Amend bylaws to prohibit condo rental

Started by CarolB • 30 replies • 9959 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

CarolB (Arizona)
Posts: 9

Posted:

We would like to amend our condo bylaws to prohibit rentals of the condos. 2 owners now have rentals, we would like to prohibit future rentals, and once the current leases are up, to now allow those owners to write any new leases.

Someone told me the language needed to write this amendment does not need to be done by a lawyer (we got a quote of $2000 - $3000). Is this something our board can do, and if so, do you have a sample of how it should be written?

Thank you.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

"a Nevada Supreme Court ruling in 2006 said homeowner associations can't retroactively impose no-rental rules once properties have been sold by developers unless there is a 100 percent vote in favor by association members." Obviously if there are rental owners, they're not going to get 100%.
I know you are in Arizona, but this is case law which could be used in a lawsuit by one of your owners now renting out their property. This is a major deed restriction being placed on an owner's property that was not there when they agreed to the original covenants. If your rental owners are not allowed to continue renting their condos, they will have no choice but to dump them on the market causing at least a temporary decline in property values. In addition, even present owners who never intend to rent their unit, may have life changes down the road, at a time when properties aren't selling, and they couldn't even rent their unit. Frankly I would never vote to restrict rentals in my HOA. If renters are violating covenants, you have all the power you need to go after the owner.
It might be easier to try to limit a certain percent of condos as rentals rather than a complete ban. You didn't say how many condos are in your HOA. Two out of how many? Harold

RaymondC (Minnesota)
Posts: 64

Posted:

The procedure amounts to a change in Bylaws or Covenants, neither of which is likely within the Board authority and will almost certainly require some super majority of homeowners to enact it. Your documents should spell out the procedure for making such a change, and since it is so tightly involved with Real Estate law, and local variations, it is not wise for someone demonstrably inexperienced in this area to try to go on their own.

Harold's comments on retroactive changes is also spot on!

We have done this in our Minnesota community, not retroactively, and so have one grandfathered unit which accounts for most of the building's problems with people.

The disappointed group took their complaint to the State Attorney Genral, who reviewed our legal work and upheld us. The attorney fees were a bit over $5000. The whole process took about a year. The complaints from the disappointed still come in.

This is no small step! Proceed very carefully.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Carol,
This happens to be my sorest subject of all because I own a rental in a 55+ community that has tried 3 times to pass a "non rental" amendment to their CC&Rs but with NO success. I am considered an "absentee landlord" by some of the old thinking folks who are dead set against any and all rentals. I live less than a mile away and have never missed a BOD meeting and am chairman of their ocuments Committee. That does not matter to the "anti" mind set of some of the members.There are 230 vill units with only 2 rentals, mine being one of them. My tenants are 80 and 82 years old and do not throw wild partys every night. The entire outside of the units are maintained by the association so there is no run down conditions of the outer grounds or structure. So where does the problem come from having tenants?

You do not need an attorney to write a proposed amendment change but you will need one to verify it's legality. $2000 to $3000.00 sounds rather pricey. Go on line and find the verbage to write what your association might want to say and then have it gone over by your council.

BUT!!! The 2 sides of restricting rentals are far apart.Many anti renter people will never allow the possibility that not all renters are bad. I'll bet almost all posters rented maybe once in their lives? There are ways of controlling rental units rather than totally restricting them.
Consider a 1 or 2 year ownership before a unit can be rented. This eliminates speculators from buying them to use as a money maker. Limit the percent of units than can be rented such as 5% or whatever works. Limit rentals to yearly leases only. Require criminal background checks. And there might be other suggestions from other posters.

By restricting rentals completely, this could come back tobite you where it hurts--financially. Look down the long road and consider other ways of controlling the destiny of your association.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Very interest subject.

As all know, economics pretty much drives the boat. If rental number get too high you are doing a damage to all. If owners need the rental money to keep the property, economics is the motivater. When absentee homeowners do not participate in the community, all suffer. There are still plenty of folks that believe, "it is my property and I'll damn well do with it as I see fit." Associations have been hurt by federal and state agencies coming in and buying or renting properties as subsidized housing, little or no contribution to the association there. Some associations, mostly condos, have all sorts of different restrictions about rentals. The list goes on.

