Covenant misinterpretation > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Covenant misinterpretation

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 3

Author

Messages

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/07/2007 12:37 AM
Location: Montezuma County, Colorado 10. No structure of temporary character, recreational vehicle, camper unit, trailer, mobile home, basement, tent, shack, garage, accessory building or other out-building shall be used on any parcel as a residence. A temporary camp, tent or camper unit may be used for recreational purposes but such structures may not be allowed to remain or be stored on any lot for a period of more than 9 months in a given year. Recreational vehicles may be stored longer than the 9 months per year, provided they are stored in a storage facility, i.e. barn or garage, which meets all the requirements set forth herein. Our BOD maintains that this Covenant gives them the right to ban Manufactured Homes from the subdivision. I say otherwise! I base my opinion on a through reading of the Colorado Revised Statutes ,Case law and Federal law. Some facts. This is the only use of the word mobile home in the covenants. Manufactured housing/homes are never mentioned in any context. They have been using a definition of mobile home that isn't even on the books anymore and a letter from an attorney that references modular homes also citing repealed code. Though fully advised of the case law ,Federal and State statues pertinent to this issue they refuse to change their position. They just found some new definitions in the sales tax code and the consumer protection act to justify their positions. I started on this issue with them in September of 2005 during a failed attempt to revise the covenants to ban pre-fab, manufactured, and modular housing. They certainly can't claim ignorance. In the past they have sent letters to the local realtors telling them no manufactured homes allowed and the same position is posted on the web site along with the bad definitions and the irrelevant attorneys letter. They recently posted this in the minutes. "Once again the problem of mobile homes has come up. We have a lot owner that wants to put a mobile/manufactured home on their lot. The covenants state they are not allowed in this subdivision. While this is difficult for those that want to purchase one, the Board is charged with enforcing the covenants with no exceptions" I purchased my 10 acre lot from the original developer after a careful reading of the covenants. He told me it was to be a mixed development and that a nice double wide was fine. The first home placed in the subdivision(1999) was a manufactured one. Currently there are about 60 homes of which 7 are manufactured. Mine is one of them. I was here long before the board and HOA came into being. There are also 3 "earth ships", made of old tires and rammed earth, at least one straw bale and mud home, and numerous log cabins. Most of the site built homes have not been subjected to any building codes. There wasn't one in the county until mid 2006. The Danger: No liability Insurance. Coverage was lost (non-renewal) after a member filed and won a judgement against the HOA. Many lot owners bought their properties after being told that there were no factory built homes allowed. They should be thoroughly irritated. Others bought with the assurance that they could put a mfg home on site. The Problem: No amount of factual information and citations of law will convince them to remove this misinformation from the web site and advise the realtors that a mistake was made due to bad legal advice. It seems to me that they have a duty to remove false and misleading information. They are placing the association in financial jeopardy. The Dilemma: How can I get them to stop their bad acts? They have chosen to ignore me. I sent all of the 129 members a copy of my open letter to the board by email or first class. The BOD response was that this should have been a board matter only. I did succeed in getting a very large turnout for the May 31,2007 board meeting by sending a follow up letter to the members. At which time the board presented it's new set of out of context definitions. I did get a verbal statement that they would again consult an attorney and have him look at my argument. So now it is July 7 and still no response or changes have been made. All advice will be appreciated Jack

JudithC
(Virginia)

Posts:252

07/07/2007 4:42 AM
You don't consider a double wide to be a mobile home?

