Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Sunday, April 05, 2020











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Get 1 free year community website and email newsletter hosting from Community123.com!
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Wrong CCRs put in place
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
RichardP13


Posts:0


12/31/2014 9:42 AM  
Anyone ever been involved in an HOA where the wrong type of CCRs were put into place and recorded?

I have run into a situation where the home builder apparently either asked their attorney or an HOA attorney for a set of governing docs and they were given a set for a condominium complex, even though these are single family homes.

The consequences of the wrong set of CCRs was that the association had to have all the buildings insured at a rate twice what it would be if they were listed as single family homes.

None of the homes shared any common elements with the exception of the driveway in front of their homes. None of the buildings were connected, all utilities were separately metered. 7 homes were paying $16K annually for fire protection. In a couple of cases, even though the CCRs forbid it, homeowners had duplicate policies in place.

Builder is out of busness and lawyer does not return phone calls.
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5491


12/31/2014 9:46 AM  
While I would say this is an issue for the HOA's attorney, it seems to me the simple fix would be to amend the documents on file.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
RichardP13


Posts:0


12/31/2014 9:58 AM  
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as amending the CCRs. They have to be a new set put into place as much of the document is tied together with references to different exhibits.

They don't have an HOA attorney as they are 7 units. They were living, so to speak, paycheck to paycheck, dues wise.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


12/31/2014 10:55 AM  
IMO, there is a 4 part fix that could be cheap and efficient (although a but cumbersome and it does carry a small risk):
1. Each of the 7 HOs could individually waive their right to insurance coverage by the HOA.
2. All HOs would provide proof of insurance on their individual homes to the HOA annually.
3. Any prospective buyer would have to be notified.
4. Upon transfer of ownership, the new owner would have to sign waivers and provide proof of insurance.

Are there any government regulations that would prevent them from doing this?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9136


12/31/2014 11:05 AM  
This may be a tax issue. Check with Tax Assessors office. Sounds strange but it happened to me in our patio homes. A few of them did share a wall but most were separate. There were no qualification for Patio Home. It was either condo or single home. Which did not fall under single home due to shared common property...

You can still modify and refile the existing documents. Just wanted you to be aware of why the documents may be why it was done the way it was.

Former HOA President
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:9320


12/31/2014 11:19 AM  
In SC condos are multi story with units on top of another unit. Any other types (single, duplex, quadplex, side by sides, townhomes, etc.) are not covered by condo regulations.

EllieD
(Vermont)

Posts:445


12/31/2014 12:23 PM  
RichardP13,

How is the “Unit” defined in the Documents?
LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


12/31/2014 2:03 PM  
Richard,

If this subdivision of 7 homes is completely sold out then I see very little problem. The owners need to file an amendment that effectively revokes the CC&R's. It just should not be an unsurmountable task to get seven owners to agree to ditch CC&R's that none of them want.

Yes, they can replace the old CC&R's with new ones but is it really necessary? City zoning and building codes (assuming it is within a municipality) would cover most problem areas and save the owners from a lot of bickering over rule violations.

NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


12/31/2014 2:41 PM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 12/31/2014 2:03 PM
Richard,

If this subdivision of 7 homes is completely sold out then I see very little problem. The owners need to file an amendment that effectively revokes the CC&R's. It just should not be an unsurmountable task to get seven owners to agree to ditch CC&R's that none of them want.

Yes, they can replace the old CC&R's with new ones but is it really necessary? City zoning and building codes (assuming it is within a municipality) would cover most problem areas and save the owners from a lot of bickering over rule violations.


Good suggestion Larry.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JeffT2
(Iowa)

Posts:532


12/31/2014 4:07 PM  
I doubt that just an amendment could erase the unit ownership interests, change land title, and change the community to non-condo.

I think they will have to formally dissolve the condominium and then separately establish an HOA (or whatever common interest community they want), which can be done simultaneously.

Probably need permission of mortgage holders.

