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.
Why is it a legit complaint? Are you telling me that the buyers didn't notice a golf course right outside their sliding glass door before they bought the house? Or maybe they enjoy the pleasant view of a golf course but they could do without those pesky golfers.
One can't have one's cake and eat one's cake as well. People who don't want to deal with golf balls flying onto their property shouldn't choose to live adjacent to a golf course.
And here's another simple solution which should make everyone happy - if you don't want to deal with an HOA, don't buy in an HOA neighborhood. If an HOA doesn't bother you and/or you feel the benefits outweigh the hassle (however small or large that hassle is), then go for it.
Meanwhile, leave other people alone whose opinion about an HOA doesn't match up with yours. So what if they choose or don't choose to live in an HOA neighborhood - in fact, PLEASE don't live in a neighborhood with restrictions you don't intend to abide by!!!! This will make life a lot easier for everyone.
You would no doubt have enjoyed Alabama in the 1950s. "Go to the back of the bus and if you don't like it don't ride the bus"? There are plenty of restrictions that are not enforceable and more will be deemed unenforceable over time.
As you may not be aware, virtually all new housing built has been HOA burdened housing. In an environment where the population is expanding and only HOA-burdened housing is built, telling people "not to live" in an HOA subdivision is a facially ludicrous proposition. Moreover it fails to address the conduct of other owners, boards, and vendors in the gulags as well the inconsistency with the concept of "ownership". Perhaps you should stop marketing HOA property as something that is "owned" as opposed to something even less than renting.
People don't "agree" to being abused or ripped off by purchasing property burdened by an HOA. Herd mentality is not a legal rationale for taking other people's property. The "rules" are not written for the homeowners and just because someone wrote something and filed it with a county clerk does not make the writing true or enforceable. So given that more and more people are forced into HOA-burdened housing you can expect more and more challenges and more lawsuits over HOAs, deed restrictions, etc.
So my question is is there a way to dissolve the HOA, I mean the HOA's/covenants exist mainly to protect the developer. Once the lots are sold off and the developer is long gone (dead?), is there any way to just do some legal paper work to dissolve the HOA/covenants? Especially when there really is no substantial community property (like in apartment style condos or town houses). Could a simple majority just get rid of it and revert back to regular property.
You would no doubt have enjoyed Alabama in the 1950s. "Go to the back of the bus and if you don't like it don't ride the bus"? There are plenty of restrictions that are not enforceable and more will be deemed unenforceable over time.
As you may not be aware, virtually all new housing built has been HOA burdened housing. In an environment where the population is expanding and only HOA-burdened housing is built, telling people "not to live" in an HOA subdivision is a facially ludicrous proposition. Moreover it fails to address the conduct of other owners, boards, and vendors in the gulags as well the inconsistency with the concept of "ownership". Perhaps you should stop marketing HOA property as something that is "owned" as opposed to something even less than renting.
People don't "agree" to being abused or ripped off by purchasing property burdened by an HOA. Herd mentality is not a legal rationale for taking other people's property. The "rules" are not written for the homeowners and just because someone wrote something and filed it with a county clerk does not make the writing true or enforceable. So given that more and more people are forced into HOA-burdened housing you can expect more and more challenges and more lawsuits over HOAs, deed restrictions, etc.
Yep I agree we are having this issue right now house hunting, an overwhelming number of properties are HOA's and it make the process tedious and onerous. There are very few properties not in an HOA on the market unless you go way out in the sticks and endure an hour plus commute to work one way.
Maybe I should write my representative to suggest that all covenants and HOA's be dissolved once the developer sells the last lot (unless there is substantial common property that can pass legal review as being necessary to have an HOA to maintain like a golf course or some other substantial asset) and then only that common property is subject to the HOA and have strict language on graduated dues increases with inflation with unanomus vote for special assesments. HOA's and covenants are designed to protect the developer and that's it.
There are usually city codes that address the really obnoxious stuff like excessive noise at late hours etc.
You would no doubt have enjoyed Alabama in the 1950s. "Go to the back of the bus and if you don't like it don't ride the bus"? There are plenty of restrictions that are not enforceable and more will be deemed unenforceable over time.
