Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!


SBCA: Free education for HOAs and condos on satellite placement issues.
(National Trade Organization)
Helping HOAs, condos and property managers with satellite placement issues since 1986.
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Party Wall Agreements and CC&Rs
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:2430


12/31/2017 3:32 PM  
The original developer of my subdivision recorded a "Party Wall Agreement" with the county back in 1989 immediately after recording the original CC&Rs (Declaration). It's clear from the wording that the agreement constitutes a covenant running with the land. All 100 lots were initially planned to be attached villas (duplexes) with 50 buildings each having 2 separate attached residences. The paired lot numbers were explicitly enumerated in the Party Wall Agreement (PWA). None of our main governing documents refer to or mention the PWA. It exists wholly outside the hierarchy of our Declaration, Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that Florida's MRTA law will extinguish the PWA covenanted deed restrictions in about 2 years, the original developer filed a re-plat of the subdivision in the early 1990s which re-numbered half of the original lots including the not-yet-built duplexes. A subsequent homebuilder eventually built out the remaining lots as 32 freestanding single-family homes and 9 duplexes (18 homes).

The Party Wall Agreement was never revised or updated and today it covers the original 25 duplexes built by the original developer, but none of the 9 duplexes built by the follow-on homebuilder (who built them on re-numbered lots).

We'd like to amend our Declaration to include the language (modified appropriately) contained in the 1989 Party Wall Agreement. We'd like to add to that language concerning Party Roofs. Research has turned up several examples of CC&Rs in the county that have such language right in their Declarations.

Question: Since these Party Wall/Roof agreements will only affect 68 of the 100 owners in the community, would such an amendment require the signatures of all 68 duplex owners? Owners of the original 25 duplex units still enjoy the protections of the PWA (at least until MRTA expires it) but the 18 owners in the "new" duplexes have never been subject to the PWA at all. If I owned a duplex here, which I don't, I wouldn't be too happy with the current arrangement. Since the original PWA exists outside of and separate from the CC&Rs of the HOA, is it really up to the HOA to renew the PWA or should that be left to the individual owners? Since the HOA is responsible for all of the roofs I think it's in the HOAs interest to ensure there are Party Wall and Roof agreements that cover all of the duplexes.

Any thoughts?
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:15999


01/01/2018 3:30 AM  
What does the party wall agreement say about who is responsible for the walls?
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:2430


01/01/2018 2:46 PM  
It assigns joint responsibility to the owners of each side. It gives each side's owner the power to lien the other owner if the other owner does not hold up his end. It grants the mortagee of each side the same authority in the event an owner fails to force the other side's owner to pay his or her fair share of the costs for needed repairs.

"Exhibit A" is referenced throughout and that is a page from the original plat of the subdivision showing the outlines of the buildings and lots and the lot numbers (2 per building). The recorded agreement appears immediately after (same official record book, adjacent pages) the recorded CC&Rs but is not a part of those. The HOA is not named in the party wall document at all. Of note, the HOA was incorporated about 3 months before the CC&Rs were recorded with the county and the original plat of the subdivision wasn't filed until a month after the CC&Rs were recorded. So "Exhibit A" of the party wall agreement shows lot numbers and outlines from the plat which had not yet been recorded with the county.

I attached a redacted copy. The signature/notary/county recorder page at the end was also deleted.

Attachment: 111463493971.pdf

PaiN


Posts:0


01/01/2018 4:55 PM  
IMO:

The INTENT was to make these walls common elements between the effected parties/owners but NOT a common element of the Association at large.


IOW:

Every unit is responsible to pay for the entrance signage but only the actual units sharing said wall are responsible for said shared wall.


GOOD LUCK

and

CAVEAT EMPTOR
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:15999


01/01/2018 9:54 PM  
We have similar language within our CC&Rs.

I would simply amend the CC&Rs.
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:2430


01/01/2018 10:58 PM  
Posted By PaiN on 01/01/2018 4:55 PM
The INTENT was to make these walls common elements between the effected parties/owners but NOT a common element of the Association at large.

Yes, it does appear that way more or less exactly.

Posted By TimB4 on 01/01/2018 9:54 PM
We have similar language within our CC&Rs.

I would simply amend the CC&Rs.

It seems like pretty standard boilerplate language that I've seen in other Party Wall Agreements. Duplexes exist everywhere, not just in subdivisions controlled by HOAs and the builders record similar deed restrictions as covenants that run with the land.

Amending the CCRs to incorporate the same or similar language seems like the easiest thing to do. I was wondering if the mortagees would be entitled to a say in the amendment since they appear to have a significant interest in the duplex party walls. Of course, they're probably just as clueless as the affected homeowners. When the HOA preserved the CCRs as a defense against MRTA extinguishment a couple of years ago, this Party Wall Declaration - a deed restriction and covenant running with the land - was not a part of the filing. Which was probably proper since the agreement does not name the HOA as a party. It will nonetheless be extinguished by MRTA quite apart from the HOA's covenants.

By bringing the provisions of the party wall declaration into the CCRs it almost seems as though the HOA would be doing the affected homwoners a favor. We all know how that usually works out, i.e. no good deed goes unpunished. We do need Party Roof language, too. There has never been anything pertaining to those rights and responsibilities in any of our governing documents or elsewhere.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5749


01/02/2018 8:27 AM  
Yes, with others, amend your governing documents so they clearly show this shared responsibility. In CA, I believe the language would be that these shared walls are exclusive use common area, i.e., they are used by more than one but fewer than all Owners. My understanding is that "common areas are shared by all who must or will want to use them. You'll want the correct name in your docs.

We have a similar issue in that our only our original CA DRE (Dept. of RE, Now Bur. of RE) budget filed with the state the only place where the HOW dues in our 2 special benefit areas are calculated. If a prospective buyer's realtor were to ask our newish PM how they're calculated, she'd have a hard time answering.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:5749


01/02/2018 8:29 AM  
Yes, with others, Geno, amend your governing documents so they clearly show this shared responsibility. In CA, I believe the language would be that these shared walls are "exclusive use common area," i.e., they are used by more than one but fewer than all Owners. My understanding is that "common areas are shared by all who must or will want to use them. You'll want the correct name in your docs. Ssoem states seem to use "limited use common area."


We have a similar issue in that our only our original CA DRE (Dept. of RE, Now Bur. of RE) budget filed with the state the only place where the HOW dues in our 2 special benefit areas are calculated. If a prospective buyer's realtor were to ask our newish PM how they're calculated, she'd have a hard time answering.
PaiN


Posts:0


01/02/2018 9:36 AM  
leave the CAREFULLY CRAFTED 'legalese' as is


a limited use or exclusive use common element may require funding by ALL members


this is the exact reason a 'party wall' agreement is necessary

ie. a wall shared by multiple parties
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Party Wall Agreements and CC&Rs



Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!



News Articles Provided by: Community Associations Network
News, articles and blogs about condos/HOA's

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice:  (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.

Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement