change a damn thing. Better to encourage people to work from inside the HOA through their vote, talking to their neighbors, electing new association officers. That CAN work.

Even amending the declarations of an HOA requires a tremendous amount of joint effort because it frequently requires two-thirds vote of members and there are an awful lot of apathetic members in every association.

Now you have the last word, because I believe your anger has gotten in front of your political eyesight and it's necessary for you to have the last word.

I'm sorry for whatever perceived indignity you or yours must have suffered at the hands of an HOA.

And I didnt offer a hypothetical to send to the AG, I suggested that you send him a real life example of where that was working in Colorado. You won't, because you can't.
Wardenstein, this is a forum where folks can express their opinions - and each is welcome to their own.

The OP's options depend in part upon what type of involuntary membership corporation the OP is burdened by. There aren't many options for a condo corporation. There are options if the OP is dealing with an HOA corporation such as those found in "planned communities". Sometimes thinking outside the box leads to a better solution than choosing to remain confined within restraints artificially established for the benefit of others.

There is more than one way to get rid of an HOA corporation. The approach taken depends upon the particulars of the situation. Amending restrictive covenants is just one approach. Dissolving the corporation itself is another. There are others.

The "cost" incurred in eliminating the HOA should be contrasted with the carrying costs of keeping the HOA. Those carrying costs should also contemplate the aggravation of dealing with the HOA corporation and the other risks that the HOA represents. Whatever costs you think are involved are likely negligible compared to ever-increasing assessments and perpetual liens that can never be paid off.

In the OP's case they might be better off eliminating the HOA corporation instead of wasting dollars on fighting about "who" is in control of the HOA corporation. Otherwise, these battles are going to continue and the only folks profiting will be the management companies and the HOA attorneys who are only too happy to encourage these disputes to begin with. It is fallacious to suggest that a majority of homeowners are "happy" with an HOA corporation or that it would be "irresponsible" to eliminate one.

Like the OP you have confined yourself to trying to operate within the constraints of a document that was designed against your interests from the outset. Homeowners were never the beneficiaries of "planned communities". The beneficiaries of the "plan" were the developer and local government. You need not confine your thinking to follow their plan.

As far as an AG is concerned, I don't understand your claim but I will reassert mine. AGs are not interested in getting involved in HOA matters. I suspect that I've had more contact with the Colorado AG's office than you have. Contacting the AG is a waste of time and resources for the homeowner.

Not so sure why you perceive "eliminating the HOA" to be a "negative review". The suggestion of eliminating the HOA corporation is a valid one and might be achievable in the OP's case depending upon the type of involuntary membership corporation involved and particulars of their project. It is a private corporation, not a government. It is quite clear from the OP's posting that these battles will continue and it will cost the homeowners over and over again so long as the HOA corporation exists. Instead of fighting over "who" is in charge, maybe they should try to get rid of the HOA corporation that appears to offer nothing but perpetual liens that can never be paid off, a litigation vortex, and a source of ongoing contention.

Regarding "perceived indignities from an HOA" - only a "board member" would find their conduct towards others unoffensive. I received a significant court decision just a few days ago against an HOA corporation. Every court up to the state supreme court decided that the "indignities" were actual rather than "perceived". Collection will be next. Seizing and selling the HOA's assets is a good way to start dismantling the HOA corporation. Collection activities will not be limited to the assets of the HOA corporation, however. Why shouldn't the board members be personally pursued? How else would they be held accountable? Pursuing the board member is a specific deterrent to discourage that board member from engaging in the conduct again. Eliminating the HOA corporation is a general deterrent to prevent any wannabe "board member" from ever having the opportunity to try.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 11-29-2012 at 01:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2012, 11:22 PM
 
5,048 posts, read 6,872,165 times
Reputation: 4146
IC_deLight: "Regarding "perceived indignities from an HOA" - only a "board member" would find their conduct towards others unoffensive. I received a significant court decision just a few days ago against an HOA corporation. Every court up to the state supreme court decided that the "indignities" were actual rather than "perceived". Collection will be next. Seizing and selling the HOA's assets is a good way to start dismantling the HOA corporation. Collection activities will not be limited to the assets of the HOA corporation, however. Why shouldn't the board members be personally pursued? How else would they be held accountable? Pursuing the board member is a specific deterrent to discourage that board member from engaging in the conduct again. Eliminating the HOA corporation is a general deterrent to prevent any wannabe "board member" from ever having the opportunity to try.[/quote]