Common to nearly all of us is the desire to protect property values. Flippers don't much care if they can flip at a profit. Second homes are routinely rented out, and the next buyer is likely to do the same.
But, it's all economics. We are going to have a substanial increas in our fees next year in order to protect the property for the future. Is the economic picture this will create going to be looked at equally, No.
But, if we did not allow renters, the pictrure might look the same to all.
One the other hand, if you are going to have large numbers of absentee homeowners, some rentals are better than empty house. The economic pressure of the times may well deal assocciations a damaging blow. If you have a lot of foreclosures, who do you get as buyers, mostly those motivated by economic return.

What's the answer? As always, owner participation and consensus built on the protection and well being of the association. A strong board is imperative and plans should be on the desk to cope with some if not all of this. We stand a very good chance of circumstances dictating to us that are not of our making, and rentals/none/some/how many/by who/ should be in all CC&R's and enforced. We have rental clauses in our documents that have never been enforced and I suspect a lot of other folks do. Shouldn't happen. I advocate and believe that the most important thing any association can provide is protection of the real property. In a condo, if you do that, you simplify your job, in an HOA it is less cut and dried but it is still where you start managing your association fairly.

DanaA (Florida)
Posts: 117

Posted:

We, too have a 55+ community where many on the BOD are trying impose rental restrictions, there are none in place. That mindset it impossible to change, they want only owner occupants who "will participate" in the community. The weird thing is that our Covenants committee (me aside) wants to restrict all annual rentals, and still allow seasonal ones, which makes no sense to me...I have thought, when those in a 55+ community pass away and leave the property to their heirs, which is happening, these new owners, if under 55, would have to leave it vacant and be required to take on the association dues and insurance and taxes until they turned 55, or try to rent it seasonally from afar, in this real estate market, quite a task. I don't think it will pass, but I am totally against restricting owner's rights, period. We personally have two rentals that we own in this community, in addition to our home, and we take better care of them than do many snowbirds who leave for six months, leaving flower beds to grow weeds, and when these owners are away they are not "participating in the community". This includes our President of the BOD. This 55+ bunch can be a stubborn group I am finding. I just turned 50, though my husband meets the 55+ requirement, but I sometimes feel that my ideas are "discounted". This committee, of which I am on, is also considering proposing - are you ready - trying to pass an ammendment that reads instead of - "no children under 18" - we have a "no one under 45" requirement..........I guess too bad for older men with younger wives, or vice versa.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Ours is a single-family home HOA, not condos.

However, we've been asked (petitioned) by our residents to add an amendment that would prohibit home rentals.

Another HOA just down the road has done this and our residents are pressuring us to do the same.

We are just starting to investigate the situation. Right now, out of roughly 300 homes, we have 5 that are leased/rentals. Currently, the landlord/owners are very diligent about ensuring their renters comply with all the CC&Rs, so we don't really have a problem with them as many areas seem to have.

It's my understanding, based on input from our metro zoning people, that once our HOA passes the amendment to prohibit rental properties, it can ONLY apply to future rentals and NOT the ones that currently exist, with TWO caveats: IF the current rental property is vacated at any point, we are to notify our metro zoning enforcement and they will start a "clock." IF the property remains vacant for 12 months, the property automatically becomes covered in the new amendment and will not be eligible for rental/lease from that point out. Also, once the current owner sells the property, the NEW owner will not be able to use it as a rental property.

I found that interesting, but also found it sort of silly since it's unlikely that a home would remain vacant for 12 months. But at least if the landlords get tired of being landlords and sell the property, it would not be allowed to be rented out.

At any rate, even if we voted the amendment in tomorrow, it would NOT be retroactive and the current rental homes would remain eligible as rentals.

PaulM (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 1,347

Posted:

DanaA: ..."trying to pass an ammendment that reads instead of - "no children under 18" - we have a "no one under 45" requirement...."

Not to get too worried just yet re the 'no one under 45 requirement" which may occur in your community. Usually, when there is a minimum age restriction, let's say, at 55, there also is a clause that will dictate the percentage of the total unit members (name on deed) which MUST be 55 at time of purchase. Therefore, if 90% of total unit owners must be 55 yrs. old, 10% can be less than 55, and in your community's case, 45 yrs old. This is not unusual and the trend is growing.

