"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html

On Sep 10, 9:58*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html

As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html



As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:44:49 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html



As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.

Some localities may also require a demolition permit. There must be a
paper trail somewhere

Two planes have crashed into homes in N Las Vegas in past few weeks.
Maybe they're in an HOA...

On Sep 10, 1:44*pm, Norminn wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html

As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, *if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.

Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? *No
permit? *That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:


DerbyDad03 wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."


http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.


On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.


On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.


I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.


HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

"Norminn" wrote in message
m...
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt
house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html

As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.

Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.

HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?


As long as the HOA code meets or exceeds local code, it takes preference.
The problem probably wasn't coded items but appearance only. There's no way
this house could have been built without the HOA stepping in sooner and
stopping the process till they approved the plans. We will find out that
there is much more to the story than has been told. If this HOA was like
99.9 percent of all HOA's, they would have come down on this homeowner after
the first brick was laid incorrectly.

On Sep 10, 2:57*pm, Norminn wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html

As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, *if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.

Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? *No
permit? *That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.

HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. *I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. *Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

Yeah, that's what I meant - stricter. In other words, no need for a
setback extender or square footage variance as far as the city was
concerned, but the HOA increased setback distances by a foot, so he
was in violation of HOA rules. I think we're on the same page here.


The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?

Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) *The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.-

Yep, that's what I meant with my pick-up truck scenario.

BTW I had an interesting setback situation with my first house.

I got a mortgage approved by Bank A prior to closing after providing a
survey map to the lender. There were no setback issues mentioned.

A year later, we tried to re-financed with Bank B and they said we
needed a signed form stating that no one had complained about our
setback "violation" in the past 18 months. It turns out that one
corner the house was about 6 inches inside the required setback.

Bank B was aware that we had only been in the house for 12 months and
wouldn't accept my signature for the 18 month time period. They told
me to go find the prior owner and get his signature on the form.
Luckily, I knew how to contact him and while he was surprised, he was
more than willing to help out.

Here's the rediculous part of the situation:

They wouldn't accept my signature because I wasn't living in the house
for the full 18 months, yet they accepted the prior owner's signature
even though he hadn't been there for the past 12 months! They didn't
want a form from him for the period he lived there *and* a form from
me for the period I lived there, they just wanted a form from whoever
lived in the house on the day that was 18 months prior to the closing,
stating that no one had complained in 18 months.

Idiots.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:


DerbyDad03 wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."


http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.


On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.


On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.


I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.


HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any
longer.


The tax man has to access the property, before move in (?). That's
when the new house falls under the claws of and HOA.

Seems far fetched, but don't be surprised!

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:


DerbyDad03 wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."


http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.


On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.


On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.


I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.


HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any
longer.

Seems far fetched, but don't be surprised!

Highly doubtful -- the CC&Rs/deed restrictions that enable the HOA to
have a say in the first place are virtually always part of the title
to the *land* parcel itself, and thus apply to anything done or built
on that land.

If you picked up and moved a house that was on land subject to an HOA
to a new non-HOA property, the HOA wouldn't have a say in that house
(but they could, of course, require that an exact replica be rebuilt
on the original land :-)

Josh

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

There definitely has to be more to this story -- any CC&Rs that
specify that the HOA that has control over "architecture changes" has
some sort of approval process to go through with timelines specified.
In our association, we have 30 days to approve or deny a submitted
plan (there's a separate committee that reports to the board for
this), or it's automatically considered approved. I can't imagine
they would have considered this large of an application without
detailed plans/lot maps/etc. So, what happened?

1) The plans were approved (perhaps by default), and now the HOA
realizes it misapplied some of it's internal rules/guidelines. HOA at
fault.

2) The plans were denied and the homeowner proceeded anyway, or the
homeowner simply didn't bother to submit an application, either out of
ignorance (but you really really need to know what kinds of
restrictions you agreed to when you signed the title documents), or
malice (and I include "hoping to play the sympathy card" in that).

