Non-HOA to HOA neighborhood? (fees, lawsuit, properties, escrow)

[garth]

The recent HOA thread got me thinking about something that you guys might know about, from your knowledge of the industry and industry trends. One of the posts mentioned something about an HOA being created in a previous non-HOA neighborhood. I don't know if it's true or not.

Here's the situation.

I have a home in a new subdivision. There are common CCRs in place on each and every lot. There was a CCR document signed and obtained at each escrow but it had no HOA or fees associated with them. If enforcement were needed to correct a violation, a homeowner or multiple homeowers would need to initiate appropriate actions on their own.

The community has two parks, one with a duck pond. It also has paseos in place. However, these are town facilities that are owned and maintained by the town. They are not owned or maintained by the subdivision, so there are no common properties.

I've read through the CCRs about the creation of an HOA and establishement of any fees. The document is silent on the issue. It just speaks to things like parking, vehicles allowed in the subdivision, noise, etc. They're all sections that seem to parallel goverment codes and laws.

So, has anyone ever heard of an HOA being created in a subdivision that had restrictions on the properties but previously didn't have an HOA or community fees to enforce the CCRs? If this has happened, did it require participation of all properties in the neighborhood or were people able to opt out of the HOA when it was formed since it was not part of their original purchase?

I'm not overly concerned about one forming. However, the statement in the other thread got me thinking, especially since I recently had a little discussion with one of the neighbors. We were talking and they seemed to be broaching the issue of an HOA creation. It seemed the were testing the waters to see if I was of their mindset and willing to shake the trees with them.

I don't know where the neighbor got the idea that it was possible to form one, or if they were misinformed, but I set them straight. I explained that if such thing was possible, I wouldn't be silent in opposition.

So again, have you ever heard of such a thing happening?

[tcs1366]

When i look at our little community [62 single family homes] one of the main reasons we have a HOA is because of the common grounds that the village does not want to deal with... plus we have a tiny [0.44ac] piece of land that is wetlands.

so, we have to have one ... where the dues covers the maintenance of the common areas and the wet lands.

if we did not have either ... we would not need a HOA.
we are not, however restrictive.

most everything is 'blanketed' by the village [noise abatement, over night parking, etc]
we have a fence restriction, and really the only other one i could find was, no farm animals. as for the fence.... they are just not allowed past the rear of the home, "to keep an open feel" so the builder says.

If your subdivision created a HOA, what would the dues be used for?

I personally have never heard of it... my mom's old development actually had theirs dissolved due to lack of involvement [no one wanted to serve on the board anymore] ... but creating one... not in my area.... though we do not have a lot of newer developments.

[olecapt]

I don't believe it is possible in Nevada or most places Garth without unanimous approval. There are apparently some very odd regualtion in TX I believe where a majority of owners in a subdivision were able to create an HOA. There are also some weird places where different people have different CC&Rs. And I believe there are some famous early HOAs where the CC&Rs were carelessly drawn and led to havoc years laters.

The Center for HOA horror stories is AHRC....

Homeowners Associations: News

Note however they are not into fair and balanced.

[garth]

Thanks guys. That's good news. I thought it didn't sound quite right to me.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by garth

Thanks guys. That's good news. I thought it didn't sound quite right to me.

In many states there are variants of legislation referred to as "UPCA" (Uniform Planned Community Act) or UCIOA (Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act) that in fact seek to retroactively impose mandatory HOAs on people that never agreed to them. Here's a link to a very well done link about the Armstrong case in North Carolina.
Anatomy of a Lawsuit

Industry players (primarily the Community Associations Institute) have been promulgating legislation each and every year to erode the number of votes required to impose greater restrictions, the verification of any such votes, and to eliminate any limit on the type of restrictions that may be imposed. Generally when you examine the stated objective of their bills, the effect is usually quite the opposite or "undisclosed".

For example, an amendment may be made to burden your lot with membership in a mandatory HOA without your consent. The "proof" that you agreed would be a recorded statement by an "organizer" that a majority of the property owners agreed. No identification of the owners, no proof that the owners were notified or even participated, merely a proclamation by an organizer. It goes downhill from there as you might imagine.

The tactics referred to in the Armstrong case are very typical of what is going on in state after state. I think your earlier posts in other threads indicate your knowledge of how these mandatory HOAs tend to prey upon the members rather than benefit them.

The only way you are safe in Texas is to find property that is not subject to any restrictions or that is not part of a number of properties subject to the same restrictions. The mere existence of a common set of restrictions enables a tightening of the noose.

One writer mentioned a situation in Texas. At present, there is a Property Code provision (promulgated by the industry folks of course) that enables a small number of people (you know the ones that want to be in control in the first place) to impose a mandatory HOA on their neighbors subject to the same CCRs. At present, this despotic piece of legislation is geographically limited to Harris County. The industry folks would like to remove the geographic bracket such that it applies to the entire state and continue to pursue legislation such as TUPCA to accomplish that objective. Despotism is extremely profitable.

I do not know about the current state of law/legislation in your state. However, you might check with the host of "On the Commons" in your area of the country. She has been warning of the dangers of mandatory HOAs and what CAI has been doing for several years.
Home - onthecommons.us