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.
Not at all. BTW I'm not "making a case". I am correcting incorrect statements (and beliefs held) by another poster, namely you.
That would be a first for you. Strong opinions with utterly misleading information.
Quote:
Now you see, even the term "common property" is deliberately misleading. There is no "commonly owned property" unless "common" refers to the HOA corporation. People don't go around saying they "commonly own" their own house. The use of "common" in this context is a carry over from condominium regimes where the unit owners actually have an undivided percentage interest in the "common areas". For HOAs such as the one you are talking about, you have ZERO ownership interest individually or collectively in the inappropriately referenced "common property".
You have certain rights to the common property. Often including an easement to use it. And the CC&Rs as implemented by the rules of the Association establish the rights and limits of the owners use of the common property. If the Association unilaterally decided not to allow a given user or all users to utilize a particular asset it would be suitable for litigation. And the owner(s) may well prevail. It is not a happy outcome when they do as the Association then bills the owners for the both the HOAs cost and the owners cost.
Quote:
Homeowners typically have no vote during the development period, a mathematically irrelevant vote for a while after that. When homeowners may vote there is no "right" to vote because the bylaws or restrictive covenants have given the HOA corporation board the ability to suspend voting "privileges". These are corporations. Voting is not a right. There is no democracy because i) there is no right to vote, and ii) there is no protection of individual rights. Blind obedience to rules written for someone else's benefit will bite you.
Of course the developer controls initially. Be he eventually turns it over. The right to vote is defined and built into the CC&Rs. It generally can be changed only by a vote of the membership. A member can be suspended from voting but the conditions required for that are generally stated and virtually never say anything other than current on account. You continue to manufacture absurd scenarios to support your positions .
Quote:
Ha ha ha. Who are you kidding? Guess who controls the HOA corporation?
The construction defect litigation is addressed in condominium corporations. You won't find much in HOA-land. Why? Because the developer controls the HOA corporation until such time as the developer wants to exit. The homeowners have NO OWNERSHIP interest in the property and no standing to sue derivatively on behalf of the HOA corporation. They might be able to sue in their own capacities as to some tort the developer committed against the individual owners but usually the restrictive covenants are written (by the developer) to ensure that the HOA corporation has to indemnify the developer/declarant. The same restrictive covenants burden your lot with an involuntary obligation to pay the HOA's financial obligations including the obligation to indemnify the developer.
And in this case it was the members of the BofD and the loyal opposition who got together, recruited a suitable law firm and sued...picking up 22 million or so. The Association sued on its own behalf for certain defects in the common properties and again achieved a settlement.
Quote:
No it had absolutely nothing to do with the HOA corporation - that's why it would be a suit by the owners instead of a suit by the HOA corporation.
Do you have any data to go with the bridge you are trying to sell?
More nonsense. Try Sun City Summerlin and Del Webb.
Quote:
De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt, huh?
The HOA's property isn't for sale. The HOA corporation has zero ownership interest in the homeowner's property. However, if you want to perpetuate the myth that HOAs "preserve value" then homeowners should be able to sue for and collect damages from HOAs either for failure to fulfill representations of "preserving value" of for fraud. The bottom line is that HOA corporations never have and never will preserve or create value for any owner other than the original declarant. Of course the HOA also benefits the owners of the law firm employing the HOA attorney and the owners of the management company - but not the owners of the homes in the subdivision.
No myth. I lived through it. The big problem was the dealing with distressed property. The HOAs in general got to it much faster than those without. Some of the more aggressive actually stepped in and maintained abandoned property...a step that rarely occurred in non HOA property.
HOAs make no commitment to anyone to maintain or increase property values. But that in no way changes the fact they often do so. Fact of life.
And there is no particular reason to suggest a management company. Some very successful HOAs run their own.
Quote:
....and why is the HOA corporation attempting to turn on water or electric at property not owned by the HOA corporation? Is the HOA corporation going to assume financial liability to the owner and the utility for the cost of electric, water, and any damages resulting from the same? The homeowner is NOT a tenant and the HOA corporation is not a landlord.
Actually there is talk of running a new line to the property with power from next door to activate the irrigation system. And actually the CC&Rs provide the capability to intervene in any situation threatening health or safety. Major trees or shrubs dying create a safety issue.