3) The plans changed (homeowner said "I'm going to rebuild the same
house" and then changed his mind) and weren't resubmitted. See #2

Look, I can see hoping an HOA will look the other way if I put up a
new outdoor light fixture, change the landscaping a bit, etc, but the
risk of having to undo is pretty small; I just can't imagine building
a whole house without making absolutely sure I was in compliance with
the rules of all legally interested parties (zoning, building codes,
insurance company, mortgage company, HOA, etc) and had written proof
of that.

I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.

Josh

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:37:36 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:


DerbyDad03 wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."


http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.


On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.


On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.


I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.


HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any
longer.


The tax man has to access the property, before move in (?). That's
when the new house falls under the claws of and HOA.


HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:37:36 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:


DerbyDad03 wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."


http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.


On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.


On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.


I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.


HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.
If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any
longer.

The tax man has to access the property, before move in (?). That's
when the new house falls under the claws of and HOA.


HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.


Like several others have told you, HOA is linked to the land, not what
is built on it. Short of rising up and overthrowing/disbanding the HOA,
only escape is to sell the property. And yes, they all work like that.

--
aem sends....

In article ,
wrote:

HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are
part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't
have changed a thing around here.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:31:02 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:37:36 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:07:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Sep 10, 1:44 pm, Norminn wrote:


DerbyDad03 wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."


http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.


On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.


On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.


I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Wonder where the city building code authority has been on the issue? No
permit? That is
tragic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The city building code may not have anything to do with the specific
issue - the HOA's rules

The color of the shingles, the elevation, square footage and setbacks
may be fine as far as the city is concerned.

However, if these particular HOA rules take precedence over the city's
rules, then he could be in violation of the HOA even if he has a valid
permit from the city.


HOA can't take precedence, but may be stricter. I can't imagine any
municipality without basic
code requirements for the issues mentioned. Some setbacks just require
paperwork to get an
allowance to extend it.

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.
If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property any
longer.

The tax man has to access the property, before move in (?). That's
when the new house falls under the claws of and HOA.


HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.


Like several others have told you, HOA is linked to the land, not what
is built on it. Short of rising up and overthrowing/disbanding the HOA,
only escape is to sell the property. And yes, they all work like that.

Sorry, I'm not buying that answer until the Fat Lady sings and the
judge rules. I think he originally signed an agreement that had
stipulations about what he could do to a house that no longer exists.
It's an opening, and a good lawyer can use it, as I'm sure they will.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:36:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are
part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't
have changed a thing around here.

It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might
be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't
explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to
exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court,
but I think there may be plenty to argue about. HOA's are not
invincible, omniscient or omnipotent. They would like you to think
that they are, so they always adopt the attitude of intimidation. Not
everybody scares that easy.

Why the $%% does anyone buy a home in a HOA community? If they
couldnt sell houses they would stop creating these monstrosities. Any
time I see HOA I say nothanks ad keep on going.


On Sep 10, 7:59*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:36:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are
part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't
have changed a thing around here.

It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might
be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't
explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to
exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court,
but I think there may be plenty to argue about. HOA's are not
invincible, omniscient or omnipotent. They would like you to think
that they are, so they always adopt the attitude of intimidation. Not
everybody scares that easy.

On Wed 10 Sep 2008 04:59:25p, told us...

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:36:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are
part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't
have changed a thing around here.

It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might
be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't
explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to
exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court,
but I think there may be plenty to argue about. HOA's are not
invincible, omniscient or omnipotent. They would like you to think
that they are, so they always adopt the attitude of intimidation. Not
everybody scares that easy.

I had a humorous but exasperating experience with an HOA years ago, and I
happened to be an HOA board member. I had a very traditional copper
weathervane installed on our brick chimney. Within a week I received a
letter signed by the board president stating that I had to remove it. I
knew that there was nothing in our bylaws restricing or forbidding such an
addition. I wrote a polite letter in reply stating that fact and adding
that I would not remove it. Meanwhile, I re-read the bylaws with a fine-
toothed comb to determine exactly what was addressed and what was clearly
permissible. Within days the board called a meeting to discuss the matter.
When a vote was taken, everyone else on the board voted to have the
weathervane removed, but I voted to keep it. I also pointed out that one
particular item was specifically addressed in the bylaws, the use of a
rooftop or chimney mounted TV antenna or radio antenna. It stipulated that
the height of the mast could not exceed 25 feet and the width of the
antenna could not exceed 6 feet. They scoffed at any similarity to my
situation. They also stated that every home in the development was wired
for cable TV and that no one had an antenna, still insisting that the
weathervane had to come down. I said fine, I will happily remove it on the
same day that I install a 25 foot high TV antenna that was 6 feet wide. At
the same meeting, I resigned my position on the board. The weathervane was
installed in 1982 and is still in place.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Wednesday, 09(IX)/10(X)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
8wks 5dys 6hrs 49mins
*******************************************
Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom
*******************************************

wrote in message
HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.



