Resident violating the Covenant > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Resident violating the Covenant

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 3

Author

Messages

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/01/2008 10:55 AM
Donna, I don't want to get into the business of defending what a previous board did, but my understanding is that the board did not force the individual to leave. The president spoke with and worked with the resident in order to resolve the situation. I don't know how old the young man was. From our Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, "No one under the age of Fifty Five (55) years of age shall be a resident of a dwelling on a Lot other than the following exceptions:" (The 3 exceptions are a live-in caretaker, a disabled dependent child, and a spouse who has not yet reached 55 years of age.) This document is filed with the Township Assessor and the Secretary of State. They were written by an attorney, signed by the developer, and are properly filed in our state so I have to believe they are in accordance with pertinent laws. Marianne

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/01/2008 11:37 AM
Marianne, That is correct. If the governing Documents specifically state age restrictions, then they are valid. Many designated 55+ communities documents do not state limitations and therefore the HOPA/Hud laws allow for family members under the age of 55, be allowed to reside within the community as long as 1 of the owners meets the 55 year requirement.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/01/2008 12:02 PM
Posted By MarianneG on 08/01/2008 10:55 AM Donna, I don't want to get into the business of defending what a previous board did, but my understanding is that the board did not force the individual to leave. The president spoke with and worked with the resident in order to resolve the situation. I don't know how old the young man was. From our Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, "No one under the age of Fifty Five (55) years of age shall be a resident of a dwelling on a Lot other than the following exceptions:" (The 3 exceptions are a live-in caretaker, a disabled dependent child, and a spouse who has not yet reached 55 years of age.) This document is filed with the Township Assessor and the Secretary of State. They were written by an attorney, signed by the developer, and are properly filed in our state so I have to believe they are in accordance with pertinent laws. Marianne Okay, in the case of the adult child coming home to roost, I'll give you that per the above language. But in that a housesitter is not a "resident," I would have to weigh in on the side that there was no violation, therefore, nothing to address with that resident. In my opinion, this should not have risen to the level of even having the board address it.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/01/2008 12:57 PM
Michelle, I totally agree with you. Having 2 properties in 55+ communities, I find that many of the owners become entrenched and do not want any outsiders to crack the code and violate their space, being that the outsiders belong there or not. Now I know that many of our fellow posters who are in these communities will get their hair in a bunch but I honestly feel that I have got this reasonably right. I have seen and heard this many times at Board meetings. Being the Docs chairman at one, many times the Board has gotten letters complaining that "there has been a car parked often at a unit and we want to know why and who are they" Or how come so and so has a Son who is living there and etc. Many of these folks are in their 80s and have kids who come to care for them. I think that basically, these HOAs have to loosen the grip that they think they are entitled to it comes to who comes and goes out of the units. These are senior aged folks, probably not running crack houses or running bookie joints so to live under such scrutiny from neighbors and Boards, I find rather sad and unmerican that some HOAs feel that they can control every aspect of our living. HAving a reasonable time frame for guests to live in the community is acceptable but controling the ages of guests--well that's just plain rediculous. Read the definition of a guest before these Boards enact stupid and unenforceable rules.

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/02/2008 7:04 AM
Michelle and Donna, Well, I guess the stereotypes of those cranky, nasty older people are about as valid as stereotypes of those fire-eatin', dope-smokin', car-racin' young people. (I'm chiding myself as well as you.) The point is that these folks in the 55+ community made a rather large investment to live in a community designed for them and for them alone. They are in their late 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s (we even have one 91 year old), and this is their last home-hurrah. Their next homes are likely to be in the nursing home or the funeral home. They chose this community because of its amenities for them and for the opportunity to live out their lives here under rules made for them. I think they deserve this opportunity at the end of their lives. As a responsible board member, I felt it my duty to bring this situation to the rest of the board. The board is responsible for interpreting the Covenants and weighing the freedoms afforded to one person in concert with the wishes of 297 other residents. It was not my decision, and I could not have lived with myself if I had overlooked a situation which I believe is potentially harmful to the community -- Not only the 12-day stay, but the precedent it sets. Further,(and many of you have said this) if there is a need to clarify the provisions of the Covenants, why not now? Let's get at the business of clarifying the terms, and put it to the community for an amendment to the Covenants. The community will ultimately decide. Our social event (an ice cream social with music provided by a local group) is this afternoon, so I must be about getting ready for that. It's hot as the dickens here today so think cool thoughts for us. I wish you a cool day also! Marianne

