Breaking the "roommate" rule > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Breaking the "roommate" rule

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

JudieA
(Washington)

Posts:27

08/07/2008 3:31 PM
I'm the president of a 10 unit condo complex and have to deal with a homeowner tonight regarding a rule he's breaking. Our declarations say no one can rent out part of their unit. He moved in about 5 months ago and got a roommate. The Board members talked with him and told him about the No Renting a Room Rule. He was very apologetic and assured us that he was getting married in a year and that once she moved in, his roommate would be moving out. Could we just please let this slide because his friend was having issues and needed a place to stay for awhile. Well within a month, his girlfriend moved in also. So, we are now telling him that he broke his promise to us and that he has a choice to make. Since he said he didn't have his roommate move in because he needed the money, then his roommate should start looking for another friend to stay with. He's taking it very personally and wants to know why his friend can't stay there and what's wrong with him, etc. In short, he's making it the Board's fault. In actuality, it is our fault for letting it slide. It's just so hard to be tough as nails when you're living in such a small complex. No one wants everyone to hate you. He moved in shortly after 2 of his buddies each bought a condo here, so there's 3 homeowners now that probably think we're bullies. By the way, don't know if it matters, but all the Board Members are female. And we really aren't tought as nails, but want this particular rule to stand. I KNOW we made a mistake believing him when he said his girlfriend wouldn't be moving in, but there's nothing I can do about that now. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to discuss this with him so that he understands and so we don't just sound like a group of old women trying to make things hard on him. I really don't even want to explain why the rule was made, just that it was indeed made and he needs to abide by it. Thanks! Judie

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

08/07/2008 3:39 PM
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.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

08/07/2008 3:40 PM
By the way, if i were the guy, i simply wouldn't charge rent to my roommate. I can't rent my home, but do your rules say i can't let anyone stay there for free?

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/07/2008 4:07 PM
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.

AnnaD2
(Florida)

Posts:386

08/07/2008 4:51 PM
Susan, good reply!!! We've gone through this before. Our docs say that no one can "rent" out a room in their unit. When we've addressed this before we're always told, "They're not renting a room. I'm "letting" them stay here (in my unit) rent free." It's very hard to prove. Then we go to the 'agrement' of who exactly will be residing in the unit. "Two adults only" or "one adult and one child". Then when the situation changes they quote county occupancy laws (along with our rules---that they're not renting rooms) and STILL get by. It' so,so frustrating!

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/07/2008 5:32 PM
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.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/07/2008 6:04 PM
You units should state an "occupancy" - whether that is 1 or 10. I really don't see why the Board is involved with this. The burden of proof will be very difficult for you.

RW1

Posts:0

08/07/2008 6:10 PM
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.

AllenB3
(Illinois)

Posts:10

08/07/2008 8:30 PM
We have a similar situation in our complex. What kind of verbiage in the bylaws would not allow an owner to "just let" someone stay in their home. Our bylaws state single family use only. Does that mean you could not have someone staying with you who is not a family member? Also, would it mean that if a non-resident owner were to rent their unit, then they would have to do so to only people who were related? (i.e. Not 2 friends looking to rent a unit)...I saw someone mention county occupancy law...can that trump something in the bylaws? Thank you in advance....

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/07/2008 9:04 PM
Posted By AllenB3 on 08/07/2008 8:30 PM We have a similar situation in our complex. What kind of verbiage in the bylaws would not allow an owner to "just let" someone stay in their home. Our bylaws state single family use only. Does that mean you could not have someone staying with you who is not a family member? 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.

TonyM3
(Arizona)

Posts:140

08/07/2008 9:31 PM
HOAs regulating who can live with whom is just plain nuts.

AllenB3
(Illinois)

Posts:10

08/07/2008 9:32 PM
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)

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/07/2008 10:09 PM
Not sure, however, in on of our city's on-line documentation regarding Property Maintenance Obligations, and zoning restrictions, ordinances etc, this paragraph is in one on-line flier regarding living space: OVERCROWDING The Existing Structures Code prohibits the overcrowding of people into apartments or houses by tenants, landlords and homeowners, by requiring that: * A minimum share of habitable floor space for each occupant living in a dwelling unit be provided. For example, 150 square feet is required for the first occupant and 100 additional square feet is required for each additional occupant. Space..................1-2 occupants.......3-5 occupants...6 or more occupants Living room (a,b)......No requirements.....120.............150 Dining room (a,b ).....No requirements.....80..............100 Kitchen (b)............50..................50..............60 For SI: one square foot = 0.093 m2 a. See subsection (E)(2) for combined living room/dining room spaces. b. See subsection (E)(1) for limitations on determining the minimum occupancy area for sleeping purposes. Notice it doesn't even address family status at this point. Simply "occupants." In another section of the code it addresses gender and children, though I can't locate it right now. I don't have that bookmarked. Here is a link to another portion of the site that deals with some ordinances regarding living space: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/ipl/PropertyMaintenance/chapter156.htm#103 Also, in the section on "definitions" for the purposes of the zoning codes, ordinances, etc., here is what they say about single-family: 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. So, basically, you could have a couple friends living in the same house and splitting costs and it still not be violating the zoning for single-family use. (PS: Our City and County government and municipal units merged a few years ago, so some ordinances are the old County Ordinances, some are the old Urban District Ordinances, and some are labeled with the new Metro Government ordinance, but they still all apply to the entire new Metro area now.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2498

08/08/2008 6:51 AM
Posted By AllenB3 on 08/07/2008 9:32 PM 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).