I'm glad you were able to read what he agreed to because the rest of us are
just speculating. I'm guessing the property, not the house alone, is
covered under the agreement. But if you saw the agreement and all the terms
perhaps you can declare it null and void.

clipped

Sorry, I'm not buying that answer until the Fat Lady sings and the
judge rules. I think he originally signed an agreement that had
stipulations about what he could do to a house that no longer exists.
It's an opening, and a good lawyer can use it, as I'm sure they will.


No agreement ......he became a member when he purchased the property.
There is a separate
statute in Florida just for HOA's. They are a form of government based
on land ownership
in the community.

wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:36:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



In article ,
wrote:



HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.


Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are
part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't
have changed a thing around here.



It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might
be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't
explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to
exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court,
but I think there may be plenty to argue about. HOA's are not
invincible, omniscient or omnipotent. They would like you to think
that they are, so they always adopt the attitude of intimidation. Not
everybody scares that easy.



You are very wrong......they are invincible and omnipotent as long as
they govern within the
laws and the HOA documents. Board members can come into my condo any
time they
want - reasonable hours . Even cops don't have that power.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:55:40 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


wrote in message
HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.



I'm glad you were able to read what he agreed to because the rest of us are
just speculating. I'm guessing the property, not the house alone, is
covered under the agreement. But if you saw the agreement and all the terms
perhaps you can declare it null and void.


Talk to a lawyer. The agreement he signed is for something that
materially no longer exists. They may still have control over what
color he paints his original picket fence if it's still standing.
Other than that, this is FAR from cut & dried. I'm speculating as
well, but the point is that untill this makes it's way through the
courts, my theory is just as sound as anyone elses. Several here have
stated categorically, that he is out of luck no matter what. You can
take your snide comments to them.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:15:56 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:36:57 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



In article ,
wrote:



HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.


Don't know how it works in your area, but in mine the covenants are
part of the deed and thus follow the land and not the house. Wouldn't
have changed a thing around here.



It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might
be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't
explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to
exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court,
but I think there may be plenty to argue about. HOA's are not
invincible, omniscient or omnipotent. They would like you to think
that they are, so they always adopt the attitude of intimidation. Not
everybody scares that easy.



You are very wrong......they are invincible and omnipotent as long as
they govern within the
laws and the HOA documents. Board members can come into my condo any
time they
want - reasonable hours . Even cops don't have that power.

You are a sheeple.

On Sep 10, 7:42*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:55:40 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:







wrote in message
HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

I'm glad you were able to read what he agreed to because the rest of us are
just speculating. *I'm guessing the property, not the house alone, is
covered under the agreement. *But if you saw the agreement and all the terms
perhaps you can declare it null and void.

Talk to a lawyer. The agreement he signed is for something that
materially no longer exists. They may still have control over what
color he paints his original picket fence if it's still standing.
Other than that, this is FAR from cut & dried. I'm speculating as
well, but the point is that untill this makes it's way through the
courts, my theory is just as sound as anyone elses. Several here have
stated categorically, that he is out of luck no matter what. You can
take your snide comments to them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The ones pointing out that you are speculating are no more 'stating
categorically' than you are. FWIW - you are full of it. The
covenants are what rule and until you can quote from them, your
adamant insisstance that that apply only to the house is BS.

Harry K

"Norminn" wrote in message
m...
clipped

Sorry, I'm not buying that answer until the Fat Lady sings and the
judge rules. I think he originally signed an agreement that had
stipulations about what he could do to a house that no longer exists.
It's an opening, and a good lawyer can use it, as I'm sure they will.