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/07/2007 7:33 AM
Double wide what? Colorado Statutes below are the basis for my opinion regarding definitions of Mobile Home Versus Manufactured Home. Edited for some brevity TITLE 24 GOVERNMENT - STATE: PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS: ARTICLE 32 DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS: PART 33 REGULATION OF FACTORY-BUILT STRUCTURES, MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES WHERE NO STANDARDS EXIST, MANUFACTURED HOME INSTALLATIONS, AND SELLERS OF MANUFACTURED HOMES: 24-32-3302. Definitions. Terms: manufactured housing 12) "Federal act" means the "National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974", 42 U.S.C. sec. 5401 et seq. (20) "Manufactured home" means any pre constructed building unit or combination of pre constructed building units that: (a) Include electrical, mechanical, or plumbing services that are fabricated, formed, or assembled at a location other than the site of the completed home; (b) Is designed for residential occupancy in either temporary or permanent locations; (c) Is constructed in compliance with the federal act, factory-built residential requirements, or mobile home standards; (d) Does not have motor power; and (e) Is not licensed as a recreational vehicle. (24) "Mobile home" means a manufactured home built prior to the adoption of the federal act. Below is a bit more current and precludes homes that would be considered single wide manufactured homes. Clearly defined and not a temporary structure. Colorado Statutes: TITLE 30 GOVERNMENT - COUNTY: COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: ARTICLE 28 COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: PART 1 COUNTY PLANNING: 30-28-115. Public welfare to be promoted - legislative declaration - construction. (3)(a) (I) "Manufactured home" means a single family dwelling which: (A) Is partially or entirely manufactured in a factory; (B) Is not less than twenty-four feet in width and thirty-six feet in length; (C) Is installed on an engineered permanent foundation; (D) Has brick, wood, or cosmetically equivalent exterior siding and a pitched roof; and (E) Is certified pursuant to the "National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974", 42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq., as amended. (II) "Equivalent performance engineering basis" means that by using engineering calculations or testing, following commonly accepted engineering practices, all components and subsystems will perform to meet health, safety, and functional requirements to the same extent as required for other single family housing units. (b) (I) No county shall have or enact zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, or any other regulation affecting development which exclude or have the effect of excluding manufactured homes from the county if such homes meet or exceed, on an equivalent performance engineering basis, standards established by the county building code. (II) Nothing in this subsection (3) shall prevent a county from enacting any zoning, developmental, use, aesthetic, or historical standard, including, but not limited to, requirements relating to permanent foundations, minimum floor space, unit size or sectional requirements, and improvement location, side yard, and setback standards to the extent that such standards or requirements are applicable to existing or new housing within the specific use district of the county. (III) Nothing in this subsection (3) shall preclude any county from enacting county building code provisions for unique public safety requirements such as snow load roof, wind shear, and energy conservation factors. (IV) Nothing in this subsection (3) shall be deemed to supersede any valid covenants running with the land My point being that we don't have a valid covenant. There is also the ambiguity issue. Which was the reason for my seemingly smart ass reply. To be addressed later if needed Jack

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3701

07/07/2007 7:40 AM
Jack, you succeeded in getting your neighbors and the Board to listen to your argument and seek another legal opinion. So they are not ignoring you. Nor did you say they are asking you to remove your double wide which I consider a mobile home. You ask: "How can I get them to stop their bad acts? They have chosen to ignore me." Perhaps you should consider yourself lucky. The bad act could be not enforcing the restriction by not requiring you to remove your double wide mobile home!

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:3701

07/07/2007 7:50 AM
Jack, thanks for posting definitions on manufactured homes. However, the Covenant restriction is on mobile homes. I believe you said you owned a double wide which I presume is a motor home not a manufactured home. Do you have similar references to prove your double wide is not a mobile home? For example is your double wide able to be moved without disassembly (except for such things as removing skirts and jacks).

Roger Borcherding Official HOATalk.com Sponsor DARCO Property Management (Colorado) (303) 925-0150 *See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal

JudithC
(Virginia)

Posts:252

07/07/2007 8:01 AM
Jack, to answer your question about my double wide reference, in your original post you state that: "He told me it was to be a mixed development and that a nice double wide was fine."

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/07/2007 11:48 AM
By my reading I also would consider a "double-wide" a mobile home, and not a "manufactured home," according to the definitions you listed. The manufactured homes that are defined in the above appear to me to be identical to site-built homes with the only exception that they are manufactured, in whole or part, at a different location. Once a manufactured home is installed on the site, it is a "permanent" residence, that should appear to even the casualist of observes as being undistinquisable from the other site-built homes in the subdivision. A "double-wide," no matter how nicely made is still a "temporary" structure, in that you can knock out their "foundation," re-attach the wheels and away you go. We have 2 "manufactured" homes in our neighborhood. In fact, our backyards butt up against each other. Both are 2-story structures and were brought in 4 sections and permanently "sited" on top of a basement. They also have attached garages. One is brick exterior, the other is grey siding, and unless you saw them put together you would have no way of identifying them as the only two "manufactured" homes in our development. The reading of the definitions above convince me that this is the sort of "manufactured" home they are defining and the definitions themselves clearly distinguish them from what we used to call "mobile homes" (of which a "double-wide" is).

