Posted on 10/23/2009 8:53:41 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
“I thought they had lived there since the child was an infant (pre-2007). If that’s correct, then it seems the “reasonable” solution from the perspective of the other tenants (a.k.a. HOA) has already been tried. Someone will buy the house if the price reduces enough. It may not be what they want, but it will be sold. As to the question of the HOA “setting the price”, I don’t know if that is legal.”
They have lived there since the child was an infant. the house has been for sale since 07. Since it hasn’t sold yet should they just keep reducing the price until it sells, and what should be done until then.
That’s my question. I’ve seen all the “The Rules Must Be Enforced” posts, but the reality of the situation is that the house hasn’t sold yet, and according to the story they can’t afford to move until it does. So should they be evicted from their property.
sorry but as soon as you wrote “four” when you meant “for” i stopped reading. just a pet peeve. it was tiresome anyway.
should they just keep reducing the price until it sells, and what should be done until then. That’s my question. I’ve seen all the “The Rules Must Be Enforced” posts, but the reality of the situation is that the house hasn’t sold yet, and according to the story they can’t afford to move until it does. So should they be evicted from their property.
They're in a position not unlike thousands of people are in all across the country, insofar as selling goes. So yes, I say do whatever you have to do to sell, price-wise.
Forgive me for not knowing, but did they take any steps to have their HOA bylaws amended; i.e., did they petition the community during these years they were in violation, etc.? Let's not forget that HOA rules are, after all, subject to the votes of the communities that elect them.
People that stop reading after a typo are not very bright. You'd be amazed how many good papers of Harvard and Standford professors contain typos. If I stopped reading them, it would be my loss, not theirs. You too are robbing only yourself.
I guess your school teachers succeeded in convincing you that intelligence and education amount to proper spelling. They should be really proud.
" it was tiresome anyway."
Yeh, keep admiring your image in the mirror.
When throwing pearls, I did not know I was talking to a childish swine. My bad indeed.
Unless I make a mistake, you'll be waiting for a long time to hear from me again.
It's nice to hear that from a conservative.
So, when performing my duty to the family in supplying them we food, it's OK to rob a grocery store? Probably not: I should exercise my duty to the family while also exercising a citizen's duty to obey the law.
And you call this BS? Did you even think before writing?
With conservatives being so "moral," it's no wonder the Left is winning.
“Forgive me for not knowing, but did they take any steps to have their HOA bylaws amended; i.e., did they petition the community during these years they were in violation, etc.? Let’s not forget that HOA rules are, after all, subject to the votes of the communities that elect them.”
I have no idea. I know what the article said and it didn’t mention any rule change petitions. The grandmother did agree in writing to have this settled last year. She said her daughter was supposed to take custody again but then ran off.
“They’re in a position not unlike thousands of people are in all across the country, insofar as selling goes. So yes, I say do whatever you have to do to sell, price-wise”
Their position is a bit different. They didn’t knowingly buy a house they couldn’t afford. The article states they didn’t buy this house so the argument of “they should have thought of this before they bought it” doesn’t really apply. While the story doesn’t mention it, I’m sure the pay property taxes on the house. I’m not sure how taxes are applied to inherited real estate. I think selling their house is the solution, but until they sell it they should be left alone. As far as reducing the price again, that should be considered while at the same time they shouldn’t be forced to “give” their house away.
The original contract, signed by whoever left the house to them, would typically have a rider that stipulates it is binding on any successors, whether through sale or inheritance. Otherwise, the contract would bind only the initial buyer, and any subsequent one would be free of obligation.
Do you ever think before replying?
You sure read into my little reply a lot that wasn't there...there are course's in reading comprehension out there in the world...HOA rules are not laws....and some have been challenged in the courts and HOA have lost...some people like being little dictators....,p. This situation was court ordered...let the dictators buy the house if they are so pi$$ed off...at the price they deem acceptable so as to not lower their property values...
My responsibility is certainly to my family before people I don't know....what a ditsy answer you wrote.
Since you have a comprehension problem, I called your answer ditsy, not you so don't get too insulted, it wasn't personal
Minor point, the quote is “complained” not “prevented” from selling it below market. They are free to sell it at whatever price they choose. That there has been only one showing in a year says that it is set at too high a price now.
Not really, there is generally dormant language in the CC&R document that allows for one, but has never been set up. Eventually one of the covered parties sees it and leads the charge. I can not recall a situation where and older neighborhood without CC&Rs created an HOA and forced membership.