GeorgerwilliamsW
(Indiana)

Posts:768

08/08/2008 7:22 AM
Judie, Now that you have heard all the comments, what do you think? From my perspective, Susan is right on target here. I can't say it better than her.

AllenB3
(Illinois)

Posts:10

08/08/2008 9:42 AM
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....

RW1

Posts:0

08/08/2008 10:21 AM
I like that: "our board is trying to say that..." Some will TRY anything. Usually they are ignortant. The example of the "single-family home" definition cited above is a PERFECT example of such ignorance. I, like at least one other person "around here" so described himself, too consider myself a heretic when it comes to HOA administration. I had to resign from my BOD so as not to be associated with their ignorance after feeling embarassed during meetings. I continue to volunteer on the Arch. committee. ALWAYS ask the BOD to specifically cite the language, paragraph, statute, rule, etc. they are trying to enforce.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/08/2008 10:31 AM
Posted By RW1 on 08/08/2008 10:21 AM The example of the "single-family home" definition cited above is a PERFECT example of such ignorance. 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.

RW1

Posts:0

08/08/2008 11:40 AM
Yes you misunderstood... The ignorance I'm referring to is not knowing the (legal) definitions of words or phrases BEFORE opening ones collective mouth (such a BOD) by sending out violation notices. Such as saying that a single-family home means that only a single [so called nuclear] family can reside there as opposed to the correct definition as a single, as in detached from others, dwelling. The tie in to my previous statement...Our HOA "tried to say" that only a nuclear family could live in our single-family homes. Meaning no roommates or say two single moms and thier kids, domestic partners, etc. After much wasted time and effort and even a little bit of money they were put in their place. They were ignorant and wanted to enforce it their way based on their uninformed definition. Rather embarassing for them. Always question authority! And, as others have said, HOAs should stay out of peoples homes. PERIOD. Just cause rules are written doesn't mean they're enforceable.

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/08/2008 6:30 PM
...Our board is trying to say that you have to be related.... 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.

HaroldS
(Arizona)

Posts:904

08/08/2008 8:34 PM
"Our board is trying to say that you have to be related...." And how are they going to determine and enforce that? I really wonder about volunteer boards wanting to make up rules for such time challenging projects.

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2498

08/09/2008 7:19 AM
Posted By AllenB3 on 08/08/2008 9:42 AM 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.... 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.

RW1

Posts:0

08/09/2008 7:55 AM
Here I go again... The culprit is ignorance. If you are going to enforce rules, docs., etc. you should first understand them. I disagree sort-of about "saving the BODs face" by gently telling them their wrong. By definition, these are adversarial exercises. The BOD made a policy statement or took action based on flawed interpretations. They should investigate, review, consult, etc., BEFORE making statements, adopting policy or issuing violations. The burden of proof in on the accuser. Question authority and ask for hte verbage that gives them authority, power, etc. Then show them they were wrong (if is truly the case here). If they don't want to be proven wrong they should do their "homework". Proving them wrong may encourage them to better prepare in the future before it co$tS you/them. BODs, rules, CC&Rs, ByLaws and all the rest have their place and value. But they also have their limitations. You can find caselaw on the web showing how HOAs get beat all the time because "they try and say" things with no merit. Don't count on your assn. attorney preventing this (assn.) loss in court either, it's how he gets paid.

RW1

Posts:0

08/09/2008 8:16 AM
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!!!

RW1

Posts:0

08/09/2008 8:25 AM
Heres a link to the above case. http://www.ccfj.net/courtdecsolarpanel.html I think I recalled it pretty fairly. (sorry for the off-topic hijack of this thread)

MaryA1
(Arizona)

Posts:2498

08/09/2008 10:11 AM
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.

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

08/09/2008 1:15 PM
I agree with RW...it is the BOD's job to understand what single family means...if they are that stupid to send out a letter and not understanding the term it is their fault not the words fault. I don't agree with being confrontational, I think anytime you embarrass people when you really don't have to it can come back to haunt you later on. By going after them you become a target for later. I do think you need to stick up for your rights, if they refuse to listen then becoming agitated is alright.

RW1

Posts:0

08/09/2008 1:41 PM
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!

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1866

08/09/2008 9:01 PM
Posted By RW1 on 08/09/2008 1:41 PM 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. Totally disagree. It's the violation that does not create "good will." A violation notice isn't an "accusation," it's a notice of a fact, and the first time you get a notice from us, it will be a gentle reminder. We WILL give you the "benefit of the doubt" that you were unaware of the violation or that it was unintended. But the violation itself will have been confirmed. We don't send violations for "allegations." I can think of no cases in our 12+ year history where a violation notice was not warranted. If you received one from us, you not only have not been harassed, you will have a specific time frame to correct the violation, in which case we will move to ensure compliance through a gradually escalating process until compliance is achieved. I also don't agree that people get on the board and "change." People are what they are, before and after board service. If someone was an a@@ beforehand, she will be one during and mostly likely after her term on the board. But it's just plain ridiculous to approach the board with a chip on your shoulder. They need to know or be "schooled," but the way to do that is to approach them in a way that doesn't shut them down before you get the first words out of your mouth. It's self-defeating and a waste of time.

GeorgerwilliamsW
(Indiana)

Posts:768

08/10/2008 4:06 AM
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.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Breaking the "roommate" rule