Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   HOA to homeowners: Give us $8.5 million for a new rec center. Judge to HOA: Swallow it. HOA trifecta complete   (azstarnet.com ) divider line 389
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

19082 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2007 at 1:44 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



389 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-13 12:25:55 PM  
Their ire was raised, in part, because each home in the community would have been assessed a one-time $6,020 payment to build the new center.

Uh, that would have raised a hell of a lot more than just my ire.
 
2007-09-13 12:33:58 PM  
HOAs are pure evil. The are a refuge for people who have no power in their own life and wish to exert authority over others. Or, have nothing better to do - or both.
 
2007-09-13 12:40:20 PM  
From the HOA's ballwasher:

He said the association's bylaws clearly require special assessments to be endorsed "by the majority of the residential unit owners at a special election called and publicized for that specific purpose."

Sounds to me that he's pissed off that they didn't write their laws well and that the sensible homeowners found a way to beat them at their own game.
 
2007-09-13 12:43:02 PM  
HOA to homeowners

But the HOA IS homeowners.

Another case of wacky people on the board, vote them out, duh. You can't pass that kind of shiat without a vote anyway.
 
2007-09-13 12:43:54 PM  
lordargent: But the HOA IS homeowners.

HOA is homeowners like Congress is the American people.

In theory, maybe, but in practice, not so much.
 
2007-09-13 12:47:37 PM  
I would be leery of signing into any HOA that had a bylaw whereby 'special' assessments could be levied by a simple majority vote, well ... more leery than I already am of HOAs.

That's just asking for trouble.
 
2007-09-13 12:47:58 PM  
It appears the only issue is whether a majority of all homeowners is needed, or a majority of those who actually record a vote on the ballot. Heaven forbid this "journalist" include the one actual piece of information that would allow the reader to evaluate the issue himself: the verbatim language of the operative by-laws provision.
 
2007-09-13 12:54:13 PM  
"I'm really tired of these boards and these HOA attorneys thinking they can do whatever they want to do."

No shiat ;)
 
2007-09-13 12:58:59 PM  
kronicfeld: It appears the only issue is whether a majority of all homeowners is needed, or a majority of those who actually record a vote on the ballot. Heaven forbid this "journalist" include the one actual piece of information that would allow the reader to evaluate the issue himself: the verbatim language of the operative by-laws provision.

Here's the CC&R for the HOA.

The part regarding special assessments reads as follows:

4. Special Assessments. In addition to any other assessments authorized herein, and in order to provide for
the health, safety and welfare of the members, the Company shall have the right and power to acquire additional real
and personal property, including commercial property and to provide for the construction of additional recreational
and common facilities, or the alteration, demolition or removal of existing recreational and other common facilities,
including commercial facilities and to use special assessments to defray in whole or in part the costs thereof.
A. Any such special assessment shall require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the
Company's Board of Directors at a duly called meeting at which a quorum is present, and
B. Ratified by a majority of the owners in the manner
and pursuant to the procedure as set forth in the by-laws of the Company.


Reading throug some of the rest of that CC&R, it seems to be obscenely vague:

All lots or parcels including landscaping and improvements thereon shall be maintained and kept clean
at all times in a manner so as to meet the approval of the Company in its sole discretion,
 
2007-09-13 01:41:45 PM  
FTFA: each home in the community would have been assessed a one-time $6,020 payment to build the new center.

Jesus-tap-dancin'-christ. I was just over in another thread trying to defend my HOA and now this.

I humbly surrender to the trifecta, but I still don't have to mow my lawn or paint my house. Ever. Or pave the driveway, or replace gutters, the roof, plants, etc. I just don't like to do that shiat (I landscaped through college and swore it off forever) So for me, it's worth it. To each his own, I guess. Thank god my neighbors aren't insane.
 
2007-09-13 01:48:48 PM  
Seriously, stop with the HOA hate. If it bugs you so much move elsewhere. And save the "b-b-but HOAs are everywhere" nonsense.
 
2007-09-13 01:49:09 PM  
SchlingFo: lordargent: But the HOA IS homeowners.

