disabled & feeling harrassed by HOA > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: disabled & feeling harrassed by HOA

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 3

Author

Messages

PatrickH
(California)

Posts:197

12/06/2007 8:29 AM
Bill, You did come here and ask for people's opinions, it's the last sentence of your original posting, so insulting people who give an opinion you don't agree with isn't very neighborly of you. Looking at your first post, I'm amazed at how quickly everything went. You had a stroke in January, bought the 40 foot vehicle in February, parked it in front of your home from February to June. I'm assuming you started getting letters about it during that time and submitted plans three times for the driveway which were denied, consulted a lawyer in July, installed the gate and driveway sometime after July, got a letter in November about a shed and an A/C unit, got sued in Novemebr or December and are going to court in January. The wheels of justice turn pretty fast in the great state of Texas! One thing I didn't see is why you are being sued. Is it the wrought iron gate, the 70 foot driveway, parking the motor home on your property, the shed that's now visible, the A/C unit? Personally, I don't see why your request to install a second driveway would have been denied three times if 16 other homes in your devlopment already have them. Something could have been done with the design to make it "harmonious" with the neighborhood. Good luck.

BillL3
(Texas)

Posts:18

12/06/2007 11:36 AM
Patrick........This has really turned on me, as I suspected it would when I jumped on miss Donna from Florida. I really did not mean to be mean to her as a person, but to her post of not being compassionate to the disabled. Patrick, you are right in assuming that my situation moved very quickly, as you and everyone else can see it on here. This is not the case as I have been disabled not just since the Stroke in January but since October of 1997. Looking back over all the posts including my own, I can see how this got misunderstood. Maybe, I should have posted "Harrassed by HOA" and left out the disabled part....Some folks believe that if a person is disabled that they try to use that as leverage in their favor when some rules are in question. The ADA has made some provisions to the rules and the HOA's will learn that they must comply or be fined. The HOA filed suit on me because I would not comply to their 3 board members wants, I am indeed complying with the bylaws that are written for this community. I do think I will win this suit in court in January when we go and NO I am not interested in any Florida swampland....An honest THANK YOU to everyone who did reply to this post....Mr Bill

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/07/2007 5:04 AM
Donna, It seems to me that Homeowner problems ARE committee/board member/property management problems aren't they? I would guess that your targeted audience does learn and benefit from the discussions of these homeowner problems and are able to take these different ideas (even if not a solution) back to their associations to address the difficulties which are sometimes quite unique to the forum. Batting around ideas and discussing the different options seems to me to be a part of a healthy discussion. Listening to only one side of a debate really isn't learning much but more of a mental support group, which might leave you warm and fuzzy but not much else. Posted By DonnaS on 12/05/2007 4:33 PM Mr. Bill, and everyone, This is a good example why we have posting rules and should be dedicated to committee, Board members and property management problems. p.s. (Your motor coach is for recreational purposes and not deemed as nescessary transportation) Thank You

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:1470

12/07/2007 8:08 AM
DJ, while I welcome the opinions of everyone and I think it's valuable for BOD members to understand how "ordinary" people think. And I think when BOD members get entrenched on a path because of principle; it's valuable for others to call them on it. I can't speak for DonnaS but I understand her frustration as lately it seems that most of the posts are "I broke the rules, how do I get away with it." Or, "I broke the rules and the HOA is trying to enforce against me, how do I stop the bas***d's." There are numerous HOA's are evil and all BOD members are power mad Hitler clones out to control every aspect of my life web sites without turning this into one too.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2951

12/07/2007 8:28 AM
DJ1, The Board members, managers and committee people that post their opinions on this site have probably an accumualation of hundreds of thousands of hours of governing and management experiences. We gather all that we have learned and bat them around amoungst ourselves. It is amazing that almost all concur on solutions and we share them, therefore making each of us richer in knowledge. We come here with having gathered our many different problems from our individual associations, mostly because WE HAVE LISTENED TO ALL SIDES OF THE STORY . And trust me, we have heard it before and it is always the same story, owners not following their CC&Rs. Then we occasionally get some frustrated or disgruntled homeowner who either has a very valid question reguarding their Board or some homeowner who doesn't grasp the concept of living in a deed restricted community. They try to suck us into their pool of mud and occasionally it happens. That is when you will see us at our best, defending each other as valuable resources and having alot in common.