This may be a whole 'nuther topic, but can you say just in general what the lawsuit or whatever was for? At first I thought perhaps mismanagement of funds which is not uncommon but you speak of collection and seizing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2012, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,091 posts, read 5,435,945 times
Reputation: 4009
Quote:
Originally Posted by cully View Post
IC_deLight: "Regarding "perceived indignities from an HOA" - only a "board member" would find their conduct towards others unoffensive. I received a significant court decision just a few days ago against an HOA corporation. Every court up to the state supreme court decided that the "indignities" were actual rather than "perceived". Collection will be next. Seizing and selling the HOA's assets is a good way to start dismantling the HOA corporation. Collection activities will not be limited to the assets of the HOA corporation, however. Why shouldn't the board members be personally pursued? How else would they be held accountable? Pursuing the board member is a specific deterrent to discourage that board member from engaging in the conduct again. Eliminating the HOA corporation is a general deterrent to prevent any wannabe "board member" from ever having the opportunity to try.

This may be a whole 'nuther topic, but can you say just in general what the lawsuit or whatever was for? At first I thought perhaps mismanagement of funds which is not uncommon but you speak of collection and seizing.[/quote]

A lawsuit is certainly one way to right are wrong in the proper way. However, a smart HOA board will purchase Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (our HOA had a $3 million dollar limit) so that the lawyers on both sides could fight it out, and, if, in the judgement of the court, our Board had acted improperly, then there was a lot of money available to right the wrong.

And, Cully, I still have correspondence from some members of the community in which I lived calling me every kind of name you can think of. Much of it was sent annonymously. Our community was divided over whether to sue the builder for forgetting a small thing like putting the plastic sheathing between the sidewall and aluminum siding, resulting in mold starting to eat away at some units. Oh, and he put the flashing on backwards on many buildings so that water was held on the roof rather than running off it. Still, we had many people who believed we would go bankrupt pursuing a lawsuit. Others that felt the initial attempt at negotiation between the Board and the builder's insurance companies was a waste of time (they were right!).

I had people screaming at me to enforce our declarations which stated the color scheme of buildings, and one woman had painted her door a dark red and put two large, matching vases outside on the porch. Looked pretty good to me, but I had to follow the Declaration. In another instance, a man was insisting that a woman permanently injured in an accident who had built an extension onto her porch should be required to tear it down. Instead, we approved the building plans in arrears. The man and the woman were political opponents!

Dealing with a community in a fair and measured manner requires foresight, historical perspective, an ability to speak civilly with the most ardent and angry homeowner, and an honest attempt to bring about a result that is the most favorable to all in the Association. Boards can and DO get board members with an axe to grind, ours did, and it took a great deal of effort to get them replaced.

But just because you had a bad situation--even if you won in court---doesn't mean an HOA cannot play a vital and helpful role in the community.

As far as IC goes, he cannot name a single situation in Colorado of a "HOA burdened community", and he cannot get around the LEGAL fact that any money required to be collected to pay taxes or maintenance of a community falls under the Common Interest Ownership act in Colorado. And even if an HOA were disbanded, how do you then collect the money to pay for street maintenance, certain areas of lawn care, street light maintenance, etc. You could not require it in any shape or fashion, or you would be under CIO, and a voluntary payment situation would result in quick deterioration of property. There is no damn way in hot spot that the local government is going to take responsibility for that maintenance. However, they will place fines on homeowners for not maintaining those areas.

Incidentally, a number of years ago a builder just north of Castle Rock went out of business and couldn't finish building his units. There was still required completion of some items in the original community development plan and maintenance of common areas. The innocent owners in that community wanted to disband their HOA. Instead the court assessed every homeowner $20,000. Some lost their homes. Like it or not, like it or not, like it or not, the Courts are going to follow the laws of the legislature. That's where the HOA haters need to take their battle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 06:25 PM
 
2,815 posts, read 3,325,276 times
Reputation: 3014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
This may be a whole 'nuther topic, but can you say just in general what the lawsuit or whatever was for? At first I thought perhaps mismanagement of funds which is not uncommon but you speak of collection and seizing.

A lawsuit is certainly one way to right are wrong in the proper way. However, a smart HOA board will purchase Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (our HOA had a $3 million dollar limit) so that the lawyers on both sides could fight it out, and, if, in the judgement of the court, our Board had acted improperly, then there was a lot of money available to right the wrong.
Board members attempting to rule over property owners rather than operating an HOA corporation.

