Need interpretation

Could someone please interpret this covenant? "No trailer, tent, garage, barn or other out-building shall be erected or used as either a temporary or permanent residence." Do this keep a homeowner from erecting a shed for storage purposes?

I would actually interpret it as yes, you can build one.

".... shall be erected or used as either a temporary or permanent residence" I would read this as in if it's not for residence - you are fine.

Agreed.

Such structures are allowed EXCEPT as a 'residence'.

Kelly,

Is this the full language?

Typically, this type of language includes a requirement for Association approval to build or change anything on the exterior of the property.

Since the statement includes the word "or" I see this as a combination of two restrictions in one sentence:

No trailer, tent, garage, barn or other out-building shall be erected as either a temporary or permanent residence.
AND
(if one exists) No trailer, tent, garage, barn or other out-building shall be used as either a temporary or permanent residence.

I can also see how some might interpret it this way:

No trailer, tent, garage, barn or other out-building shall be erected.
AND
No trailer, tent, garage, barn or other out-building shall be used as either a temporary or permanent residence.

However, I suspect that you still need to get prior approval to have a storage shed.

Here is a link to a thread about interpreting statutes (works just as well with covenants):

http://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/postid/103015/Default.aspx

Are they targeting the association with a lawsuit or the owner that built the shed? What is the basis of their claim?

If this is only one owner attacking another and majority supports having sheds (what a novel idea) why not amend you covenants and fix the language so it's explicit.

You said someone is "considering" bringing suit.

Depending on the circumstances, any lawyer who believes the case is without merit, likely will not take the suit.

People will sue for any reason at all. It doesn't mean they'll win.

This lawsuit is kind of frivolous. I don't think the neigbhor has a foot to stand on. It would fall under the HOA to take action against the owner IF the shed violates the rules NOT the individual owner/neighbor. They are kind of barking up the wrong tree in their lawsuit. If anything, that owner needs to present their case to the HOA board to decide if action needs to be taken. Although, the HOA shouldn't involve themselves in a lawsuit either. They should have other options other than suing. Some HOA's are allowed to remove the violation at the owner's cost. Meaning they can remove the violation and send the bill of removal to that owner. If that owner doesn't pay, then they can LIEN that owner for that bill. Although this process has it's issues but it is an option.

I just wanted to point out one issue about sheds. They shouldn't be attached to the homes. This is an insurance issue. The structure can be a few inches from the home but NOT attached due to fire hazaard issues. We allowed storage sheds in the backyard but they couldn't be attached to the homes or used as homes. A consideration when approving such structures in the future. Refer the owner to the insurer on adding such structures besides just the board. You don't want the HOA responsible for these structures in case they get damaged.

You may want to discuss this with your insurance but I had an homeowner who had this issue. If the structure is attached, then it can pose a fire risk or not be covered by your insurance if something were to happen. That's to say that if a fire broke out in the shed and spread to the house, there could be an issue. That being the structure may not be part of the coverage on your home. Basically, the cost of that structure may not be covered but the home would. So don't expect getting money to cover that loss and anything inside of it. You have to disclose it to your insurer if you want the contents protected.

Kelly

after reading all this I think the association needs to just stand back and let whatever happens, happen. In this situation I interpret you covenants to read that an outbuilding is allowed as long as it isn't used for living. If that is the interpretation of the board and they went through the approval process then the HOA can stand back and let the neighbors duke it out.

Someone made the comment that the lawsuit is frivolous, I don't agree with that. Homeowners have the right to sue other homeowners if there is a breach of contract. In this case the homeonwers suing must feel that the shed is a breach of contract or the covenants they all agreed to and if so they are entitled to seek relief as homeowners.

And according to my insurance agent it makes no difference if my shed is attached or 20 miles away from my house, it is covered all the same.

It all depends on the provisions in the CC&R's and/or state law. My CC&R's allow owners to enforce the covenants with or without the approval of the association.

I have lived in 3 Fla. HOAs with this same language in the CC&Rs.... EVERY house has a Garage, some have sheds too!

The two sentences I sent make up the entire covenant. The remaining covenants (15)are very general as to one home per lot, easements, cleanliness etc. I feel this entire covenant is referring to the shed or out-building and its use...not existence. The second sentence referencing housetrailers/boats reinforces the idea that you can only live in your house-not in another structure on your lot. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Our HOA dues are voluntary and our board has no guidelines as to what actions we can take for violations.