This is a good thing, actually, because it does allow the slightly younger to buy into a community where they will ultimately be part of the 'older set'. It is also better for the community overall than to have units sit empty while the market is in a downward spiral.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

Raymond wrote "The disappointed group took their complaint to the State Attorney General, who reviewed our legal work and upheld us." I am actually very surprised (amazed! LOL) your state attorney general would accept such a request, much less render an opinion. That is not within their scope of duties that I am aware of. And actually it doesn't carry any more legal weight than any other attorney opinion. Courts often overturn attorney general "opinions." Harold

DanaA (Florida)
Posts: 117

Posted:

You totally make sense to me. However, I must make clear that our HOA wants to maintain the registered 55+ status, under HOPA rules, but restrict any new owners to being at least one resident 55+, and the additional stipulation would be that any 55+ owner occupant can have another person reside with them, ONLY is that occupant is 45+. (presently no children under 18). This stems from the fact that we have people in our community who abide by the 55+ rule, where one 55+ owner is resident/owner, or resident/tenant, and then they let their grown child/children, let's say 30 years old, live with them. That is what BOD wants to abolish........... Our CCRs now state no children under 18, and so these people are presently not in violation, to the best of my knowledge. But the 55+r's do not like these "younger" people around.....does that help clarify? Thanks for your response, Dana

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ref: "But the 55+er's do not like younger people around"; just tell them to be patient, at my age nearly 100% of the people around are younger.

DanaA (Florida)
Posts: 117

Posted:

So true, Robert! My concern is - why the sudden surge in preventing rentals in HOA communities? It makes no sense to me in today's market. In Florida we saw a surge of investor driven purchases at the height of the "boom", which peaked in 2005. Then the reality market check, and many of these "late entry" investors could not "flip" these properties (investors were treating real estate like the stock market, ridiculous). Sad for them, and too bad for those of us who now have investor owned properties within our HOA that these investors are "stuck with". But now, we, the HOAs, have the choice of allowing these individuals to rent their properties until the market rebounds someday (and everything cycles in life), or condemn these sorry investors to incur all the expenses on the property, and no offset income, many of which will then end in foreclosure. For these HOAs considering "no rentals", I assure you that a foreclosed property is far less "appealing" in an HOA, than an approved renter who abides by HOA Rules and Regs. I am in the banking industry, and have seen, up close and personal, the ridiculous speculations that occured. But this is certainly not the market we are in today. Now we are in a corrective market, and any proposed changes to rentals in a market that is now flooded with properties for sale and/or rent, with no speculators in sight (except foreclosure vultures) is, in my opinion, a poor decision for any HOA.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Dana,
I don't see any surge in efforts to ban renters. It was there before this market and will be there after. After 17 years here I have learned the value of renters in condos. I am just not in favor of unrestricted renting. I just don't know how to control restrictions, and there should be restrictions because over time the more renters the more degradation of property and the less attractivee the property become to full timers. There are some owners here that would like to turn this place into a Condo-motel, nearly all our rentals are short term, and nearly 85% are absentee owners. With this last market surge, one of the biggest bad acts that occurred was buyers purchasing the properties as second homes to get a prime rate and then immediately puttin it on the rental market. As you probably know better than I lots of people were running around like crazy to find ways to make a cheap buck. They may call it a su-prime crises but it extends far beyond that and will slam some big money that jumped into the market at the wrong time. What I don't understand(in my resort area), the banks allowed the Internet bankers, internet lenders and internet brokers to come in and take away the local business from the banks. I call one well know bank here when this was going on and asked if I could get a home loan without waiting for local approval. They told me, if they couldn't finance me they knew where to gop to get thee money, don't worry about. It is going to be a while before a clear picture of the future returns. I don't want to see anyone go broke but on the other hand I might not feel too bad if an owner that was looking for quick money has to sell cheap and his buyer is a retiree looking for a home, and where I live is one hell of a deal to retire and live full time.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

Be careful what you wish for. Probably most of the "investors" have very little invested in these properties thanks to creative financing. (If you remember, some were actually getting cash back.) If you force them to quit renting, they will just skip. Just as in the stock market, not all their investments are going to be winners so just move on. So you're left with foreclosed, empty condos (or homes) which affect all your property values. Harold

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Harold,
Could be some will skip or go belly up. I hope not, really. But you mentioned creative financing and now it is time to start paying the piper and the dreams of found money in an appreciating market is no more. Some will find themselves upside down in their mortgage and if they can't foot the bill and they can't start making the payments and they can't sell the place without loosing a ton of money, then the prices drop and the prime market is effected. In a condo the fees, taxes, insurance, upkeep is not small and the folks that got caught are not penniless, just way in debt and most have wealth, good jobs, high life style. It could get ugly.