As NpS says, why not change the insurance requirements, or get a smarter insurance company?
RichardP13


Posts:0


12/31/2014 4:47 PM  
For Ellie:

"Unit" means the elements of a Condominium that are not owned in common with the Owners of Condominiums in the Project; such Units and their respective boundaries being shown and particularly described in the Condominium Plan, deeds conveying Condominiums, and this Declaration. A Unit consists of all the land within, and all improvements now and hereafter constructed within the boundary lines of the Unit and does not include other interests in real property that are less than estates in real property, such as exclusive or nonexclusive easements. In interpreting deeds and plans, the existing physical boundaries of a Unit, or of a Unit reconstructed in substantial accordance with the original plan, shall be conclusively presumed to be its boundaries, rather than the description expressed in the deed or Condominium Plan or regardless of minor variances between boundaries shown on the Condominium Plan or in the deed and those of the building and regardless of settling or lateral movement of the building. Whenever reference to a Unit is made in this Declaration, in the Condominium Plan, in any deed, or elsewhere, it shall be assumed that such reference is made to the Unit as a whole, including each of its component elements.

Here is the dilemma as I see it. The CCRs have a maintenance schedule along with a 43 page "Home Care Guide", which outline all maintenance responsibilities of homeowner/association. For instance, the association shall perform inspections of each of the buildings roofs, balconies, and planters annually, with the drains and drain lines semi annually. The repairs are the sole responsibility of the homeowners. Utilizing the maintenance guidelines, the owner is supposed to perform specific inspections and repairs by season. If the homeowner doesn't inspect and/or repair, the association may exercise its right to enter the unit to make the inspections/repairs and bill homeowners accordingly.

The insurance section states the association shall insure all buildings and the owners may not have duplicate coverage. An ethical agent would have questioned the CCRs. The new agent put into place the exact policy at 25% of the cost of the other.

So, bottom-line, the association shall inspect, the homeowner shall repair and the association shall insure all buildings. I wonder what workers comp would cost with that mess.

Most likely what will happen is someone will take the old document, gut out the bad passages, insert proper language in a couple of key areas, maintenance and insurance and have an attorney friend vet the process. Because of minor common area concerns and assessments, there must be CCRs in place.

All 7 homeowners are on board with the changes.
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5491


01/01/2015 3:41 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 12/31/2014 4:47 PM
Most likely what will happen is someone will take the old document, gut out the bad passages, insert proper language in a couple of key areas, maintenance and insurance and have an attorney friend vet the process. Because of minor common area concerns and assessments, there must be CCRs in place.

All 7 homeowners are on board with the changes.



So they're going to amend the doc's? Hmm where did I see that suggestion?

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
BanksS


Posts:0


01/01/2015 11:57 AM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 12/31/2014 2:03 PM
Richard,

If this subdivision of 7 homes is completely sold out then I see very little problem. The owners need to file an amendment that effectively revokes the CC&R's. It just should not be an unsurmountable task to get seven owners to agree to ditch CC&R's that none of them want.

Yes, they can replace the old CC&R's with new ones but is it really necessary? City zoning and building codes (assuming it is within a municipality) would cover most problem areas and save the owners from a lot of bickering over rule violations.




Larry,
Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting? No CC&R's, thus no HOA.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/01/2015 1:19 PM  
Glen

Actually, the proper terminology would be "restated" CCRs. The originally CCRs would be replaced with new ones. Most of the document would have the same look and feel, but it would be considered a new document.

JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:9320


01/01/2015 1:41 PM  
Richard

If there are only 7 it should be easy enough to accomplish what ever want they to do if hey all agree. Seems it would simply be a cost item.


LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


01/01/2015 3:36 PM  
Richard,

I should have asked this sooner. How were these seven homes platted and deeded?

Does the plat show seven separate lots and maybe a common area? Or does it show one lot with seven homes?

Are the deeds for lots and any improvements thereon or are the deeds for certain exclusive-use spaces with undivided interests in the whole?

The reason I ask is that the CC&R's would not be wrong if this subdivision was conceived to be a condo-style development. I would agree that such an arrangement would complicate everyone's life, but removing the CC&R's may involve having to re-survey and re-deed all seven or eight lots.

LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


01/01/2015 3:49 PM  
Posted By BanksS on 01/01/2015 11:57 AM

Larry,
Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting? No CC&R's, thus no HOA.


Assuming that these are fee simple lots without a common area there would be no need for an HOA. (I currently live in a development with CC&R's but no HOA.) If you have only 7 homes in a subdivision that is already completed, there is little need for CC&R's unless you just cannot live without a means of hassling your neighbors because they put their garbage cans out an hour early.

