News: Non beige house found in Cary (Harmony, McDonald: purchase, live in)

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by VickiR

Scorp, I don't know you but I'm visualizing you meeting a guy for the first time and the first question being "So...do you have an HOA in your neighborhood?"!!!

Thanks for the morning laugh!

Vicki

LOL

Don't eHarmony and Match.com have "HOA or No HOA" in their first 5 questions?

[zenogy]

I'll tell you what, I live in an older neighborhood in Cary, and it has no HOA. My wife and I are first time home buyers, and personally, I would think twice about this type of living again. We are having some "issues" with junked cars in yards. It's keeping families out that would otherwise consider moving in. I'm considering research into "amending" our very old covenants to correct this issue. I'm sure it won't be easy.

I've read and talked to quite a few people about HOA's, and most people seem pleased with this type of arrangement.

Now, on a side note, most of our property problems are with renters in the neighborhood. The town of cary could serve it 's residents well if they forced landlords to maintain their properties relative to the rest of the neighborhood. I personally think that rental properties should have paid lawn services implemented if landlords are continually fined for un-kept lawns or other infractions.

I can get out there and talk to a home owner and say, "hey man, I can help you take care of this or that if you want." But a tenant? Man, they don't care, and it shows.

[geoff2v]

Originally Posted by zenogy

I'll tell you what, I live in an older neighborhood in Cary, and it has no HOA. My wife and I are first time home buyers, and personally, I would think twice about this type of living again. We are having some "issues" with junked cars in yards. It's keeping families out that would otherwise consider moving in. I'm considering research into "amending" our very old covenants to correct this issue. I'm sure it won't be easy.

I've read and talked to quite a few people about HOA's, and most people seem pleased with this type of arrangement.

Now, on a side note, most of our property problems are with renters in the neighborhood. The town of cary could serve it 's residents well if they forced landlords to maintain their properties relative to the rest of the neighborhood. I personally think that rental properties should have paid lawn services implemented if landlords are continually fined for un-kept lawns or other infractions.

I can get out there and talk to a home owner and say, "hey man, I can help you take care of this or that if you want." But a tenant? Man, they don't care, and it shows.

I've seen several people state that the big problem is with neighbors who don't keep up their property, and multiple specific references to junked/inoperable cars and the like, oftentimes parked on grass. But, you know, it is possible to pass laws preventing the parking of cars on non-pavement, and forbidding persons from parking inoperable vehicles in plain sight. See, for example, the town (city?) of Gilbert, Arizona and Mosel, Wisconsin and Mount Olive and Morrisville, NC. I don't see that that would be such a controversial thing to do.

As for the covenants, I am a lawyer but not an expert on this area, but I will say that generally speaking unless everyone agrees you can't change the covenants to make them more restrictive unless everyone agrees, and maybe not even then. I forget the details, but they may even need to have been made by the original owner who divided the property and imposed the covenants.

[VickiR]

If the covenants CAN be modified, that is covered in the covenants!

Vicki

[MikeJaquish]

Originally Posted by geoff2v

I've seen several people state that the big problem is with neighbors who don't keep up their property, and multiple specific references to junked/inoperable cars and the like, oftentimes parked on grass. But, you know, it is possible to pass laws preventing the parking of cars on non-pavement, and forbidding persons from parking inoperable vehicles in plain sight. See, for example, the town (city?) of Gilbert, Arizona and Mosel, Wisconsin and Mount Olive and Morrisville, NC. I don't see that that would be such a controversial thing to do.

As for the covenants, I am a lawyer but not an expert on this area, but I will say that generally speaking unless everyone agrees you can't change the covenants to make them more restrictive unless everyone agrees, and maybe not even then. I forget the details, but they may even need to have been made by the original owner who divided the property and imposed the covenants.

Could neighbors create a covenant agreement for their own properties, form an association voluntarily, and record those agreement documents as appurtenant to their properties?
With the provision that other owners could voluntarily annex into the restrictions and association?

Just out of curiosity, not as if I am recommending it...

Lots of old subdivisions have covenants in place that have expired, unless extended. Many can be substantially amended by a vote of the owners.
My subdivision covenants offer the opportunity for owners to form an association, and also may be voted into oblivion in 6 or 7 years. They won't expire per se, but

Where's MikeHeel when we need him?
Probably studying the covenants for his new place.

[RaleighBoundGeek]

Originally Posted by VickiR

I believe that everyone has the right to live life as they choose, as long as they do not break laws or harm anyone else. I realize it is Monday but lighten up...its a beautiful day in the neighborhood....

Vicki

Oh I'm plenty light on a Monday, thanks for asking...

I'd tend to agree with the freedom of choice, but I just don't understand why there have to rules or laws on the book to restrict said choice. If it were simply a matter of preference, then there wouldn't be a need to have laws essentially requiring HOA's on most anything new built.

I'm not sure I'd equate preference with lack of choice. The builders don't get a choice, so the consumer ultimately doesn't get a choice. If you happen to be lucky enough to play in that financial range where you can go out and find your own lot, contract a custom builder, and do it on your own, THEN you get a choice. Otherwise - you take what you can get.

[VickiR]

Originally Posted by RaleighBoundGeek

Oh I'm plenty light on a Monday, thanks for asking...

I'd tend to agree with the freedom of choice, but I just don't understand why there have to rules or laws on the book to restrict said choice. If it were simply a matter of preference, then there wouldn't be a need to have laws essentially requiring HOA's on most anything new built.

I'm not sure I'd equate preference with lack of choice. The builders don't get a choice, so the consumer ultimately doesn't get a choice. If you happen to be lucky enough to play in that financial range where you can go out and find your own lot, contract a custom builder, and do it on your own, THEN you get a choice. Otherwise - you take what you can get.

Rules always come into the picture when someone does something that bothers the vast majority or when someone brings a lawsuit against someone.

Look at the example of the McDonalds' coffee. Do you think most people just assume that coffee is hot? Of course. However, it only takes ONE PERSON to bring about the change...now McDonalds has to disclose on the coffee cup that the coffee is hot.

The NC "Offer to Purchase and Contract" changes quite often. Why? Because someone does something to bring about the change by either not liking the way something is done or by someone who does something that has a negative effect.

People are people. Our views are different and our perceptions are different. why is there a law that states you can't carry a handgun without a permit? Because someone did something.

Vicki

[geoff2v]

Originally Posted by VickiR

If the covenants CAN be modified, that is covered in the covenants!

Vicki

It may be. I'm just regurgitating what I remember from preparing -- twice! -- for the bar exam; that's about the extent of my knowledge of covenants.

[geoff2v]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

Could neighbors create a covenant agreement for their own properties, form an association voluntarily, and record those agreement documents as appurtenant to their properties?
With the provision that other owners could voluntarily annex into the restrictions and association?

Just out of curiosity, not as if I am recommending it...

Lots of old subdivisions have covenants in place that have expired, unless extended. Many can be substantially amended by a vote of the owners.
My subdivision covenants offer the opportunity for owners to form an association, and also may be voted into oblivion in 6 or 7 years. They won't expire per se, but

Where's MikeHeel when we need him?
Probably studying the covenants for his new place.

The basic rule, which I found in a recent NC appeals court decision, is as follows:

A covenant is a real covenant only if:
(1) the subject of the covenant touches and concerns the land, (2) there is privity of estate between the party enforcing the covenant and the party against whom the covenant is being enforced, and (3) the original covenanting parties intended the benefits and the burdens of the covenant to run with the land.

The phrase "privity" means a legal relationship between the estates. As the court says --

In North Carolina, “a party seeking to enforce a covenant as one running with the land at law must show the presence of both horizontal and vertical privity.” Id. at 303, 416 S.E.2d at 184. Horizontal privity only requires that the “party seeking to enforce the covenant show . . . some 'connection of interest' between the original covenanting parties[.]” Id. at 303, 416 S.E.2d at 184-85. Vertical privity, on the other hand, “requires a showing of succession in interest between the original covenanting parties and the current owners of the dominant and servient estates."

Translating into English, generally, if you have two separately owned pieces of property, you can't create new covenants that attach to the real property and bind future owners of the property.

[saturnfan]

I think people just need to learn to mind their own business.

City ordinances should forbid threats to health and safety.

Otherwise, if you don't like your neiighbor's lawn or paint or mailbox, don't look at it.