Breaking the "roommate" rule

This notice is given to remind you of the contract you agreed to when you purchased a unit in XXXXX. The CC&R specifically forbid the renting of the units to others, section X, article Y, subpart Z:

(copy exact rule here).

You are in violation of this rule, and have been asked to fix the situation and return your unit to compliance, and as of this date, you have failed to do so. When reminded of this rule in the past, you promised to comply by X, and have also failed to do that. Per the agreement you signed when you purchased, the board has the right to take action up to and including the following: XXXXXXXXX We regret to inform you that if you are not in compliance with this rule by August X, the board will have no other option than to XXXXXXXXX.

Under the CC&R's of the XXXX association, you have the following rights: XXXXXX

Sincerely,

HOA board.

You will have to fill in the missing sections, based on what your rules and state laws allow you to do. SOme HOA's can fine, some can't. SOme can lien, some can't. The bottom line is, he is breaking the rules, it's HIS fault, not yours (although i do like that you admit helping the situation by waffling earlier). If the board does NOT do its job and uphold the rules, then the board is failing the entire community.

I would have more respect for this "rule" if it said "no more than 2 adults in the home," or something to that effect.

Whether a person pays rent is not your concern, is it? The homeowner is THERE, so he just has a roomate - or wife - or elderly parent.

How do you know he pays rent?

This is different from renting out the unit.

Please print your bylaw or CCR that speaks about rentals.

I agree with Susan. If the guy comes to the board and says that the roommate is staying rent free, then there isn't much that you can do about it. You certainly won't be able to get his bank records. (Then again, if it were me I would cash the rent check and put money into my account slowly so you wouldn't be able to show anything anyway.)

While I appreciate your position, the fact is that you can only do something about him admitting (or his roommate admitting) to accepting rent. If the roommate is staying rent free then the rules have not been broken.

It's a waste of time and money to try and purse further based on what's been said here so far.

He can pay for utilities in leu of "rent". Now what? Do you have a rule about that.

Maybe the verbage is meant to prevent outright renting where the owner is not a resident. Your info thus far is not clear to me.

Focus on the outside and appearance of your community. Stay out of peoples homes and the rest will take care of itself.

No, it does not mean that. It just means that it cannot be rented out to multiple families like an apartment or a board house. Those have to go into areas that have a different Residential Zoning designation.

I'm not sure of your area, but in our community, our zoning laws specify the square-footage per person that is "livable" and when too many people is too much for that space.

There is a bunch of criteria they use. It includes the number of children, the gender of the children and/or occupants, the number of bedrooms, the size of the living space.

When an inspector goes into a home they also check to see that other rooms have not been converted into sleeping quarters, which affects the formula, too. For example, you cannot have a dining room converted into a bedroom, or something like that.

But there is absolutely no discussion on the blood relationship of the occupants. The only factors are ages and gender and space.

What happens if you have a "family" that is comprised of a woman with 3 children, one of them a foster child, one boyfriend, and the other children only related as half-siblings? Such as a different father for each one?

If that "family" has the appropriate livable space and wants to let one of her girlfriends live there, too, it is still deemed a "single family residence."

We actually had a resident violating the zoning restrictions for our neighborhood, even though they weren't "violating" our CC&Rs, per se. In other words, the deeded owners weren't charging "rent" to any of the other occupants.

There were three families living in one two-story house. I don't even know how many kids, but at least 6. So 6 adults and 6 kids.

Someone (could have even been a relative of one of them) turned them into the zoning enforcement officers and they did an inspection. Sure enough, they had converted various spaces within the house to "wall off" the individual families.

I don't know exactly the details, all I know is that about a week after the officer showed up, there were moving trucks at the house and now only one family lives there.

We have one house in our neighborhood that has 3 adults living in it. They are not related, as far as we can tell. However, the house is not a boarding house, but the three of them split the rent and utilities. They are friends. They haven't subdivided the unit into 3 separate kitchens, living rooms, etc. It's still a single family house, just 3 people living together splitting costs.

Michael,
Thank you for your detailed reply. I am searching the county zoning ordinance online, but having no luck finding the "definition" of what constitutes single family. Any idea where a county would define the term? I will try to contact the county by phone, but lets just say it is probably the worst county in the country in terms of being helpful or useful. (one of the best at taxing though)

Allen,

Check out the planning & zoning dept. of your city/county. The term "single family" is confusing to many people. It doesn't mean only one family, it refers to the type of housing. Single family (individual homes) as opposed to multi family (apartments). Laws are not the same in all jurisdictions regarding the number of people who can reside in a dwelling. I live in a city that only regulates that for apartments and public housing. My husband and I could move in our children, our grandchildren and anyone else we want without breaking any laws and we only have a 3-bedroom + den home (no basement).

I was able to contact our city zoning department to find out the occupancy laws. Sure enough, single family has nothing to do with the relationship of the people. We are allowed to have 1 person per 50 square feet of bedroom space. So if you have two bedrooms that have a space of at least 10x10, you can technically have 4 people living in that unit. Our board is trying to say that you have to be related....which is not in our bylaws and seems to me to be some sort of discrimination. This info will be good ammo for our next meeting. Thanks Michael and everyone else for their comments....

Excuse me if I took your comment here out of context or misunderstood your intent.

But are you saying that this definition cite is "ignorance"?

"Family - One or more persons occupying premises and living as one housekeeping unit using one kitchen, and distinguished from a group occupying a boarding and lodging house, fraternity or sorority house, a club, hotel, or motel. "

Because that is in the zoning ordinances definitions section, not something our BOD dreamt up.

Our zoning officers don't define "singe-family housing" as housing where only "families" can live (i.e., people related to each other), but rather as a reasonable occupancy standard to prevent overcrowding and unsafe conditions.