So, the kid has lived there for at least 5 and a half years, but NOW it’s a problem? And your response is “Rules are rules?” The indignation isn’t faux, it’s directed at people like you who are unable to see the fact that the problem here is with the old farts who look for somebody breaking a RULE so that they can get their jollies by getting them in trouble; people who aren’t happy unless they are being a pain in someone’s ass. HOA boards are filled petty, power-hungry people who enjoy sticking their nose into everyone else’s crap trying to find a violation. Sounds like something right up your alley.
Cute kid.
According to Federal Law, 80% of the community (any community) must be older than the set age (be it 55, 60, 65 etc) for them to qualify as an Adult Only community and be able to reap the benefits from that. Benefits would be things such as not allowing minor children to reside there, declaring certain areas off limits to minors such as a clubhouse or pool, etc. And of course, any legal or financial benefits that come from living there (lower school taxes, for one.
They cannot, however, restrict anyone from age 18-59 from living there IF they really wanted to. I remember our salesmen being very careful to let people know the ‘80%” law. They had to keep the 55+ number at 80% but they couldn’t stop an adult child from residing with his/parents or keep him from buying his own unit if he so desired, as long as that 80% held.
If it's true they didn't buy the house, I guess I see this as having their cake and eating it too. They want the benefits with none of the responsibilities...?
Bottom line for me: If they moved into the community -- as original buyers or inheritors or what have you -- with knowledge of the "no minors" rule, I don't think they have a case. Again, how many people nationwide are "giving" their houses away in this market? Plenty. No one wants to take a loss on a house, but these days it's not uncommon. These folks are no different just because they have a cute granddaugher.
Let me turn it around and ask you: Should they be allowed to "break" the rules indefinitely? If not, for how much (longer)? What about other residents in the community with situations that could be similar? Should the HOA just say "okay, anything goes" and everyone's grandchildren come to live in an "adults only" neighborhood?
The totality of the circumstances is that if you waive the rules for one, then you are opening the doors for eveyone, and if you hestitate, then you are inviting a civil rights or ADA lawsuit.
“If it’s true they didn’t buy the house, I guess I see this as having their cake and eating it too. They want the benefits with none of the responsibilities...?”
Well the article didn’t mention the taxes being in arrears, and they have been paying the HOA dues or that would be mentioned in the article so they are being responsible plus the clip showed a well kept lawn and the house was in seemingly good repair. The womans parents left her the house the same way many peoples parents leave an estate. My parents are going to leave me money and property, should I not care if I recieve it or not because that would be having my cake and eating it too.
“Again, how many people nationwide are “giving” their houses away in this market? Plenty. No one wants to take a loss on a house, but these days it’s not uncommon. These folks are no different just because they have a cute granddaugher.”
You’re right. The cute granddaughter doesn’t come into it. These people aren’t the same as people who bought more house than they could afford. They own the house. Not them and the bank, just them, so you’re comparing apples and oranges. These people aren’t being forced to sell for less because they can’t pay for their house, and they’ve already reduced the price, twice from what the article inferred. So you think these people deserve to be pushed out of their home because they broke the HOA rules.
” Should they be allowed to “break” the rules indefinitely? If not, for how much (longer)? “
Nope they should sell their house and they are. They seem to be trying to resolve this and the HOAs position seems to be that they’re not resolving it fast enough, but all you can do is all you can do, and nobody should be forced to forfiet their home at give away prices to satisfy the HOA. Again they haven’t said “we’re not moving”. They seem to be trying to comply.
Now let me ask you this put yourself in their place. your daughter became addicted to drugs, you fell responsible for her daughter except you’re in an age restricted community.Without selling the house you can’t afford to move. You put your house up for sale, but you don’t get any offers. You lower the price, and still no offers. The HOA files a lawsuit. Should you be forced to either give away your property, be put in the street, or give your granddaughter up to foster care.
JMHO but the HOA is a bit over the top on this one.
A pox on your house
You stay classy, ya hear?
If you actually read the information instead of staying on your indignant high horse you’d learn the community had alerted the grandparents 2 years ago and you’d learn the family had been giving plenty of extensions.
Even now the HOA is trying to work with the family but in the end the rules mean something and were accepted by everyone living there.
Also there is no evidence the HOA stopped any sale of the home
Serious Question to you
If you allow this couple to break the rules which other rules would it then be ok to break?
Would it be ok for every family there to bring in a child?
When do rules mean anything to you?
As if I needed more proof that HOAs suck. However, there are many times when jackasses praise the iron fist that is an HOA.
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.