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/08/2007 12:56 AM
The time limit to enforce covenant is only one year in Colorado. I predate the current HOA. At the time I placed my home. The developer was the authority (declarant) in effect he was the HOA. I should have been less slangy in my use of double wide and included the full statement. Manufactured homes are to be allowed providing they are double wide's. I do not have a double wide mobile home. By Federal and State definition, I have a manufactured home. It is a 2001 model. Please review previous post Then again this covenant did pass in October of 2005 #33. All double-wide mobile homes that are currently on lots or tracts in the XXXXX XXXX Ranches Homeowner’s Subdivision that were there before January 1, 2003 are grand fathered in and are exempt from the no double-wide part of these covenants. This does not preclude the enforcement of the no double-wide part of these covenants in the future. It is poorly written and references a non-existent part of the covenants. (24) "Mobile home" means a manufactured home built prior to the adoption of the federal act. That would be in 1974. The state and county regard my home as real property and tax it as such. It is on and welded to a permanent foundation of poured in place concrete columns extending four feet into the ground. The titles are purged. No axles or tow bar. It fully meets the standards set forth in CRS 30-28-115. It is 28 by 48 feet. Before remodeling it was a 3 bedroom 2 bath. It is of 2 x 6 construction and insulated to 150 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. It has an attached insulated three car garage and office for my wife. Office alone is 22 x 16 feet. A deck with hot tub and an enclosed stuccoed courtyard. This is no mobile home. Kitchen has granite counter tops and cherry wood cabinets. Master bath was a finalist in the Moen show us your style contest. Living room and dining room have cork flooring. Every room was stripped to the walls and subfloor. Every piece of trim work has been replaced. Carpeting is of top quality as is the laminate flooring. My wife and I did a great deal of the work. I know from personal observation that our craftsmanship is far better than we have seen in many site built homes. There are site built homes in the subdivision that look so much like manufactured homes in configuration that I had to check with the assessors office to determine their origin. Jack

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/08/2007 2:11 AM
Covenants and deed restrictions are to be construed as a whole and interpreted according to their plain language, in view of their underlying purpose. Wilson v. Goldman, 699 P.2d 420 (Colo. App. 1985). Any doubts as to the meaning of a restrictive covenant are to be resolved in favor of permitting free enjoyment and maximum use of the land and against the restriction. Greenbrier-Cloverdale Homeowners Ass’n v. Baca, 763 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1988) When I look at this covenant, I see the phrase, No structure of temporary character, followed by the types of structures. When I read it as a whole I can only see it's intent as to prevent them from being lived in full time. I don't see a ban on manufactured homes COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS March 16, 2000 No. 99CA0044 Is worth looking at it presents a very similar situation to the one exsiting here. It dicusses the ambiguity issue. It can be found at Findlaw.com I will be travelling for the next 11 days and may be unable to reply to comments Jack

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/09/2007 5:41 PM
One can live in a temporary structure, a mobile home, for quite a long period of time. I would consider in reading that as a ban on them. Almost all mobile homes are "manufactured," while not all "manufactured" homes are mobile homes. So you have removed the axles and welded/attached to concrete, with those and various other configurations you have done, you may have managed to move your home's technical description from a "mobile" home to a "manufactured" home per the discussion. But that the state considers it real property and taxes it as such doesn't mean much, they do the same to mobile homes, and automobiles, for that matter. But the issue isn't whether it is a "real" home, but whether mobile homes can be allowed, and I don't see that they are. Manufactured ones can be I believe, but not mobile homes, trailers, if you will. But since you say yours is grandfathered in and all such other stuff, I'm confused as to what you're asking of us? If it was whether we are of the opinion it bans mobile homes, my answer was, the way I read it, it does. Otherwise, I'm sure you have a very nice home and I'm guessing that you'll be able to live there for a considerable amount of time.

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/20/2007 4:23 PM
I would say all mobile homes were manufactured. I would use the past tense when referring to them. They have not been manufactured since 1974. Colorado Title 24 24-32-3302. Definitions. Terms: manufactured housing (12) "Federal act" means the "National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974", 42 U.S.C. sec. 5401 et seq. (24) "Mobile home" means a manufactured home built prior to the adoption of the federal act. My home has never been a mobile home. It is a factory built manufactured home that was transported to it's current location with the full intention of permanency. The question. Taking into consideration all of the previously supplied information, Is this covenant #10 sufficient for a BOD to ban all forms of manufactured homes from the subdivision or is it's true intent to keep temporary structures from being used as permanent dwellings by a lot owner. I fully agree with the statement that it bans mobile homes from use as a permanent residence. I care about this matter because a small group of people in power are misusing this covenant to support their prejudices against a particular type of housing that was present and legal in the sub division before their arrival. By posting their position on the web site and telling realtors that mfg homes are not allowed here they may be unduly influencing the market values of the properties. The continued use by posting on the web site of non-existent, repealed , and deleted laws to support their position exposes all of the HOA members to potential financial loss. That kind of posting could be considered as fraud. Remember no Insurance protection. I believe that they are breaching their fiduciary responsibilities by refusing to act on this matter in prompt fashion. It would be very easy to remove this misinformation from the web site until the matter is properly clarified. They have chosen not to do so. Jack

TracyT
(Maryland)

Posts:220

07/20/2007 6:13 PM
Um, aren't all homes manufactured? Either at a factory or on site?

MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:650

07/20/2007 6:18 PM
Good one there Tracy! However, not every home has axles underneath them. If it's got axle's it's mobile. If it took axles to get there, it might be mobile too! Except for house moving of course! Of course if you see my house moving, don't knock!

Former HOA President

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/20/2007 7:27 PM
Tracy, you bring up an interesting point. Factory built is a better term than manufactured. Stick built is often used to mean site built. Site constructed homes might be a better term. At one time the BOD tried to say that if it came in on wheels it was a mobile home. Then the issue of the salvage home previously mentioned was brought up along with the lumber delivery vehicles having wheels. Now they are using obsolete definitions for mobile homes found in the sales tax code 1973 and the consumer protection code. So we again come to the ambiguity issue. The following was taken directly from COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS No. 99CA0044 we first consider whether the meaning of the term "mobile home" as used in the original and amended restrictive covenants is ambiguous as to whether it includes all types of factory built housing. We conclude that it is. Interpretation and construction of covenants is a question of law which we review de novo . In the absence of contrary equitable or legal considerations, protective covenants that are clear on their face must be enforced as written. Rossman v. Seasons at Tiara Rado Associates , 943 P.2d 34 (Colo. App. 1996). Rules of construction for determining whether provisions of a document are ambiguous are applicable to protective covenants. Hallmark Building Company v. Westland Meadows Owners Ass'n, Inc. , 983 P.2d 170 (Colo. App. 1999). A written instrument is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, or where there is uncertainty as to the meaning of a term. Ad Two, Inc. v. City & County of Denver , 983 P.2d 128 (Colo. App. 1999)( cert. granted Sept. 13, 1999). ....... There are indeed differences in the construction of trailer homes and mobile, modular, manufactured, and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sanctioned, and Uniform Building Code (UBC) sanctioned mobile homes. However, various bodies of law use the terms interchangeably. Therefore, we conclude that the term "mobile home," as used in the covenants here, is ambiguous. See State of Colorado, Division of Housing, Brief History of Colorado Homes That Were Built in a Factory , (1998)(for the most part, people use the terms mobile, modular, manufactured, HUD, UBC, and trailer interchangeably when referring to homes built in a factory). For instance, in 1988, the Federal National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act was renamed the Federal Manufactured Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. §5401, et seq. (1988). In Colorado, from 1931 through 1982, wheeled vehicles having a residential purpose were referred to in the statutes as "trailer coaches" and "mobile homes." See , e.g. , Colo. Sess. Laws 1931, §1 at 485. In 1983, the General Assembly abandoned use of those terms and replaced them with the phrase "manufactured home" throughout what is now known as the "Title to Manufactured Homes Act," found at §38-29-101, et seq. , C.R.S. 1999. See Colo. Sess. Laws 1983, ch. 417, §38-29-102 at 1448; Colo. Sess. Laws 1989, ch. 122 at 712. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With no written definition of mobile home, manufactured home or factory built home in the covenants and with contract law applying to covenants of this sort, How can this restrictive covenant possibly be used to ban Factory built/ manufactured homes from the subdivision. Jack

TracyT
(Maryland)

Posts:220

07/21/2007 10:21 AM
Melissa: OMG LOL! I can't stop Jack, I must say that you do have interesting types of homes in CO . . . anyway According to #10 of your covenants, IMO, does not give the BOD authority to ban “manufactured” homes as a permanent residence. However, you posted #33 which does ban future “double-wide mobile homes”. Now you have also posted “Colorado Statutes: TITLE 30 GOVERNMENT - COUNTY: COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: ARTICLE 28 COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: PART 1 COUNTY PLANNING: 30-28-115. Public welfare to be promoted - legislative declaration - construction.” This appears to conflict with your covenant and if it’s current law then it would take precedence over your covenant. How can you stop their bad acts? Are you sure they aren’t just trying to set some standards that will protect property values? Hopefully, they’ll get competent legal advice. It doesn’t seem as vote to change the covenant would be necessary if it is state law takes precedence. If they still won’t act you can petition and vote to replace the BOD (some or all). Remember that you will need volunteers to fill their positions. Your covenant should define the procedure - follow it to a tee! Good luck!