As you may not be aware, virtually all new housing built has been HOA burdened housing. In an environment where the population is expanding and only HOA-burdened housing is built, telling people "not to live" in an HOA subdivision is a facially ludicrous proposition. Moreover it fails to address the conduct of other owners, boards, and vendors in the gulags as well the inconsistency with the concept of "ownership". Perhaps you should stop marketing HOA property as something that is "owned" as opposed to something even less than renting.
People don't "agree" to being abused or ripped off by purchasing property burdened by an HOA. Herd mentality is not a legal rationale for taking other people's property. The "rules" are not written for the homeowners and just because someone wrote something and filed it with a county clerk does not make the writing true or enforceable. So given that more and more people are forced into HOA-burdened housing you can expect more and more challenges and more lawsuits over HOAs, deed restrictions, etc.
Oh brother - I can't believe it - you actually played the race card on a thread about HOAs. Only thing missing now is Hitler.
1. Since I am not a racist, I would not have appreciated the segregation laws in Alabama in the 1950s. There are good laws and bad laws. There are good rules and bad rules. I'm fully capable of figuring out the difference between the two concepts.
2. I am very aware of the increase in HOA communities, so no need to "school" me on them. Bless your heart. I was a practicing realtor for years, till fairly recently in fact. Not sure where you're from but where I live, there are plenty of HOA AND non HOA neighborhoods to choose from. But no worries - even if you are "anti HOA" and want new construction and fall in love with a new home in an HOA neighborhood, around here it is very easy to find a very non obtrusive HOA situation - for instance such as my neighborhood, where the HOA fees are $125 a year, and basically all the HOA does is make sure that new construction meets certain categories (square footage, building materials, set backs, that sort of thing), and maintains the two entrances and the common areas. No "gulag" over here. (There - you ALMOST mentioned Hitler - alluding instead to Stalin or Lenin I guess.)
3. What you don't seem to understand is that the majority of HOAs are NOT obtrusive or abusive in any way, and the very idea of "taking other peoples' property" is a laugh. By the way, the rules of our HOA CLEARLY benefit the homeowners first and foremost, and the vast majority of homeowners in this neighborhood consider the HOA to be a benefit, not a burden. Considering that upon closing on their property, every homeowner signed a contract stating that they understand and agree to the terms and regulations of the HOA, and considering that our HOA (like many others) is so low key that you would hardly know they exist if it wasn't for the well kept common areas, it would be interesting to watch a homeowner try to actually challenge this HOA legally.
So my question is is there a way to dissolve the HOA, I mean the HOA's/covenants exist mainly to protect the developer. Once the lots are sold off and the developer is long gone (dead?), is there any way to just do some legal paper work to dissolve the HOA/covenants? Especially when there really is no substantial community property (like in apartment style condos or town houses). Could a simple majority just get rid of it and revert back to regular property.
I believe it can be done but as I understand it, 100% of all owners would have to agree to doing such. I expect all HOA's have some common property (entrance way/sign, retention ponds, etc.) that will have to be dealt with so there will still be some connection /rules to deal with such.
Oh brother - I can't believe it - you actually played the race card on a thread about HOAs. Only thing missing now is Hitler.
No the point was about your belief in blind obedience to rules without regard to substance. On a related note since you brought up Hitler, it was Milgram who conducted experiments to understand that blind obedience is what caused Nazi troops who might in any other context be "normal" to commit atrocious act. Milgram's paper was called the Perils of Obedience as I recall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
1. Since I am not a racist, I would not have appreciated the segregation laws in Alabama in the 1950s. There are good laws and bad laws. There are good rules and bad rules. I'm fully capable of figuring out the difference between the two concepts.
Except you believe people shouldn't be allowed to live there unless they are blindly obedient to these "rules" - no different from the bus example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
2. I am very aware of the increase in HOA communities, so no need to "school" me on them. Bless your heart. I was a practicing realtor for years, till fairly recently in fact. Not sure where you're from but where I live, there are plenty of HOA AND non HOA neighborhoods to choose from. But no worries - even if you are "anti HOA" and want new construction and fall in love with a new home in an HOA neighborhood, around here it is very easy to find a very non obtrusive HOA situation - for instance such as my neighborhood, where the HOA fees are $125 a year, and basically all the HOA does is make sure that new construction meets certain categories (square footage, building materials, set backs, that sort of thing), and maintains the two entrances and the common areas. No "gulag" over here. (There - you ALMOST mentioned Hitler - alluding instead to Stalin or Lenin I guess.)