No agreement ......he became a member when he purchased the property.
There is a separate
statute in Florida just for HOA's. They are a form of government based on
land ownership
in the community.

Finally, someone who knows how and is considerate enough to trim the
original message and all subsequent answers so we don't have to scroll
through everything to get to a one or two line comment. Thank you Norminn.

Don

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Sep 10, 7:42*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:55:40 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:







wrote in message
HOA is a private organization. If the guy hasn't signed an agreement
with the HOA based on the completely new house, he may not be under
their jurisdiction. I think he may have escaped. When he bought the
original house, he had to sign an agreement wioth them. That agreement
is now null and void. He just needs to find the right lawyer. He's
obviously going to be needing one regardless.

I'm glad you were able to read what he agreed to because the rest of us are
just speculating. *I'm guessing the property, not the house alone, is
covered under the agreement. *But if you saw the agreement and all the terms
perhaps you can declare it null and void.

Talk to a lawyer. The agreement he signed is for something that
materially no longer exists. They may still have control over what
color he paints his original picket fence if it's still standing.
Other than that, this is FAR from cut & dried. I'm speculating as
well, but the point is that untill this makes it's way through the
courts, my theory is just as sound as anyone elses. Several here have
stated categorically, that he is out of luck no matter what. You can
take your snide comments to them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The ones pointing out that you are speculating are no more 'stating
categorically' than you are. FWIW - you are full of it. The
covenants are what rule and until you can quote from them, your
adamant insisstance that that apply only to the house is BS.

Harry K

That's not what I said. I said that it may turn out that because the
original "property plus buildings" in the agreement no longer exist as
they did in total, there MAY be grounds for an argument IN COURT. I
have not adamantly insisted on anything except the fact that there may
be a workable argument that will prevail when he gets to court. I
*will* admantly claim that this will be decided in a court, as it is
not nearly as open & shut as many seem to think.

wrote:

That's not what I said. I said that it may turn out
that because the original "property plus buildings"
in the agreement no longer exist as they did in
total, there MAY be grounds for an argument IN COURT.

Unfortuanately I have served on an HOA Board. I write
"unfortunately" because it was not an experience I'd
wish upon anyone. The general rule is that the HOA
agreement applies to what the owner can and can not do.

HOA Boards are a haven for politically-correct nerds
who are unpromotable in their employment. Too many
of these failures in their quest of authority find
power in being elected to positions for which they
ran unopposed.

Back to the issues: To build a building, you need a
permit. HOA rules usually state the plans have to
be approved. Were they?

IMRHO it is difficult to fathom a judge ordering a
new house to be torned down. But the roof may
have to be redone.

Dick

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:59:25 -0400, wrote Re HOA:
"Tear down that house":

It REALLY depends on exactly what the covenants say, and how it might
be construed or deconstructed under examination. If they don't
explicitly say what happens if the house on the property ceases to
exist, then it's not settled. I won't predict who will win in court,

The lawyers for the plaintiff will win.
The lawyers for the defendant will win.

Everyone else loses.

In article ,
wrote:


What do the covenents say about a plane flying into your house?

You have to clear it first with the Architectural and Landscaping
Committee

In article ,
wrote:
nk.

It's not a slam-dunk for the HOA is ALL I really said.
Actually I would suggest that you are pretty much engaging in the
same fallacy as the others. Knowing what it said w/o knowing what it
said. As was noted, depending on how the thing is written it very easily
could be a slam dunk for the HOA.

on 9/10/2008 12:38 PM DerbyDad03 said the following:
On Sep 10, 9:58 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"[SANFORD, Fla.] A Sanford man whose wife and son were killed when an
airplane crashed into their home may have to tear down his rebuilt house
because a homeowners' association said he is breaking their rules."

http://www.local6.com/news/17427900/detail.html


As much as I dislike most HOA's, I can see a couple of sides to this
issue.

On one hand, if the poor widower wants to rebuild on the same lot
under the same HOA, then he should follow the rules. If not, move. If
they made exceptions for every tragic event that happened to someone
in the neighborhood then the rules would be a joke. "I can never drive
a car again because my wife died in an car accident. Let me keep my
pick-up truck." I'm not defending the HOA per se, but if someone
chooses to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood, then they also
choose to live under their rules.

On the other hand, how did it get so far into the process ("a few
weeks from being completed') without the flags going up earlier?
Didn't he have to have the plans approved before construction started?
If the HOA approved them, then they can't stop it now. If he tried to
avoid the approval, hoping to play on their sympathies, then he is at
fault.

I think there is more to this story than just what's in the article.


Perhaps it is just the story that came out within weeks of the
completion. He may have been told that he was in violation when the
house was being planned and he chose to ignore the rules.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
in the original Orange County
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sep 11, 11:19*am, wrote:


So, you still think a house is a member of a HOA? * It isn't, that's a
fact.

I never said that a house is a member of an HOA. You hysterically made
that up.

Here, in your own words:

""If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property
any longer. "



It might help your argument slightly if you were actually arguing
against what I really said, rather than your made up strawman.

Seems it's not just me, but several others in this thread who read
what you posted and concluded that your argument is without merit.


Simple yes or no question. *Do you deny that on a property with a HOA,
the HOA governance and authority are included as restriction on the
recorded deed?

No.

Doesn't change a thing, though.- Hide quoted text -



Well of course it does. Because the HOA governance and restrictions
that are part of a recorded deed obviously survive and continue to be
enforceable despite the house having been destroyed. It doesn't get
much more basic than that. It's pretty silly to think that because a
house is destroyed in an HOA community, that the owner can do whatever
they please, because the house was the HOA member.

On Sep 11, 1:12*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:18:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 11, 11:19*am, wrote:

So, you still think a house is a member of a HOA? * It isn't, that's a
fact.

I never said that a house is a member of an HOA. You hysterically made
that up.

Here, in your own words:

""If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property
any longer. "

It might help your argument slightly if you were actually arguing
against what I really said, rather than your made up strawman.

Seems it's not just me, but several others in this thread who read
what you posted and concluded that your argument is without merit.

No. your misrepresented statements of what I said are without merit.

I said it MIGHT NOT be under the jurisdiction of the HOA.

Yes, we know. But you based that on your novel legal assumption that
the HOA membership goes with the house and could perish with it.
That's the absurd part. Might as well speculate on the house being
owned by aliens and subject to alien law.





Untill a
court rules, you don't know the answer to that q uestion any better
than I do. Nobody does. Not even the judge who will eventually hear
the case and make a ruling knows the answer yet. All I said was a good
lawyer might be able to prevail.

Sure but that isn't the issue. There could be some valid legal basis
for what the homeowner did. But it's extremely doubtful that the HOA
restrictions just died when the house was destroyed, which was your
silly point.






Simple yes or no question. *Do you deny that on a property with a HOA,
the HOA governance and authority are included as restriction on the
recorded deed?

No.

Doesn't change a thing, though.- Hide quoted text -

Well of course it does. *Because the HOA governance and restrictions
that are part of a recorded deed obviously survive and continue to be
enforceable despite the house having been destroyed. *

It's not enforceable until it gets enforced, Bubba. Lots of "iron
clad" contracts get invalidated in court.

Show us one where a court said the HOA wasn't enforceable after a
house was destroyed because the house was the HOA member.




It doesn't get
much more basic than that. *It's pretty silly to think that because a
house is destroyed in an HOA community, that the owner can do whatever
they please, because the house was the HOA member.

Yes that would be silly.

Not what I said, though.- Hide quoted text -



OK, here's exactly what you said:

"If the old home was demolished and a completely new one built, it
might not be under the jurisdiction of the HOA. It's private property
and the house that was a memeber of the HOA isn't on that property
any
longer. "

So, let me rephrase what I said. It's pretty silly to think that
because a house is destroyed in an HOA community, that the owner can
replace the house with one that doesn't meet the HOA standards because
the house was the HOA member.

Happy now?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:48:45 -0400, wrote:

Salty,

I'm trying to follow this. The property is still on the Tax Rolls;
regardless of the house.

To sever the covenants and the owners responsibility, the property
needs (?) to be removed from the tax rolls. Not going to happen!

House, or no house the HOA first enforces the CC&Rs when
assesment/taxes are recorded...in my neck of the woods!

Josh wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

There definitely has to be more to this story -- any CC&Rs that
specify that the HOA that has control over "architecture changes" has
some sort of approval process to go through with timelines specified.
In our association, we have 30 days to approve or deny a submitted
plan (there's a separate committee that reports to the board for
this), or it's automatically considered approved. I can't imagine
they would have considered this large of an application without
detailed plans/lot maps/etc. So, what happened?

1) The plans were approved (perhaps by default), and now the HOA
realizes it misapplied some of it's internal rules/guidelines. HOA at
fault.

2) The plans were denied and the homeowner proceeded anyway, or the
homeowner simply didn't bother to submit an application, either out of
ignorance (but you really really need to know what kinds of
restrictions you agreed to when you signed the title documents), or
malice (and I include "hoping to play the sympathy card" in that).

3) The plans changed (homeowner said "I'm going to rebuild the same
house" and then changed his mind) and weren't resubmitted. See #2

Look, I can see hoping an HOA will look the other way if I put up a
new outdoor light fixture, change the landscaping a bit, etc, but the
risk of having to undo is pretty small; I just can't imagine building
a whole house without making absolutely sure I was in compliance with
the rules of all legally interested parties (zoning, building codes,
insurance company, mortgage company, HOA, etc) and had written proof
of that.

I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.

The homeowner's attorney was interviewed on a local radio show. She
said they are getting close to a resolution with the HOA.

How it happened: after the plane crash, the homeowner was,
naturally, homeless. He found a place to stay, but has moved twice
since the crash. He was eager to rebuild on his lot, but he wanted
the design of the home revised so it wouldn't be exactly what the
previous home looked like prior to the plane crash. He also wanted
to get the house finished by the first anniversary of the crash, so
he was in a hurry. And that's when the trouble started.

The homeowner submitted his plans to the HOA. He didn't hear back
from them, so he and the builder thought it was okay to go ahead.
The problem was, the HOA was having a hard time getting in touch
with him. They had been sending him notices about his plans, but he
didn't receive them, probably due to his having moved.

The HOA finally caught up with him, which is when he first learned
of their concerns over his plans. They told him they wanted him to
return the LOT (my emphasis, since folks were arguing whether the
covenant applied to the house or the land) to its previous
condition. At which point he and his lawyer began meeting with the
HOA. And again, the lawyer says they're getting close to settling
this, so it sounds as though the HOA is trying to be reasonable
without creating any precedents it may have cause to regret in the
future.

By the way, the HOA had set up financial assistance accounts for the
plane crash victims, arranged for lodgings for the victims families
when they came for the funerals, and even arranged for translators
for one victim's relatives from a foreign country. So they're not
totally heartless.

HellT

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:49:17 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:

Josh wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:57:16 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:

The question that still remains in my mind is: How did they get within
weeks of completion before this surfaced?



Lots of boards meet only once per year, with board members who have
second homes far away.
Or they ignored it until someone complained. ) The tough part is that
construction is basic in
HOA/condo documents, have to be enforced or risk losing the next time an
issue comes up.
I have sympathy for the owner's situation, but too many people use
unfortunate circumstances
to get around rules that really do protect communities.....the kid with
a handicap who got a two-
story playhouse, the woman with a husband in military who violated sign
regs, etc, etc.

There definitely has to be more to this story -- any CC&Rs that
specify that the HOA that has control over "architecture changes" has
some sort of approval process to go through with timelines specified.
In our association, we have 30 days to approve or deny a submitted
plan (there's a separate committee that reports to the board for
this), or it's automatically considered approved. I can't imagine
they would have considered this large of an application without
detailed plans/lot maps/etc. So, what happened?

1) The plans were approved (perhaps by default), and now the HOA
realizes it misapplied some of it's internal rules/guidelines. HOA at
fault.

2) The plans were denied and the homeowner proceeded anyway, or the
homeowner simply didn't bother to submit an application, either out of
ignorance (but you really really need to know what kinds of
restrictions you agreed to when you signed the title documents), or
malice (and I include "hoping to play the sympathy card" in that).

3) The plans changed (homeowner said "I'm going to rebuild the same
house" and then changed his mind) and weren't resubmitted. See #2

Look, I can see hoping an HOA will look the other way if I put up a
new outdoor light fixture, change the landscaping a bit, etc, but the
risk of having to undo is pretty small; I just can't imagine building
a whole house without making absolutely sure I was in compliance with
the rules of all legally interested parties (zoning, building codes,
insurance company, mortgage company, HOA, etc) and had written proof
of that.

I'm just risk averse like that, I guess.

The homeowner's attorney was interviewed on a local radio show. She
said they are getting close to a resolution with the HOA.

How it happened: after the plane crash, the homeowner was,
naturally, homeless. He found a place to stay, but has moved twice
since the crash. He was eager to rebuild on his lot, but he wanted
the design of the home revised so it wouldn't be exactly what the
previous home looked like prior to the plane crash. He also wanted
to get the house finished by the first anniversary of the crash, so
he was in a hurry. And that's when the trouble started.

The homeowner submitted his plans to the HOA. He didn't hear back
from them, so he and the builder thought it was okay to go ahead.
The problem was, the HOA was having a hard time getting in touch
with him. They had been sending him notices about his plans, but he
didn't receive them, probably due to his having moved.

The HOA finally caught up with him, which is when he first learned
of their concerns over his plans. They told him they wanted him to
return the LOT (my emphasis, since folks were arguing whether the
covenant applied to the house or the land) to its previous
condition. At which point he and his lawyer began meeting with the
HOA. And again, the lawyer says they're getting close to settling
this, so it sounds as though the HOA is trying to be reasonable
without creating any precedents it may have cause to regret in the
future.

By the way, the HOA had set up financial assistance accounts for the
plane crash victims, arranged for lodgings for the victims families
when they came for the funerals, and even arranged for translators
for one victim's relatives from a foreign country. So they're not
totally heartless.

HellT

Thanks for the update, HellT. Please let us know when they have a
final resolution.

"Hell Toupee" wrote in message

By the way, the HOA had set up financial assistance accounts for the plane
crash victims, arranged for lodgings for the victims families when they
came for the funerals, and even arranged for translators for one victim's
relatives from a foreign country. So they're not totally heartless.

HellT

Well that spoils a good thread

wrote:

It is time you gave up on your adamant insistance being wrong.

Harry K

I have only been adament that the final decision will come in court,
and that the results are not a foregone conmclusion. Anyone who thinks
that is wrong is a fruitcake. Are you a fruitcake?

1. The homeowner will have to pay something to defend his claim. Whether he
spends $100 or $10,000 is almost irrelevant because the HOA will win
irrespective of the outcome. They will win because of the deterrent effect
on others who might want to hippie-up their houses.

2. The HOA HAS to take steps else their inaction will be held up as
precedent in future confrontations. In matters of empire, even the bleakest
of deserts is not forsaken.

wrote:

What do the covenents say about a plane flying into your house?

Unless specifically permitted, you can't do it.

There is one subdivision in my vicinity that DOES permit it. The community
consists of about 30 homes in an oval surrounding a 2,500-foot runway.
Virtually all of the homeowners have private planes and contribute to the
upkeep of the the runway and access areas (mow the grass, keep the drainage
working, etc.).

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:56:04 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

It is time you gave up on your adamant insistance being wrong.

Harry K

I have only been adament that the final decision will come in court,
and that the results are not a foregone conmclusion. Anyone who
thinks that is wrong is a fruitcake. Are you a fruitcake?

1. The homeowner will have to pay something to defend his claim.
Whether he spends $100 or $10,000 is almost irrelevant because the
HOA will win irrespective of the outcome. They will win because of
the deterrent effect on others who might want to hippie-up their
houses.

2. The HOA HAS to take steps else their inaction will be held up as
precedent in future confrontations. In matters of empire, even the
bleakest of deserts is not forsaken.



Yeah, keep moving the goalposts, Bub.

I will just as soon as you get close.

When Solomon was asked by his father David whether he was still putting
stumbling blocks in the path of the the blind, Solomon was believed to have
said: "It wouldn't do any good to put stumbling blocks in front of someone
who could see them! Duh!"