Posted on 10/22/2009 5:38:34 PM PDT by JoeProBono
PINELLAS PARK, Fla.- A Florida couple said the homeowners association of their retirement community is trying to evict their 6-year-old granddaughter.
Jimmy and Judie Stottler of Pinellas Park said their granddaughter, Kimberly, came to live with them as an infant when authorities took her away from her drug-abusing mother, WSTP-TV, St. Petersburg, Fla., reported Thursday. The girl has stayed with her grandparents in the retirement community since, even though the community's rules don't allow children.
The couple said the homeowners association is now pressuring them to comply with the ban on children, but they are unable to move because they can't find a buyer for their house, said Robert Eckard, an attorney representing the family free of charge.
"If they sell the home, they can move; if not, they're homeless on the street," he said.
The Stottlers said they fear Kimberly may be put in foster care if they can't sell their house. Eckard said the final decision on whether the child can stay will be up to a judge.
If it’s such a great deal, why don’t you trust that your neighbor will join even if he isn’t forced to? I mean, he wouldn’t want to miss out on that great deal, would he?
Totally voluntary.
This is not about control. It is a mutual agreement advantageous to both sides.
I believe that the 'unhappy authoritarians' are elected from and by the homeowners to enforce the association rules.
Rug rats don’t belong in a senior community.
I suspect that most buy there BECAUSE they WANT those HOA restrictions.
Then I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to give them that choice, would it?
That’s what I was thinking. I expect they’ll win if this ends up in court. The association allowed the child to live here for years, and a court will likely find it has lost the right to enforce the rule against her, unless it had some formal written agreement with the grandparents stipulating that by allowing her to live there due to extenuating circumstances, the association was not giving up its right to revoke the exception at any time in the future. A Florida court is going to want to see an exceptionally compelling reason for the timing of this sudden zeal for enforcing the no-children rule.
I suspect the “more to the story” may be that other residents of the association are wanting to take in younger family members who’ve lost their homes and/or rent to people who don’t meet the age requirement because they can’t make the payments anymore or sell the home in this market. Some of these residents may be trying to use the presence of the 6 year old to prevent the association from enforcing the age rules on anyone else, claiming discriminatory treatment. But a court is unlikely to accept this as a reason for evicting the 6 year old, if there’s really no other option than foster care.
Not exactly. In some states (including my home state of Pennsylvania), the law permits a supermajority of homeowners in an area with no homeowners association to form one and force the dissenting minority to join and abide by the association's rules. People should fight like hell if they ever find themselves being dragged into a homeowners association.
I can understand this part. WhoTF in their right mind would want to live around a bunch of anally retentive fu--s who agree to have another anally retentive fu-- telling them all what to do with their own property?
Hmmm. You say you hate new laws but in the same sentence support a new law!
It may be that the grandparent’s guardianship has moved from “temporary” to “permanent” status due to the mother’s inability to comply with DHS requirements to regain custody. Or the mother has voluntarily relinquished all parental rights.
The HOA may have granted a temporary exemption based on the temporary guardianship, but now that it’s become permanent, they’ve decided to act.
Hows this...HOA’s suck. The people who live in those communities suck and they elect other people who suck to tell all the people who suck what to do.....with their own property....which sucks. Sounds like a match made in heaven to me.
They may well have been laboring under the auspices of one of the insane family courts, that keeps refusing to permanently terminate parental rights, and constantly giving the druggie mother a route to getting the child back (e.g. “If you complete this 6 month drug rehab program, you can have her back”, repeated over and over again no matter how many times the druggie mother flunks out of rehab and relapses). The grandparents may reasonably have feared selling their home at a loss, buying another one they didn’t like as much for themselves, and then losing the little girl to her druggie mother again a couple of months later.
There may very well be a rule that bars the renting of one's condo.
They had the choice. That is why they are there.
They could have sold 18 months ago when the market was hot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.