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/23/2007 11:23 PM
#33. All double-wide mobile homes that are currently on lots or tracts in the XXXXX XXXX Ranches Homeowner’s Subdivision that were there before January 1, 2003 are grand fathered in and are exempt from the no double-wide part of these covenants. This does not preclude the enforcement of the no double-wide part of these covenants in the future. There are no double wide mobile homes in the subdivision. There are 7 factory built ( manufactured homes)by current definition. As such all are of a double wide(two component construction). There are also kit homes and Insulated structural panel homes. There are no double wide parts in any of the covenants to be enforced. This was added at the same time the BOD was trying to get a very broad ban on any type of factory built home. It references the covenant that did not pass. Standards to protect property values are indeed the purpose of many covenants running with the land. In all of my research, I could find no indication that Manufactured homes as currently defined by Colorado Statutes: TITLE 30 GOVERNMENT - COUNTY: COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: ARTICLE 28 COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: PART 1 COUNTY PLANNING: 30-28-115. have a negative impact on the values of adjacent property. I found a great deal of information to the contrary. Land-Use Restrictions In addition to economic factors that favor location of manufactured homes in rural areas, land-use policies also tend to limit the ability of both individuals and developers to place manufactured homes in many urban and suburban locations. Indeed, manufactured housing often meets strong resistance from neighborhoods and towns. This is due to a combination of aesthetic concerns, apprehension over increased demand for municipal services, negative attitudes due to the presence of older trailer parks, and fears that manufactured housing will negatively affect the value of neighboring site-built homes. Existing empirical studies suggest that concerns about the adverse implications of manufactured housing are often exaggerated. In particular, several studies of local housing price data uncovered no noticeable effect of manufactured homes on the sales prices of neighboring properties (Warner and Scheuer 1993; Stephenson and Shen 1997; Hegji and Mitchell 2000). Like all affordable housing developments, the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) mentality may not be explained by any economic rationale, but is rather grounded in stubborn social perceptions of low-income families and communities. Anyone who can afford a lot in our subdivision is not low income. Jack

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/24/2007 8:15 AM
I, for one, do not subscribe to your interpretation that any manufactured home is not a "trailer" or "mobile" home. While it is true that all manufactured homes are not "mobile" homes, all "mobile homes" are "manufactured" homes. While certain "manufactured" homes are allowed in our subdivision (in fact, we have two that are virtually and literally indistinguishable from site-built homes, a "tailer" or "mobile" home would clearly be markedly different in appearance, regardless of how well someone would have "added" on to it with site-built expansion, and would still not be allowed, double-wide or not. I could be wrong, I probably am, but what I THINK I am reading in your posts is that you have what started out in life as a "mobile" home - a "double-wide" - that you have "enhanced" with custom additions that you built on site, including the fact that you attached the structure to a foundation. And so you want to call it a "manufactured" home (which I agree, technically, it is), rather than what it started out its existence as, a double-wide trailer. Now, that might be fine for your subdivision, and you may be grandfathered in as far as I can tell. But to then carry the argument that "double wides" are "manufactured" and not "mobile" homes so should be allowed, I think, is stretching the interpretation. But that's just me; I'm not on your board, I'm not part of your legislature, and I have no idea what your home really looks like, or looked like when it was brought to your subdivision. A developer here in Kentucky can NOT put up a "manufactured home" park next to a site-built subdivision and not be held to the zoning restrictions for mobile homes. In fact, while mobile home parks used to pop up like weed infestations across the suburban/rural landscape, local land use entities are putting a stop to them, and simply calling them "manufactured" does not change that. A Rose by any other name - - -

