Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bruinator

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.


50 posted on 10/23/2009 9:16:54 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: ltc8k6
Very good point. If the child has been there for 5+ years, the common law principle known as equitable estoppel might preclude the HOA from enforcing its rules in this case.
58 posted on 10/23/2009 9:21:44 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (God is great, beer is good . . . and people are crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: ltc8k6

I was just about to say that! I remember, years ago here in NY, when I still lived in the City, that the new owner of what could only be termed an abandoned building, wanted to tear it down and build something new that he could offer for rental units.

Well...it seems that some bums had taken up residence in said building, and took the owner to court, saying that since he didn’t start eviction proceedings as soon as he learned about their presence, they had “implied consent” for them to stay there. It took years to sort it out, but here’s the kicker: the reason the owner didn’t start the proceedings was to give the bums time to find somewhere else to go. The bums won the case because the owner warned them in advance that the building was to be demolished.

So...the poor sucker who wanted to be nice, got fleeced by our judicial system. That’ll teach him!

Regards,


157 posted on 10/23/2009 11:08:26 AM PDT by VermiciousKnid (Grab your gun and bring in the cat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson