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.
According to one of the old articles I read about them, the grandmother inherited the house and agreed to sign a document stating she understood the rules before she took possession. I don't think the HOA would have allowed her to live there had she not done so. But then it seemed she moved her troubled daughter in soon after to help her. I wonder if that was a violation of the rules too; three adults with one under the age limit.
I would love to hear the HOA's side but they are stating that this belongs in court and they don't seem to want to discuss it with the press other than the head of the association simply stating he was only trying to enforce the rules agreed upon by all the tenants. I see where so many people are calling it "The Evil HOA" but what they are not taking into consideration is that this is a retirement community with age limits put in place for a reason.
I bought a small bungalow in a 55+ community specifically to avoid children.
There is another subdivision with similar houses about a mile away that does accept children. It never occurred to me to move there and start complaining to the HOA about the children.
I lived in a communtiy in Arizona where that happened. The parents were killed and the grandparents took the grandchildren in. Just as soon as the school bus started picking them up the complaints started. These were $500K houses and they had to sell and move out. I wasn't far behind them. It isn't that I want my grandchildren full time, it is that I want the choice.
Age-restricted communities are allowed to do so only on the condition that they abide by specific federal laws regarding such, or they will be in violation of Fair Housing Laws. Because of that, the HOA in this case really has no choice but to enforce the rules that are written with those federal laws firmly in mind regarding age of residents.
I'm not a fan of HOA's, though I know that they are perfect for some folks ("not a fan" in that I wouldn't choose to live in one myself, not that I don't think some people can be perfectly happy in them), and I think they are all too liable to the "power mad" type of board member getting elected, but in this case, given the type of community and the legal requirements they are operating under, I have to side with the HOA. They have to obey the law.
...but in this case, given the type of community and the legal requirements they are operating under, I have to side with the HOA. They have to obey the law.
While it goes without saying that they have to obey the law, there is no provision in the law that would prohibit the child from living there. I am not saying that I am siding with the family (for I definitely am not!); I am merely pointing out that neither federal nor state housing law mandates that the child leave.
I believe that the reason the HOA doesn't want the child there is that if they make an exception to their bylaws in this case, they will have no basis to exclude other residents who want their grandchildren to live with them. They could then end up with a series of lawsuits, each of which would point to the original decision to allow a child to live in the community.
Actually, Fair Housing laws DO mandate that an age-restricted retirement community restrict the age of the residents to those over a certain age (or, at least, a required percentage of them - exceptions are usually where one spouse is over the age limit and the other spouse is slightly under it).
I agree that setting a precedent would be part of the reason that the HOA does not want to make an exception in this place. They could find themselves in court constantly until the community is destroyed.
Actually, Fair Housing laws DO mandate that an age-restricted retirement community restrict the age of the residents to those over a certain age (or, at least, a required percentage of them - exceptions are usually where one spouse is over the age limit and the other spouse is slightly under it).
I agree that setting a precedent would be part of the reason that the HOA does not want to make an exception in this place. They could find themselves in court constantly until the community is destroyed.
At least 80% of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older and no one under the age of 18 years of age shall permanently occupy the unit.
Actually, Fair Housing laws DO mandate that an age-restricted retirement community restrict the age of the residents to those over a certain age (or, at least, a required percentage of them - exceptions are usually where one spouse is over the age limit and the other spouse is slightly under it).
Exactly. Which is why it would not be against the law for the child to stay.
You obviously missed Greatday's addition (repeated here so you'll be sure to see it):
"At least 80% of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older and no one under the age of 18 years of age shall permanently occupy the unit.
Federal Fair Housing Act - HOPA"
Note that last part.
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.