BradP
(Kansas)

Posts:1742

12/07/2007 8:31 AM
Bottomline...if you are unwilling to listen to answers that may not be on your side you shouldn't post. I wish this person the best of luck in his endeavor.

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/07/2007 11:26 AM
DonnaS, "it is always the same story, owners not following their CC&Rs." ALWAYS? I doubt it. Sometimes, maybe even most times probably. I've read enough of the posts and the news articles HOATalk kindly provides the link to and I see plenty of examples of abuse, from BOTH sides. To be clear, I'm not in favour of people violating the rules they 'agreed' to, but I also recognize that they may not know what the agreed to. (no excuse but possibly an explanation that causes Boards nuts). I also don't see most posters here trying to 'suck' anyone in to their argument. From their perspective and knowledge it is more likely they lack the understanding of what they did when they purchased in a HOA ie agreeing to CCR's that they may not even know about. That doesn't forgive their responsibility, but it helps to explain some of it. I can say that in the HOA I am surrounded by, the majority right up to the President don't understand, or follow, the CCR's. The majority didn't even have a copy for the first 5 years...sure their registered on title and owners should take responsibility, but for many home buying is such an infrequent occurrence that the situation is at least understandable Some question Bill's quick actions to buy the motorhome after the stroke, I read as implying some ill motives. Strictly from a medical situation I would do what was necessary as quickly as possible to minimize the impact of my disability. In terms of CCR's and accomodation though I think a judge would question if there were other options in terms of home mods before essentially buying a new second home to park in the driveway. No offense intended to anyone in these comments. Posted By DonnaS on 12/07/2007 8:28 AM DJ1, The Board members, managers and committee people that post their opinions on this site have probably an accumualation of hundreds of thousands of hours of governing and management experiences. We gather all that we have learned and bat them around amoungst ourselves. It is amazing that almost all concur on solutions and we share them, therefore making each of us richer in knowledge. We come here with having gathered our many different problems from our individual associations, mostly because WE HAVE LISTENED TO ALL SIDES OF THE STORY . And trust me, we have heard it before and it is always the same story, owners not following their CC&Rs. Then we occasionally get some frustrated or disgruntled homeowner who either has a very valid question reguarding their Board or some homeowner who doesn't grasp the concept of living in a deed restricted community. They try to suck us into their pool of mud and occasionally it happens. That is when you will see us at our best, defending each other as valuable resources and having alot in common.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

12/07/2007 12:45 PM
To all, This thread has a lot of pretty strong opinions and some could be a great place to try and convince everyone you were right and somebody else was wrong. You will notice that didn't happen. If you all remember we had a member posting here that did not leave any wiggle romm in her proclamation and insisted on comments that did no one any good. We have two views or so on the poster about the motor home, we have room for all to post and no one is jumping up trying to pick up sides like kids on the playground. I find all of us civil and considerate. I sure can't say that for all the people I know living in HOA's or towns or cities or neighborhoods. Another thing we do well with out thinking about is our replies for a very large part are never complete answers, so we answer with our experience and knowledge but not as teacher and student. We never ask for some score on how we are doing, and in fact would resist someone grading us. We seem willing to be right on the point but know enough to know we don't know everything. I am sure there are folks that drop by here and turn us off like a radio, we don't know this and it don't seem to bother us. We know we help at times and yet we are not asking for a talley. Seems to me we do pretty well, at least as far as we know, because bottom line, we know some stuff other folks don't, and that's alright with us also. And Donna is becoming eloquent in her posting here of late. I think all of us have some poet in us and search for that rythum that says what we want. And that's ok also.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