It's simply a designation of the purpose of the use of the house, that an X number of people will be living there and attributed with X-amount of living space, and it doesn't define what a "family" is or isn't.

That's all the CC&Rs are referring to when they state that the purpose of the lots is for "single-family housing," meaning simply the housing is not to be subdivided into multiple group housing, such as a boarding house, apartment, hotel, etc.

Many BODs get caught up on the term "family" and, unless your CC&Rs define that strictly as blood relatives, or by marriage, they will probably not be able to make "roommates" stop living together.

You may want to point out that in so doing the BOD is violating Fair Housing laws. There is a reason that cities and counties write their laws as they do. Because while they refrain from this language - courts have ruled that you can not force "Judeo-Christian" based rules on what constitutes a family.

Of course you might also point out a fallacy in the BOD's position. You could ask a BOD member if all members in their house are related by blood. After they answer yes, ask if they are then guilty of incest. Of course they are not and will quickly re-qualify. Of course then you could move to step-children, adopted children, etc. Quickly they will grow tired of the ever expanding family. It is at that time you should point out that Fair Housing does not allow them to force their religious views of what makes a family on others and perhaps they should instead look to the laws in place that will stand up in court.

As another note, a potential resource in finding out occupancy laws would be to contact an apartment manager. At least around here most are quite familiar with occupancy rules. And in this area the number of people in the bedroom is somewhat affected by the age of said people. You can stack more children then adults. (And there is even provision for "adult children.") Again, all the more reason to make friends with an apartment manager since they deal with it on a regular basis.

Allen,

The real culprit is the term "single family", not your board. Most people just do not understand the term and the members of your board appear to fit this category. At your next meeting take the time to "educate" them but don't do it in a confrontational manner. Keep in mind the fact that most people don't like to be told they're wrong about something, especially in a public meeting. Just let them know what you've you learned, prefaced with the fact that you know this is a term that is not adequately defined in the gov. docs.

Speaking of case law,

here's a brief recap of a case in Fla from 2-3 yrs. ago...

A woman installed a solar tube on her home which happened to be visible from the front elevation. (This tube is like a skylight but the sunlight can be piped or directed to an area not directly below it's location)

She did this WITHOUT prior ARC approval!

She got a notice of failure to get pre approval and ordered to relocate it so as not to be visible from the front elevation.

She decides to sell and has the tube relocated so as not to complicate and delay the sale.

After selling and moving she later sues her Ex-HOA for the cost of relocation and all related legal costs (punative not permitted) totalling about $3500.

The HOA must have thought for sure they would win because she didn't have prior permission, clearly a violation of their docs.

TOO BAD... HOA must pay all costs.

Well, the HOA (and aparrently their Atty.) did'nt know Fla. Statutes say you can't prevent such devives in Fla. and you can't be forced to move them if it will reduce their performance. So getting pre-approval isn't always so important or reason to "pounce".

-----

On a side note.. in Fla. HOAs: As of July 1, You don't need HOA permission to erect a flgpole anywhere on your property so long as you adhere to the pole height (=<20 ft.) and any easement rights which may exist on your property.

That's right -You don't need HOA permission!

This is really going to piss off some power drunk BODs!!!

RW,

You said: "I disagree sort-of about "saving the BODs face" by gently telling them their wrong."

I didn't suggest not being confrontational because I think the h/o should be concerned about "saving the BODs face". Go ahead and be confrontational; tell them they're wrong; tell them you know more than they do; tell them they're stupid; tell them anything you like. What will you accomplish? You'll most likely be labeled a "PITA" and ignored! IMO, you get more with honey than vinegar.

You might enjoy being HARASSED by ignorant, power drunk, BODs.

They're the PITA.

It's not to be tolerated.

People get on the board and they change.
They think they can "say" anything beacuse they heard it's in the docs, and the BOD has an attorney and insurance, and this and that.

Violation notices do not create good will.
They are accusatory and, far too often, not warranted.

If you send one to me you better know what you are talking about and have documentation to prove it. Otherwise I have been harassed.

In God I trust, all others bring data!

Hey folks,

Typically, in the most confrontational situations, there is enough blame for both sides.

First there is the owner violating the rules, either deliberately or not.

Second there is the dreaded violation letter, that is threatening and legalistic.

Both are wrong, particularly because they tend to harden position on both side and lead to confrontation. And eventually ill will.

Neighbors need to be more sensitive to how their actions impact neighbors.

And boards need to be less legalistic and understand that every rule violation is not a personal affront to their authority.

Michele's first gentle reminder is the best approach, if it has to come to the "dreaded letter from the board."

Common sense, tolerance, neighborliness, reasonableness, proportionality are words that need to guide what we do and how we act. Unfortunately, those words are often lost on both the homeowner and board.

The board of directors can't control the attitude or behavior of a resident. But they can control how the board acts in approaching a difficult issue.

Take the high road, always.

Yes, but the difference is most people in an association aren't sending out violation notices either...that is why the BOD should know what it means.

But one thing that should be kept in mind is this. How many board members are even thinking there is a "definition" of single family home? They just read the rule and think they know what it means w/o thinking it may mean something else. Just because someone on the board isn't saying, "Oh my gosh, we better look up the meaning of "single family home" doesn't mean they should be chastized for not doing their job right. As a board member, have you read through all the docs and outlined all the terms you think might have a "hidden meaning" and set about finding out what the term might mean as regards HOAs? I think not! Most people look at the term "single family home" and don't realize it might have more than one meaning.

I think it's reasonable in this day and age to believe anyone reading that is going to think twice about whether it gives them the power to evict someone based on familial status.