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/24/2007 2:47 PM
The original question being is this covenant sufficient to ban manufactured homes from the sub-division? 10. No structure of temporary character, recreational vehicle, camper unit, trailer, mobile home, basement, tent, shack, garage, accessory building or other out-building shall be used on any parcel as a residence. A temporary camp, tent or camper unit may be used for recreational purposes but such structures may not be allowed to remain or be stored on any lot for a period of more than 9 months in a given year. Recreational vehicles may be stored longer than the 9 months per year, provided they are stored in a storage facility, i.e. barn or garage, which meets all the requirements set forth herein The answer to the question depends on: 1. The intent of the covenant. No temporary structures to be used as a residence. Covenants and deed restrictions are to be construed as a whole and interpreted according to their plain language, in view of their underlying purpose. Wilson v. Goldman, 699 P.2d 420 (Colo. App. 1985). 2. The definitions of the structures named. Both the federal government and the state of Colorado clearly delineate between mobile homes and manufactured homes. The covenants do not provide a definition of either. Therefore they are the definitions that should be used. I will clarify again my home was never a mobile home by legal definition. It is a 2001 manufactured home. The grand fathering is irrelevant to me. It does not apply to anything I own. [¶22] Recently, a Colorado court considered whether double wide mobile homes and manufactured homes were trailer houses. Tucker v. Wolfe, 968 P.2d 179 (Colo. App. 1998). The Colorado court determined a trailer house to be a temporary and transient structure, mounted on wheels and axles, capable of being moved, requiring a motor vehicle title if transported and whose main characteristic is mobility. Id. at 181. Although a double wide mobile home may be moved from place to place, the court discounted the notion that alone was sufficient to consider it a temporary structure, finding mobility secondary to the primary function of providing a permanent dwelling. Id. at 182. That court stated, "[T]he greater sense of permanency and residential character attributable to double-wide mobile homes and manufactured housing distinguishes them from the commonly understood meaning of trailer houses." Id. at 183. Note the use of the term double wide mobile home. By the States own definition can only refer to pre-federal act (1974) built double wide's hence the additional use of the words, manufactured homes, to add clarity. I am not interpreting any thing, I am using the legal definitions as they currently stand. I placed my home here in 2000. The biggest difference between my home and the site built ones located here: 1. Mine has a shallower roof pitch than some of them. 2. Mine is built to a rigid code and was th roughly inspected during its manufacture and construction. Montezuma county has no building code! Personally I think the old mobile home park ghettos are ugly and the pre 1974 homes are of poor quality and grossly energy inefficient. I am not going to go into the affordable housing issue for which they fill some of the need. The real problem is that our uninsured HOA and BOD are at great financial risk by continuing to post and disseminate misinformation by way of the mail and on the web site as to the permissibility of manufactured housing in our subdivision. It would be prudent to cease and desist until they have studied the law and gotten a valid and reasoned legal opinion from a knowledgeable attorney. Jack

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/24/2007 4:45 PM
I think "temporary character" and "temporary structure" are not necessarily one and the same. A "mobile home" may or may not be intended as a "temporary structure" in that it's intent for use is to be used until it is falling apart, I would guess, but people who live there consider it somewhat "permanent." However, it has an undeniable temporary "character" by virtue of what it is. "Mobile homes" do have a strong temporary "character" in that they are mobile for one and they are also not nearly as durable as a site-built home. But, again, I have no idea what yours looks like nor what you intend to obtain from those of us on this board. I keep reading what you're saying and still keep coming up with a different interpretation than you do, but that could also be because I do not share your frame of reference. I think the "intent" of the restriction was to communicate that only stick-built homes are allowed on the sites. But that's not what you want to hear and I don't know, based on what I don't know about your area, how else I could come up with any other. Sorry.

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/24/2007 6:27 PM
You are right when you say " "temporary character" and "temporary structure" are not necessarily one and the same." Contract law really is about the concise interpretation and definition of the words used. I would have no major objections to a properly written covenant that clearly spelled out the acceptable types of housing allowed in the sub division. The key words in Colorado law allowing the restriction of manufactured homes in subdivisions are "valid covenant running with the land." I would feel that it tended to stigmatism those of us who do own manufactured homes if it did not specify why they were unacceptable. The singling out of 11% of the existing homes seems a bit heavy handed when other forms of alternative housing are not being included. The three homes made of rammed earth and old tires and the straw bale and mud homes. One more of which is currently being built in a very prominent location. There are some lot owners who just move their travel trailers off the lots for three months. Then they move them back for nine more. One of them lives in a tent on his lot for three months after his nine months are up. Having some BOD members who interpret earth tones as a bright blue roof, or a canary yellow house with a white vinyl fence does make me wonder though. I hope that what I have written has promoted thought and discussion. It has provided me with insight into the issues at hand and how others see them. Now had only stick/site built homes been the intent of the developer, why would he have promoted his lots as suitable for manufactured homes? Why was the first home placed here a manufactured one? He was the author of the covenants and as such was in fact the HOA until 70% of the lots were sold. I have posted some pictures on snapfish and will see if I can make them available. Jack