It is only a matter of time. Realtors like yourself try to market "low HOA fees" or "unobtrusive HOA" without disclosing the broader legal entanglement as well as the fact that "low HOA fees" and "unobtrusive HOA" can change the day after the purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
3. What you don't seem to understand is that the majority of HOAs are NOT obtrusive or abusive in any way, and the very idea of "taking other peoples' property" is a laugh.
I'm sure you and your board members do laugh when you take things that belong to other people - but it's not funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
By the way, the rules of our HOA CLEARLY benefit the homeowners first and foremost, and the vast majority of homeowners in this neighborhood consider the HOA to be a benefit, not a burden.
Under what theory do the "rules" benefit the homeowners? Your opinion? You are a former real estate agent not an attorney licensed in your state, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Considering that upon closing on their property, every homeowner signed a contract stating that they understand and agree to the terms and regulations of the HOA, ...
What contract was that and who is the other party to that contract?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
...and considering that our HOA (like many others) is so low key that you would hardly know they exist if it wasn't for the well kept common areas, it would be interesting to watch a homeowner try to actually challenge this HOA legally.
Homeowners are not the ones that typically stir the litigation vortex. Invariably it is almost always the HOA corporation (also sometimes entities claiming to be an HOA) that provokes legal action either by filing suit, threatening foreclosure, demanding "fines", proclaiming a homeowner to be "in violation", or some other similar threat or claim. The homeowner is then forced to have to either defend or initiate suit.
So my question is is there a way to dissolve the HOA, I mean the HOA's/covenants exist mainly to protect the developer. Once the lots are sold off and the developer is long gone (dead?), is there any way to just do some legal paper work to dissolve the HOA/covenants? Especially when there really is no substantial community property (like in apartment style condos or town houses). Could a simple majority just get rid of it and revert back to regular property.
You may be able to challenge on purely legal grounds, however, one way to operate even within the "box" you've been put into is to amend the restrictive covenants. Typically either state law or the restrictive covenants themselves will have language that determines the percentage of property owners required to amend the restrictive covenants.
It should be clarified that you can have restrictive covenants without an HOA. Involuntary membership in an HOA, however, is usually implemented via restrictive covenant. So you can amend the restrictive covenants just to eliminate the portions you want to eliminate so long as you have the percentage of property owners required to amend. Thus you can have an amendment that deletes the sections which require payment of assessments, membership in an HOA corporation, and any claimed lien authority of the HOA corporation.
No the point was about your belief in blind obedience to rules without regard to substance. On a related note since you brought up Hitler, it was Milgram who conducted experiments to understand that blind obedience is what caused Nazi troops who might in any other context be "normal" to commit atrocious act. Milgram's paper was called the Perils of Obedience as I recall.
What on earth does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
I will address your first line though. "No the point was about your belief in blind obedience to rules without regard to substance." Not sure where you get the idea that this is my belief system. I absolutely do not believe in this manner and there are plenty of types of communities, municipalities, etc that I would choose NOT to live in based on rules with no substance. I'm a mature adult fully capable of determining whether or not a rule or regulation makes good sense, and whether or not I am going to commit to following such a rule or regulation. Of course, if I'm not willing to follow rules that have no substance, it's probably best that I avoid frequenting places with such rules or regulations.
Quote:
Except you believe people shouldn't be allowed to live there unless they are blindly obedient to these "rules" - no different from the bus example.
Errr, no.
Get this. My best friend lives in a beautiful home. Her home is a condo. They have a very restrictive HOA. In spite of the loveliness of her home, I simply would not even consider homes in her neighborhood when we were looking for a new home, because I knew I would not enjoy living in such a community with such strict HOA laws.