12/08/2007 11:49 PM
DJ, this will come as no surprise to you or anyone else, but I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, " Some question Bill's quick actions to buy the motorhome after the stroke, I read as implying some ill motives. " I didn't see any of this whatsoever. What kind of "ill motives" do you think someone would imply such an action would involve? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I hardly think, nor do I think anyone else here even remotely implied, that the man had a stroke and then immediately decided to go out and do something to mess with the HOA. However, I DO think he has not told us even a fraction of the "real story." In fact, I believe he was asked several times what, EXACTLY, was the HOA suing him for. He gave vague responses, something about fencing or a driveway that he admitted he didn't prior approval for, and then some longer detail about how he had a stroke and needs to park a modified RV in his drive to accommodate -- what exactly, I don't know -- and that the board is now picking on him by suing him. It's really hard to tell if he has a case or if they have a case, because I STILL don't think we actually know enough about the situation. I think, however, if he is going to try in court to use some sort of "they are harassing me because of my handicap" that he might want to take a different tact. The more he DOES explain, the clearer it becomes that, from what I can tell anyway, the HOA appears to be doing no more and no less than trying to maintain the integrity of their documents. All we can do is wait to see how a judge interprets the situation, especially given the fact that he or she will have considerably more detail than what we were given here. Second, I also disagree that disgruntled homeowners somehow add a dimension that we lack or need here to keep our dialog healthy. There is such a range of personalities who post on this site that the entire gamut of HOA philosophy is covered. We don't have any problem stepping up and disagreeing with another HOA professional. There are numerous instances of "devil's advocate" that we play off of each other. We aren't into group-think here, and I don't see any evidence that we're smoking our own exhaust, either.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

12/09/2007 5:19 AM
Michele, "Smoking our own exhaust". LOFLMAO. That is wonderful! I must remember to use this at my next conversation with the President of our Board. I can just see this pained look on his face. Anyway, I think your analysis is as descriptive as anyone is going to get about this site. As an extension to what you said and support of what you said, I want to point out, even if we don't get the whole story because it usually is complicated and full of personality and our conclusions are our best estimate, the poster knows the whole story, as he sees it. If we are successful and start the wheels turning their concerns and conclusions will be tempered with what we say. So, not to know the whole story, just enough to drag a specific question from some, is about all we can hope for. Professional or not, true or not, known agendas or not, it is all part of the big picture and a cross section of HOA living and at times there is no doubt we all "Smoke our own exhaust", once in a while, anyway. I do.

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/09/2007 11:16 AM
Michele, Bill came here and posted a question and the first two responses could be viewed negatively imo. "We have heard one side, I am sure there is another side" It goes without saying there are two sides to every story (at least), we already all know that, so why say it. It didn't aid in understanding the situation. Instead of asking for details to clarify or aid in understanding it, this type of comment could put someone on the defensive right away because it puts into question their version. Next, I was referencing the observation posted "I'm amazed at how quickly everything went. You had a stroke in January, bought the 40 foot vehicle in February, parked it in front of your home from February to June." That is why I said I would do the same. One could view the statement as questioning the motives because Bill acted so quickly. We all read things from our own perspective. You and others may not see the distinction I am trying to point out or think I'm way off base. People come here for help, so the two examples I mention may not have been intended the way I see, but if you don't see how they could be seen that way maybe you do need other perspectives. Posted By MicheleD on 12/08/2007 11:49 PM DJ, this will come as no surprise to you or anyone else, but I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, " Some question Bill's quick actions to buy the motorhome after the stroke, I read as implying some ill motives. " I didn't see any of this whatsoever. What kind of "ill motives" do you think someone would imply such an action would involve? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. I hardly think, nor do I think anyone else here even remotely implied, that the man had a stroke and then immediately decided to go out and do something to mess with the HOA. However, I DO think he has not told us even a fraction of the "real story." In fact, I believe he was asked several times what, EXACTLY, was the HOA suing him for. He gave vague responses, something about fencing or a driveway that he admitted he didn't prior approval for, and then some longer detail about how he had a stroke and needs to park a modified RV in his drive to accommodate -- what exactly, I don't know -- and that the board is now picking on him by suing him. It's really hard to tell if he has a case or if they have a case, because I STILL don't think we actually know enough about the situation. I think, however, if he is going to try in court to use some sort of "they are harassing me because of my handicap" that he might want to take a different tact. The more he DOES explain, the clearer it becomes that, from what I can tell anyway, the HOA appears to be doing no more and no less than trying to maintain the integrity of their documents. All we can do is wait to see how a judge interprets the situation, especially given the fact that he or she will have considerably more detail than what we were given here. Second, I also disagree that disgruntled homeowners somehow add a dimension that we lack or need here to keep our dialog healthy. There is such a range of personalities who post on this site that the entire gamut of HOA philosophy is covered. We don't have any problem stepping up and disagreeing with another HOA professional. There are numerous instances of "devil's advocate" that we play off of each other. We aren't into group-think here, and I don't see any evidence that we're smoking our own exhaust, either.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2951

