News Headline

Read the News Headline (on this site) about a military couple returning from opverseas to find squaters in their home. You comments please.

Gee how many times have we had posters come here stating this is a good idea??? Seems when it catches up with the HOA... It is going to hurt... They could sue for all the rent the HOA collected... Plus being on active duty the HOA could not foreclose. So even though Florida allows tenants to pay the dues to avoid foreclosure.. This case there would never been a danger of foreclosure. They have good lawsuit against their HOA. Which in this circumstance would support...

Gee how many times have we had posters come here stating this is a good idea??? Seems when it catches up with the HOA... It is going to hurt... They could sue for all the rent the HOA collected... Plus being on active duty the HOA could not foreclose. So even though Florida allows tenants to pay the dues to avoid foreclosure.. This case there would never been a danger of foreclosure. They have good lawsuit against their HOA. Which in this circumstance would support...

This is not what I and others have been talking about. These people broke into the house. The HOA knew they broke in and took advantage. All of this is criminal, the HOA had no right and I would say they had an obligation to have the tenants removed since they were there without permission of the homeowners.

In my HOA, the houses were in bank foreclosure and from 2004 through about 2014, the foreclosures were taking years and years. The homeowner leaves. No dues are collected and the house is empty. We do a lien and then foreclose on our lien. Then we have title to the house. Meanwhile the bank foreclosure continues. The bank foreclosure has to do with the mortgage, the HOA foreclosure has to do with the lien we are legally able to file for nonpayment of dues and that is on the house. We fix up and rent out the house and tell the tenants "we can do a year lease and month by month thereafter; the house is in bank foreclosure and when it is completed, the bank will take the house back and we do not know if you will be allowed to stay". We did this with 2 houses. In one case, it was rented for more than 2 years and could have gone longer but the people relocated, the other house was rented for 1 year. We payed down the owed dues with the rent and put the rest of the money in a reserve fund. We did everything legally, the homeowners are served with the foreclosure papers, we are forced to do mediation (homeowners do not show up for mediation) and the case is decided by a judge in circuit court.

The HOA and tenants in the news story will be in trouble. There is something called the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act that specifically protects active duty soldiers from these types of crimes. Now if we find out that the homeowners were not paying their dues and the tenants told the HOA they were renting the house from the homeowners, then the HOA has a legal right (in Florida) to collect the rent and pay down the dues. Once the dues are paid off the rent goes back to the homeowner. But based on the story, this did not happen. The tenants were squatters and the HOA knew they were squatters. Terrible! Since the HOA may have committed a crime here, I doubt the board's insurance policy will pay anything to the homeowners, the board members themselves may be personally liable to pay all the rent they collected to the homeowners as a possible resolution.

Why is the HOA even having a discussion with the renters in the first place. THE RENTERS HAVE NO STANDING. The contract is between the HOA and the property owner!
Joanne

Hi Richard....but does the assignment of rents negate the fact that the property is owned by someone else and in my opinion, it was the responsibility of the BOD to verify THROUGH THE OWNER THAT there were occupants in their home regardless of whether or not they were delinquent. After all, this is still the owner's property and would he not have right to screen and approve occupants? Had the HOA contacted the owner immediately upon learning there were occupants, would these squatters would be out the door? If it were my property......oh ya!

You're damn right Richard! I pray to God that no one every pulls an eminent domain thing on me.

Richard, thanks for the insight. I am sorry to day that I do not know what Chinese dry wall is but assume it presents some serious issue.

These property managers can do more harm than good and from what I hear, a good PM is hard to find. Hope the HOA has a good insurance policy! I hear that it is not a bad idea to have personal umbrella attached to one's personal insurance policy if you are serving on a BOD.

In Florida it is now part of the statutes that rent can be collected on delinquent properties, previously it needed to be in the documents. The part of this story that will come back to bite them is that they were on active duty. It did not matter that their dues were delinquent because all legal issues like this are stayed (halted) while they are on active duty.

Some HOA's have provisions that the board must first approve tenants and no rentals can take place unless dues are current. I have those provisions in my docs. If a tenant were to move in without my knowledge, someone would tell me right away and this situation would never have happened. These kinds of rules are in place because Florida is a vacation and retirement/snowbird state and there are many folks who would turn their house into a timeshare if they could.

Excuse me but even though delinquent.....the owners are still the ONLY people on the deed. If it had been know to be a rental property this would be a different story but these were squatters and you know what they say about the word "assume". SHAME on the HOA and the PM.....and maybe a legal opinion would have been in order before they assumed anything. Everyone should have covered themselves. Hindsight is 20/20 but this was an easy one guys.
Joanne

I do not believe anyone is disagreeing with you. But understand the difference between what happened in the story and what normally happens when the homeowner rents out the house and does not pay dues. These are different scenarios and quite different than when the hoa forecloses its lien and takes possession of the house and rents it out while the bank foreclosure continues. 3 different scenarios. Actually, what started the HOA collecting rent was that many homeowners in bank foreclosure were renting out their homes, so the homeowner is not paying mortgage and not paying dues AND is collecting rent. HOA's were given the ability to collect that rent instead to pay down the owed dues. We are not allowed to take more rent money than what is owed in dues.