And there is no homeowner. He died intestate. The estate exists certainly but has no representative. So for now there is no owner.
Quote:
Thanks for showing how the HOA corporation does not preserve value for the OWNER of the property. The beneficiaries of your proposals are management companies, HOA attorneys, the HOA corporation (not the involuntary members), the state - virtually anyone OTHER than the actual owner of the property.
But they do practically preserve value for the owner. And their is no significant involvement of Property Managers or Attorneys or other non employees of the Association. And none of the Board is salaried or makes any money from it and they do run it. And they are more than capable. In fact a normal corporation would have trouble hiring as good a set of people as these directors. And they work for free.
No.
I am now a Ham Radio Operator. I will not live in a place that tells me that I can not have any antenna I want.
I looked at a very nice house once that had an HOA. the CCRs stated a 1 ton dually was a "commercial truck" and could not be parked on the property. We walked away from the house.
Although the fractal antenna was invented by a ham radio operator in an HOA, he invented the fractal antenna out of a metal coat hangar because the HOA forbid large antennas on the roof or out of the window ... So a fascist HOA compelled the creation of the fractal antenna.
Although the fractal antenna was invented by a ham radio operator in an HOA, he invented the fractal antenna out of a metal coat hangar because the HOA forbid large antennas on the roof or out of the window ... So a fascist HOA compelled the creation of the fractal antenna.
And they will never allow my 60 foot crankup Tribander. So I do not live in an HOA. And even though I don't I still crank it down most of the time which hides it in the trees. Keeps the neighbors from suggesting I am screwing up their TV or wifi.
That however does not mean I don't appreciate a good HOA. Best thing around for lower end dwellings.
Nope I would not own a home with a HOA. I prefer my country life where we can do whatever we want. Shoot guns off the back deck, ride 4 wheelers all night, let my dogs out all day and if they bark no one complains, let fireworks off any day of the year. I wouldn't trade any of that to live in a cookie cutter house in a neighborhood.
That would be a first for you. Strong opinions with utterly misleading information.
Excuse you?
Exactly what information do you claim was misleading?
You actually repeated made false assertions regarding the ownership of "common property".
It's pretty obvious at this point that my statement was not a "strong opinion" but rather legal reality. In your "defense" of HOAs you keep trying to backpedal on a point you were equivocating on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
You have certain rights to the common property. Often including an easement to use it. And the CC&Rs as implemented by the rules of the Association establish the rights and limits of the owners use of the common property. If the Association unilaterally decided not to allow a given user or all users to utilize a particular asset it would be suitable for litigation. And the owner(s) may well prevail. It is not a happy outcome when they do as the Association then bills the owners for the both the HOAs cost and the owners cost.
The "easement" is almost certainly limited to a roadway. You otherwise have no such "right". The HOA corporation establishes the terms of use of ITS property including whether you can use it at all and the terms under which you can use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Of course the developer controls initially. Be he eventually turns it over. The right to vote is defined and built into the CC&Rs. It generally can be changed only by a vote of the membership. A member can be suspended from voting but the conditions required for that are generally stated and virtually never say anything other than current on account. You continue to manufacture absurd scenarios to support your positions .
So now you admit you have no right to vote and that the HOA board can suspend any voting "privilege". There is nothing absurd about my claim - you now admit there is no right and you were incorrect. The HOA management companies and HOA attorneys are particularly adept at entangling assessment payments with all sorts of junk fees, "fines", and other absurdities in order to proclaim people "in violation" so as to both i) threaten them with foreclosure, and ii) deny voting privileges. Of course you won't know whether your vote counted because it's all secret!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
And in this case it was the members of the BofD and the loyal opposition who got together, recruited a suitable law firm and sued...picking up 22 million or so. The Association sued on its own behalf for certain defects in the common properties and again achieved a settlement.
Don't know what the "defects" were but its pretty clear the homeowners received nada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
More nonsense. Try Sun City Summerlin and Del Webb.
Sun City developments are under developer control for decades. Let's be clear the developer is using the HOA to pursue the developer's own objectives, not yours and not for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
No myth. I lived through it. The big problem was the dealing with distressed property. The HOAs in general got to it much faster than those without. Some of the more aggressive actually stepped in and maintained abandoned property...a step that rarely occurred in non HOA property.