12/09/2007 1:31 PM
DJ1, From the very beginning, Bill was absolutely on the wrong web site, which I did point out to him. He is as I call it, a disgruntled homeowner who has gotten himself going against his HOA and was posting his side of a very complicated story. When we get posts from this type of person basically looking for us to give him answers, and then he doesn't like what we are telling him, that is the second sign that we should not be responding to this post. Reread the HOATALK posting rules on who should be on the site. We need to follow that request from HOATALK much better and just ignore these people. YES, we all have different perspectives but we never should be allowed to go down the name calling path.We don't know each other and to be that crude, really is not what we are here for and who we really are other than a support group and think bank. Where does getting down low become acceptable. And YES, we can question each other but to be downright aggressive and to belittle other peoples thinking is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I for one am going to ignore these kind of posts , which sometimes is unfair to a genuine poster who should deserve our thoughts and answers. Donna

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/09/2007 6:15 PM
Donna, I agree with you on personal attacks. Agree/disagree with the message not the messenger. Everyone reads a post differently. We also all have our comments misinterpreted from time to time for a variety of reasons. Some are judged too quickly as well. I'm not for violating CCR's but I also want to understand why it was that some of these things occur in order to learn how to minimize it from occurring among my neighbours. If not all the details necessary to make an opinion are provided, asking questions is maybe a better way that saying there are two sides to every story. It might get to a solution faster, maybe not. Everyone here also has the option to read or not read posts. Lots of good info either way. Posted By DonnaS on 12/09/2007 1:31 PM DJ1, From the very beginning, Bill was absolutely on the wrong web site, which I did point out to him. He is as I call it, a disgruntled homeowner who has gotten himself going against his HOA and was posting his side of a very complicated story. When we get posts from this type of person basically looking for us to give him answers, and then he doesn't like what we are telling him, that is the second sign that we should not be responding to this post. Reread the HOATALK posting rules on who should be on the site. We need to follow that request from HOATALK much better and just ignore these people. YES, we all have different perspectives but we never should be allowed to go down the name calling path.We don't know each other and to be that crude, really is not what we are here for and who we really are other than a support group and think bank. Where does getting down low become acceptable. And YES, we can question each other but to be downright aggressive and to belittle other peoples thinking is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I for one am going to ignore these kind of posts , which sometimes is unfair to a genuine poster who should deserve our thoughts and answers. Donna