When I was growing up decades ago in the Midwest, CC&R's were almost unheard of. When they were used, the most common purpose was to keep the undesirable elements out. You know, Blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Russians, Jews, Democrats, etc. Neither I nor anyone I knew at the time lived in such a development and saw no need for those kinds of restrictions.
BanksS


Posts:0


01/01/2015 4:32 PM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 01/01/2015 3:49 PM
Posted By BanksS on 01/01/2015 11:57 AM

Larry,
Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting? No CC&R's, thus no HOA.


Assuming that these are fee simple lots without a common area there would be no need for an HOA. (I currently live in a development with CC&R's but no HOA.) If you have only 7 homes in a subdivision that is already completed, there is little need for CC&R's unless you just cannot live without a means of hassling your neighbors because they put their garbage cans out an hour early.

When I was growing up decades ago in the Midwest, CC&R's were almost unheard of. When they were used, the most common purpose was to keep the undesirable elements out. You know, Blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Russians, Jews, Democrats, etc. Neither I nor anyone I knew at the time lived in such a development and saw no need for those kinds of restrictions.



I totally agree with you. IMO where I live there is no need for CC&Rs. They have no affect on my property values and I see no need for those kind of restrictions. It may be different in other parts of the country but living in rural Iowa CC&Rs are just a cumbersome nuisance. Our County codes are pretty restrictive as it is. One can't even put up a garage or storage building on a vacant lot unless it has living quarters attached.

I live in a development just the opposite as yours. No CC&R's but an HOA of sorts because of a common element, the sanitary sewer. I would be extremely happy if the County took over control of that sewer. There are so many environmental laws to adhere to nowadays particularly since I live right by a lake that provides the drinking water for thousands of people. IMO the board consists of homeowners operating by the seat of their pants. A major overflow would bring the DNR (Department of Natural Resources)down their backs in a hurry.

Off topic but thought it was interesting that you suggested this. I am surprised there hasn't been a firestorm from some of the regulars here. No CC&Rs, no HOA, this is not typically well-received on this site.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:9320


01/01/2015 4:50 PM  
Banks

You said:

Our County codes are pretty restrictive as it is. One can't even put up a garage or storage building on a vacant lot unless it has living quarters attached.

Does mean I can put up as many of those "structures" as I wish like on a vacant lot as in slum housing?

I would assume in a farming region I could get the local authorities to go along with such as I need a place to house my seasonal workers.

Well maybe out in the country is OK but do I such where I live? Maybe this is why I want "restrictions" about where I live.

Things are not as black and white as you seem to think they are.
BanksS


Posts:0


01/01/2015 5:01 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 01/01/2015 4:50 PM
Banks

You said:

Our County codes are pretty restrictive as it is. One can't even put up a garage or storage building on a vacant lot unless it has living quarters attached.

Does mean I can put up as many of those "structures" as I wish like on a vacant lot as in slum housing?

I would assume in a farming region I could get the local authorities to go along with such as I need a place to house my seasonal workers.

Well maybe out in the country is OK but do I such where I live? Maybe this is why I want "restrictions" about where I live.

Things are not as black and white as you seem to think they are.



Actually the building codes are very restrictive and no one can put up a slum house for seasonal workers. Where you live, I might want those restrictions too. I was speaking specifically of where I live in rural Iowa. I believe I said that. That is a presumption on your part that I think things are black and white. Those are your words not mine.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/01/2015 5:08 PM  
Larry,

One lot, seven units.

Actually, where I live, there is one lot, 82.4 acres, 317 units, single family homes, detached.
LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


01/01/2015 8:49 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/01/2015 5:08 PM

One lot, seven units.


Uh oh! That changes everything. You have condo CC&R's because the subdivision is a condo made up of detached homes.

My first guess is that the site was not large enough to build seven homes with all the required setbacks and other subdivision requirements. If it was designed to be a condo then the all those things that cost money and limit the developer's profits get tossed out the window. But that is just a guess.

I am thinking that this is a more difficult project than merely amending the CC&R's. You would have to survey the subdivision and record a new plat showing lot lines. That means placating every owner who thinks his lot should be larger. It also means satisfying local requirements for lot sizes and setbacks, some of which may entail obtaining waivers from zoning and development authorities.

Somewhere along the line each owner would have to record a new deed reflecting the change from condo to fee simple.

The owners may also run into problems with lenders. At the very least, the lender would have to change the legal description of the property his lien is recorded against.