Board members trying to force homeowners to purchase various commodities from board-affiliated vendors.

Board members trying to impose non-existent restrictions on use and enjoyment of other people's property under the pretext of "good for the community".

Insurance and control are factors that lead to board members behaving the way they do to begin with. D&O policies tend to become part of the board's arsenal of weapons. In the case you inquired about D&O insurance is not going to help the board members.

Quote:
And, Cully, I still have correspondence from some members of the community in which I lived calling me every kind of name you can think of. Much of it was sent annonymously. Our community was divided over whether to sue the builder for forgetting a small thing like putting the plastic sheathing between the sidewall and aluminum siding, resulting in mold starting to eat away at some units. Oh, and he put the flashing on backwards on many buildings so that water was held on the roof rather than running off it. Still, we had many people who believed we would go bankrupt pursuing a lawsuit. Others that felt the initial attempt at negotiation between the Board and the builder's insurance companies was a waste of time (they were right!).
Mistake #1: equating the HOA corporation to the "community". They are two very different things. In other words a bunch of sheeple don't want to put their own necks on the line and expect an "HOA" to "take care of it for them"? The HOA is only good for separating them from their money. Any homeowner that believe they were harmed by the builder should never have relied upon the HOA corporation to take care of things for them.

Quote:
I had people screaming at me to enforce our declarations which stated the color scheme of buildings, and one woman had painted her door a dark red and put two large, matching vases outside on the porch. Looked pretty good to me, but I had to follow the Declaration. In another instance, a man was insisting that a woman permanently injured in an accident who had built an extension onto her porch should be required to tear it down. Instead, we approved the building plans in arrears. The man and the woman were political opponents!
The idea that you should have any authority at all over the extension to this woman's porch is revolting. The individuals seeking to "enforce restrictive covenants" are free to file their own lawsuit. Blind obedience to the "declaration" is not an admirable trait.

Quote:
Dealing with a community in a fair and measured manner requires foresight, historical perspective, an ability to speak civilly with the most ardent and angry homeowner, and an honest attempt to bring about a result that is the most favorable to all in the Association. Boards can and DO get board members with an axe to grind, ours did, and it took a great deal of effort to get them replaced.
That's what the courts are for in the event they are necessary. There are far fewer disputes in a non-HOA subdivision than one burdened with the HOA. However, the HOA corporation is not a court and has no business pretending to be the police, legislature, or the courts.

Quote:
But just because you had a bad situation--even if you won in court---doesn't mean an HOA cannot play a vital and helpful role in the community.
... Some plantation owners took care of "their" slaves therefore slavery shouldn't be abolished?

Quote:
As far as IC goes, he cannot name a single situation in Colorado of a "HOA burdened community", and he cannot get around the LEGAL fact that any money required to be collected to pay taxes or maintenance of a community falls under the Common Interest Ownership act in Colorado. And even if an HOA were disbanded, how do you then collect the money to pay for street maintenance, certain areas of lawn care, street light maintenance, etc. You could not require it in any shape or fashion, or you would be under CIO, and a voluntary payment situation would result in quick deterioration of property. There is no damn way in hot spot that the local government is going to take responsibility for that maintenance. However, they will place fines on homeowners for not maintaining those areas.
??? There are ample examples of "HOA burdened community". Every time you have a piece of non-condo property with a restrictive covenant requiring involuntary membership in a corporation, the property is burdened by an HOA corporation. The fact that the act is called the CIOA does not alter the ownership of the property. The "common areas" for HOA burdened property are owned by the HOA corporation, not the homeowners. Hence the term "common interest" is a marketing gimmick. The only "interest" you have in common is a liability to pay for the debts of the HOA corporation. Most folks would recognize that as a liability rather than an "interest". You don't own any assets in common. In contrast, in condo-land the "common areas" are owned by all unit owners in an undivided pro-rata manner. On the final point about "fines", the local government would have to put fines on the entity that owns the property. If the entity owning the property is an HOA corporation then the HOA corporation would be cited - not the homeowners.

The methods available for eliminating an HOA corporation inherently vary depending upon the circumstances of each case.


