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."
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.
1. Remove all valuables from the premises.
2. Find another place to live on a short-term basis.
3. Burn the house to the ground.
At least we'll find out very quickly what the real market price of the home is. And rveryone goes away happy, right?
I think it is great that they are taking care of their grandchild.
But they also want the nice lifestyle of a retirement community.
They tried to pull a fast one on their HOA. When the child arrived 5 years ago- they should have immediately sold their home and moved when the market was at its peak.
Now, when the market is low, they say that they cannot sell. They had their opportunity to do it 5 years ago, but thought they could get away with defying HOA rules.
I guess the HOA called their bluff.
So. They get the girl, as a decision by the court, for what was probably to be a short term, so the mother could clean up her act. They likely thought it wouldn't be a five-year deal. Once they realized the mother wasn't going to clean up her act, and the market crashed, what do they do?
1) It sounds like the place has let her live there for 5 years or more before making an issue of it? Isn’t there some legal principle (estoppel or something) that keeps them from selective enforcement?
2) It is possible that the grandparents never anticipated she would be with them “permanently”, thought the mother would rehabilitate and take her back, so they did not rush to sell when she was first placed.
The way I see it, there is a basic legal/administrative conflict here that needs to be resolved . . . between the HOA rules prohibiting children and a judge’s order requiring the girl to live in her grandparents’ custody.
so You are the arbiter of what constitutues a newbie? How silly but if it makes you feel big, have at it
Do you know how many times the HOA reminded these people of the rules they VOLUNTARILY agreed to and signed on to. We don’t know if the HOA has been trying to be lenient but at some point rules are rules.
Sorry these people knew the rules when they took the baby in and ignored the rules for 5 years , during which they could have sold the home at the top of the market.
Yes they did the right thing in taking the little girl who is the innocent in all this and it is thoughtless of the grandparents to trot her out and whine. How does that make the child feel?
One last question, OLDIE, do you selectively obey rules for contracts you’ve signed? Do you for instance pay credit cards late and expect no penalty?
The HOA is setting a precedence. If they allow this 1 child, soon there will be 44, along with playgrounds and swingsets. Screaming kids in a Senior’s Community?
When and individual uses “poor Kim” in their words I say that person has a problem with children. Everyone including the HOA new of her presence, how could they not. Now they want to evict? Something amiss here.
A bad precedent for the HOA. They allowed the girl to live there for 5 and a half years. They failed to enforce their rules and get a judgement 5 and a half years ago. Pretty good case for the grandparents. In many states, a lack of enforcement, over a period of time, of a particular rule on the HOA's part can lead to the HOA losing the right to complain about that rule being followed years later.
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.