None of this is impossible to do but it is a big project.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/01/2015 9:32 PM  
Larry

This is in the City of Los Angeles and there are hundreds of these types of developments. I have managed about 6 of these types and the CCRs for those have always been detached single family homes. Someone put the wrong docs in place. Hoping the attorney provides the right ones or there could be litigation because of the insurance.
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5491


01/02/2015 2:45 AM  
Richard, Larry might just be onto something, what do the deeds say the homeowners own? Their unit or their unit and x amount of ground around each unit? Could it be that they got the doc's right for this community and wrong for the others?

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
KellyM3
(North Carolina)

Posts:1488


01/02/2015 7:08 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 12/31/2014 9:42 AM
Anyone ever been involved in an HOA where the wrong type of CCRs were put into place and recorded?

I have run into a situation where the home builder apparently either asked their attorney or an HOA attorney for a set of governing docs and they were given a set for a condominium complex, even though these are single family homes.

The consequences of the wrong set of CCRs was that the association had to have all the buildings insured at a rate twice what it would be if they were listed as single family homes.

None of the homes shared any common elements with the exception of the driveway in front of their homes. None of the buildings were connected, all utilities were separately metered. 7 homes were paying $16K annually for fire protection. In a couple of cases, even though the CCRs forbid it, homeowners had duplicate policies in place.

Builder is out of busness and lawyer does not return phone calls.




Richard,

The community should jump through the proverbial hoops and not all unreturned phone calls to dictate correcting a huge, alleged, error by the attorney in filing the CC&R's. Everyone seems on the same page so, with effort, this be corrected.

If all buyers bought homes and fully accepted the correct CC&Rs (though mistaken ones were actually filed), the process could be tad easier. Never heard of this but hiring a community lawyer really shouldn't be ignored. This issue truly exceeds the limits of most of us that chatter on HOATalk forums.

JeffT2
(Iowa)

Posts:532


01/02/2015 10:08 AM  
From your OP, the main problem seems to be the cost of insurance. Why not just change the insurance requirements?

What is it about this insurance that makes it cost more?

Can't the insurance company figure out that these are not apartment-style condos, and charge the same as for separate houses?

Shop around? New agent who can work with a smarter insurance company?

The deductible makes a huge difference in condo insurance. Do they have a low deductible? Can they raise the deductible and establish a fund to cover it or require homeowners to pay the deductible?
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 10:42 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/01/2015 9:32 PM
Larry

This is in the City of Los Angeles and there are hundreds of these types of developments. I have managed about 6 of these types and the CCRs for those have always been detached single family homes. Someone put the wrong docs in place. Hoping the attorney provides the right ones or there could be litigation because of the insurance.


If you have one lot with seven units … I would agree with Larry. If you have managed other of these type developments, the question would be did their docs have the development platted on ONE LOT or MANY LOTS. This fact is potentially what will make all the difference. If everyone owns the one lot vs. everyone owning their own individual lot … then you are potentially considered condo NOT single family. In most states a "Unit" is defined as the property for which boundaries are defined. In a single family subdivision in most states a "Unit" is a LOT because the boundaries for each persons property is defined by the lot dimensions.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/02/2015 11:05 AM  
Jeff
The CCRs state the association must insure all the buildings. The CCRs outline maintenance responsibilities and obligations that are unrealistic. The insurance agent putting a policy in place based o the requirements set forth in the CCRs.

I have attached a document showing what the City allows. This picture shows about 69 homes where once stood 6 ranch homes.If you look closely, none are attached. The real only common element is a driveway and and possibly a gate in the front and back. All utilizes are separate and billed directly to each homeowner.

While a quick fix, the insurance clause is only one issue. The other issue is the maintenance responsibility matrix and all the references to the various exhibits.

Ownership is listed as a unit within a larger lot. They own 1/7th of the common elements within the lot. The Article of Incorporation and CCRs refer the whole property as Lot 1, Tract XXXXX and each of the units would be 1-7.

The easy fix, if the attorney doesn't cooperate, is convert the CCRs to a word doc and edit on the fly. Most of the legalese from the original can be incorporated into the newer version. Two weeks tops to convert, week to vet and two months to get voted on.

If this was found, curious as to how many more of these are out there.

Attachment: 11252463071.doc

JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 11:31 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 11:05 AM

Ownership is listed as a unit within a larger lot. They own 1/7th of the common elements within the lot. The Article of Incorporation and CCRs refer the whole property as Lot 1, Tract XXXXX and each of the units would be 1-7.