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

12/09/2007 10:17 PM
DJ said: "we already all know that, so why say it." WE already "know that," but apparently HE doesn't or he didn't care to share it. We need to say it because we need to have him tell us a more balanced version. One less replete with emotional triggers and extremely biased or one-sided details. So, yes, I have no problem with posters REMINDING people when they get into their missives that there are two sides and in order to give a fair evaluation we need to have as much of the "other" side as possible. We have nothing from the HOA side. Just "they denied me" and it's "not harmonious with the neighborhood." He still has yet to tell us exactly what he is being sued for. He tries to say the HOA engaged in selective enforcement, then contradicts that with the revelation that there are 2 other homeowners that are being sued as well, though for what, we have no idea. Regarding the comments re: things moving very quickly, again, I respectfully disagree. You may have read them as accusatory, but then I get the feeling that you read MOST of "our" comments that way. Again, MY feeling; My perspective. It may not be your reality, but it is my perspective. I can't speak for the other posters, but I'm inclined to be of the mindset that they were trying to sort of "walk through" a capsulized timeline and trying their best to understand exactly when and how things escalated to a lawsuit so quickly. I didn't see it at all as trying to "imply" that Bill had some fast-tracking sneakiness going on. In fact, his very first statement, right out of the starting gate, "This all started back in January 2007 when I had a stroke." Well, as a matter of fact, it didn't. It started in February and continued until June, as that was the time period during which he admitted that he was parking his RV at his house, even after having received numerous letters from the HOA telling him not to. OR it may have even started in 2003! Because it appears that whatever "approval" he got for his wrought-iron fence is not even in writing. and THAT request, according to him, was denied initially. Finally, after winding his way through some other convoluted time-line references, (he asked for approval to build the driveway and gate and was denied 3 times from February to June, but built it anyway? In either July or August, I'm still not sure. And then he asks this: "We would like some opinions from other HOA folks through this talk forum" Now. I ask you. What exactly is he asking us? He was asking us for OUR OPINIONS, not "advice" and not "solutions" and not "recommendations" or "suggested next steps" or "how do we fix this" -- No, he presented a one sided, somewhat incomplete scenario and then wanted our "opinions." When he did not LIKE the opinions he got, even though the posters were being very patient with him in terms of incomplete info and they were simply asking clarification questions. HE was the one to the "shoot the messenger." Quite frankly, and again, this is just MY opinion, but based on this particular statement from him: "Gloria, Maybe also you missed the fact of having the coach is because of a stroke last January and the coach is needed nearby which is one of the reasons for putting in the driveway. The coach is equipped with all the needs I have and is a positive source for getting oxygen incase of a power outage." I am of the opinion that he is very much trying to ring the "I deserve an exception" bell in that he INSISTS that the coach is needed "NEARBY" why??? In case of a power outage! OMG! I know for a fact that there are all sorts of back up oxygen systems that someone could and would use in their home that are much more "convenient" than parking an RV with oxygen tanks in their driveway. My opinion? The man just doesn't want to pay the storage fee and finds it too inconvenient to have to do what it takes to ferry himself -- or his wife -- back and forth to put it away and retrieve it. And he's trying to use the unfortunate fact of his stroke as the justification. It's already pretty clear from his comments that his entire defense, aside from the "selective enforcement" angle that almost all attorneys INITIALLY try, is his handicap. As though it were some sort of universal "get out of jail free" card. Maybe the judge will agree. Maybe he/she won't. But just based on even his own one-side telling of the tale here, I think he's got a pretty slim case if that is all there is to it. So, yea, I have to agree with Donna. I feel he is a disgruntled homeowner and expected to be able to somehow pull on our emotions to agree with him that he's being picked on or harassed by his HOA. Not one question anyone asked was out of line.

WayneB3
(NV)

Posts:51

12/09/2007 11:19 PM
The fact that Bill has asked for opinions even though his "attorney is a HOA attorney and he thinks we will win the case" tells me he doesn't have alot of confidence in his case or attorney and may have been looking for a test jury that turned out not to be too sympathetic. Based on what I've read here I think its probably best if he tried to settle with his HOA prior to going to court.

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:1470

12/10/2007 12:34 AM
MicheleD - Very well said.

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/10/2007 7:37 AM
MicheleD, I don't often see the tone taken here, in other FIRST posts. Having the benefit of hindsight after reading all the post I do not disagree with your summation.

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/10/2007 7:39 AM
Correction, \to other FIRST posts

PatrickH
(California)

Posts:197

12/10/2007 8:13 AM
Hi DJ, I made the original post about how I was surprised at how quickly everything went. Buying the motorhome shortly after having a stroke wasn't what was so surprising, it was everything else that happened after that point. To submit three architectual requests, get them all turned down, build the driveway, get sued and be going to court in such a short amount of time was the amazing part. None of that was intended as questioning Bill's motives. At the end of my post, I said that I agreed with Bill that if 16 homes already have these double driveways, then the Board should have worked out something with him to allow one at his home. I still don't understand why Bill is being sued and why they couldn't work out some agreement to allow him to have that second driveway constructed.