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/02/2008 7:32 AM
Posted By MarianneG on 08/02/2008 7:04 AM Michelle and Donna, Well, I guess the stereotypes of those cranky, nasty older people are about as valid as stereotypes of those fire-eatin', dope-smokin', car-racin' young people. (I'm chiding myself as well as you.) The point is that these folks in the 55+ community made a rather large investment to live in a community designed for them and for them alone. They are in their late 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s (we even have one 91 year old), and this is their last home-hurrah. Their next homes are likely to be in the nursing home or the funeral home. They chose this community because of its amenities for them and for the opportunity to live out their lives here under rules made for them. I think they deserve this opportunity at the end of their lives. As a responsible board member, I felt it my duty to bring this situation to the rest of the board. The board is responsible for interpreting the Covenants and weighing the freedoms afforded to one person in concert with the wishes of 297 other residents. It was not my decision, and I could not have lived with myself if I had overlooked a situation which I believe is potentially harmful to the community -- Not only the 12-day stay, but the precedent it sets. Further,(and many of you have said this) if there is a need to clarify the provisions of the Covenants, why not now? Let's get at the business of clarifying the terms, and put it to the community for an amendment to the Covenants. The community will ultimately decide. Our social event (an ice cream social with music provided by a local group) is this afternoon, so I must be about getting ready for that. It's hot as the dickens here today so think cool thoughts for us. I wish you a cool day also! Marianne Marianne, I must still respectfully disagree with you on this particular instance. Please keep in mind, I'm not criticizing you as a person. I'm just saying that as a board member, you had nothing to "report." I can't think of a single place where a 12-day, or even a 14-day, stay constitutes "residency," and your documents clearly state "residency" is the restriction for under 55. I also think that implying that 2-week visits constitute "harm" to a community, in and of themselves, is disingenuous. If the housesitter had been engaging in some nuisance behavior, you might have an argument. There is no "precedent" to be set by "allowing" such a thing, mainly because there's no infraction that occurred! I think, regardless of your attempt to convince yourself otherwise, you do still harbor some personal issues with the resident in question. She did nothing wrong. There is no gray area here. There is nothing for the "community" to decide. Your documents don't restrict housesitting. They don't dictate what minimum or maximum age guests and visitors of residents must be. They only restrict "residents." Again, at the risk of being redundant, housesitting for 2 or 3 weeks would never, ever be construed as residency. Trying to imply that it is or does and that it somehow "harms" the community is fallacious. Of course you would be able to live with yourself, if you were being fair, by looking at this situation with an unbiased eye. I sincerely hope your board has not already sent the "sincere" letter to the resident. I think that would be inappropriate, ill-advised, and an extreme over-reaching by the board. They have no standing and no authority to even make the request and were I the one to receive the letter I would feel that I were being either harassed or that there was an attempt to intimidate me.