Oh my gosh....all that legal ease is something that intimidates me.

I will continue to read further posts before I put foot in mouth but just have a warm spot for our military and not a very warm spot for inferior PM & BOD.
Joanne

Regardless of how you frame this, I am going to say that the owner is the owner and it is INCUMBENT that there be some verification of the lease. The HOA has a contract with the owner NOT the occupant. A certified letter, a registered letter....non-response does not give anyone a right to take over or allow someone to invade a person's home. Doesn't HOA had a fiduciary duty to owner...not the occupant? A delinquent owner still has rights. The owner has to keep the property in compliance. The owner suffers the occupant"s violations. Am I over-simplifying this?
Joanne

Tim,

*I ma going to disagree with you. According to the article the PM knew the individuals occupying the unit were squatter. They had no business being there and surely would not have a valid lease would they?

I'm sorry, the article does not say that.

The artice said that the PM was aware that the squatters (which is the term used in the article to refer to the individuals) had moved into the unit.

The article does not say that the PM knew they were actual squatters. Only that indiviudls (being referred to in the story as squatters) had moved in.

When the PM asked, the individuals (aka squatters) provided a lease.

At that point, the PM only knows that:

1) someone moved into the unit.
2) When approached, they provided a lease and said they were renters.

Joanne,

I understand your position. I simply don't agree.
However, on behalf of military members, I thank you for your support.

Keep in mind that if the member had been current on assessments, it's likely the PM/Association would have never even talked to the individuals in the house, as there would have been no need to.

The squatters would have still been there and found by the Military family when they got home.

There's way too many 'ifs' in this story for me to even form an opinion about what's going on. Couple that with the notoriously bad reporting on even the simplest stories done these days by TV news organizations and I'm sure there are zero verified facts in any of it.

This came to light because "a viewer reached out" to the TV station? OK. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a foreclosure lien placed on the home in 2013 by Wells Fargo Bank.

The Servicemember's Civil Relief Act (2003) would stay that foreclosure only if the home was bought prior to him entering the military. We don't know when he entered the military so we can't say whether the Act would protect him or not.

Interestingly enough, the foreclosure notice - posted on the Offical Records of Hillsborough County (this is all public information) - names him and his wife, the HOA, and Unknown Tenant #1 and Unknown Tenant #2 as defendants. The WTSP story says he and his wife just got back from deployment and found these squatters living in the house. Apparently Wells Fargo knew about them two years ago. Maybe if the guy and his wife didn't decide to skip out on their mortgage and HOA assessment obligations they could have found out from the bank 2 freaking years ago.

I smell a scam.

Same here.

For sure....the circle is getting smaller and the data on the lien is puzzling......As hey say.....way over my pay grade.
G'nite all.
Joanne

Yes indeed. I shouldn't have used the word 'scam', that's a little too strong. The guy doesn't have completely clean hands, however. I did a little more searching and it's an interesting and probably sad case, but I can't claim to know everything about this man and his family.

They bought the house in March of 2008 and paid a market-top price for the area on the same day the Fed arranged for JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns for $2 a share. The avalanche was starting.

They stopped paying their HOA assessments after only two months; the HOA lien filed last November shows all assessments have gone unpaid since June 1, 2008.

They must have stopped paying the mortgage around the same time because Wells Fargo forclosed in January of 2010 and in October a Final Judgment was entered against them. Auction sale dates were set, reset, and rescheduled for more than a year before his new attorney, in May of 2012 filed for protection under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act we were talking about above. The judge cancelled the sale, cancelled the lien and set aside the final judgment.

According to the Channel 10 story he was deployed in 2011, so he was out of the country while the case played out but he and his wife certainly knew they were still in trouble financially. They had been almost from the day they bought the house.

In late 2013 Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure again. Same house. Same mortgage. The guy, wherever he was deployed (not using his name here on purpose), was served with the papers according to the court record. There as been a flurry of changes of attorney for him since then. The "unknown tenants" were dropped from the case in March. The latest update on the court website is that he has again filed for protection under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act.

Central to the HOA's lien against the property is the Servicemember Civil Relief Act only affets liens and foreclosures when they are for non-payment of a mortgage. Maybe HOA assessments and fees wouldn't be affected under that law. Nevertheless, the HOA fees were rather low, about $60 a month for a total of $9,000 since mid-2008. A drop in the bucket compared to what's owed on the mortgage if they have not been paying it.