Richard:

This is not an easy fix as you seem to believe. The issue you have is your own above noted statement. Because you have many owners who own one piece of "Real Property" you are considered a Condominium Project and not a Planned Development. Your owners do not own separate interests in separate pieces of "Real Property" they have combined ownership of one single piece of property. You cannot just change your documents without potentially defrauding everyone's secured creditors who also have rights based upon how this was initially set up.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/02/2015 11:45 AM  
Janet

I understand the differences between a condo and a PUD. What is being changed is just maintenance responsibilities and insurance requirements.

I checked with three of the projects in attached document. Each of the homeowners provide their own fire insurance, not the association. All of them are the same type of development.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/02/2015 11:46 AM  
As noted by Janet, I don't think you'll be able to change from a condo to anything else. To break it into separate lots could require a morass of utility easements and the like. It's hard to say if the now separate lots could even be legally documented.

There's a reason the lawyer isn't returning calls.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 11:46 AM  
The next question potentially would be can the one large lot be divided into 7 separate lots meeting all the local code requirements? You then could potentially create a Planned Unit development.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/02/2015 11:49 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 11:45 AM
Janet

I understand the differences between a condo and a PUD. What is being changed is just maintenance responsibilities and insurance requirements.

I checked with three of the projects in attached document. Each of the homeowners provide their own fire insurance, not the association. All of them are the same type of development.



And you're sure those aren't separately deeded residences inside a HOA, and not a condo like you own.

Furthermore, the shell of your "home" is probably owned by your condo association, so there really isn't anyway to separately insure it.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 12:00 PM  
Richard:

Is their fire insurance only for their personal contents similar to someone renting a property? Again, you have one single piece of "Real Property" which needs to be insured and that cost is supposed to be shared by seven different owners. You might also be sure to check your state laws regarding insurance requirements.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/02/2015 12:01 PM  
Both these and mine are deeded the exact same way.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/02/2015 12:16 PM  
So they're all condos? Then what is the difference? Have you asked for a quote from the other insurance company?
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 12:35 PM  
http://www.davis-stirling.com/MinimumLevelsofInsurance/tabid/1255/Default.aspx#axzz3NhLrZ1Cn

LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


01/02/2015 12:39 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 11:05 AM

The easy fix, if the attorney doesn't cooperate, is convert the CCRs to a word doc and edit on the fly.



Richard,

A recurring theme in your writings in this thread is trying to hold the attorney who wrote the CC&R's responsible for some sort of resolution to the problem. I think you are way off base.

You have seven owners who purchased from a seller who hired the attorney and approved what the attorney did. (Lawyer-client privilege will prevent you from ever knowing what the seller and his attorney agreed on.) Each owner had the opportunity to review the recorded CC&R's before buying; their completion of the purchase implies that they were satisfied with the terms of the CC&R's.

The problem seems to be more that the owners do not understand the terms of their CC&R's and less a case that the attorney was somehow negligent.

The insurance issue is just one example of that. In a condo an owner typically owns only the inside space within a structure; the structure is owned by the community as a whole. If an owner purchased standard homeowner coverage he would be insuring things he does not own, such as the roof. If you change the insurance requirement you may find that an owner's insurer will refuse to pay for roof repairs because he does not own the roof and the association's insurance won't pay because you cancelled the coverage.

Maintenance is a similar issue in that owners could be responsible for repairing property that they do not own, such as exterior walls and roofs.

My advice now is to change nothing for now. Hire an independent real estate attorney to review the CC&R's and the plat. Then have the attorney meet with the owners and explain to them what they bought and what their obligations to each other are, and make recommendations for any amendments he may think are necessary.
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 12:46 PM  
The overlapping insurance as described in this link is probably why your docs state owner is not to purchase:

http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/PrimaryInsurance/tabid/3238/Default.aspx#axzz3NhNyisNQ

Larry offers very good advice and I would agree with his thoughts.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/02/2015 12:51 PM  
Janet

The reference you attached wouldn't apply here.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/02/2015 12:54 PM  
Are your neighboring parcels condos?
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/02/2015 1:09 PM  
Larry

I have the benefit, as I am in the business, of reviewing a number of CCRs for the same type of project. I reviewed 12 CCRs for the exact same type of development. The one in question is the only one that is different. It may be the reason the attorney won't return phone calls.

There is a conflict in who is responsible for maintenance and who is responsible for insurance. I have never seen a case where the owner is responsible for the maintenance, for example the roof, and the association is responsibility for the insurance on the same building.