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/24/2007 8:39 PM
Again, telling me one of the first was manufactured still doesn't "tell" me anything. Because I don't know "manufactured WHAT?" I'm just saying that I read what you are saying and am certain you have a very strong vision of what it is you are trying to espouse, but I don't quite know what you expect of us, I guess is where I'm heading. And if the developer is anything like the developer of many of the subdivisions here, they just use templates over and over and don't really "write" the CC&Rs anyway. They usually include the types of things that are typical of our land use code and zoning requirements, and, depending on what template they use, include things like no sheds, no above-ground pools, when half the time they don't really even care themselves. Our developer specified that all homes -- ALL homes -- had to be a certain percentage brick or masonry (creekstone), and yet, one of the developer's representatives was approving builders to build all vinyl siding homes. There is usually a little clause tucked in the CC&Rs somewhere that gives the developer complete discretion and allows him arbitrary withholding of approval or granting of approval. So I, for one, anyway, would NEVER be able to decipher what a developer's "intent" might have been when the CC&Rs were drafted.

PaulM
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:1347

07/25/2007 5:12 AM
J: Have you pursued your question of manufactured homes with the local municipal office to learn what "they" allow and/or if they are having the concerns you have? All specs have to go through an approval process by the municipal authorities before they will put their stamp on a building project. It would be interesting to know if ..."The three homes made of rammed earth and old tires and the straw bale and mud homes..." have had the seal of approval by the local land development officials.

TracyT
(Maryland)

Posts:220

07/25/2007 2:59 PM
Paul, very interesting point. John, "There are some lot owners who just move their travel trailers off the lots for three months. Then they move them back for nine more. One of them lives in a tent on his lot for three months after his nine months are up." This was interesting too and makes me wonder what the thought process is for your BOD posting. It seems they may be having trouble enforcing temporary structure (mobile home) for permanent housing. I get your point about feeling singled out particullary since you have ..."The three homes made of rammed earth and old tires and the straw bale and mud homes..." I still believe the language in #10 is not sufficient to ban "manufactured homes" at least by the current state definition. I think that your BOD needs to clarify their intent for setting standards for the community then get the covenant changed for that.

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/26/2007 11:39 AM
The following responses and answers are not necessarily in the order that the comments and questions were received in. The developer, Daniel C********, is the only one who can speak for his original intent regarding the covenants. I have not yet been able to contact him. My personal conversations with him were in 1999 and 2000. This is the introductory paragraph to the covenants. "It is the intent of these covenants to protect and enhance the value, desirability and attractiveness of said property, and to prevent the construction of improper or unsuitable improvements. Restrictions are kept to a minimum while keeping in constant focus the right of property owners to enjoy their property in attractive surroundings free of nuisance undue noise, and danger. Further, it is intended that the natural environment be disturbed as little as possible." I would guess the key words here are "improper or unsuitable improvements" as relevant to our current discussion. There are no municipal codes are regulations governing the subdivision. The subdivision is in unincorporated Montezuma County, Colorado. A county with no residential building code. The subdivision occupies approximately 2,000 acres and 12.8 miles of un-maintained county roads. There are 139 lots ranging from 5 acres in size to just under 50 acres. For clarification as to the question of the first home being a manufactured what. It meets the definition of manufactured home found in Colorado Statutes: TITLE 30 GOVERNMENT - COUNTY: COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: ARTICLE 28 COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING CODES: PART 1 COUNTY PLANNING: 30-28-115. (3) (a) (I) Which you will find posted earlier in this thread. I too firmly believe that covenant #10 is not intended to or sufficient to ban manufactured homes as defined by the above mentioned Colorado statute. My belief is based on extensive research in a wide variety of sources pertaining to the law and manufactured housing issues. This discussion has prompted me to be clear about the definitions I use and what I need to clarify when presenting an issue. All of your responses have been of value to me, no matter what your point of view. The covenants could use a rational well reasoned overhaul with concise and pertinent definitions that meet the standards set by their opening paragraph. In the meantime the BOD continues to expose our uninsured HOA to the risk of expensive litigation and in my belief, again based on lots of legal research, possible criminal charges against them personally. Another little side note of interest. No where in the original bylaws, covenants, or articles of incorporation was there any mention of a way to change or amend the covenants. That should probably be another thread. I am still working on the best way to provide pictures to those interested. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Jack

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/27/2007 7:29 AM
there is a free photo hosting service called photobucket. You can post on there and then post the link here. You do not need to use identifying names, etc, in setting up the name of your account. http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v219/herse1f/sample/?action=view¤t=hot-rod-05.jpg