Now what WOULD have been stupid would have been for me to insist on looking at homes there, then insist on buying one, and insist on living there, knowing in advance that I didn't like the HOA rules and had no intention of following them. That being said, the folks who do live in that condo neighborhood are happy with the rules - including my friend. There are reasons for each rule and those rules help keep the place looking great. Uniform, yes. Too uniform for me? Yes. But not too uniform for the people who choose to live there. More power to 'em.
Quote:
It is only a matter of time. Realtors like yourself try to market "low HOA fees" or "unobtrusive HOA" without disclosing the broader legal entanglement as well as the fact that "low HOA fees" and "unobtrusive HOA" can change the day after the purchase.
Coupla things:
1. I'm no longer practicing real estate.
2. When I was practicing real estate, I sold many homes within and without HOAs. I have also invested in and lived in homes within and without HOAs. Not once have I ever had a SINGLE negative experience with an HOA. Not only that, I haven't heard of any serious negative happenings, from anyone "in real life" with an HOA. Most HOAs around here simply ARE "unobtrusive" with low fees - other than country club or condo areas.
Quote:
I'm sure you and your board members do laugh when you take things that belong to other people - but it's not funny.
Not sure what you're on about here - I've never served on an HOA board, and don't ever plan on doing so.
Quote:
Under what theory do the "rules" benefit the homeowners? Your opinion? You are a former real estate agent not an attorney licensed in your state, correct?
I don't have to be a licensed attorney to have a legitimate opinion on this - an opinion which is backed by my own personal and professional experience. The way a good HOA (and there are many of them, including but not limited to the one which manages my current neighborhood) may protect property values, thus benefiting the homeowners is that a good HOA can protect and enhance the overall atmosphere and mood of a neighborhood, along with upkeep of common areas, keeping lines of communication open via updated contact info for those homeowners who wish to share that info, coordinating block parties/safety themed get togethers so that neighbors are more aware of the needs and opinions and resources that others can offer, mandating minimum (and maximum) square footage of homes on lots, building materials, styles (just say no to geodesic domes!), etc so that homes in that particular neighborhood are spaced attractively, built attractively, and are not "out of place" in a particular neighborhood, etc etc etc. Those are just a few ways that the HOAs that I've been a part of have enhanced property values via enhancing the overall atmosphere and personality of a neighborhood.
And don't even get me started on puppy mills, 18 wheelers or school buses or RVs parked on small lots, and trailers hauled into the back yard for additional family members - or rental property.
Quote:
What contract was that and who is the other party to that contract?
The agreement between the homeowner and the HOA.
Quote:
Homeowners are not the ones that typically stir the litigation vortex. Invariably it is almost always the HOA corporation (also sometimes entities claiming to be an HOA) that provokes legal action either by filing suit, threatening foreclosure, demanding "fines", proclaiming a homeowner to be "in violation", or some other similar threat or claim. The homeowner is then forced to have to either defend or initiate suit.
So you say. (shrug) Hasn't been my experience nor have I heard any horror stories based in reality from anyone I've ever known anywhere, anytime.
What on earth does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
I will address your first line though. "No the point was about your belief in blind obedience to rules without regard to substance." Not sure where you get the idea that this is my belief system. I absolutely do not believe in this manner and there are plenty of types of communities, municipalities, etc that I would choose NOT to live in based on rules with no substance. I'm a mature adult fully capable of determining whether or not a rule or regulation makes good sense, and whether or not I am going to commit to following such a rule or regulation. Of course, if I'm not willing to follow rules that have no substance, it's probably best that I avoid frequenting places with such rules or regulations.
It's not whether they have substance but rather what the substance is.
You might be a mature adult but there are some things you don't have to commit to, again hence the bus example. You might be content with cowering and going to the back because of a "rule" written by someone else for THEIR benefit not yours. The "rules" you refer to weren't written by anyone in your subdivision. They were written beforehand by people pursuing their own best interests, not yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Errr, no.
Get this. My best friend lives in a beautiful home. Her home is a condo. They have a very restrictive HOA. In spite of the loveliness of her home, I simply would not even consider homes in her neighborhood when we were looking for a new home, because I knew I would not enjoy living in such a community with such strict HOA laws.