But, when I bought her originally a LOT of places were owned by savings and loans /or banks, and of course the associations suffer. At least this time the complex is in far better shape than it was, but it is possible, we may come out of this with more rental property than we started with, and that will be a wide area effected all down the coast of SC and even back in the mountains where the economy depends heavy on the tourist trade.
Very complicated picture and of course the enviroment might play a bigger part than we can imagine, certainly more expensive to live on oceean or any other kind of water. Moving on may not be an option for some. Enough of gloom and doom. I heard on car radio an old blues song the other day. All the words in it and the title: "It Ain't No Sin to Shed Your Skin and Dance Around In Your Bones." I like that.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

"rentals" in HOAs (not condos) are not very welcome in our community.

We've heard of many HOAs moving to ban or restrict them, when it wasn't even on the radar screen a few years ago.

Part of the problem with renters is that there IS no "vetting" system in the HOA. Most single-family homes for rent are from individual investor landlords, some new at the game, some with a handful of rentals scattered around the city.

The renters are far less desirable than a vacant house since a vacant house is just a vacant house. Bad renters can cause enormous issues for subdivisions, and go a lot farther for lowering adjacent property values than a foreclosed home does.

At least in our market. Your mileage may vary.

At any rate, this is something our residents are now having us investigate and put to the community for a vote.

I'll be waiting anxiously for the report from the committee in charge of this amendment.

CarolB (Arizona)
Posts: 9

Posted:

I guess I should have mentioned a few things in my original posting.

I am writing this request for a brother, who is president (1 term so far) of a condo association in Chicago. They have 18 units in their building. When he bought his unit about 4 years ago, he was told by the board the building was 100% owner occupied and rentals were not allowed. After reading the by-laws (written about 1970), a few residents have noticed rentals are allowed, though the board has "right of first refusal". One unit is rented/leased by the owner's nephew, who is supposed to be buying the unit, the other unit has 3 renters (2 bedrooms). The rentals have occured within the past 6 months.

They would like to amend the by-laws to prohibit any future rentals, and once the current rentals are finished, to not allow the owners to write new leases.

I (Carol) am the president/treasurer (can't get anyone to be on the board of our HOA, so for now, I'm doing both jobs) of a 150 HOA here in Arizona. I've been trying to give him information I know in running an association, but I don't know the legal stuff regarding the amendment needed.

TomS10 (Tennessee)
Posts: 2

Posted:

In an effort to discourage owners from renting their units our board of director made a "rule" that only owners can have two cars on the property and that renters can only have one car on the property. This has the effect of making the units much harder to rent since most the the renters in this area are young couple where both the husband and wife work and therefore have two cars.

I am against this rule and believe that if the owner can have two cars then he should be able to rent his unit with parking for two cars.

Any thoughts or legal reference for me to read.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Tom,
You might start with your documents and see if the Board has the lattitude to assign spces. I would this in most places the board has this authority.
Do you have have adequate spaces to issue each unit two spaces? If you parking spaces are limited the board can pretty much assign spaces as the see fit and declare them limited common property assigned to a particular space. I think you may find if the rentals are seasonal the renters will bring as many cars as the need to transport how many people that is in the rental unit, this can include all kings of vehicles or trailors. So the board may have to restrict parking spaces. As normal, the big problem may be not you parks where, but who is going to enforce the regulations. I believe their should be some restrictions on number of vehicles for each unit, or particular units, such as larger units rating more spaces than smaller units. Larger units pay a higher apportionment because they are assumed to be owners of more of the property, which includes any real property.

Can you restrict rental units?............absolutely? Can your association restrict rental units in your state, county or city/ You would have to treat you association independently and your ammendments for change would have to be specific. Maybe you have a sister association nearby that limits rentals, that is where I would start.

EdieL (Virginia)
Posts: 86

Posted:

As a RE Broker and Developer, I have re-searched this issue.
There are Supreme Court rulings that have decided for Single
Family Homes Communities, the BOD can not impose any restrictions
on a homeowners property that attempt to remove any of their
"Bundle of Rights" issued to them through a Deed. (I believe there are 7)
In a Condo, the Federal Government, through FHA loans,(?), has said that
for a purchaser to receive FHA financing there is an allowable owner to
renter unit ratio that has to be followed. This is to protect the values.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ediel,
I sort of agree with what you said but I am at a lose to determine what to do about it.

Do you think the FHA is going to step in and enforce how many rentals are in a condo. For example, say 100 condos, Fha say no more than 30% can be rentals. Due to this subprime business coupled with the broker and real estate agent scramble to sell as many house for as much profit as possible and finance them outside the FHA a lot of condo have surpassed this rental restriction. Now, we have FHA loans on units that can be 95% rentals.
Surely you as a broker and developer are well aware of the fact your interest in the properties cease whne you turn over the property or sell a property as a broker.

In the latest debacle with run away greed in the housing market, I know that most of the selling here was done by getting on-line mortgages and brokers, having a lawyer draw up mortgage with a condo rider, and attaching a seconder home rider which states the property can not be occupied by anyone but the owner, this lower their maorgage interest rate and they immediately turn the property into primary rental property, short term or long for that matter. In our 100 unit condo the rental ratio suddenly shoots up to 95%. Who is going to enforce this, certainly not the banks, or the brokers or the FHA or the local government or the state government and who has the money for a Federal Case. It was wrong at the time, but the realtors and brokers and developers were making tons of money selling property to Flippers and investors, and now we are just starting to pay the price for this. Our local papers are full of Foreclosures, and that Includes rich Hilton Head Island. Plus develop[ers ar advertizing auctions of spec houses in many developements and I think we are not near as bad as other areas.

Please don't take this a a personal attack,it's not, just an opinion as always. I am please to have you posting here and personally welcome your participation, it will be most welcome.

PatrickH (California)
Posts: 204

Posted:

Hi folks,

I love this site and all the free flowing thoughts and opinions from everyone!

Personally, I don't think that banning rentals should be allowed. There are times when someone may need to rent out their unit and there are people who want to rent it who can be perfectly wonderful neighbors.

I think the real issues are accountability and communication. If an HOA wants to crack down on "problem renters", then they should change their rules so that an owner and their tenant must sign a document that is given to the HOA. In that document is a statement signed by the owner saying that they have provided a copy of the rules, regulations, CC&R's, and any other pertinemnt information to their tenant. The owner also understands and agrees that THEY will be held accountable for any violations that their tenant may commit and will be be liable for any fines, costs, expenses or legal fees due to their tenants actions.

The tenant then signs the same document stating that they have received, understnd and agree to comply with the rules, regulations, etc of the XYZ homeowners association.

The owner and tenant both sign their names, adresses, phone numbers and email addresses to the document.

A document such as this puts a little extra heat on the owner to make sure they pick a good tenant who the owner feels will abide by the rules. It also allows the tenant to know in advance what all the rules and regulations are and decide in advance if they are willing to abide by them.

Then if there is a problem in the future, neither the owner nor the tenant can claim that they were unaware or not informed of the rules and regulations and who is responsible for the violations.

EdieL (Virginia)
Posts: 86

Posted:

Robert R1,
You are absolutely right. Once a contract for sale is closed then
anything can happen. Even though the Feds have requlations for the
financing, as always with any form of Gov't Regs. Who then monitors
the Law. Your guess is as good as mine. Usually NOBODY!!
But as a POA it is imperative that they try to follow the law at the
highest standard to avoid a challange in court. Life and rules are
not always fair as we all know. So Sad!!!
Edie

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ediel,
And you are absolutely right. And it is a sad state of affairs until you realize the success of the association is not going to depend on laws or rules or their enforcements. It depends on who is steering the ship and what their motivation is. Whether we are talking Board or PM or manager or the "Good ol boys". May be that the states have it right and wrote the Laws so we can self govern. We certainly have the power to change the rules, we have the power to change our directors and fire the manager or the PM. We have the power to do damn near anythying we want.
We share the blame for it being a sad state of affairs, if we had the correct motivation we would never need a lawyer or the courts. Individually, we probably all have smarts enough to run the association, collectively we make it a shambles. There is no substitute for leadership in the country and in the association, thinking you are a good leader doen't cut it, the people thinking you are a good leader does.
The means are there, we just can't see them together, we need to work on this, all should attend HOA 101 and really take hold of the tiger.

