Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Friday, December 03, 2021











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Easy to use website tools to help your board
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Lawsuite. Florida homeowners $34 million victory.
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
JohnT38
(South Carolina)

Posts:792


11/25/2021 4:25 AM  
Just thought I'd share this for those that are interested. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/goal-bleed-owners-dry-34-204000557.html
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:2588


11/25/2021 5:28 AM  
I think that the article is disingenuous or misleading.

The headline and quotes from the homeowner were the same old "oh, those awful HOAS!" that we often hear. But the story states that the lawsuit was against developer Avatar Properties, which is a different matter.

The suit doesn't claim that the HOA itself was improperly collecting fees but that the developer was, apparently during the period when the developer was in control of the HOA and was building out amenities which the plaintiffs say were worth a fraction of the cost that they were charged. In fact one of the plaintiffs actually said so: “Defeat is the status quo,” which ... is, “paying the developer a mandatory ‘for profit’ fee forever. That is not fair.” If anything the HOA as a corporation was the victim.

Rather than saying HOAs behave badly - and I agree that they can and do - the story should be addressing how developers behave badly. But - cynical me - that's less likely to attract clicks.
AugustinD


Posts:1901


11/25/2021 5:33 AM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 11/25/2021 5:28 AM
I think that the article is disingenuous or misleading.

The headline and quotes from the homeowner were the same old "oh, those awful HOAS!" that we often hear. But the story states that the lawsuit was against developer Avatar Properties, which is a different matter.
I agree. The story puts out falsehoods about HOAs. In particular the article fails to recognize that covenants are a lawful contract to which owners have agreed in advance of purchase.
PatJ1
(North Carolina)

Posts:290


11/25/2021 5:50 AM  
****Rather than saying HOAs behave badly - and I agree that they can and do - the story should be addressing how developers behave badly. But - cynical me - that's less likely to attract clicks.****

Anything with HOA in the headline........always reads all HOA's are bad or did something wrong.

https://www.wbtv.com/2021/11/15/thats-bit-negligent-management-company-hired-convict-manage-finances-rock-hill-hoa-now-shes-facing-new-embezzlement-charges/

Board members are volunteers. Many have no idea what they're doing. Educate them. Don't beat them up.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/25/2021 9:32 AM  
So can anyone cite what was false about the story. I would like someone also attach the document that everyone signs that they are agreeing to the covenants as a contract.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/25/2021 10:21 AM  
I guess attorneys don't know how to read or interpret covenants.

https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/outreach/call-for-action/greensboro-homeowner-able-to-keep-flags-on-property-after-dispute-with-hoa/83-7a8e5070-6f40-4b7e-b148-896019a22377
PatJ1
(North Carolina)

Posts:290


11/25/2021 1:36 PM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/25/2021 10:21 AM
I guess attorneys don't know how to read or interpret covenants.

https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/outreach/call-for-action/greensboro-homeowner-able-to-keep-flags-on-property-after-dispute-with-hoa/83-7a8e5070-6f40-4b7e-b148-896019a22377




Or Federal Legislation

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/42

Shown Here:
Public Law No: 109-243 (07/24/2006)

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 - States that a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent an association member from displaying the U.S. flag on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.

States that nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with: (1) federal law or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag; or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium, cooperative, or residential real estate management association.

Board members are volunteers. Many have no idea what they're doing. Educate them. Don't beat them up.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11659


11/25/2021 4:01 PM  
This is apples versus oranges. Let us zero in in one or the other.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/25/2021 4:39 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 11/25/2021 4:01 PM
This is apples versus oranges. Let us zero in in one or the other.



Which one of the three?
AugustinD


Posts:1901


11/25/2021 9:19 PM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/25/2021 9:32 AM
So can anyone cite what was false about the story. I would like someone also attach the document that everyone signs that they are agreeing to the covenants as a contract.
I appreciate your opinion that covenants are not contractual terms. As long as this is your position, you would not find anything false in the story.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/25/2021 9:31 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 11/25/2021 9:19 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/25/2021 9:32 AM
So can anyone cite what was false about the story. I would like someone also attach the document that everyone signs that they are agreeing to the covenants as a contract.
I appreciate your opinion that covenants are not contractual terms. As long as this is your position, you would not find anything false in the story.



It ain't what I said.
LetA
(Nevada)

Posts:1462


11/27/2021 5:08 PM  
Attorney Steve Lehto explains it a lot better. On the surface, it sounds like the declarant misled buyers and upon turnover wanted a boatload of money for the owners to buy the amenities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnwwBOICrE
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/27/2021 6:21 PM  
Posted By LetA on 11/27/2021 5:08 PM
Attorney Steve Lehto explains it a lot better. On the surface, it sounds like the declarant misled buyers and upon turnover wanted a boatload of money for the owners to buy the amenities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnwwBOICrE



?????
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17841


11/27/2021 10:19 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 11/25/2021 9:19 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/25/2021 9:32 AM
So can anyone cite what was false about the story. I would like someone also attach the document that everyone signs that they are agreeing to the covenants as a contract.
I appreciate your opinion that covenants are not contractual terms. As long as this is your position, you would not find anything false in the story.




Covenants are deed restrictions.

The courts treat them as a contract.


CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:2588


11/28/2021 7:47 AM  
Posted By LetA on 11/27/2021 5:08 PM
Attorney Steve Lehto explains it a lot better. On the surface, it sounds like the declarant misled buyers and upon turnover wanted a boatload of money for the owners to buy the amenities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnwwBOICrE



He explains it better if you want confirmation of your "oh those awful HOAs!!!" narrative.

The lawsuit was against the developer/declarant. The HOA (in the form of the owners after turnover) was the victim since the HOA apparently did not own the amenities at that point, the developer did. A lawyer should be capable of handling "nuance" like this - but that doesn't get clicks on the internet.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/28/2021 10:37 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 11/27/2021 10:19 PM
Posted By AugustinD on 11/25/2021 9:19 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/25/2021 9:32 AM
So can anyone cite what was false about the story. I would like someone also attach the document that everyone signs that they are agreeing to the covenants as a contract.
I appreciate your opinion that covenants are not contractual terms. As long as this is your position, you would not find anything false in the story.




Covenants are deed restrictions.

The courts treat them as a contract.





It's called an implied contract.
AugustinD


Posts:1901


11/28/2021 2:58 PM  
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/28/2021 10:37 AM
Posted By TimB4 on 11/27/2021 10:19 PM




Covenants are deed restrictions.

The courts treat them as a contract.





It's called an implied contract.No. An "implied contract" is quite different.
MaxB4
(California)

Posts:1594


11/28/2021 4:41 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 11/28/2021 2:58 PM
Posted By MaxB4 on 11/28/2021 10:37 AM
Posted By TimB4 on 11/27/2021 10:19 PM




Covenants are deed restrictions.

The courts treat them as a contract.





It's called an implied contract.
No. An "implied contract" is quite different.



So are CCRs a contract or not?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/E/Enforcement-of-CC-Rs
AugustinD


Posts:1901


11/28/2021 5:58 PM  
Pay me and I will tell you.
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Lawsuite. Florida homeowners $34 million victory.



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