HOA is homeowners like Congress is the American people.

In theory, maybe, but in practice, not so much.


^ Best analogy of the day. Kudos!
 
2007-09-13 01:49:14 PM  
My HOA recently hit us up for $3000/unit to fund a lawsuit against the builder to compel them to fix a number of defects. That money's gone forever, but if we win we'll save about $25,000/unit (the cost of fixing the defects ourselves).
 
2007-09-13 01:50:52 PM  
Their ire was raised, in part, because each home in the community would have been assessed a one-time $6,020 payment to build the new center.i>

They wouldn't have to build a new one if they would have had someone to save the old one.
www.mgm.com

 
2007-09-13 01:51:06 PM  
Can we use this same logic to overturn a Presidential election, that since not everyone voted there was no true majority. Or is it a majority of those that voted?

As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.
 
2007-09-13 01:52:24 PM  
subby musta dug hard to find third SOA story
 
2007-09-13 01:54:59 PM  
Why do people even buy into HOA communities?
If you're going to spend upwards of 500k on a house, why would you want someone there who's going to charge you a fee on top of your mortgage and property taxes for the privilege of being told what you can and can't do with your own property?

I understand that it's often hard to find homes that aren't being sold by a builder with an HOA (at least in Los Angeles), but if people stopped buying into this crap they'd have to stop selling them this way.
 
2007-09-13 01:55:42 PM  
I have to say I kinda like my HOA. We're relatively slack, we all know each other, and we cooperate. It probably works because there's only like 10 of us. We all kind of turn a blind eye to the 80 year old lady who keeps putting the damn ceramic frogs and rabbits in her flowerbeds. We all know who's rental tenant is littering in the parking lot, and their ass is going to get fined to high heaven if they don't lay the smack down on them. We got a roof fixed, improvements made, and we're getting the parking lot repaved next spring. No fuss, no muss.

All in all, life is good.
 
2007-09-13 01:56:05 PM  
I'm a homeowner without an HOA and I'm getting a kick sense of fulfillment out of these replies.

/we do have a voluntary neighborhood association
//and a voluntary neighborhood watch
///voluntary is good.
 
2007-09-13 01:56:31 PM  
Office Ninja: As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.

If you look at the by-law quoted by the HOA's ballwasher, the law stated that a majority of residents had to approve. It didn't state "a majority of residents present at the meeting".
 
2007-09-13 01:56:33 PM  
lordargent: Another case of wacky people on the board, vote them out, duh. You can't pass that kind of shiat without a vote anyway.

Doesn't sound so wacky. Looks like a large percentage, maybe not the majority but close to it, backs the idea.
 
2007-09-13 01:56:42 PM  
"Many residents said the project was rammed down their throats..."

This just gave me quite a... "peculiar" mental image.
 
2007-09-13 01:56:57 PM  
C'mon Farkers. When I hear "luxury community centers", I think

www.filminamerica.com
You guys think "replace gutters".

/meh
 
2007-09-13 01:57:06 PM  
Step 1: Don't get luxury center built.

Step 2: Don't get kickback from construction company.

Step 3: Don't profit. Biatches.
 
2007-09-13 01:57:08 PM  
Pretty clear--a majority of owners, means a majority of all owners, not majority of owners who showed up for the vote that we will keep having until one day not enough opposition shows up.

/supporting subtle acts of civil disobedience to HOA's everwhere.
//actually, make acts of violent disobedience, for all I care.
 
2007-09-13 01:57:15 PM  
I did forget to mention in the freaking previous HOA threads that not only do I pay over $300 a month but we also got hit with a $1500 assessment in January.

But hey, I love my house!
 
2007-09-13 01:57:17 PM  
flaminio: My HOA recently hit us up for $3000/unit to fund a lawsuit against the builder to compel them to fix a number of defects. That money's gone forever, but if we win we'll save about $25,000/unit (the cost of fixing the defects ourselves).

Nice, but those monies should not be gone forever. It would be reasonable in this case to request attornies fees. So if your HOA wins, you should get that 3k back in your pocket. If your HOA loses... expect a knock at the door and some guy holding out a donation bucket for you to fill up.
 
2007-09-13 01:57:46 PM  
Office Ninja: Can we use this same logic to overturn a Presidential election, that since not everyone voted there was no true majority. Or is it a majority of those that voted?

As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.


I think the judge was looking for a technicality to save these people from what was obviously an abuse of power.
 
2007-09-13 01:57:56 PM  
ClicheGuevara07: you win. I got nothin'.
 
2007-09-13 01:58:14 PM  
LocalCynic: Seriously, stop with the HOA hate. If it bugs you so much move elsewhere. And save the "b-b-but HOAs are everywhere" nonsense.

The same argument was brought up when people were opposing Jim Crow laws in stores and restaurants.

Just because you can find a place to live/shop that doesn't engage in unethical practices doesn't mean you should stop worrying about the places that are engaged in unethical practices.
 
2007-09-13 01:58:40 PM  
LocalCynic: Seriously, stop with the HOA hate. If it bugs you so much move elsewhere. And save the "b-b-but HOAs are everywhere" nonsense.

hello there HOA President/other useless person shut it... power mad HOAs blow

we need the PTA to get popular again so these asshats have someplace else to practice their asshattery.
 
2007-09-13 01:58:54 PM  
But what kind of window treatments are they allowed to have?
 
2007-09-13 01:59:11 PM  
ExRedStater: ^ Best analogy of the day. Kudos!

Thank you :)
 
2007-09-13 01:59:24 PM  
Kiioro: "Many residents said the project was rammed down their throats..."

This just gave me quite a... "peculiar" mental image.


Eeeww!! It's a senior community!

NTTAWWT.


Hmmm... No teeth, you say?
 
2007-09-13 02:00:20 PM  
SchlingFo: Office Ninja: As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.

If you look at the by-law quoted by the HOA's ballwasher, the law stated that a majority of residents had to approve. It didn't state "a majority of residents present at the meeting".


FTA - Gary Linder, a Phoenix attorney representing the association, said the ruling would be appealed.

He said the association's bylaws clearly require special assessments to be endorsed "by the majority of the residential unit owners at a special election called and publicized for that specific purpose."

He contended that the bylaw states the majority of those that vote in the election must approve the assessment. Around 88 percent of the neighborhood turned out for the election.
 
2007-09-13 02:00:44 PM  
But how will the people know which direction to cut their grass if we get rid of the HOA?
 
2007-09-13 02:01:27 PM  
tuna fingers: C'mon Farkers. When I hear "luxury community centers", I think

Sure, perhaps until you read this line from the third paragraph of the article:

A vote in February by homeowners in the Apache Wells neighborhood, a large senior community,...

So modify that image in your head a bit.
 
2007-09-13 02:01:36 PM  
I had a member of a HOA posting highlighted rules and regulations on my door all the time because I wouldn't give him a ride to the airport once.

I started skirting his issues by changing things "just slightly" so they would have to re-vote. The older ones thought it was funny and voted against him. He was mad.

/weeeeeee
//was renting from the owner
 
2007-09-13 02:02:03 PM  
I_Love_Verdi: Office Ninja: Can we use this same logic to overturn a Presidential election, that since not everyone voted there was no true majority. Or is it a majority of those that voted?

As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.

I think the judge was looking for a technicality to save these people from what was obviously an abuse of power.


Granted, and I applaude him for helping these people. But try using his logic on a political election and you'll get told to STFU.
 
2007-09-13 02:02:25 PM  
Szech: Kiioro: "Many residents said the project was rammed down their throats..."

This just gave me quite a... "peculiar" mental image.

Eeeww!! It's a senior community!

NTTAWWT.


Hmmm... No teeth, you say?



It's a senior community?! I... uh...

Hoisted-overkilled by my own petard.
 