In most CCRs recorded in the City of Los Angeles, units are used instead of lots. If I look at similar properties in a different city within the County of Los Angeles, they are listed as lots and are referred to PUDs.

I guarantee, none of the buyers knew what they actually were signing, just based on my experience.

The new agent the HOA retained agrees the CCRs are wrong based on their experience with similar properties on the same block. But, they have a responsibility to quote based on what the association is obligated, based on the current CCRs, requires them to insure.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/02/2015 1:41 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 1:09 PM
Larry

I have the benefit, as I am in the business, of reviewing a number of CCRs for the same type of project. .




Then why didn't you catch that these were a condo, and you referred to them as SFR in your first post. A professional would know that a SFR is just a type of construction.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/02/2015 3:11 PM  
Mark

I do understand the difference between townhouses, condos and PUDs. A SFR is not a construction, but is used to describe how many families can occupy a unit, in this case, single or one.

I live in a condo project, BUT, its only considered a condo because of the use of the word UNIT. Can help how the City of Los Angeles designates such things. I pay for my own house insurance. The HOA master policy handle on the common elements, streets, pool.

Thanks to everyone for their comments.
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5491


01/02/2015 9:02 PM  
Richard, you've obviously made up your mind the direction to go, even though the people you've asked disagree with what you are planning, so I wish you and the homeowners luck. I would strongly suggest however that they hire competent legal advice and not rely on "having an attorney friend vet the process."

Food for thought: You insist this is the community that got it wrong and the others got it right, looking at the picture you posted, I would disagree but the insurance agent wouldn't have written the policy, in fact couldn't have written the policy if there were not a legal basis to do so.


Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
JanetB2
(Colorado)

Posts:4211


01/02/2015 10:46 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 12:51 PM
Janet

The reference you attached wouldn't apply here.



Really? Which one do you believe does not apply Richard? As you are from California BOTH of the references are from Davis-Stirling … which any other individual in your State would agree is the law.

As Glen has stated you have made up your mind that what you believe is right … Good luck on your venture as I predict you are heading towards great legal grief because you have been unwilling to view the whole picture and only are looking for someone to agree with your personal views.
JeffT2
(Iowa)

Posts:532


01/03/2015 8:49 AM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 11:45 AM
... What is being changed is just maintenance responsibilities and insurance requirements...





Richard,

As I understand it, the CCRs are generally messed up and need updating. You suspect that the original attorney screwed up.

Your solution is to restate the CCRs to correct these issues:

1. expensive insurance requirements
2. weird, awkward inspection and maintenance requirements (43 pages)
3. opportunity to update other things

I'm assuming that you will not change from condo to HOA, due to all the difficulties expressed here.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/03/2015 11:35 AM  
Janet

The reference you attached is not the law, it's an attorneys opinion. They happen to be my association's attorney also. But I see no reference to any civil or corporation codes, which WOULD be the law.

I HAVE sought out legal and insurance professionals and they agree the doc is wrong for that development. People, for whatever reason, do make mistakes. The rest of your commentary was inappropriate.

I happen to do this for a living. I run a management company and have to know CCRs backwards and forwards in order to deal with association and homeowners maintenance issues as they are laid out in the CCRs.

Jeff,

You are correct, only updating what needs to be updated. In California, we don't have separate legal separation for Condo or HOA as some other states, like Florida have. Apparently, how one development is labeled a condo in one city could be labeled a PUD in another.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/03/2015 12:22 PM  
Glen

The majority of the posters, including yourself, have suggested amending, or legally "restate" the doc. Where is the disagreement?

The law of probability would suggest that in 8 developments, if 7 had one type of doc and the last one had something different, the general consensus would be the one got it wrong, not the other seven.

When I pay $10K for a master policy covering 317 homes and 82.4 acres and another cost $16K for 7 homes and maybe 1 acre, I tend to question. I may be wrong, but I do question. I owe that much to a client.

I am sure everyone's governing docs are above reproach and without flaws.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/03/2015 12:48 PM  
Jeff

I wasn't saying the lawyer screwed up. For all I know the builder mailed the 43 page maintenance guideline and said they need a set of governing docs. I can't get ahold of builder (out of business) or lawyer (not returning calls).