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/27/2007 11:20 AM
Thank you Michele. Hopefully I have it figured out. For those who are interested you can copy and paste these links in your browser's window for a look at my CRS 30-28-115. (3) (a) (I) compliant manufactured home. First view is looking towards the Mancos valley. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic000.jpg Looking west towards the BLM land our lot borders. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic001.jpg The following are various interior views. Though irrelevant to the covenants they do give you an idea of the overall quality. The master bathroom was a finalist in the Moen "Show us your Style" contest. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic001a.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic002.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic002a.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic003.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic003a.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic003b.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic004.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic005.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic006.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic007.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/Pic007a.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x124/jds918/pic009.jpg I haven't figured out how to link an album yet other than snapfish and they want you to join before you can see it. Jack

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1698

07/30/2007 7:02 AM
Jack: Very pretty. I could use someone to update my interior decoration. Wonder what you charge! LOL

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2147

07/30/2007 8:07 AM
Just an observation. Frankly, I have no idea what to say that is going to change anything. I get the picture but I am afraid "action" must come from some legal decision. Certainly a difference of opinion is evident. Could you get the board to agree to go to a Arbitor, if not does ths state or county has a resolution process. How about County Council or local public councils. Would the Board agree to present the case to the legal system for clarification. Can you and the Board split the cost of a lawyer. Maybe the answers lie outside of the HOA. Probably redundant points.

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/30/2007 11:58 AM
Michele, Thank you. My wife is the one with the design ideas. I don't do colors well. My forte lies more in the area of form and composition. Though the final decisions are mutual ones. I was a manufacturing jeweler, Gemologist, and goldsmith in Boulder, CO. for 20 years. My Wife, Dorothy, is a CPA. Allegedly retired she only has 100 or so clients now. I suspect her hourly consultation rate would be the same as she currently charges. She has declined the offer to do design work on more than one occasion. I should mention that we did most of the interior work ourselves. We got fed up with unreliable contractors and tradesmen. Jack

JackS1
(Colorado)

Posts:44

07/30/2007 1:22 PM
Robert, I don't know if I can change anything. But I do intend to try. I am going to ask for a sit down with the board and their attorney if necessary. I will try to have a polite and rational discussion of the hard facts of the matter. I do have some questions I need answered first. I agree that a mediator could be of service. I have yet to talk to the county attorney's office. They have had some prior isssues with the sub-division and would just as soon not have anything to do with it. I have absolutely no clue as to their current thinking. They have been supplied with the same information that I have posted in this discussion. As a matter of fact they had that same information two years ago. I am not sure if they fully comprehend the legal and financial implications to both themselves and the HOA members as a whole. The fact that they are currently lacking any insurance coverage at this time (to the best of my knowledge)is a cause for concern. That being the result of large legal fees incurred when they were sued by a member. They finally settled, but essentially they lost the case. Suing the HOA would in effect be suing myself and the other members. I thought the matter was a dead issue when their amendment to the covenants banning all forms of manufactured housing, pre-fab's, and modular homes failed to pass in October of 2005. By their report it failed to pass by only one vote( 69 out of the 70 needed.) That however is only a simple majority. There being 139 lots/members. Could the board at that time been aware of the fact then #11 now #10 was not suitable for the purpose they desired? The Covenants as they currently stand require a 2/3 vote to be amended. As previously stated, the original documents do not contain any mention of a means to amend. Based on prior statements, I am guessing they will support their position on amending the original covenants by a simple majority vote on the basis of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act of 1992. I am just beginning to work my way through it and it's implications. I wish that this was just a simple issue of covenant interpretation and enforcement. From my reading, I know now that there is no such thing. Jack Footnote: Several weeks ago one of the board members was videotaped in the act of releasing a packrat and allegedly tossing a few nails onto the property (driveway) of the party who won the suit against the board. He has suffered previous acts of vandalism since prevailing against the board. I think it would be proper for this member to resign from the board. Needless to say, he is filing another stack of actions against the board and the party involved. I should mention that he is an attorney from the East Coast specializing in HOA matters. He is a formidable opponent. I suspect this could be distracting them from the issues I have presented. Yes, I have seen the video. It was quite clear as to which board member was involved. I also read the sheriff's report as posted in the Cortez Journal. This is also the board member who told me not to bring up the Manufactured home issue.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 3

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Covenant misinterpretation