If the HOA and PM had some scheme going to collect some thousands of dollars (less than $10,000) in back assessments then they will pay the price for that. But the owner isn't going to be able to sue anybody for anywhere near what he owes on the mortgage. Even if he successfully gets the $9,000 erased from what he owes the HOA, he's still going to lose the house when his protection under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act comes to an end.

I still think the "we're not paying because of Chinese dry wall" is a lame excuse. Sounds good when you're talking to a TV reporter I guess.

Good night, Joanne!

Yes I think they would have had a strong claim against the builder, and they were the original owners. But by the time the Chinese dry wall situation was becoming clear they had already been not paying for some time. You can still make a claim today, I think, if you've got a situation with Chinese dry wall installed through 2008. They could be telling the truth about that, but they are so far underwater and in arrears right now it's probably going to be the next owner's problem. Between the house being in disrepair and the dry wall problem, if it sold for half of the original selling price they'd be lucky. If it was in good shape the comps in the area are, going by recent sales, running about $30,000 lower than what they were selling for back in 2008.

The guy and his family may be at the tail end of those who got hit pretty hard in the financial crisis and real estate meltdown. He has been able to postpone his day of reckoning so far. I hope he's acquiring some good skillsets in the Air Force. It looks like he has a beautiful family and they'll probably be OK even if they have to file for bankruptcy at some point. Maybe they've been holding out hope against hope that by the time he got out of the service the market value would rebound all the way and they could escape their predicament.

And, as for the HOA, if they were really as sleazy as that original story claims then I hope they get what they justly deserve. They probably figured the guy was never coming back and since they were handed a bunch of lemons they'd try to make lemonade. If they broke any laws then they should pay a steep penalty. Conspirng with the PM to fabricate a lease with the owner's name on it sounds like a good place to start.

It's covered under the law under any legal actions to collect the settlement (court case can be delayed, etc.)

Where did this come from.
No claim of this was ever made in the article.

The HOA simply exercised it's right under the law to collect the rent from who they believed to be renters. The so called squatters complied with the law and paid the amount identified on the lease to the HOA.

Yes the sentence is worded badly.
The article refers to the individuals who moved into the home as squatters.
Hence the line could be rewritten as:

The HOA PM, Sentry, knew that someone had moved in.


Again, a badly worded sentence.

They, refers to the Squatters who provided a bogus lease to the PM.

It's a shame that journalism has become a dead art.


Yes.


See my earlier post in this thread.

The HOA was not a party to the lease. They asked for a copy (which was good). A copy was provided. It likely looked like all the other leases that the Association has gotten a copy of.

Our Association gets copies of leases all the time.
We don't take the time, energy or funds to verify said lease. We are not a party to the lease. All we do is file it.

Additionally, keep in mind that the owners were behind on assessments (to the tune of several thousand dollars with legal fees). I suspect that the owners weren't communicating with the Association (and that is with the expectation that the HOA had the updated mailing address of the owners).


Why can't you accept that the PM was snookered.

Do you ask your neighbors if they are owners or renters?
Do you ask them to provide you documentation (copy of the HUD1 or lease agreement).
When you get said documents, do you verify that the documentation is correct?

The HOA had a property that was behind in assessments.
The HOA saw that people had moved into the property.
The HOA contacted the people and, perhaps, asked if they were new owners, renters, etc.
The individuals likely said that they were renting (based on the lease)
The HOA likely asked for a copy of the lease as none was provided by the owner.
The individuals provided the HOA with a lease.
Said lease looked like all other leases, had correct names of the owners, etc.
The HOA said thank you.
The HOA then exercised their right under FL law to divert said rent (based on the lease) to the HOA to pay the delinquent assessments.
Owners came home and found squatters.

Someone then contacted the media, who, as you pointed out, wrote a badly written story.

As others have pointed out in this thread, additional research shows that the house had been in forclosure proceedings from the mortgage company and named tenants as part of the legal case. Hence, at some point in time (between 2011 and 2015) the house had been rented previously.

Why then, would you expect someone who is not a party to the lease to verify if the lease if valid or not. The fact that you were given a copy of the lease, made a claim against the rental amount and was paid that amount by the individuals who gave you the lease sort of gives an indication that it's legit.

I do believe that there is a whole lot more to this story then what the story says.
I do believe that the story purposely written and, if you watched the video, edited to give the impression that the Association did something wrong but the article never said that anything was done improperly. In fact, the story points out that what was done was legal and in compliance with existing laws.

So we are still trying to get this figured out?

The home could not have been sold without the HOA being involved I'm someway.

How did the renter know who owned the property? If they had a fake lease, they had to get the name from somewhere/someone.

Do you recall the story about the gal in California who rented her house and when the lease was up, she could not get the occupants out? There are some crazy things going on in this world.

Yes.

This is because of the language of the law.
I've provided a link to it earlier in the thread.