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/10/2007 8:43 AM
Hello Patrick, In reference to the how fast things moved, even though you raised the point I wasn't referrring to you having ill motives but how some HOA might. ie Stroke in January, Motorhome in February, was it really done to address the stroke issues. I personally could see how it could be because if you have the means, you do what is necessary to minimize the impact on your life as quickly as possible, but I also could see some HOA board not believing that and then getting their backs up because they think some homeowner is flouting their authority. I've seen Michele's explanation but rarely do we see all the information needed, posted in a first post so I think we BOTH post based on our personal histories with HOA's. Maybe aside from this thread, putting a poster on the defensive right away isn't helpful either. Posted By PatrickH on 12/10/2007 8:13 AM Hi DJ, I made the original post about how I was surprised at how quickly everything went. Buying the motorhome shortly after having a stroke wasn't what was so surprising, it was everything else that happened after that point. To submit three architectual requests, get them all turned down, build the driveway, get sued and be going to court in such a short amount of time was the amazing part. None of that was intended as questioning Bill's motives. At the end of my post, I said that I agreed with Bill that if 16 homes already have these double driveways, then the Board should have worked out something with him to allow one at his home. I still don't understand why Bill is being sued and why they couldn't work out some agreement to allow him to have that second driveway constructed.

JC3

Posts:290

12/10/2007 3:18 PM
I've been following this, and here are a few of my thoughts: Questions and responses from all, board members and homeowners is good, important, and even vital. Buying a motorhome is not something one generally does in a month's time, especially if illness, serious or otherwise, is present. It would seem more likely that they had been investigating the purchase for several months, or, from his post, contemplating it for a few years. I would guess they had seen many and had the field narrowed, and might soon purchase. Then the stroke. Seems to me that they had been looking at and for a motor home, but hadn't made the decision even to the point of submitting an arc request, then suddenly the stroke, and the DESIRE for a MH was changed to an immediate NEED, which in turn caused the driveway to be built. In their state of mind (life threatening illness, serious disability) they may have forgotten they need permission, esp with all those others that they get to look at. One of the things that OTHER PEOPLE (read me, you, the HOA Board members) don't get to do is decide who is disabled and what that person needs. The courts do that on an individual basis. This motorhome accommodates his need as defined by the ADA, the wheelchair that mitigates the major life activity of walking, and O2 concentrator which also mitigates a major life activity (breathing), they went ahead immediately with the purchase. Besides those major life activities, I would guess that fatigue is a constant companion and having a bed to use, even if in the grocery store parking lot might save him severe consequences. I know. I've had times when I've been able to go out, only to find I needed to sleep before returning home. The fact that he summarized his needs as he did does not diminish the very real disabilities he has. He sh/could be requesting accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, perhaps. OR, he should have gotten permission to do the driveway before getting the motor home, which _I_think_ is the REAL reason for the denial--the board didn't like that he didn't. He has not responded to questions for a few days. He may be having more problems, and is not here to read the responses.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

12/10/2007 4:12 PM
Actually, JC3, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the RV being retrofitted for his disability or that he does or does not "need" the RV when traveling. I don't think either I nor anyone else here has any issue with the handicap-abled RV, in fact, I think it's an awesome solution for his obvious restrictions. The issue is his claim that he "needs" it parked daily at his house, in violation of the CC&Rs. He has already admitted that it is not his primary transportation vehicle, only that he uses it frequently during fishing tournament season. I don't think we need to be ADA experts to deal with this. In my opinion, he does not "need" to be parking it in the driveway/on the lot, in clear violation to the CC&Rs. His claim that he likes to have it (or in his words-NEEDS to have it) "nearby" in case the power goes out in his house is, to me, really reaching. I would HOPE that he has redundancy built into his home equipment, for his own safety, and that he truly is not relying on a retrofit RV as his "backup" system. In fact, not only would I hope that, I find it extremely unlikely that is the case. In addition, he's admitted that he received numerous letters on it, so there was no misunderstanding about whether parking it there was legal (per the CC&Rs) or not. He also made it quite clear that he knew he did not have "permission" or Architectural Committee approval for the driveway expansion. He admitted that he had been turned down no less than 3 times for it, but decided to go ahead and build it anyway. He didn't come out and say it in so many words, but the implication was that he was building the driveway and altering his wrought-iron fence with a gate for the sole purpose of accommodating the RV in the driveway instead of in front of his house. That is even though he knows that he cannot park the RV in his driveway, per his CC&Rs, either. Plus, DJ, questions designed to elicit clarification are just that. I read over all the previous posts here and I cannot for the life of me find any that would have put him on the defensive. Every poster was clearly simply trying to draw out as much information as possible. Anyway, it's possible that Wayne is correct and he just wanted to fly his situation up the flag pole to see what kind of salute came back. I do have every empathy for his handicap and his health issues. I just don't think that gives him a blank check for violating rules.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:2951

12/10/2007 4:28 PM
Michelle, Thank You for your input too. I think that you have arrived at what 100% of the consensus was from us regular posters. As I said before, when someone gets out of order with us, that is when we are at our best and rally around each other. It is difficult to sort out some of these complicated issues and all that we can do is to give our opinions and hope that they make sense and have some reasonable accuracy . Good going gang!

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

12/10/2007 6:08 PM
MicheleD, maybe that is part of what I am trying to say. The way you read the posts you don't find any that could put someone on the defensive. I see the potential in the first two replies. Someone comes and asks for help and the 'two sides' comment has the potential to put someone on the defensive. Could be viewed as questioning integrity etc. No point in saying more on my part but if you don't see that some others could read it that way I won't convince you. Posted By MicheleD on 12/10/2007 4:12 PM Actually, JC3, I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of the RV being retrofitted for his disability or that he does or does not "need" the RV when traveling. I don't think either I nor anyone else here has any issue with the handicap-abled RV, in fact, I think it's an awesome solution for his obvious restrictions. The issue is his claim that he "needs" it parked daily at his house, in violation of the CC&Rs. He has already admitted that it is not his primary transportation vehicle, only that he uses it frequently during fishing tournament season. I don't think we need to be ADA experts to deal with this. In my opinion, he does not "need" to be parking it in the driveway/on the lot, in clear violation to the CC&Rs. His claim that he likes to have it (or in his words-NEEDS to have it) "nearby" in case the power goes out in his house is, to me, really reaching. I would HOPE that he has redundancy built into his home equipment, for his own safety, and that he truly is not relying on a retrofit RV as his "backup" system. In fact, not only would I hope that, I find it extremely unlikely that is the case. In addition, he's admitted that he received numerous letters on it, so there was no misunderstanding about whether parking it there was legal (per the CC&Rs) or not. He also made it quite clear that he knew he did not have "permission" or Architectural Committee approval for the driveway expansion. He admitted that he had been turned down no less than 3 times for it, but decided to go ahead and build it anyway. He didn't come out and say it in so many words, but the implication was that he was building the driveway and altering his wrought-iron fence with a gate for the sole purpose of accommodating the RV in the driveway instead of in front of his house. That is even though he knows that he cannot park the RV in his driveway, per his CC&Rs, either. Plus, DJ, questions designed to elicit clarification are just that. I read over all the previous posts here and I cannot for the life of me find any that would have put him on the defensive. Every poster was clearly simply trying to draw out as much information as possible. Anyway, it's possible that Wayne is correct and he just wanted to fly his situation up the flag pole to see what kind of salute came back. I do have every empathy for his handicap and his health issues. I just don't think that gives him a blank check for violating rules.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1867

12/10/2007 6:36 PM
Posted By DJ1 on 12/10/2007 6:08 PM MicheleD, maybe that is part of what I am trying to say. The way you read the posts you don't find any that could put someone on the defensive. I see the potential in the first two replies. Someone comes and asks for help and the 'two sides' comment has the potential to put someone on the defensive. Could be viewed as questioning integrity etc. No point in saying more on my part but if you don't see that some others could read it that way I won't convince you. I think the reason why I don't see it from your perspective is that I don't view people who come here asking for our opinions as contentious individuals with highly charged requests for information. I see a person wanting input of some kind. I see regular posters who like to provide that input. I see people asking for clarification in order to provide that input. I see posters trying to offer the clarification, unfortunately, they often still try to shade or color the information in their favor. It's human nature. We want to put our best foot, and our best position, forward. If we have to parse and re-parse and re-re-parse our inquires for obtaining either more information or for just simple clarification, to somehow account for every misinterpretation that could result, then we would be essentially paralyzed in our forum, walking on verbal eggshells. Granted, we have had exceptions to that on occasion, but for the most part, out of the starting gate, we pretty much take posters at their word for who and what they are. Often it's not until we start peeling away the layers that some of the relevant, and often contradictory, details emerge. I don't even think this poster got "defensive" until he started to sense that we somehow weren't taking his handicap into account seriously enough (per his yardstick). So you're right, I don't think we're likely to see eye-to-eye on this particular interpretation. But that doesn't make either of us wrong, just on different wavelengths.

