HOA Nazis are busy here! (real estate, foreclosure, renter)

[Californianz]

I got the following cryptic email today -

"Dear Neighbors,
We do not know who's idea it was or why it was initiated to add an amendment prohibiting rentals….. (etc)"

Apparently someone in the 'hood thinks rental houses should be against the law, according to them - and have initiated some kind of proposal to outlaw property occupation by anyone other than home owners.

1. We don't care one way or the other and are never intending to rent
2. We appreciate the sentiment to keep the area nice, but this is loaded with prejudice IMHO

This can't be legal can it? Especially trying to do it retroactively on people who do not want it and purchased their homes with no such restrictions?

I just thought this was a very strange proposal. If a petition is brought forward we'll be saying no.

[beninfl]

Homeowners can change their HOA bylaws.

"According to MSN Real Estate, an estimated 40 percent of communities governed by HOAs impose restrictions to keep homeowners from becoming landlords. Some bylaws only allow the homeowner to lease the home if it is due to a hardship. The CC&Rs may not define what constitutes a hardship, which means the HOA can use any reasonable criteria. You may need to prove your case to the board before permission is granted."

[Cardiff by the Sea]

If a complex has more than 50% renters, you can't get an FHA loan.

Our condo building in LA has 9 units and 2 are rented. At last years HOA we discussed it to preserve our property values, and were in favor of limiting the number of units that could be rented to 3, with all having an equal opportunity to rent (one person couldn't hoard it). A closer reading of the CCRs said we would all be grandfathered n. If we we are all grandfathered in, there was no point in changing the rules.

[imagardener]

This can't be legal can it? Especially trying to do it retroactively on people who do not want it and purchased their homes with no such restrictions?

No it's not legal to create new deed restrictions on homeowners that were not there when they purchased their property. But many HOA uninformed boards think they can do anything they want to and then it's up to homeowners to hire an attorney to tell them they are wrong.

And even IF there is a mention in the documents about restricting rentals IF these rentals have been going on and not prevented for several years then rentals are now legal (the legal term to look up is "laches").

I'm not a lawyer but served on several idiot HOA boards for years before buying a non-HOA SFH because I will never live in an HOA community again.

[Trebruchet]

"No it's not legal to create new deed restrictions on homeowners that were not there when they purchased their property."

You got a source for that?

[Californianz]

Interesting discussion - I could see grandfathering exemptions in the amendment so it would only apply to new purchases - people would then know up front such a rule was in place. Although in our case we were never even given any HOA rules before buying - partially because we bought directly from the original owner through an attorney. The "rules" were delivered to us 6 weeks after the purchase, by a thinly veiled "welcoming committee" and a bottle of wine. It's always made me wonder if we never knew the rules up front prior to purchase, if we were obligated to comply with them, or what liability lies with the seller for not disclosing them? Not that we are doing anything stupid - it's just a theoretical question!

FWIW the house we bought was last rented - (we had to wait 6+ months for the renter to get out) - so there's already a precedent for renting houses in here and I'm sure ours is not the only one - this is tourist central and a major part of the economy depends on it. As far as hardship exemptions - there are many circumstances people might encounter to require renting. This community was not hit with speculators, like so many others coming out of the real estate crash - so it's not something that's even really an issue. Why someone is pushing for this is a bit baffling.

[cully]

I understand there is not a requirement in Fl to provide the actual documents but rather to provide a statement that this is an hoa with regulations and assessments.

If you bought in a sort of foreclosure/pre-foreclosure deal...not sure about Fl but in some places the as-is, where-is idea of such properties extends to no disclosure packets required. Disclosure packets can include good info such as lawsuits against the hoa corporation, quality of reserves vis a vis community expenses, etc.

[bbronston]

I've seen condominium associations (not the same as HOAs) make changes relating to rentals that affected everyone, and I've seen condos make changes that only applied to those who purchased after the effective date of the change. I'm unclear as to why that happens but both exist. In Florida, a buyer of a condo resale has 3 days after receipt to review all the docs and financials for the condo and can back out if there's anything they don't like as long as they notify the seller in writing within the 3 day period.

For an HOA, the only requirement (as has been noted) is to inform the buyer that the property is part of the HOA. However, it is a buyer's responsibility to do their due diligence. Many HOA docs can be found online at the clerk of the court website and, if not available there, they can be obtained elsewhere.

Since there are many homes in the HOA currently being rented, it seems unlikely that there would be enough support to get anything through the process.

[imagardener]

Originally Posted by Trebruchet

"No it's not legal to create new deed restrictions on homeowners that were not there when they purchased their property."

You got a source for that?

It depends on the documents of the particular HOA you are in. To make legal changes to deed restrictions requires different %'s of homeowners to approve changes, you need to read your own documents. The documents of the HOA I was in required 2/3'ds affirmative vote from all homeowners for the changes that the board wanted to make. That is not 2/3's of all votes cast, rather 2/3'ds affirmative votes of all property owners. So not casting a vote meant keeping the status quo.

It is very, very hard to make legal changes to deed restrictions after the fact and many times the changes will only affect new property owners. That is not to say some HOA's don't try, they surely do, with or without legal counsel.

[cully]

Californianz, keep updating on this. I wonder what those against renting plan to do about the leases already on properties. If it's in the CC&Rs that there be no rentals it could be while there are rentals now, someone wants to begin enforcement.

Some communities have their CC&Rs and bylaws and even meeting minutes online on their website. You could check there from your chair.