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.
As I commented earlier, there are people for whom living in an HOA and being cooperative with their neighbors doesn't work. I think your comments support that point.
You don't "live in an HOA". You might be an involuntary member of an HOA corporation but you don't live in one.
One doesn't need an "HOA" to be "cooperative" with neighbors.
One can have restrictive covenants without having an HOA.
Your comment is almost laughable. The people who aren't interested in being "cooperative" with neighbors tend to worm their way onto HOA boards. The whole purpose of an HOA corporation is to disenfranchise all the property owners, shift control away from them with respect to their own properties, and to shift financial liability onto them via the HOA corporation. How many other "non-profits" spend the bulk of their existence threatening its own involuntary members, filing suit against the involuntary members, and foreclosing on members' properties?
You have not been able to identify anything incorrect about the statements made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunedin1
We have many housing options, something for anyone.
Depends on what part of the country you are in. There are no feasible alternative besides HOA burdened properties in much of the country.
From reading your posts, there is no HOA at the present time I get the impression of the following. At the present time, there really is no one enforcing covenants. The bank officer that oversees the development, is in effect the president of the HOA and is the one enforcing any covenants. A property owner received permission from someone, for the fence. The bank president of the HOA did not object to building the fence which in effect approved the fence, which gives impression that the fence is allowed. The Bank's attorney apparently says leave this alone, indicating that the attorney does not see the bank has any say so, as to the legality of the fence and would probably lose in court.
When the residents take over the HOA, it is usually nearly impossible to go back and force the home owner to remove the fence, as the fence predates the HOA board.
From reading your posts, there is no HOA at the present time I get the impression of the following. At the present time, there really is no one enforcing covenants. The bank officer that oversees the development, is in effect the president of the HOA and is the one enforcing any covenants. A property owner received permission from someone, for the fence. The bank president of the HOA did not object to building the fence which in effect approved the fence, which gives impression that the fence is allowed. The Bank's attorney apparently says leave this alone, indicating that the attorney does not see the bank has any say so, as to the legality of the fence and would probably lose in court.
When the residents take over the HOA, it is usually nearly impossible to go back and force the home owner to remove the fence, as the fence predates the HOA board.
You can't have it both ways. Either there is one or there is not one.
Typically there is an architectural committee separate and apart from the HOA anyway. Without actually seeing the documents at issue all anyone can do is speculate.
I've read through the replies and thank you all for your contribution. As it stands now, this is a convoluted mess.
The bank foreclosed on this property 5 years ago, sans the only lot that was developed at the time. The covenants were in force at that time. It now appears that the covenants are no longer legally enforceable (per two attorney consults) because of the foreclosure, again, sans the one lot that wasn't foreclosed... the covenants still apply. As I understand at this point, the bank just adopted these non-binding covenants on paper with the builders based on handshakes. I would think that legally sketchy, to say the least.
The bank is consulting with their attorney and the attorney of the developer of phase 2-5 to essentially create covenants consistent for the development as a whole. Since phase 1 (my phase) has over 8 acres of green space that the bank no longer wants to be responsible for, I am trying to use that as leverage for them to foot the legal bill for doing so. If completed, I will be responsible for meeting with the phase 1 homeowners and adopting the covenants we desire for our neighborhood. At least this is how I've been advised to move forward.
As for the homeowner with the privacy fence.. I think I have negotiated a compromise with him, his neighbor and the builder. The builder is willing to pay for moving in the fence two panels on the right border in contact with the offended neighbor and planting shrubbery. At least part of his fencing will be within future covenants. I believe that we can grandfather him at that point or worse case, exclude his lot from the covenants. His lot will not contact with any other lots.
We still have no idea about transitioning/creating an HOA.
Since I have become the de facto leader of the headache, I have a lot to learn in a very short time.
BTW, I have made it clear that I will not support a Gestapo-type HOA. I want to maintain a nice neighborhood (approved fencing, mailboxes, common colors, etc.,) but I will not support much beyond the basics.
Typically, the way the Developer to Owner transition works is that until a majority of the units have been sold, the developer holds the voting rights on the unsold units. Neither the developer or the bank have legal control over the HOA or its rules and bylaws, if they are outvoted. Of course, until the owners represent a majority, that can be difficult to do.
The problem you are facing is that the developer and bank have a different set of priorities than the owners. They are only concerned about selling units, while the owners want to establish standards and guidelines for their development. With regard to the fence issue, there are probably two ways to approach this. One is to have the owner members of the board issue a letter to existing owners (and the developer) stating the standards you intend to enforce when the owners take control of the board. Invite the owners to submit recommendations and advise of any specifics you have already determined among existing owners. Two is to work with the bank and developer to get a handle on your concerns before they get out of control and you can no longer 'get the worms back in the can.' Keep in mind, an out-of-control development will make it more difficult for the developer/bank to sell units in your development - as will unhappy owners who can negatively influence new potential buyers.' (You can emphasize that point by having a group of owners start parking cars or boat trailers in their front yards. This will seem extreme at first, but, your objective (which needs to be understood by the owners) is to 'force' the bank an developer to vote to enforce existing bylaws.)
In summary, the 'trick' here is to understand what motivates the bank and developer --- an work on that ... in order to get them to work with the owners to establish and enforce meaningful standards. (It will be very difficult and time/legal intensive for the developer/bank to selectively enforce the parking by-laws, while ignoring the fence and/or other bylaws). In short, the developer/bank really don't care about the bylaws, unless it is in their best interest to care. The parking situation will make the area unattractive to potential buyers and show the developer/bank that it is in their best interest to care about establishing and enforcing meaningful bylaws. You may even find that threatening the parking scenario at a board meeting where the developer is present, will be sufficient.
Typically, the way the Developer to Owner transition works is that until a majority of the units have been sold, the developer holds the voting rights on the unsold units. Neither the developer or the bank have legal control over the HOA or its rules and bylaws, if they are outvoted. Of course, until the owners represent a majority, that can be difficult to do.
The problem you are facing is that the developer and bank have a different set of priorities than the owners. They are only concerned about selling units, while the owners want to establish standards and guidelines for their development. With regard to the fence issue, there are probably two ways to approach this. One is to have the owner members of the board issue a letter to existing owners (and the developer) stating the standards you intend to enforce when the owners take control of the board. Invite the owners to submit recommendations and advise of any specifics you have already determined among existing owners. Two is to work with the bank and developer to get a handle on your concerns before they get out of hand -- 'making it more difficult for them to sell units in your development.' (You might emphasize that point by having a group of owners start parking their cars or boat trailers in the front yard. This will seem extreme at first, but, your objective (which needs to be understood by the owners) is to 'force' the bank an developer to vote to enforce existing bylaws.)
In summary, the 'trick' here is to understand what motivates the bank and developer --- an work on that ... in order to get them to work with the owners in accomplishing their interests.
In essences, we are working towards a combination of One and Two. We are submitting a request this week about HOA transition/creation. Our subdivision will be managed eventually by two HOAs, one for phase 1 and one for phase 2-5, but it is the same subdivision. The bank sold phase 2-5 to one developer, but entered and agreement with two builders for phase 1. The phase 1 homeowners recognize that for the purposes of resale that we do not want a distinction between phases and we are agreeable to adapting phase 2-5 covenants, which we consider fair. The banks seem willing to move forward with having their attorney file amendments to the covenants as the homeowners are willing to sign off on them. The problem as it stands now is getting control of the HOA. The president in charge of the HOA is not even certain if there is an established HOA. It's as if phase 1 was developed by amateurs. The developer/builders certainly did not do their due diligence.
Just FYI, the bank owns 4 of the remaining 15 lots - the builders own the remaining 11.
Welcome to the world of "developer didn't turn over the HOA yet". Happened to me when I bought a new townhouse being developed by a large builder with a good reputation. Had rules/covenants that seemed pretty tight. What could go wrong?
Well, by the time he turned over the HOA to the resident Board, some people had "done their own thing" with decks, lattice under the decks, fences, etc. The developer had no interest in enforcing any of the rules while he was still trying to sell the remaining homes. Plus, the rules as written gave the Board no enforcement authority. It was quite a legal mess to get it straightened out.
After that experience, I would be VERY hesitant to buy into a development unless it was completed and being run efficiently by the resident Board.
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.