HOAs make no commitment to anyone to maintain or increase property values. But that in no way changes the fact they often do so. Fact of life.
Actually people like you, the HOA industry cabal of management companies and HOA attorneys, builders, developers, and real estate agents and brokers ALL claim HOAs maintain or preserve property values. I agree HOAs preserve value in your property - for the developer, local government, HOA attorney, and HOA management company, not you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
And there is no particular reason to suggest a management company. Some very successful HOAs run their own.
Sure there is reason to mention management companies. They are part of the industry preying on homeowners burdened with involuntary membership HOAs. As far as "successful" is concerned try defining a "successful" HOA corporation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Actually there is talk of running a new line to the property with power from next door to activate the irrigation system. And actually the CC&Rs provide the capability to intervene in any situation threatening health or safety. Major trees or shrubs dying create a safety issue.
You see how easy you just tried rationalizing an HOA corporation intervening in a matter under the pretext of "safety". There is no safety issue with a major or shrub dying other than perhaps that it might fall - but then all living things do at some point (something that Sun City residents don't want to be reminded of). What you are really saying is that an HOA board wants the power to intrude into involuntary members' lives and property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
And there is no homeowner. He died intestate. The estate exists certainly but has no representative. So for now there is no owner.
... there are legal fictions that address ownership at this juncture - but so what - the property doesn't belong to you or the HOA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
But they do practically preserve value for the owner.
What is this hedge word "practically"? More equivocation? HOA corporations do not preserve "value" for the owner burdened with involuntary membership in the HOA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
And their is no significant involvement of Property Managers or Attorneys or other non employees of the Association. And none of the Board is salaried or makes any money from it and they do run it. And they are more than capable. In fact a normal corporation would have trouble hiring as good a set of people as these directors. And they work for free.
You underestimate the psychological reward folks attracted to these positions receive from threatening their neighbors or the "joy" they receive from a corporate environment where their neighbors must come groveling for "permission". Who are you kidding? Many often receive financial benefits that are not disclosed. Lack of access to records and lack of open meetings are two of the most prevalent complaints concerning HOAs. Consider for example how much of the $22 million you referenced actually went to the HOA corporation and then what happened to the residual.
I think some HOA's are out of line with their requirements/laws, whatever you choose to call them. On the other hand it prevents purple houses and cars parked on the lawn, etc. My moms last neighborhood was HOA and it was immaculate, the other neighborhoods in the surrounding area, not so much...
I think some HOA's are out of line with their requirements/laws, whatever you choose to call them. On the other hand it prevents purple houses and cars parked on the lawn, etc. My moms last neighborhood was HOA and it was immaculate, the other neighborhoods in the surrounding area, not so much...
Some might be more than a buyer wants to deal with, but the solution is simple--don't buy a house in an HOA with rules you can't live with.
Excuse you?
Exactly what information do you claim was misleading?
You actually repeated made false assertions regarding the ownership of "common property".
It's pretty obvious at this point that my statement was not a "strong opinion" but rather legal reality. In your "defense" of HOAs you keep trying to backpedal on a point you were equivocating on.
The above is you classic misleading statement.
I made no assertions about the ownership of connon property. You made that up. However the access to common property may well be a clause in the CC&Rs and enforceable in court.
Quote:
The "easement" is almost certainly limited to a roadway. You otherwise have no such "right". The HOA corporation establishes the terms of use of ITS property including whether you can use it at all and the terms under which you can use it.
It is generally whatever common property neccessary to reach the unit. May well include front yards and greenbelts. Again you mislead.
Quote:
So now you admit you have no right to vote and that the HOA board can suspend any voting "privilege". There is nothing absurd about my claim - you now admit there is no right and you were incorrect. The HOA management companies and HOA attorneys are particularly adept at entangling assessment payments with all sorts of junk fees, "fines", and other absurdities in order to proclaim people "in violation" so as to both i) threaten them with foreclosure, and ii) deny voting privileges. Of course you won't know whether your vote counted because it's all secret!
Mislead again. I in no way admit the right to vote can be suspended arbitrarily. There may well be conditions on the right as there are in virtually any election. You must be in good standing perhaps...just as you must be in most US elections.
Junk fees and such is another subject. Whether they prevent voting would be according to the language in the CC&Rs.