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

08/02/2008 8:13 AM
As I Stated before and I will state again, it is my OPINION that no violation has occured. I see no problem with it being reported to the board but in this case in my opinion the board should have realized that there was no violation and let it rest. I have seen no evidence that the house sitters were anything other than housesitters. They made no attempt to establish a permanent residence in the community, they were in fact visitors. Since the documents in question state nothing about visitors or guests then the BOD has work to do to refine that portion and address this situation. I have gathered that it is a huge deal to some in the community, if that is the case then residents and board members need to work together to draft guest documents to control this. But until that happens I would advise to leave this lady alone as she is doing nothing wrong and is abiding by her documents.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/02/2008 9:24 AM
Marianne, This is always a subject that has two sides, usually fairly divided as to how we feel. I am 65 years old and own 2 rental properties in 2 different developements in Florida and both are 55+ communities. I am Docs chairman for 1 of them so I am going to write a short, pretend "visitors" amendment. All visitors will be allowed to stay in a unit for a maximum of 30 consecutive days. Any time in excess of 30 days ,visitors must be blood related and have extenuating circumstances,and will need written approval from the BOD. All visitors must not be any younger that 45 years old. No vehicles other than passenger cars will be allowed. (No trucks). Okay, now you edit this and see if you can write something that would pass the general membership. I know what you are saying about some of the residents expressing concerns about how they want the community to be populated but in this real world, discrimination does get very unfair. My Mom (85) doesn't like my neighbor to use our pool (with my permission) because "they don't belong in our yard" It's alot to do with age and possessiveness Okay, I live in your community. I have 1 big dog that my neighbors do not want to walk 4 times a day. My Godchild (age 30)is building her house but it won't be ready for 45 days. She will house sit for us while we go to Europe for 31 days. This is a no brainer for me as for convenience. Can she stay in my house for that extra day? Don't forget, she is not blood related

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/03/2008 12:46 PM
Donna and all, Donna - When I read your last post with the draft wording of an amendment and your last paragraph with an example of a real-life situation, my spirits lifted. Thank you, and thank you for being open enough to share a little about yourself, too. We are not that far apart in age since I turned 70 last week and I remain active and involved as you seem to be. Michelle - A letter has NOT been sent to the resident. Our board meeting will be next Thrusday, and this issue is on the agenda for discussion. I think the most likely outcome of that meeting will be that we will do nothing about the 12-day stay, but may consider clarifying terms and/or amending the Covenant. I am certain that the board will take no action against the lady or even let her know in any way that this issue came up at the board meeting. Be assured that she will not be hurt in any way! In one of my early posts, I stated that I know I am not objective in this case. Some of you have pointed that out (some nicely, and some in a little more forthright way - LOL). That is a little tough to take sometimes, but your posts, suggestions, and reasoned arguments have helped me to arrive at a little more more objective place, I think. This backing and forthing with you has been very helpful to me. Thanks. I'm going to leave this thread now and not continue it any further. I will read any responses you choose to send, and I will get back to you for an update if it seems appropriate. Regards to all, Marianne

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/03/2008 2:01 PM
Marianne, I meant to add this to my previous post but with advancing age, I sometimes push "submit" faster than my thoughts can catch my fingers. The 55+ community where I am Docs chair, has tried a few times to pass what some of us call, gestapo rules. Thank God, the majority of the 230 members have had enough sense to figure out the consequesces of some of the oddly restrictive changes. After all, everyone in the Association has a right to use their homes and the amenities without feeling a vice grip of major strict rules around their necks. Visitors restrictions is a major big deal IMHO. They tried a "No Renters" amendment and it failed by the required 2/3rds vote. They tried to restrict "Jeeps and Jeep like vehicles. What's that all about. So, I would venture to say, unless there is some really nice perks to any visitors amendment, I highly doubt that it would pass the general membership vote. Okay, now I'm done also.

