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.
That was after they were attacked by the homeowners. Sure, at that point the Board was trying to get even and they stepped over the line. But it all started with the homeowners pushing the issue.
I'd never live in a community with an HOA, but I respect their right to enforce their rules.
You also apparently respect their right to make them up as they go along.
Have a problem with reasoning there? You said they did nothing wrong then mentioned what they did wrong??? They also agreed that they violated the rules.
So they started off by violating the rules, then in response to being notified ended up displaying another two signs in their yard which were basically the sign cut in half.
So by your admission, the Farrans complied with the absurd "rule" so that the board member could no longer complain. The HOA board member then decided to try to create "fining" authority so that he could impose his whim on folks that didn't bow to his command. His ego was so big he just could not handle having no further authority over their property. As a result, there is now additional case law precedent that the HOA management company and HOA attorney trade group (CAI) is no doubt concerned about. I don't think the industry hacks will try appealing this to the Virginia Supreme Court because the court might rule that "fining" by HOA corporations is unconstitutional similar to the high court's ruling in the Gilman case. If a CAI attorney and management company can't create "fines" out of thin air then it would be a severe reduction of income to the HOA attorneys and management companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yousah
The issue with HOA enforcement isn't that one person's action with a sign will lower property values, but with the problem of not enforcing rules so that numerous other residents do the same thing; and it grows out of control. You see it mentioned in the press all the time where the writer talks about how silly it is for an HOA to enforce their rules regarding some small detail. As soon as you let people violate the rules then others will argue that you are favoring that person and will end up having less respect for all the other rules.
Maybe the HOA corporation should have to prove that the "rule" had anything to do with property values at all. Your screen name should have been Chicken Little. If the rules are what got you here then what good are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yousah
Think about how well this could have turned out if the people with the sign would have gone to the HOA to petition to get the rules changed prior to violating them. If they had support from enough other owners then the rules could have been changed. They've obviously didn't have support from their neighbors so they pushed this thing so far as to create damages for everyone else. It's clearly a problem of two arrogant *^?%'s who only think about themselves.
Any alleged violation is moot given that the Farrans modified their sign to fit within the dictated size requirements. There is no dispute that the modified sign did not violate any "rule"
When you start trying to argue that social compact is replaced with legal contract then don't go complaining when the counterparty illustrates the perils of blind obedience. We are not herd animals and board members are not "leaders".
Instead of conceding the error of his ways, the board member tried creating "fining" authority for himself under the pretext of representing the HOA corporation. The board member sought to satiate his bruised ego using the HOA corporation to threaten financial harm to the Farrans. This is how all HOA boards work - not through "preserving" or "enhancing" property values but rather through threats of financial harm to targeted owners. The board also inexplicably refused to approve the Farrans' request to be able to improve their townhome with a deck - like many other townhome owners had already done.
The cost run up was due to an HOA board that was trying to command "respect" from homeowners and control over homeowners' properties through threats. This is also part of the board member psychology that Chicken Little adheres to: they can't possibly allow a homeowner to prevail lest it would lead to complete disrespect for the board members and their "rules". Guess what Chicken Little: the board earned disrespect that everyone else now has for it. Now all the other property owners have a problem because of the existence of the HOA corporation and the debt its board members foolishly racked up in search of "respect" and control.
Your claim that the Farrans didn't have support from the neighbors for amending rules is really quite irrelevant. They didn't need support or approval from neighbors to post their sign - particularly the modified sign. There is no debate that the modified sign was not in violation of any "rule". Using your faulty logic however one could just as easily come to a conclusion opposite yours: the neighbors didn't care as evidenced by the fact that none of the neighbors chose to be party to the litigation.
I didn't say that. But when you choose to fight with someone after violating their rules then don't expect them to fight fair.
You don't seem to have a firm grasp of the events sequence. They broke a rule, were told to comply with the rules, found a way to comply with the rules while still keeping their sign, and then fought the HOA board when they broke their own rules because it wounded their egos to be outsmarted.
This is how all HOA boards work - not through "preserving" or "enhancing" property values but rather through threats of financial harm to targeted owners.
"This is how I perceive all HOA boards work - not through "preserving" or "enhancing" property values but rather through threats of financial harm to targeted owners."
I didn't say that. But when you choose to fight with someone after violating their rules then don't expect them to fight fair.
Totally agree. Levying fines doesn't solve the problem, it just encourages scofflaws to continue making trouble. HOA's should be able to impose capital punishment for any violation, however slight or unintentional. THAT will solve the problem with rule breakers!
Was the Board enforcing the CC&Rs as written or were they making up rules as they went along? If they were enforcing the rules as written (and agreed to by every resident upon purchase in the community) then they were doing their jobs and nothing more. If they were making up rules to suit themselves, then the community should have removed them from their positions post haste.
An HOA Board doesn't have the option to enforce just the bylaws they personally agree with anymore than they can enforce rules that don't exist. To do either means they are not doing their jobs.
The board was enforcing written CC&Rs, the problem was, they were enforcing the rules on homes that were not properly annexed into the HOA.........ie, they had no jurisdiction for 20 years before they caught on.
The board was enforcing written CC&Rs, the problem was, they were enforcing the rules on homes that were not properly annexed into the HOA.........ie, they had no jurisdiction for 20 years before they caught on.
Then they were in the wrong plain and simple. If they were aware of their error and acting in good faith or not is another question.
That was after they were attacked by the homeowners. Sure, at that point the Board was trying to get even and they stepped over the line. But it all started with the homeowners pushing the issue.
I'd never live in a community with an HOA, but I respect their right to enforce their rules.
The board was trying to "get even" that exactly what happened. So lets not try and lay the blame anywhere else but where it belongs. The family broke a rule corrected their issue then the board had an ego more expensive than they could pay for. Too bad so sad.
We have a lot of power tripping in this country. HOAs seem to be the epitome of that, trying to control what my neighbors do with THEIR homes. The homes they bought and paid for with their own money. I so totally don't get that. If my neighbor wants to paint his house neon and build a fence made from car blocks I don't care because its his house. If I wanted to control that area then I should have bought it.
I remember when we started house hunting and found a house we loved in an HOA neighborhood. When the realtor explained we could only paint the front of the house approved colors I was beyond disbelief. I'd never heard of anything so screwy, your neighbors have to approve your house colors? Its my damn house. They can approve when they pony up for the mortgage.
This whole HOA thing befuddles me. Aren't we supposed to be embracing diversity instead of conformity?
And as for the article in question, the homeowners won the lawsuit, obviously the HOA was wrong.
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.