Vote counting is often public.
Quote:
Don't know what the "defects" were but its pretty clear the homeowners received nada.
Again you mislead. You know nothing but pontificate. Check the record. The owners involved received suitable compensation.
Quote:
Sun City developments are under developer control for decades. Let's be clear the developer is using the HOA to pursue the developer's own objectives, not yours and not for you.
For a little over a decade. And then the owner board screwed up by not raising fees enough to cover operations. And then they got a new regime which fixed that and got the place on a sound financial basis. And yes of course the developer looked out for his own interests. They however often conincide with that of the owners.
Quote:
Actually people like you, the HOA industry cabal of management companies and HOA attorneys, builders, developers, and real estate agents and brokers ALL claim HOAs maintain or preserve property values. I agree HOAs preserve value in your property - for the developer, local government, HOA attorney, and HOA management company, not you.
I don't claim. I merely observe it as a fact in ongoing value. If you compare the HOA communities they hold value better than the none HOA. Are there exceptions? Probably. So what? Want to buy a 25 year old tract home you will find those in the HOAs have higher values. Is it due to the HOA? Is it do it to the resources provided? But the resources flow from the HOA.
Quote:
Sure there is reason to mention management companies. They are part of the industry preying on homeowners burdened with involuntary membership HOAs. As far as "successful" is concerned try defining a "successful" HOA corporation.
Property Management is unnecessary and may be good or bad. The small HOAs here generally self manage as do a couple of the larger ones. Sun City Summerlin for instance is self managed with an annual budget of around 8 million. And a very nice job has been done over the years. There are also a number of HOAs which do use Property Management and are very happy with it. When the PM gets sloopy they get thrown out. Happens very commonly. On the other side there are PMs that have been in place for 20 years. Obviously doing somethg right.
Quote:
You see how easy you just tried rationalizing an HOA corporation intervening in a matter under the pretext of "safety". There is no safety issue with a major or shrub dying other than perhaps that it might fall - but then all living things do at some point (something that Sun City residents don't want to be reminded of). What you are really saying is that an HOA board wants the power to intrude into involuntary members' lives and property.
Of course there is. Fire or falling are certainly true and harboring of creatures is another. An actually what I am saying is the individual members who live near the deceased owner want the HOA to intervene. So far it has not and has received criticism for not taking a more active role. I believe it has, so far, declined the safety option and may attempt an early foreclosure to try to resolve the situation more quickly.
Quote:
... there are legal fictions that address ownership at this juncture - but so what - the property doesn't belong to you or the HOA.
Actually there are not. Can be on court action but no there is no legal fiction that provides a representative of the property.
Quote:
What is this hedge word "practically"? More equivocation? HOA corporations do not preserve "value" for the owner burdened with involuntary membership in the HOA.
Practically in that they do but do not claim to. There is nothing I have ever seen in a CC&R or other HOA document that suggest they will do so. But they do...that is the practical result. And not always. It is certainly possible for a property to go bad whether run by an HOA or not. So they are no universal cure. Nor however are they a universal curse as you often mislead.
Quote:
You underestimate the psychological reward folks attracted to these positions receive from threatening their neighbors or the "joy" they receive from a corporate environment where their neighbors must come groveling for "permission". Who are you kidding? Many often receive financial benefits that are not disclosed. Lack of access to records and lack of open meetings are two of the most prevalent complaints concerning HOAs. Consider for example how much of the $22 million you referenced actually went to the HOA corporation and then what happened to the residual.
All the owners involved were fully compensated. None to the HOA as you would know if you bothered to research it rather than continue to mislead. And it was set up with a set of firms to do the repair if desired for about the amount provided. And you could tag on to get a disount on other connected tasks.
When running a community of 7800 homes with 15,000 residents you are not going to know very many of your fellow residents well enough to enjoy mistreating them. And you will likely take more nonsense from those who disagree than you will get in support from those who agree.
There can of course be bad dealings in an HOA. A couple of mind blowing ones have occurred here and I am sure elsewhere. Like all human institutions it can be a bad thing. But on balance here they seem to do little harm and carry out their tasks. I do not live in one but it could happen one day as I get older. I will not be worried about being in an HOA run community.
Definitely not. I bought my home I want the freedom to do as I please.
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.