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/04/2008 9:26 AM
First, under Donna's suggested amendment her 30 your old daughter can not even come to the house. All visitors must be 45 years of age. Sorry, but if you attempt to stop a 12 day house sitting it will bite you severely in the end. You will stop a grandchild from visiting for two weeks. For all you know, this was a grandchild doing the house sitting. Based on your posts we know the following about your visitors: - quiet - very young looking - stayed for 12 days while the owner was gone From other posts you have mentioned that grandchildren come and make extended stays without problem. Now I am going out on a limb and guessing that would mean two or more weeks. IF so, then you will not be able to stop the activity you just described. Any attempt to stop this and you have stopped grandchildren from staying the same length as these two "kids." The more you argue, the more it would appear to me that you really do have something against this person. You have no idea who the house sitters were. And you readily state the only thing that bothered you is their presence and how young they looked. As you go forward consider the consequences of your actions. Do you really want to specify how long a grandchild can visit? (And what if they stay less then a week next time? Will you then prohibit grandchildren from staying overnight?) While I don't doubt your ability to whip up a frenzy of malcontent against this resident, your attempts to stop this from occurring again will also whip up bad feelings throughout your neighborhood. And don't bet that others won't take a very dim view of yourself should the resident explain that her grand-daughters came for those 12 days, and what a blessing it was.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/04/2008 11:12 AM
Kirk, Being involved with a very active, creative BOD where I am Docs chair, most times when they come up with another brainy idea on how to change the CC&Rs, Bylaws and R. & Rs., I just cringe at what will be the consequences to the community if this passes the membership vote. The key word here is consequences--how will this adversly affect the community. They always give me a list of the good things about a proposed change but rarely do they figure out the negatives. That's what I try to do for them because this Board seems to want Utopia as they perceive it. Thank goodness, once we argue it out at workshops and Board meetings, some of the older, original members seem to understand that things are working well now so why stir up the pot. Why create a rule or amendment to address what was a once in a lifetime incident. Why take away some freedoms of the good members who might have to answer to one persons stupidity. I say, address the one stupid behavior with what we have and that's the ability to fine and forget all of the hassle of changing what already is working.

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/07/2008 6:26 PM
To all who have posted on this subject previously, I think it's fair to let you know the outcome of our board meeting today. Only 4 members attended. One was ill. Two members thought (as many of you thought) that no violation occurred. I pretty much kept myself out of the discussion except to offer facts when asked. The other board member didn't say much but expressed concerns about effects on residents in the adjoining unit. So, we left it that this time nothing will be done as no violation occurred. There was no discussion (nor any attempt on my part to bring about a discussion) about adding any clarifying language to our Covenants. So, as BradP said, we will let the matter rest. However, if in the future housesitters are at any residence (as Kirk1 offered) regularly, we will address the situation at that time. GeorgeWilliamsW. If you happen to read this, I'd like you to know that in one of my posts of 08/01, the first part of that post was copied from a previous poster. It was not I who wrote anything derogatory about one of your posts. I just didn't do the copying right, and I fear it might have come across as if I wrote those comments. I remain convinced that I did the right thing in bringing the matter to the board. Like any other resident, I have every right to bring a concern to our board. Members of the board know the community and the rules by which we operate. And Kirk1, I will not go around fomenting discontent here. If you knew me, you would know that I'm well liked in every group I'm in, and have always been a good neighbor in the many multi-family communities I've lived in. In another thread the original poster commented, after several unkind things said about her, that it's really pretty unfair to characterize a person by the few words written here. Meanwhile, a nice glass of wine helps the crow to go down. Thanks again for your comments. Regards to all, Marianne

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/07/2008 6:59 PM
Marianne, Please don't take any of this discussion and dissection as personal judgments or character assassination or narrow-minded criticism, it's definitely not. We can only base our assessments, again, which are not personal although at times they may bring personal behaviors into the discussion, on what is told to us by admittedly one side of the story. I think it's easy to get defensive when one thinks they are being personally attacked (as I think that's what the other poster deemed the suggestions to do some self-examination re: personal bias, etc was). I have to say I'm glad that the situation resolved in that way. As I said earlier, I, personally, would not have even brought the issue up because in my interpretation of your rules, it isn't even close to being a violation. I completely understand what your position is regarding the larger "concerns" house-sitting might encompass, but it would probably have been healthier to simply bring up that topic as a larger, broader concern/issue rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole over something that, at best, was marginal. I would feel differently, no doubt, if the house-sitting had generated reports of noise nuisance, illegal parking, or other community-disturbing violations, but it didn't. Anyway, enjoy the wine. I prefer tequila myself! I look forward to hearing more from you on future issues and hope you feel comfortable joining some other discussions here from other neighborhood leaders and add your own perspective to some of the issues we all face!

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

08/09/2008 1:23 PM
Marianne: I agree with you, I see no problem bringing this to the boards attention, it is their job to determine what is the rul or not. I would make a suggestion that if this is a hot topic in your neighborhood go about addressing your visitor definition and rules and not wait unil the next time it happens. It is easier to be proactive than reactive

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/11/2008 5:38 AM
Marianne, Glad to see the outcome of your post. As for bringing dissension, I didn't mena to imply that you would intentionally stir it up and be a disliked person. Often times such things occur because of unintended consequences. The world is full of unintended consequences. A perfect example of the rule of unintended consequences is the use of RICO act. The act was passed for the express purpose of taking the Mafia down. Now it is being used on a regular basis against people who are no where close to what they law was written for. But consider that some in your neighborhood probably would like to see grandchildren limited to a few hours a day for a few days a year. Others simply want one person to "be of age." Neither will focus on your concern about the house sitter. Yet they will likely come together to bicker should an amendment to stop such come up. This has nothing to do with you. I know you wouldn't set this up intentionally. But it will happen should some amendment come up about the issue. I would say that the concern for the person on the other side of the wall is a good concern. And should house sitters disturb the person (or anyone else) with noise then you have a problem. Basically I believe that house sitters should quietly do their thing and not seek out attention. Their interaction aside from a passing greeting should be limited to others engaging them. Essentially, they should try to be a blessing to anyone they come into contact with.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/11/2008 6:00 AM
Marianne - your association is under HUD guidelines. THOSE guidelines will resolve all this discussion. My mother is in HUD housing. "Guests" may stay only a certain number of days. You need to find that in your HUD paperwork. The Board then needs to print those guidelines in the newletter.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2498

08/11/2008 7:45 AM
Susan, There are different types of HUD housing. Marianne's community is a 55+ community, which is under HUD, but I don't recall her saying it was low-cost housing. The type HUD housing to which you refer I believe is HUD low-cost housing. I don't recall the 55+ community standards mentioning anything about "guests".

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/11/2008 9:45 AM
Mary, You are correct. The HUD housing Laws have the 55+ communities as a subsection with it's own set of laws. I'll put very good money that it was placed there because no one in the Gov't knew what to file it under.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/11/2008 12:32 PM
From Googling "HUD housing 55 and older" Q & A Question 21 How is the calculation for the 80/20 percent requirement affected if a 55 or older individual purchases a dwelling in a senior housing facility/community, vacates the unit, and allows an underage adult relative to move in for an indefinite length of time? Answer In calculating whether a community/facility meets the 80 percent requirement, it is the occupants of the dwelling units who are counted, not the owners. In this example, the current resident, the underage adult relative, would be counted in the 20 percent portion. Similarly, if a 55 or older owner/occupant decided to vacate a unit for an indefinite period of time and rent to an underage individual, the current occupant would be counted in the 20 percent portion. Question 22 Are there circumstances under which a 55 or older owner/tenant might be temporarily absent from a dwelling without affecting the exemption status of the community/dwelling? Answer Yes. For example, the 55 or older occupant may be on vacation, hospitalized, or absent for a season without affecting the exempt status of the community. The resident may, if he/she wishes, allow a younger relative or a house sitter under 55 years if age to live in the unit during this absence. In either event, the unit would be included in the calculation of the 80 percent occupancy requirement as long as the dwelling is not rented out, the owner/tenant returns on a periodic basis, and maintains legal and financial responsibility for the upkeep of the dwelling.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/11/2008 1:10 PM
Susan, EXCELLENT research work. This really answered the law aspect of Mariannes question.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2498

08/11/2008 1:35 PM
Great work, Susan. I think "answer 22" is a perfect example for this topic. I'm impressed that HUD answered your questions so quickly!