Back in November, I attended a Land Use committee meeting in the city where I live, within the City of Los Angeles, and asked the builder of a similar project involving 22 homes where one resided before, what responsibilities were being given to the homeowners and association in regards to insurance and maintenance, because of this very same issue. Their response was the homeowner would maintain their homes and the insurance requirement for insuring their residence resided solely with the homeowner. The association's responsibility resided with the common areas, mainly the private streets.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/03/2015 3:57 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/03/2015 12:48 PM
Jeff
Their response was the homeowner would maintain their homes and the insurance requirement for insuring their residence resided solely with the homeowner. The association's responsibility resided with the common areas, mainly the private streets.




I don't believe that is possible in a condo, where all the buildings are owned by the association.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


01/03/2015 5:03 PM  
Would appreciate some clarification on what 7 units 1 lot means.

I could envision a scenario where A owns all of the land and B, C, D, E, F, G, and H own each of the 7 building units. If all 7 are in agreement that each is responsible for his/her own house (including insurance and any other maintenance that they don't want taken care of collectively), then I don't understand why they can't just revise the docs.

Messing with the property lines is a whole nuther kettle of fish. That's where the expense and the potential conflict are likely to show up.

So if they want to make a change that works for them, why is anything more than shifting obligations to individuals in order?

Nor do I understand issue of potential objections from mortgagees. Financially, there shouldn't be any real difference.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
MarkM31


Posts:0


01/03/2015 5:28 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/02/2015 3:11 PM
Mark

I do understand the difference between townhouses, condos and PUDs. A SFR is not a construction, but is used to describe how many families can occupy a unit, in this case, single or one.




I would say that the NEC and the UBC consider SFR as a class of construction
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:9320


01/03/2015 5:40 PM  
Richard has a valid point when he says this is the only "development" of the several (maybe even many) similar "developments" that is "controlled" by such a set of docs and the docs are costing owners quite a bit more for insurance.

I would be questioning such if I had any responsibility/ownership.


RichardP13


Posts:0


01/03/2015 6:04 PM  
Attached is a photo of a development. It's lot is 82.4 acres consisting of 317 homes (all detached). The legal description is Unit (1-317) of Lot 35376, so on and so forth. I own my unit plus 1/317 of the designated common elements.I am responsible for the maintenance and insurance, fully. I only need ARC approval for improvements

I own another home not far away, not in a HOA and the legal description is Lot 1234 or Tract 45678.

Attachment: 1134209471.doc

RichardP13


Posts:0


01/03/2015 6:07 PM  
As a follow-up to the photo, that same development, if located 10 miles north would be considered a PUD and the confusion would disappear.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


01/03/2015 6:16 PM  
Posted By RichardP13 on 01/03/2015 6:07 PM
As a follow-up to the photo, that same development, if located 10 miles north would be considered a PUD and the confusion would disappear.




Same development with same CC&Rs?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
RichardP13


Posts:0


01/03/2015 6:41 PM  
NpS

No, that is my development. But, we are listed as a Condominium project solely because of the description of "Units".

Yesterday, I posted the photo of the HOA in question. There are 6 lots that contain 69 "units"
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


01/03/2015 7:37 PM  
I am not following - I assume that whether something is a PUD, that's based on the docs. But you have also said that PUD can be determined by physical location. Or am I missing something?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:5491


01/03/2015 7:55 PM  
Richard the difference was, I made the suggestion before you described the "HOA" and before you posted a picture of the type of units you are talking about. But since I don't have access to the doc's or the original building permit, what do I know?

Now this is just a guess but the builder probably got special dispensation to build with zero lot lines and I'm guessing that the insurance requirement was put in place to insure that a home damaged in a fire would be rebuilt, not to mention the greater chance of neighboring units being damaged. Now you can require homeowners to provide insurance, indeed that is a requirement of most mortgages if not all, but when a homeowner is down on their luck, insurance is often one of the first places they cut.

Speaking of mortgages, as someone else alluded to changing the CC&R may affect the mortgage, most people think of a mortgage as between the bank and the homeowner but when it is first underwritten it is with the idea that certain caveats are in place (the CC&Rs) which is why most if not all mortgage holders must approve all changes.

What we've been trying to get you to see is this is not the simple situation you first presented and like a new poster, which you're not, we had to pull the pertinent info from you. I would start with the building department, first to see if they are required to be designated as condo's. Depending on where they fell in the building and permitting process, the zoning laws may have changed. I also suggest you hire competent legal counsel and not rely on a friend (no matter how good he is) when you pay, you have recourse if the info or work is improper.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Wrong CCRs put in place



Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement