HOA requires new buyers have background check > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: HOA requires new buyers have background check

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 10:12 AM
In Florida, single family mobile homes, property owned, the HOA just sent out a letter to all homeowners stating, "All future sales require the buyer to have a background check performed by TENANT CHECK at a cost of $50 per adult." It also states that the HOA will make the determination if the buyer is allowed to buy after results of the check have been returned. No Association meetings were held (or voting) to approve this action. Owners who desire to rent their properties often have background checks done to protect themselves against financial risk, but I have never heard of buyers/sellers having to do this at the Association's Board of Director's wishes. Any discrimination here? In addition, in the same letter, it states, "Anyone having visitors staying longer than 12 days also have to have a background check done at the same cost." Their reason being. "The homes are single family homes". ???? I question this action. Failure to accomplish a background check is a "Willful violation" and a fine of $100 is imposed. Continued inaction to have the check performed will constitute additional $100 fines every seven days until a check has been done. Anything if Florida Statutes 720 regarding this subject?

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

02/27/2010 10:41 AM
Philip, Are you for sure under 720 or 723 which is mobile home associations? It does make a difference.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 11:02 AM
My park is under Homeowners Association Statute 720, for sure. Each owner owns their lot.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 11:03 AM
My park is under Homeowners Association Statute 720, for sure. Each owner owns their lot.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

02/27/2010 11:29 AM
Philip, The only thing that the association can use to discriminate against a potential buyer is if they are a registered sex offender .That gives the association leverage about children being within a certain distance to the offender. Associations all over Florida try denying a buyer their purchasewith these Board made rules, but they cannot. It's against the Federal law to discriminate against others. It would be interesting to know what determines if someone "passes" and what criteria they use. I would say--naughty naughty Board.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 12:50 PM
We are getting an alarming increase in homes being rented by owners. As a result, the community appearance is greatly decreasing as renters have no incentive to keep the properties neat and tidy. Home values, as a result, may greatly decrease. I believe the Board is attempting to limit renters whose, lets say, lifestyle is not up to standards such as drugs use, alcohol use, felony convictions, etc.. but I don't see any connection to buyers who have been financially approved for a home and the Board asking for a background check. The background check form asks for personal information such as driver's license number, social security number,have you ever been arrested and have you been convicted. Also the Board is asking for copies of one's drivers license and social security card which I believe is unlawful. But part two of my original post - - I can't have visitors in my own home for more than 12 days without having them fork out $50 for a background check. Is this an attempt by the Board to eliminate "squatters" or what? I'd like to see what a judge would rule on this issue in court. In the past, when a resident was selling their home, all that was required was to inform the Association the names of the buyers so that the Treasurer would have information to bill them for Association fees.

MaryA1

Posts:0

02/27/2010 1:39 PM
Philip, I believe your BOD needs to run these new rules by their attorney. I really do NOT believe he would advise them to do this. If they want to control rentals they should adopt a rental policy. But even so, they should think twice about requiring a background check as part of the policy. Our PM checked this out with our attorney and we were advised to NOT require a background check in the rental policy in order to preclude any liability should something go wrong. He advised that the only thing we should do is "suggest" to the homeowner that they MAY want to do a background check on a potential renter. Requiring potential buyers to undergo a background check would qualify as discrimination, IMO. Your board should definitely stay away from this. And requiring a background check on visitors is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of. If I lived there I would be wondering what the board members are smoking!!! If this doesn't cause the members to take the board members to task, nothing will.

TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:3229

02/27/2010 3:03 PM
Philip, If the Association requires a background check and has final approval over who can live in the community, the Association is then taking a lot of the responsibility for anything that goes wrong especially if a background check should have found something. As Mary said, this places the Association in line for all sorts of legal action if something happens. What happens if they don't want your adult child living with you because of a criminal record for soaping windows on Halloween as a teenager? Besides the potential legal action for discrimination by a buyer (if disapproved, if you (as a member) suffer damages by having to sell the home at a lower price solely because the Association refused the buyer, you may be able to bring action against the Association for the difference. Members should be responsible for their guests and tenants conduct when visiting/living in the members home. If the tenants are not keeping the place up to standards, that is the fault of the member and the Association should use their enforcement policies on that member. If your Association is insisting on a background check, you should ask for the written standards that the Association will be using to decide if the home can be sold or rented to the individual/s in question. If they can not provide written standards to you there is something happening with the Board that should be looked into. Not having written standards means it's purely suggestive on if the person looking at the background. It's a bad idea all the way around and places the Association, and therefore it's membership, at great risk. Tim

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 4:35 PM
TIM and Mary Both of you hit the nail on the head. Those are my feeling, exactly. I was intending to sell my place in the next few months, but with the economy and housing prices in decline, and adding to the fact that this Board wants to pull this Background check fiasco, it will be even more difficult to sell a property at a reasonable price. I also think the Association is placing itself at great risk. I was stunned when the Board's letter appeared in my mailbox without any knowledge or warning. Phil

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

02/27/2010 5:30 PM
Philip, At any time during your tenure there, have you gone to any mmeeting or know who your Board or have talkined to any of them personally. You really owe them this much and I would make it a point to contact them. You indicate you will be sticking around a while, why not contribute to your association and if you feel necessary try to make a few changes. Surprize announcements by the board might be the first place to start. I am curious if this announcement was really out of the blue..............big mistake if true. Do you get astounding letters frequently from the Board?

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 6:31 PM
Robert I have lived in this community since 1997. I have served on the Board as a Director, as Treasurer and also as V-President. In all I have about 8 years experience with the Board. I haven't been on the board for the past three years. This year a new President was elected and I know this gentleman very well. He had served on the board several years ago. I only reside in Florida 6 months and live in Maine during the summers. I do attend monthly meetings when present. This guy has some wild ideas and is a hot-head. One idea I heard about was that renters can not use the recreational facilities such as basketball, tennis courts, shuffleboard, pools (2) or the clubhouse. But the park has mandatory association dues and all owners/and or renters are entitled to use common area property, I believe the Board finally decided that the association could be in deep trouble if implementing this idea. I believe this latest plan (background checks) was done secretly amongst the board members. It came as a complete surprise to not only myself but to other owners in the community. We just received the letter in the mail yesterday. No one individual wants to fork out money to get a legal opinion from a real-estate lawyer, but maybe if several homeowners get together we can explore this option. Presently, one homeowner works for Century-21 and she is asking the manager in the local office who she can contact in the county/state and maybe get some answers. Will provide further details on this matter as we do some research.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/27/2010 8:41 PM
Robert I have lived in this community since 1997. I have served on the Board as a Director, as Treasurer and also as V-President. In all I have about 8 years experience with the Board. I haven't been on the board for the past three years. This year a new President was elected and I know this gentleman very well. He had served on the board several years ago. I only reside in Florida 6 months and live in Maine during the summers. I do attend monthly meetings when present. This guy has some wild ideas and is a hot-head. One idea I heard about was that renters can not use the recreational facilities such as basketball, tennis courts, shuffleboard, pools (2) or the clubhouse. But the park has mandatory association dues and all owners/and or renters are entitled to use common area property, I believe the Board finally decided that the association could be in deep trouble if implementing this idea. I believe this latest plan (background checks) was done secretly amongst the board members. It came as a complete surprise to not only myself but to other owners in the community. We just received the letter in the mail yesterday. No one individual wants to fork out money to get a legal opinion from a real-estate lawyer, but maybe if several homeowners get together we can explore this option. Presently, one homeowner works for Century-21 and she is asking the manager in the local office who she can contact in the county/state and maybe get some answers. Will provide further details on this matter as we do some research.

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:3526

02/28/2010 2:17 AM
Phillip I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice just my opinion but in addition to violating 720.306 in that they did not notice the meeting and give H/O’s a chance to speak on it; they are attempting to write a rule in lieu of a Covenant amendment. Unless the Covenants you and your mortgage holder agreed to be bound by has a section concerning a Boards approval before a sale this is invalid on its face. A lot of CC&R’s, especially in the south do have something about BOD approval before the sale; they were put there in an effort to keep minorities from purchasing in white developments and have been consistently ruled invalid and discriminatory. Now this is just a WAG (wild a**ed guess) but since they are specifying a particular company it leads me to suspect someone works for them or someone is getting a finders fee. While there is a fine if someone stays over 12 days what is the penalty if someone ignores the rule and sells anyway?????? As you do your research I would start with HUD.gov they may be able to give you an opinion on the matter.

Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair. - George Burns

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

02/28/2010 3:52 AM
PhilipL, Thank you for your reply, it is always better to get some sense of who you are responding too when you try and address a situation of the nature.........meaning: who is doing what and why and who is questioning the proposal. Gicve us a short sentence of how the place is operated in general. Does this guy and the Board have solid support? I personally could not accept this kind of an edict from any boar. I do approve of the Board conducting search on the internet to see if the can determine if Pedophiles, etc, live in the area. But that is information available to everyone. I do not know if this site has addressed what to do about a situation like that. They could make the information available to all I suppose. If your problem iks this single act by your Board, the Board does not respond to the membership when asked, then I would suggest the following, if possible under your state law and I think it certainly would be. I would send a letter to the Board requesting to review all the records that deal with this particular item. Certify the letter and follow you documents if any specifics are in them. If you have asked for this information verbally from the Board and made sure it is entered into the minutes, that would be the preparatory step to the letter. I would expect once you obtain hopw this all was devised you will see the picture more clearly and have a better direction. The Bo0ard should respond to this and I would imagine your documents support this kind of action. If you feel the Board is telling you to do something illegal, I would go to State Adjundant General and try and get them to listen, or a local government representative. Keep a good paper trail and don't do nothing dumb. There is always comfort, and money in numbers........so consider building a force of homeowners. Don't hide it, if you think think you can puj together a strong base of support, let everyone know it.........just take the high road and be right about what you all put out.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/28/2010 9:29 AM
Glen and Robert You are both on the mark with your comments. I contacted an attorney in Florida who works for Homeowners rights called CCFJ (Cyber Citizens for Justice)I sent her the exact wording of the Boards letter which is below. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Homeowners Association has contracted with TENANT CHECK to provide their services to do background checks on persons wanting to move in our community. Homeowners who wish to sell or rent their homes must make sure that the attached form is completed prior to the sale of ones home or move-in of renters. There is a non-refundable application fee of $50 per adult to be paid when the application is submitted. Along with the completed application form it is required to submit a copy of each applicants drivers license and proof of social security number. If you do not comply with having a tenant check completed through the Board and new tenants move in, you will receive a "Willful Violation" notice with a $100 fine payable within 7 days, plus a minimum thirty 30 day suspension from the common areas. Additional fines of $100 each will continue every 7 days of continuing violation, until violation is corrected. Because we are a deed-restricted community, anyone who visits with you for more than 12 days, must be checked through tenant check, and/or approved by the Board. Per our documents - Each lot shall be used for single-family mobile home residential purposed only. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our CCR's and bylaws do not address anything pertaining to this matter. A Board cannot make new rules/regulations without having a public meeting and vote, can they? This issue appears to go against Florida and Federal standards. It appears that the Board is trying to eliminate lower income families from moving into the community, much like the South used to do in attempting to keep Blacks from moving into white neighborhoods. This letter, although stating that the Board will make the decision on allowing new tenants after the background check, does not state what standards will be used in determining approval or disapproval. Concerns about Pedophiles can be found by anyone, online in our county. I believe an Association cannot screen applicants unless there is a provision in the bylaws, articles of incorporation, or declarations of covenants and restrictions allowing for screening. If these documents do not contain this provision, then the association is breaking the law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response from the CCFJ Attorney follows: You are correct. Demand a copy of the minutes of the public meeting in which this rule change was created. Furthermore, if such rules didn't exist in the original rules the board can't just make it up without owners' approval. What is the name of your association -- and who is the attorney behind the board? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will be providing the information to her that she requested.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

02/28/2010 9:41 AM
Philip, I am glad you received such a direct and prompt response. However it is still, at this point, something to work through at your local (HOA) level and then check any state interests, and finally if this is a bad as it sounds, there could be Federal Laws involved. This would all seem to point to litigation in some form if a resolution is not made. Personally, I am at a lose to see what is expected to be gained by the Board in doing all this? Has local events triggered any of this that you know about.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

02/28/2010 10:24 AM
Philip, While I am not an attorney and don't claim to know legaleze, I do not believe the information the CCFJ attorney gave to you is correct. Rules that BODs enact are not taken before the membership for an approval vote. That is a Board function. The membership must be notified 14 days prior to a meeting at which rules are voted upon by the BOD but members don't vote for them. But at the notification meeting, that is when members can get vocal and make the BOD aware that they should not pass these rules, remind them of Federal laws, and basically inform them that they are not acting in the best interest of the membership. As you were privously on this Board, you should also know that this was an illegal meeting because of a lack of notification.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/28/2010 10:31 AM
Reading the Fair Housing Act from HUD ------- In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap: * Refuse to rent or sell housing * Refuse to negotiate for housing * Make housing unavailable * Deny a dwelling * Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling * Provide different housing services or facilities * Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental * For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or * Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing. So if the Board is going to deny the sale or rental of a property, are they not breaking the law?

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

02/28/2010 10:51 AM
Philip, IMHO, These are the rights that they are removing from an owner. And yes, they are breaking the law. IF this were a condo, they might squeek by on an alteration of the rules that they illegally passed but you are stand alone mobile homes. You might want to contact an attorney for HUD to get an opinion. They are free. " Make housing unavailable * Deny a dwelling Refuse to rent or sell housing * Make housing unavailable "

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

02/28/2010 10:53 AM
DonnaS You are correct in stating that new rules need not be voted on by the members. But, yes, they need to be discussed at a regular meeting before adopting. Nevertheless, see our CCR's on this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules and Regulations -- Our Covenants state, The Association from time to time may adopt, alter, amend and rescind reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the streets and common area, recreation facilities, public utility systems, and the like and shall be consistent with the rights and duties established in this Declaration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice that one word is omitted - - - LOTS - - - It seems that the Board cannot enforce this new rule as it pertains to the lots.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

02/28/2010 11:52 AM
Philip, The ("ASSOCIATION") from time to time. may be adopted, altered amended or rescinded ("REASONABLE") rules and regs---governing use of streeets &common areas, rec facilities,public utility (AND THE LIKE") Hummm, I don't see use of lots or units, just like you pointed out. I'd say , still call a HUD lawyer. Stay away from CCFJ. Those guys are all volunteers, just like your BOD.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

02/28/2010 12:26 PM
To all, Does anyone feel that the Boards mandate to make "rules" would include anything of the nature we are talking about. It is a far leap from being told where to walk your dog, to being told you will be required to abide by an unreasonable and likely illegal mandate. That is what this probably is, and making or not mmaking rules doesn't touch on the subject, from what is being posted. IMHO

TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:3229

02/28/2010 3:40 PM
Posted By PhilipL on 02/28/2010 10:31 AM Reading the Fair Housing Act from HUD ------- In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap: * Refuse to rent or sell housing * Refuse to negotiate for housing * Make housing unavailable * Deny a dwelling * Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling * Provide different housing services or facilities * Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental * For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or * Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing. So if the Board is going to deny the sale or rental of a property, are they not breaking the law? Philip, Based on this posting alone, it could be a gray area. I expect that they might be refusing the sale based on criminal activity vs. race,color, etc. They may be violating other legal statutes but might not be violating this one. I've already said I think the background checks are a stupid idea. I'm posting this response because I don't think it would be relevant (it might be but you just don't know until the standards for approving or denying a sale are published). Tim

TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:3229

02/28/2010 3:43 PM
Posted By TimB4 on 02/28/2010 3:40 PM I'm posting this response because I don't think it would be relevant (it might be but you just don't know until the standards for approving or denying a sale are published). Tim I intended to say that I didn't think the statute would be relevant (depending on the justification for denial). Not that my posting wasn't relevant.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

03/10/2010 4:51 PM
March 10th Update on this issue. I attended a general meeting on the 9th of March. Myself and a few other Association members asked if the Board had sought the advice of our attorney prior to deciding to enforce the Tenant Check issue. Found out that the Board, without consulting the attorney, or the association membership, tried to make a rule to enforce the Tenant Check issue. After advising the Board that they were treading on thin ice, legally speaking, for the possibility of incurring a huge law suit, we pointed out that our documents do not support this action and that the Board cannot do this. We advised the Board to consult the attorney. Hopefully the attorney is knowledgeable enough to inform them that they cannot do this. So at the moment we are spared the enforcement of the Board's action.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

03/10/2010 4:53 PM
March 10th Update on this issue. I attended a general meeting on the 9th of March. Myself and a few other Association members asked if the Board had sought the advice of our attorney prior to deciding to enforce the Tenant Check issue. Found out that the Board, without consulting the attorney, or the association membership, tried to make a rule to enforce the Tenant Check issue. After advising the Board that they were treading on thin ice, legally speaking, for the possibility of incurring a huge law suit, we pointed out that our documents do not support this action and that the Board cannot do this. We advised the Board to consult the attorney. Hopefully the attorney is knowledgeable enough to inform them that they cannot do this. So at the moment we are spared the enforcement of the Board's action.

TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:3229

03/10/2010 5:53 PM
Philip, Thanks for the update. Please keep us posted. Tim

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

03/10/2010 7:35 PM
PhilipL, Good job there. I hope you had all this recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting. Would suggest that you make sure to attend the next meeting and make sure the minutes are correct as recorded.

PhilipL
(Florida)

Posts:16

03/11/2010 5:40 AM
RobertR1 Yes, indeed, all meetings are recorded on cassette tape and the minutes are taken by the secretary. Audio tapes and minutes are available for all members to listen/read upon request as per our documents and Fla law. Also when asking the president why our visitors were included in their proposal for Tenant Check after 12 days, we were told that Tenant Check had recommended this. Our reply was, "Sure, that's because it would be an added money-maker for them and their goal is to make money". Nobody at the meeting wanted their visitors/relatives to have to shell out $50 (each) for a stupid, unnecessary rule. Most opinions of members at the meeting were in agreement that maybe incorporating a renter tenant check might be a good idea, but that it was unenforceable as our our documents currently read.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

03/11/2010 6:34 AM
Philip, I would hope you and the rest of your members attention to this issue will now put this to bed...............Bad idea and probably not enforceable and certainly conveys some liabilities to the association you don't want. But it is nice to see owners participating in the process.....keep it up. It may be redundant but if don't have an official Renter Policy in your documents, you add one, and if you do, you might look at that and see if there is any latitude there to make constructive changes that will tighten up you controls. How is the renter issue handled in your documents?

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > HOA requires new buyers have background check