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/11/2008 6:28 PM
OK Ladies, It's clear to me that you all have much greater knowledge of these things than I do, so please help educate me. First a couple of comments. We are definitely NOT a low income housing community. We have 13 single homes in the community and 56 patio home buildings. We were built by a local developer. No homes are subsidized. We each own our lot and house. In an earlier post, I quoted directly from our Covenants, which state that "no one under the age of 55 shall be a resident of a dwelling in (Name of Development)." Our covenants provide for renting or leasing a unit, but they must be rented/leased under the same conditions as if they were sold -- to only age 55+ individuals. Our covenants also provide for caretakers of residents, but underage caretakers must leave the premises within 30 days after there is no longer a need for them. (That's how I think the housesitter should be considered -- as a caretaker, not a guest or visitor.) Susan, I agree with Mary and Donna -- What a tremendous job of researching. I'm just bumfoozzled to be seriously hearing for the first time that maybe HUD has some play in our development. Sooooo, how do you know for certain that we fall under HUD? What comprises a HUD development? Where/What is the evidence? What is the 80/20 requirement? Surely that is not that only 80% of the homes have to be owned/leased by 55+ while the other 20% can be under age 55.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/11/2008 6:48 PM
Marianne, You can google HUD and there will be a tab for senior housing act That is where the 55+ housing laws are. NO, you do not have to be minimum housing to fall under HUD. Google in- -Fed Housing for 55+ Act and it will all be there for you or www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm -

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/11/2008 6:50 PM
P.S. I have thoroughly gone through my closing documents, the By-Laws, the Declaration of Covenants, and all instructions/list of sub-contractors/guarantees, etc given to me by the developer when he built my home. I have not found "HUD" mentioned or named in ANY document.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2498

08/12/2008 6:45 AM
Posted By MarianneG on 08/11/2008 6:50 PM P.S. I have thoroughly gone through my closing documents, the By-Laws, the Declaration of Covenants, and all instructions/list of sub-contractors/guarantees, etc given to me by the developer when he built my home. I have not found "HUD" mentioned or named in ANY document. Marianne, Here is an excerpt from the Housing for Older Persons Act which pertains to housing for individuals aged 55 and older. "This Act may be cited as the ``Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS. Section 807(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows: ``(C) intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older, and-- ``(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older; ``(ii) the housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent required under this subparagraph; and ``(iii) the housing facility or community complies with rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall-- ``(I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and affidavits; and ``(II) include examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purposes of such verification.''." The HUD rule is that at least 80% of the residents must be over the age of 55; however the individual HOA can have stricter requirements, i.e. ALL residents must be over the age of 55. In this instance HUD does NOT mean low income; that is only one of the areas of housing which HUD oversees. Many of the "over 55" communities are upscale, but some many include HUD low-income housing. Regarding your particular situation, I believe Susan posted a Q&A that specifically applies. The person you are concerned about is definitely NOT a resident, but rather a housesitter. Check out Susan's response dated 8/11 @ 12:32 PM, specifically "Question 22" for the answer to your dilemna.

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/12/2008 1:29 PM
Susan, Donna, Mary, You three have certainly done a good job of educating me, and you've provided me with websites and direct quotes from those sites. I think you (and others who have posted - Kirk, George, Brian, Brad and others) have fulfilled the purpose of this forum. I hope that visitors to this thread have found it as beneficial as I have. Sincere thanks, Marianne

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/12/2008 1:44 PM
insert frowny face here

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2948

08/12/2008 1:51 PM
Michelle,

MarianneG
(Indiana)

Posts:51

08/12/2008 3:06 PM
Oh Michelle - You also have been a great help both here and on the one about the pond. What was I thinking? Well, I guess I wasn't thinking. Many, many thanks to you also!!!!!!!!!!

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 3

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Resident violating the Covenant