On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:41:16 -0500, "Sanity" wrote:


"Zootal" wrote in message
...
Explain something to me. Someone buys a home in an HOA. Prior to buying
they are given the docs and sign a statement to abide by them. Then all
of a sudden they scream, kick and cry when one of the regs from the docs
are enforced. Please explain why that person bought in an HOA in the
first place if he didn't want to follow their rules. Don't get me wrong,
I don't like HOA's but I sure wouldn't buy in one if I disagreed with the
docs and had no intention of following them.


Just out of curiosity - do you have the right to refuse to sign the
agreement if you buy the house? IOW, can you buy a house in one of these
HOA neighborhoods, but refuse to sign or comply?

Nope. The main provision in buying is that you read and agree to follow the
docs and bylaws. Otherwise, why would they have them?

If we are still talking about the original case posted, and even if
we're not, here's some more information about that case from another
forum. I'm neither of the people discussing this.

My quote starts with the actual court decision, which was given I
think as a link in the news story:

---Start quote---

http://www.tampabays10.com/images/pd...ck-lawsuit.pdf

I'll be quoting from it, as it demonstrates a very common behavior
typical of the arrogant, out of control HOAs in operation these days,
which often disregard their own by-laws, remain in office while
refusing to hold elections, and purport to change the rules of the
HOA, without following the rules of the Association.

That is exactly what happened here.

The HOA's rules were doubtless in place when Vizzi bought his home in
the community, and were provided to him in writing before he settled
escrow,

Actually, this is in dispute, and the dispute was resolved in favor of
Vizzi. The Vizzis only received a "Windsor Park Declaration" relating
to the specific sub-part of the community they lived in, and allege
that they never received a copy of the "Eagles Master Declaration," a
document covering the larger set of communities, years after their
purchase. This is, sadly, all too common.

This was found by the court in this case to be undisputed. Therefore,
they were not on notice.

as part of the deed and title documentation, being covenants
running with the land which restricted his use of the land. While he
apparently then complained that the rules he bought into were unfair,

The rules he bought into were the ones he was actually provided a copy
of and upon which he conditioned his purchase of the home.
....
Incidentally, it is NOT the HOA in charge of Windsor Park Association,
where he lives, which is attempting to enforce this agreement against
him. It is an upper level HOA, in charge of the entire set of
communities, which is attempting to enforce it against him.

His actual neighbors have no complaint.
....
in
this case, there were two separate documents, both contracts. The
purchaser was only provided with one. The other was only provided
years later, and only years after that did they attempt to enforce it
against him. There's a very real question of detrimental reliance on
their inaction, even had the purchaser ever agreed to the Eagles
Master Declaration in the first place, which he didn't.
....
The only rule to which the homeowner had agreed was in the Windsor
Park agreement, which only prohibited parking vehicles in the driveway
which are "primarily used for commercial purposes." It said nothing
about pick-up trucks. The Eagles Declaration, the one that was never
provided to the homeowner, did list pick-up trucks as impermissible.
The Eagles Declaration also arguably forbids trucks in general from
being parked in driveways. If this were true, then all the residents
would be forced to get rid of their SUVs, which are, apparently, also
considered legally to be "trucks." A fine kettle of fish that would
be.
....
This isn't all. Even if the contract in question were enforceable
against this homeowner, there are doubts as to whether the officers of
the homeowner association in question were even duly elected. If they
were not duly elected, they have no business issuing fines or
enforcing rules against anyone. The plaintiff homeowner alleges that
the board has failed to hold elections at all, as required by the
bylaws, and that therefore, the current holdover board has no legal
right to hold office. This part of the suit is stayed pending
administrative proceedings on the same issue.

--- end quote ---