Skip to comments.Retirement community wants 6-year-old evicted
Posted on 10/23/2009 8:53:41 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Pinellas Park, Florida-- A six year old girl sent to live with her grandparents as a baby is now being evicted from her home, for being too young.
The grandparents, Jimmy and Judie Stottler, live in a Pinellas Park retirement community that doesn't allow children. The Home Owners Association now wants the child removed.
"For some reason, there's a few, just a few who don't want Kimberly. And I just don't get it," said Judie Stottler.
The granddaughter was taken from her home at just six months old after the state discovered her mother was abusing drugs. She's lived with her grandparents against the rules ever since.
The family says they want to move out of the neighborhood, but by the time they put their home up for sale, the housing market crashed.
"They have no more assets to go out and purchase a rental property," said attorney Robert Eckard who is representing the family free of charge. "If they sell the home they can move. If not, they're homeless on the street."
The H-O-A president has been quoted saying he is only trying to enforce the rules. And while some residents argue the rules need to be followed, others suggest a compromise.
Either way, it will be up to a judge to decide what happens to the six year old next.
If the grandparents are unable to sell their home, the granddaughter could be sent to foster care.
That's something the Stollers say they will never let happen.
"They will have to drag me out in handcuffs and tear her from my arms," promises Judie Stoller.
"I'm not putting her out on the streets."
Get rid of the kid.
Get a pit bull instead.
This is a sad situation but they knew the rules. If they arre allowed to violate them why would anyone else follow them.
I do think they can give an extension so they can sell the home
but rules are rules
I think the HOA rule is unenforceable. It is illegal discrimination on the basis of age.
Yet another great example for why HOA’s should be banned.
I have to agree with you.
The courts took the girl and gave her to the grandparents. The courts can settle this................
Cute little girl. But if the grandparents of that sweety signed a contract prohibiting her, they should find a new place to live that’s more kid-friendly. A lot of elderly folks don’t appreciate whooping, yelling, adventurous kids (and you know she has friends over, she’s a kid after all). They just want a quiet place to live out their years—otherwise, they’d be living in a child-filled subdivision.
so they were supposed to say no to their grandaughter and throw her into foster care because of a rule in an old folks home? get real.
The news video stated that the grandparents offered to sell the house at below market price but the HOA disallowed that because they claimed it would bring down other home prices.
If this girl was a US flag that was not allowed per the rules would you still agree?................
They should have put their up for sale 5 yrs ago.
That being said, hopefully the judge will give them more time to sell their home
Not much of an excuse. While they won't get as much for their property, they won't have to spend as much for a another one either.
Then sue the HOA to force them to buy the home at what they claim the market value is.
Stupid, discriminatory rules are to be ignored.
Are you saying then that all “senior” communities are illegal? And if so, based on “ageism”, wouldn’t that make all senior discounts illegal too?
People buy houses in no-kids-allowed retirement communities, because they want to live where there are no kids living.
It’s a free country (somewhat still), and people still (somewhat) have a right to freely associate with people they want to associate with (you can’t avoid living with people of another race than you, at least formally, because we don’t really believe in liberty anymore).
If the grandparents didn’t mind living with other kids, they should have bought a house in a community that allowed kids.
If they DID NOT want to live with other kids when it was someone else’s kids, then they are just getting what they forced on others.
That said, I imagine this is more common than not.
Trust me, a US flag would not begin to cause a ruckus that would compare to what a healthy, exuberant child can cause. And just wait until she’s a teenage, and starts bringing her gangster boyfriends over.
True, but they may be upside down due to the housing crash and have to come up with a lot of cash to sell.
I find it hard to believe the HOA has the authority to set prices. I’ve never seen such a clause, but this is florida, so maybe there’s something more to it.
"For some reason, there's a few, just a few who don't want Kimberly. And I just don't get it," said Judie Stottler."
This is just a device to get readers on the side of "poor Kim."
I am pretty sure that all people living in that community signed papers on entry wherein they agreed that there will be no children living with them. If the community chose to overlook for a while the violation of the contract, that does not make the contract less valid. These grandparents have a duty to their neighbors.
I hate HOA’s and people with no fricking common sense.
what defines a newbie?
back to topic
the girl had lived there for nearly 5 years which would have also been at the top of the housing market
Again I think an extension can be given but rules are rules and they have violated the rules for 5 years
The girl has been living there for 5 and a half years. That predates the market crash.
Actually, there is a carve-out in the law for retirement communities.
Too many grandmas raising 50 kids from their no-good children.
Then the HOA will lose. The gransparents tried the only reasonable action. And the HOA blocked them.
“I hate HOAs and people with no fricking common sense.”
But I also hate trailers and crap parked on the street, etc.
In places where I have lived, laws banning age discrimination made an exception for senior housing.
Age requirement 55 and over are protected by federal law.
It doesn’t say what age she went to live with the grandparents, but only that she was a “baby”. Assuming that means less than 1yo, they’ve had 5 years to reconcile themselves with the rules they had to acknowledge when they moved in.
Including 3+ years of real estate boom time.
I favor some time for them to get things squared away, but they are clearly negligent in their compliance with the rules.
RWGinger is right, no matter his or her newbie status. You are wrong.
Then the excuse would have been that a replacement home was too expensive.
I’m sorry, but these folks entered into an agreement so that they could feel ‘exclusive’. agreements mean something and cannot be shoved aside for convenience sake. it’s not the kid’s fault that granny and grampy wanted to live where everybody (ELSE) didn’t have children running around, but a deal is a deal.
that said, I think HOA’s stink.
They knew the HOA rules when they first purchased the house.
The market was at an all time high 5 years ago, they could have sold the house and moved when the grandchild arrived.
They thought the rules did not apply to them.
Retirement communities do not want young children in them. When I retire to a community such as this one, I want to enjoy the common recreational facilities without screaming kids running around.
Everybody these days just walks away, if that’s the case.
I do think they can give an extension so they can sell the home
but rules are rules
Correct. If this young girl is allowed to stay then how can any other child or anyone else under the age allowed as called for in the by laws be denied?
I happen to live in a 55 and over retirement Community and I frankly wouldn't want a bunch of screaming kids or worse, drag racing drunk teenagers bouncing around the community
anyway, these people didn't ask for the kid, but they took her. to ask someone to sell their house because they had a child thrust upon them is a little silly, IMHO.
yes, it may be against the big bad old folks home's rules, but sometimes you just have to take the totality of the circumstances into account. you think everybody who breaks the law goes to jail just because they are eligible to?
they are trying to sell but it's not really economically possible right now. and they say that it is a vocal minority who do not want this kid around.
but to me, the point to this is that they got this kid involuntarily. they are doing the right thing.
Maybe some should be.
They have had this child since she was a baby. The HOA has known for 6 years of this little girls presence. Now they want to enforce the rules? HOA’a are Nazi organizations. I still can’t believe how anti child some of the Freepers are.
please see my post #42.
i see charity and understanding of people's circumstances have taken a vacation day here at FR.
Yes, the argument that this situation has existed for ultiple years does in fact cut both ways.
I wonder what the rest of the real story is.
Ps - I HATE HOAs, too.
That may be so but its not the path of honest and ethical people.
What an idiotic thing to say. Asking for a contract to be honored is not anti-child. Preferring the quiet surroundings of a retirement community is not anti-child. Those people had 5 years to make other living arrangements for themselves. Instead, they chose to violate their contract, and the peace and serenity of the community—which, by the way, showed remarkable patience in waiting this long for them to get right with their contract.
Some people pay a LOT to live in such communities—and you’re saying they don’t have the right to the amenities promised them in their contracts? What liberal truck did you fall off of?
The problem here is that many retirement communities enjoy reduced property taxes based on not being a burden on the school system.
There is no easy answer to this one.
Exactly. The HOA gave up the rule already and can’t enforce it now just because the child is growing up. They allowed the child in already. Should be a done deal unless there was an agreement about how long or to what age the child could live there.