Quote:
Incidentally, a number of years ago a builder just north of Castle Rock went out of business and couldn't finish building his units. There was still required completion of some items in the original community development plan and maintenance of common areas. The innocent owners in that community wanted to disband their HOA. Instead the court assessed every homeowner $20,000. Some lost their homes. Like it or not, like it or not, like it or not, the Courts are going to follow the laws of the legislature. That's where the HOA haters need to take their battle.
"units" as in condos or single family homes?
"common areas" as in condos or are you referring to HOA-owned property?

The example above is why folks need to think outside of the box instead of blindly following "CCRs" or the "master plan". You were never an intended beneficiary of the "master plan", thus following it will not lead to anything positive for you. Legislatures are not the courts. Just because a legislature gets a law on the books does not mean the law is valid or enforceable. It also doesn't mean that a court cannot consider the validity of the law. The laws in your state were largely written by the HOA industry, not the homeowners. It's not surprising that you would have industry favorable laws. There really isn't enough information about the court case you identified to determine anything. I wouldn't exclusively rely on the legislature getting it right or solving the problem for you anyway. Better off just tackling the problem personally and directly when confronted with it.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 12-02-2012 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 06:37 PM
 
5,048 posts, read 6,872,165 times
Reputation: 4146
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Board members attempting to rule over property owners rather than operating an HOA corporation.

Board members trying to force homeowners to purchase various commodities from board-affiliated vendors.

Board members trying to impose non-existent restrictions on use and enjoyment of other people's property under the pretext of "good for the community".

Insurance and control are factors that lead to board members behaving the way they do to begin with. D&O policies tend to become part of the board's arsenal of weapons. In the case you inquired about D&O insurance is not going to help the board members.

Mistake #1: equating the HOA corporation to the "community". They are two very different things. In other words a bunch of sheeple don't want to put their own necks on the line and expect an "HOA" to "take care of it for them"? The HOA is only good for separating them from their money. Any homeowner that believe they were harmed by the builder should never have relied upon the HOA corporation to take care of things for them.

The idea that you should have any authority at all over the extension to this woman's porch is revolting. The individuals seeking to "enforce restrictive covenants" are free to file their own lawsuit. Blind obedience to the "declaration" is not an admirable trait.

That's what the courts are for in the event they are necessary. There are far fewer disputes in a non-HOA subdivision than one burdened with the HOA. However, the HOA corporation is not a court and has no business pretending to be the police, legislature, or the courts.

... Some plantation owners took care of "their" slaves therefore slavery shouldn't be abolished?

??? There are ample examples of "HOA burdened community". Every time you have a piece of non-condo property with a restrictive covenant requiring involuntary membership in a corporation, the property is burdened by an HOA corporation. The fact that the act is called the CIOA does not alter the ownership of the property. The "common areas" for HOA burdened property are owned by the HOA corporation, not the homeowners. Hence the term "common interest" is a marketing gimmick. The only "interest" you have in common is a liability to pay for the debts of the HOA corporation. Most folks would recognize that as a liability rather than an "interest". You don't own any assets in common. In contrast, in condo-land the "common areas" are owned by all unit owners in an undivided pro-rata manner. On the final point about "fines", the local government would have to put fines on the entity that owns the property. If the entity owning the property is an HOA corporation then the HOA corporation would be cited - not the homeowners.

The methods available for eliminating an HOA corporation inherently vary depending upon the circumstances of each case.


"units" as in condos or single family homes?
"common areas" as in condos or are you referring to HOA-owned property?

The example above is why folks need to think outside of the box instead of blindly following "CCRs" or the "master plan". You were never an intended beneficiary of the "master plan", thus following it will not lead to anything positive for you. Legislatures are not the courts. Just because a legislature gets a law on the books does not mean the law is valid or enforceable. It also doesn't mean that a court cannot consider the validity of the law. The laws in your state were largely written by the HOA industry, not the homeowners. It's not surprising that you would have industry favorable laws. There really isn't enough information about the court case you identified to determine anything. I wouldn't exclusively rely on the legislature getting it right or solving the problem for you anyway. Better off just tackling the problem personally and directly when confronted with it.
Okay, I'm getting confused here. Who's the one who sued and got an award of some sort? My question was put because I wonder about the caliber of the problem and award. Just as a guage because I have other questions of that person. I thought it was IC? No?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2012, 10:45 PM
 
2,815 posts, read 3,325,276 times
Reputation: 3014
The board members, the vendors (including the management company, and the HOA attorney) and their HOA corporation lost. There might even be a shoe or two left to drop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top