BillL3
(Texas)

Posts:18

01/16/2008 8:19 AM
OK, I am back. On December 4, 2007 I posted a few things on this thread as to my case against my HOA. I WAS harrassed by my HOA and the judge did reperamand them in the court room. I was repeatedly told by different HOA board members on this site that I did not have a shot at winning my case in court against my HOA. We were supposed to go to court on January 4 BUT it was postponed until yesterday January 15, NOW I can tell all that the judge did rule in my favor of my case in all aspects and I can now park my Coach on my lot forever. The 70 ft concrete driveway and electric gate in the wrought iron fence was also disapproved by the HOA 3 different times, BUT the judge because I cannot get out and open a gate to gain access to my property also made the HOA approve my gate & driveway. There was also an issue of me replacing a stoirage building in my yard that had been there for the entire 17 yrs that I have lived on the property, I did not get ACC approval to replace it but the Judge ruled that one as harrassment since the HOA waited 4 yrs to say anything about the replaced building. I truly knew that if the law was followed to the T and as written that I would win this case, AND I DID. In Closing I am VERY glad that the Judge in my case was not a judge from "The Florida Sunshine" or a friend of Miss Donna's...BillL

JC3

Posts:290

01/16/2008 9:43 AM
Posted By BillL3 on 01/16/2008 8:19 AM OK, I am back. On December 4, 2007 I posted a few things on this thread as to my case against my HOA. I WAS harrassed by my HOA and the judge did reperamand them in the court room... court was postponed until yesterday January 15, NOW I can tell all that the judge did rule in my favor of my case in all aspects and I can now park my Coach on my lot forever... Congratulations on your win. I applaud your tenacity and willingness to take those steps against an abusive board. You've just made it easier for others, disable or not, to do the same. I would ask you to post the pertinant information so that others can use your case to help them, if needed. court/case names, case number, state, etc, whatever will help someone find it.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2525

01/16/2008 9:52 AM
Good post JC3. To Bill< Good for you, that's great. Your a winner and I am sure your association would benefit from your resolve, and would welcome your help. I know I would and feel Donna would also.

MaryN
(Virginia)

Posts:125

01/16/2008 12:08 PM
Congrats!! I'm so glad that the Judge ruled in your favor. Do you think the HOA will appeal? I sure hope not. As a fellow oxygen user..I had hopes that you would be allowed to keep your vehicle parked there..same goes for the gate. Maryn

BillS11
(California)

Posts:19

01/17/2008 12:51 PM
Bill Read all of your posts from day one. Congradulations on winning your case. Here in California we had a similar case where a homeowner had a stroke and had to purchase a special customized Chevy Astro Van and park it in front of his house. His HOA issued him citations for months because they had a rule that prohibited commercial vehicles from being parked on lots or in front of homes. he won his case as well because as your post said the Federal Fair Housing and Employment Act supercedes any restrictive HOA rule when it comes to anyone who has a disability and requires special accomodations for vehicle parking and access to their homes. California has gone one step further by passing legislation that specifically states that in the event a community rule conflicts with any State or federal Law that the State or Federal Law takes priority and wipes out the community rule. That is why it is very important for all HOA Boards to review their rules every year and make the chages as the laws change instead of wasting dues money on litigations. However in California HOAS can still restrict recreational vehicles as to their parking areas and parking times regardless of their intended purpose.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 3

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > disabled & feeling harrassed by HOA