2007-09-13 02:02:34 PM  
The judge's ruling is reasonable, though this is clearly an issue where reasonable people can differ. The HOA rules are vauge. The HOA natually wants them to been seen in the light most favorable to them. But the judge is under no obligation to do that. I'd appeal too, though it is unlikely that this will be overturned given that it seems within the judges discretion to do what he did.

What is really sad is that no legal eagle caught the problem with the rules before the vote. It would have saved a lot of hassle.
 
2007-09-13 02:02:41 PM  
And all this time I thought an HOA was that lane on the freeway for car poolers. I thought who'd want a home there.

/Native sw kansan
 
2007-09-13 02:02:50 PM  
My HOA isn't so very bad, they take care of the beach mostly. Now, if I could just get rid of my neighbors.
 
2007-09-13 02:03:27 PM  
SchlingFo: The same argument was brought up when people were opposing Jim Crow laws in stores and restaurants.

There's a large difference between places that purport to be open to the public but racially discriminate, and land owners who only will sell to people if they agree to abide by the terms of a covenant. If the HOA prevented people of a certain race from living there, or constantly harassed people of a certain race but not those of another race, maybe you'd have an analogy.

Give it up, already.
 
2007-09-13 02:03:47 PM  
tuna fingers: C'mon Farkers. When I hear "luxury community centers", I think


You guys think "replace gutters".

/meh


Nice pic! HOA threads need more pics of chics in pools, which are usually banned by quite a few HOAs. Pools. Not chics.
 
2007-09-13 02:04:20 PM  
Office Ninja: As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.

In constitutional matters, often enough rules will be interpreted as close to the framer's intent, or practical effect as possible (the theory varies).

In most HOA cases, the courts recognize that that HOA contract put the individual at a contractual disadvantage compared to the HOA, who often have many more resources. Judges will therefore interpret HOA bylaws strictly against the HOA, or at least strictly according to the wording of the document.

The understanding is, the HOA has the lawyers and the money and the time to know EXACTLY what it wants to say in a contract and how to say it. Because of that they have no excuse if the contract says otherwise. Here the contract said "a majority of unit owners" not a majority of voters. Strict interpretation says that the judge here was right.
 
2007-09-13 02:04:25 PM  
trifecta

trifecta

trifecta


wow..the most teeth grinding i want to shot myself word
 
2007-09-13 02:04:41 PM  
HectorSchwartz: I humbly surrender to the trifecta, but I still don't have to mow my lawn or paint my house. Ever. Or pave the driveway, or replace gutters, the roof, plants, etc. I just don't like to do that shiat (I landscaped through college and swore it off forever) So for me, it's worth it. To each his own, I guess. Thank god my neighbors aren't insane.

So you make the point that you are lazy? And apt to bend to the will of others?

/part of the joy about being a actual home owner, is you GET to do that sutff.
//why not rent then?
 
2007-09-13 02:05:15 PM  
Good for them. I can grasp the idea of not wanting your neighbors to paint their house day glo orange & cover it in cartoon characters. HOA's are fine for little shiat like that, but I'm frikkin amazed at some of the other shiat they pull.

I suppose it's like anything else. HOA's started with all the right intentions & turned into something awful.
 
2007-09-13 02:05:38 PM  
As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.

Why? The judge interpreted the HOA's own charter better than their board did. Someone posted the relevant part above, I quote it below:

4. Special Assessments. In addition to any other assessments authorized herein, and in order to provide for
the health, safety and welfare of the members, the Company shall have the right and power to acquire additional real
and personal property, including commercial property and to provide for the construction of additional recreational
and common facilities, or the alteration, demolition or removal of existing recreational and other common facilities,
including commercial facilities and to use special assessments to defray in whole or in part the costs thereof.
A. Any such special assessment shall require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the
Company's Board of Directors at a duly called meeting at which a quorum is present, and
B. Ratified by a majority of the owners in the manner
and pursuant to the procedure as set forth in the by-laws of the Company.


4.B. is the important part. It has to be agreed on by a majority of the owners. It doesn't say anything about a majority of those that voted. The HOA worded their charter wrong in this particular case.
 
Displayed 50 of 389 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report