Some associations can do it, and turn things around in such a short time it is not to be believed. But most take long hard thankless work and dedication to make changes little by little until you tip the scales and the raod becomes down hill.

There is a lot more than questions and answers going on here, I find it inspirational. The health of the association is the one and only goal.

EdieL (Virginia)
Posts: 86

Posted:

Robert R1,
In a POA The Members, by majority Vote, have the power to change
everything. Unfortunately most POA's can not acheive majority
vote on on anything. This turns out to really be the sad state
of affairs. In the current Community I am associated with, out of
250+ lot owners, only 25 lot owners participate. By other members
it is considered the "Click". You can not convince the other members
that their vote counts and they need to stand up.
Edie

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ediel,

Ours likewise.

So what's the problem and how does the community correct it. This is normal for associations aand after much thought you have to come back to communication, as a start. If you have 25 people, charge each one with getting i other owner to participate is a start. Lots of association don't have but 3 or 4 interested, start as I described and if you get five new ones, ask them to bring one each to the table. Assign streets to those attending, whatever works. Contruct a living mission statement and pass it around personally for comments.

EdieL (Virginia)
Posts: 86

Posted:

Robert R1
Great idea BUT, our community is a mostly second home community.
Out of 250 lot owners there are only 90 homes built and 25 of those
homes live full time. IE the 25 participating lot owners. There is a
community web site but unfortunately the BOD does not keep addresses
accurate.
Edie

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Ediel,
No excuses my friend. In my 65 unit condo we have over 70% short term rental during the season and we have a total of 6 full time residents, but when owners do come down we try to get them to a "social" to talk. We also have a website, and these few owners have our e-mail list to all owners having e-mail (98%). We can communicate and we we will shortly be starting a drive about the annual meeting and the Board elections. And God knows we are not perfect as an association but a few of us care enough to keep trying and making changes.

JayC1 (Florida)
Posts: 2

Posted:

I was wondering if anyone who was part of this thread has gone anywhere with their HOA's.
I know this thread was started in 2007 and now it is 2014 a lot has changed.
I bought a home in florida in 2004 and intended to rent it out for awhile until I got ready to retire to the South. the amendments that were written in 1994 did not say that you couldn't rent out long or short term. I rented short term in the summer, long weekends or a week here and there to people who were going to fish or scallop and in the winter to snow birds. The amendments had to be updated and they added a new amendmwnt that says no renters less than 30 days. it was voted in out of 62 homes 25 voted for the new amendment and 20 were against the amendment. It was was signed in and now I have to scratch for the mortgage, insurance and tax without this income. I know that after this thread was started that they came out with the Florida Distressed Condominium Act. I'm not sure where that says that they can't chane that amendment. I have read and re-read statute 718 and 720. I also read that if they have forced you to stop renting as a result of this new amendment and they were wrong in doing so that they are liable for my lost income for that time period.
I am only interested in Florida Law on this. If you have been thru this or know where I can get more light on this, that would be great.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Jay,

I know little of Florida law but I did notice a problem with the amendment. To amend a declaration, one normally needs at least a majority of the owners and higher percentages are more common. In your case only 25 out of 62 voted in favor. While that was likely a majority of those who cast votes, it does not meet the requirement of a majority of owners.

In my state, court decisions hold that amending the bylaws is insufficient for changing how the property is to be used; the declaration is the document that must be amended.

JayC1 (Florida)
Posts: 2

Posted:

Hi Larry,
I agree with you as I noticed that myself. I am cross-eyed trying to gleen anything out of the florida statutes on this. I was throwing it out there to see if anyone has come up against this in another HOA. The distressted condominium act may have something in it as it was meant to reduce the number of foreclosures but I don't see it. I do hope to get this turned around as I could use the income, there are enough forclosures in the area already and another one will not help the economy in Florida.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here