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.
Ultra is correct, with any Fannie Mae backed loan, the owner occupancy rate must be 51% I believe. We have been having quite a time with that here since the majority of condos here are rentals, either long term or vacation.
Those aren't strict requirements. The lender can receive a waiver from Fannie Mae, which mostly have to do with whether the condo is solvent and has adequate amount of reserves. My condo had 70% renters because it is an older unit in a neighborhood that gentrified. The original owners mostly left but kept their units as rentals because the rents greatly exceeded their mortgage costs. Every new buyer has been able to get a waiver because the reserves are greatly in excess than what is required.
As for the condo- no renting provision. I'd consult with a real estate lawyer that has experience with condo issues on your state's condo laws. The no rental provisions can seriously affect the marketability of owners, so some states have laws to protect owners. For example, a state may grandfather a no rental provision for you, but not to whoever you sell it to, if you voted no for the proposal. Also, there may be very specific procedural requirements to make sure the vote was fair and all owners had the requisite information to make an informed decision. If the HOA didn't follow the rules exactly, the vote may not be valid.
This stuff is very state specific, so you want to get local expertise.
Those aren't strict requirements. The lender can receive a waiver from Fannie Mae, which mostly have to do with whether the condo is solvent and has adequate amount of reserves. My condo had 70% renters because it is an older unit in a neighborhood that gentrified. The original owners mostly left but kept their units as rentals because the rents greatly exceeded their mortgage costs. Every new buyer has been able to get a waiver because the reserves are greatly in excess than what is required.
As for the condo- no renting provision. I'd consult with a real estate lawyer that has experience with condo issues on your state's condo laws. The no rental provisions can seriously affect the marketability of owners, so some states have laws to protect owners. For example, a state may grandfather a no rental provision for you, but not to whoever you sell it to, if you voted no for the proposal. Also, there may be very specific procedural requirements to make sure the vote was fair and all owners had the requisite information to make an informed decision. If the HOA didn't follow the rules exactly, the vote may not be valid.
This stuff is very state specific, so you want to get local expertise.
Good luck with fighting a HOA.
One person in our area did it and won! Great but it took 11 years and in the end all the home owners have to pay for the money spend in court...so no real winners.
Fighting a $2,212 bill for lawn resodding from their homeowner association seemed, to a Florida couple, like the thing to do.
But that was more than a decade ago, and it remains to be seen whether Ed and Billye Simmons, who have prevailed in their court case after 11 years of litigation, will get anything close to the $220,000 in attorney's fees and costs he tells the Tampa Bay Times they spent on the legal battle.
Last week, a state-court judge in Hillsborough County held that the Pebble Creek Homeowners Association didn't follow its own governing documents when charging the couple for the lawn work and, eventually, liening their property.
------click on the link to read the entire article.
We had to get a waiver from Fannie Mae because the number of condos being rented out, combined with the remaining apartments that were never converted, exceeded their requirements. It was a big hassle on top of buying a foreclosure. If that is the reasoning behind the association taking this to vote, I can kind of understand, but the Oct 31st requirement makes no sense. So as long as you rent to someone, with no requirements, before that date, your unit can be a rental forever? Or is the only thing being grandfathered in the current lease on the property?
Not legal to enforce that amendment per Florida Statute 718.110(13)
The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XL
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
Chapter 718
CONDOMINIUMS
718.110 Amendment of declaration; correction of error or omission in declaration by circuit court.—
(13) An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.
Title XL
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
Chapter 718
CONDOMINIUMS
718.110 Amendment of declaration; correction of error or omission in declaration by circuit court.—
(13) An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.
Title XL
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
Chapter 718
CONDOMINIUMS
718.110 Amendment of declaration; correction of error or omission in declaration by circuit court.—
(13) An amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.
Not true. I live in Florida and there many, many HOAs going this route.
It IS true. The statute quoted above is, in fact, a statute (law). It is not negated (made untrue) by whether there are any or many HOAs amending their CC&As. The law still applies.
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.
Not legal to enforce that amendment per Florida Statute 718.110(13)