This thread was about HOA properties, not condominiums. Condominiums are statutory in nature. A condominium by statute will have an involuntary membership condo corporation - in every state. Has nothing to do with strict or not. And your friend doesn't own a home, she owns a "unit".
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Now what WOULD have been stupid would have been for me to insist on looking at homes there, then insist on buying one, and insist on living there, knowing in advance that I didn't like the HOA rules and had no intention of following them.
Why would you be foolish enough to believe they couldn't or wouldn't change?
Did you have other housing options?
Did you believe the "rules" were enforceable?
I'm sure I could think of a few others - but you sound like the type of person that would have just gone to the back of the bus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
That being said, the folks who do live in that condo neighborhood are happy with the rules - including my friend. There are reasons for each rule and those rules help keep the place looking great. Uniform, yes. Too uniform for me? Yes. But not too uniform for the people who choose to live there. More power to 'em.
This was not a discussion about condominiums.
More often than not you will find the rules have nothing to do with "looks" but rather with control and shifting of liabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Coupla things:
1. I'm no longer practicing real estate.
2. When I was practicing real estate, I sold many homes within and without HOAs. I have also invested in and lived in homes within and without HOAs. Not once have I ever had a SINGLE negative experience with an HOA. Not only that, I haven't heard of any serious negative happenings, from anyone "in real life" with an HOA. Most HOAs around here simply ARE "unobtrusive" with low fees - other than country club or condo areas.
What area of the country were you practicing real estate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I don't have to be a licensed attorney to have a legitimate opinion on this - an opinion which is backed by my own personal and professional experience. The way a good HOA (and there are many of them, including but not limited to the one which manages my current neighborhood) may protect property values, thus benefiting the homeowners is that a good HOA can protect and enhance the overall atmosphere and mood of a neighborhood, along with upkeep of common areas, keeping lines of communication open via updated contact info for those homeowners who wish to share that info, coordinating block parties/safety themed get togethers so that neighbors are more aware of the needs and opinions and resources that others can offer, mandating minimum (and maximum) square footage of homes on lots, building materials, styles (just say no to geodesic domes!), etc so that homes in that particular neighborhood are spaced attractively, built attractively, and are not "out of place" in a particular neighborhood, etc etc etc. Those are just a few ways that the HOAs that I've been a part of have enhanced property values via enhancing the overall atmosphere and personality of a neighborhood.
Except you are stating opinion as fact when you have nothing to support it. You haven't shown that the HOA had anything to do with "property values" or enhanced the lives of anyone other than board members and HOA management company employees. A "neighborhood" is not a person and does not have a mood. However, the people that the HOA sends threatening letters to, sues, or forecloses upon do.
It's a pretty pitiful social experience you tout when membership is involuntary. You can have most of the things you are talking about with a voluntary organization. If it was such a great thing membership wouldn't be involuntary now would it?
As far as set back lines, building materials, etc. - all of those can be set in restrictive covenants WITHOUT an involuntary membership HOA. So again you haven't really justified the HOA. The ability to have "block parties" is not an rational excuse for giving an HOA authority to lien and foreclose on your home under the pretext of "community".
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
And don't even get me started on puppy mills, 18 wheelers or school buses or RVs parked on small lots, and trailers hauled into the back yard for additional family members - or rental property.
Not sure why an owner should not be permitted to rent out their property - and if you try to prohibit that it is only a matter of time before your organization will be involved in litigation. All the other items are routinely prohibited by restrictive covenants - but you don't have to have an HOA corporation. You may have been a real estate agent but you do not seem to understand the distinction between HOAs and restrictive covenants. You can have restrictive covenants without an HOA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
The agreement between the homeowner and the HOA.
Don't know what state you are in but the homeowner does not typically sign any such paper with the HOA because the HOA is not a party to the transaction. The homeowner is signing papers as between themselves, a seller, and possibly a lender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
So you say. (shrug) Hasn't been my experience nor have I heard any horror stories based in reality from anyone I've ever known anywhere, anytime.
Your former career as a real estate agent wasn't really conducive to full disclosure about HOAs or the conduct of HOAs in any event. It's rather difficult to avoid hearing about the complaints regarding HOAs all over the country particularly if you were in the business of selling such properties.
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.
