Talk:Homeowner association

Undemocratic voters

The "Undemocratic" section was poorly named. The issue is suppression of the rights and liberties that the owners (and tenants) would have had in a non-HOA community. The owners were voting and do (through their representatives) actually control the HOA: there's nothing 'undemocratic' about that.

The issue, instead, is the restriction of certain liberties, normally permitted by the actual governments, by a non-governmental entity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG! One person+one vote= democratic. HOAs do not allocate votes to people, rather they go to lots or units. This IS not only undemocratic it is akin to plutocracy.

But that only scratches the surface of "undemocratic"....Single party political system, no free press, no independant judiciary, no seperation of powers....it goes on and on. These institutions, to quote Edward Hanamman of the NJ Dept of Community Affairs are "profoundly undemocratic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.105.103 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They might be undemocratic, but the section that is so titled contains very little information about the assignment of votes. "Democracy" is not a synonym for "Liberty", and most of the content is about civil liberties, not voting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the HoA is a corporation and not a government entity. Owning a home in a HoA is similar to owning stock in a company. The shareholders get a vote based upon the amount of the company they own. People who don't own stock in that company don't get a vote in how it's run or what is done with the assets and profits. The voting in a HoA works like this except the developers skewed things in their favor with the three votes for an unsold lot to the one an actual homeowner gets. Generally, homeowners do have the right to name a proxy for meetings and voting much like any other corporation. The bigger issue with voting is that the CCRs likely restrict voting to members whose "assessments are paid in full" or some similar verbiage. The issue is that fines could be included in "assessments" and this could prevent someone who is in a legal dispute with the HoA from voting on a measure. HoAs fall into a gray area in that they aren't really governments but exercise much more power over the homeowners than any corporation should have since the local and state governments have become increasingly keen on abdicating their responsibilities for maintaining public property such a roads, sewers, parks and the like and are only too happy to pass these things on to developers and, by extension, HoAs.Righteous9000 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

But my neighbor doesn't legally own my home. The limit of HOAs should be the regulation of public areas, not control of a person's private life. They have no financial stake in my home and they aren't the government, how can they foreclose on my home. Let's say you don't pay a doctor's bill, does that mean the doctor can foreclose on your home? No, they can wreck your credit score. HOAs should be at most allowed to hand over collections to a collections company just like any other service, yet they are allowed this special privilege? Even in your comparison to owning stock, I don't see a company able to destroy stock to collect money from the shareholders for stock they sell? This is totally against my constitutional rights for them to drag me into court and foreclose my house. They should be limited to any other assessment of dues and latefees, turn over collections to a collections company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that HOAs have way overreached their bounds into vague and overly broad rules that attempt to control personal coduct. Declarations hae become monsters of some of the worst legal drafting I have ever seen. I find that alarming. However, even though we own "homes" we are still subject to the state's sanction of that ownership. The reason HOAs can foreclose is that (most) have language that there is a lien or obligations that is continuing or ongoing and relates back to the date of the recording of the declaration. Therefore, that lien preates your purchase of a home. It has priority. That is why in homestead states like flroida, HOAs can foreclose on homestead - under those circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

History section

There's a reference to Shelley v. Kraemer in the Criticisms section, and it's written as if it was previously referenced in the article. It was, and at some point it, and all references to early covenants and racial deeds were removed. There's no mention of the reason for the removal on the talk page, and it's an important bit of HOA history, so I've re-added it.Willcrys 84 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow thanks! I had written about the racial deed restrictions that were the basis for ALL of these housing private deed restictions prior to the civil rights acts. They were erased by shills for this HOA industry. It was becoming quite frustrating to deal with them here.

Thanks Again for bringing the Truth to light! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.105.103 (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the original Shelley v. Kraemer reference and it is an important piece of history in covenants and associations. Racial restrictions can still be found in deeds (public records are not altered) but they are unenforceable Shelley v. Kraemer is a landmark case, that prohibited covenants that racially discriminate. Unfortunately, that case has been severely limited to that narrow exception, in a subsequent line of cases. Removing it doesn't make much sense. That said, I'm surprised by the relative balanace this article turned into. I"m not a Wikipedia fan and groan at some of the legal inaccuracies (this is my area of focus in law). This is not a bad treatment of HOAs, but there is more that could and should be added. Overall, I think it turned out fairly well, considering some of the messes I've seen from WIkipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Revolt Section

HOw bout a section on how much I dislike paying my HOA? I mean they charge 30K a year for mgmt fees and for what? They pay some 60K a year for pool maintenance for this dinky thing that's only open in the summer and I never go to. Provides me community values?! I do everything myself. never once did i get assistance with a barn raising or whatever. I'm on my own and I get to see how much they spend on managing the process to print me a coupon booklet so I can fork out 57 bucks a quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.91.124 (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

THis could be an interesting topic. Problems with HOAs - let people voice their concerns. I would surely like to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why this harassment?

I have question, Why can't we give so called assesments to our local muncipals? let them work on any developments, maintances in our neibour hood, hire people from the locality... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakikhaki (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

HOASyndrome

The part at the end of the "Financial risk for homeowners" section mentions something called "HOASYNDROME". I really doubt this is an actual recognized medical condition, and it should probably be removed.

Ztrem (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually do not doubt that such a syndrome exists. I talk with homeowners all day long, and many are having health problems from the stress they endure in their own home, which should be a sanctuary, a retreat, a place of peace and safety. I have no doubt that this kind of post traumatic tensions- A home is the one place we should be able to feel safe. I can absolutely see where infighting with an association board can cause constant tension and depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki links

This is a more American article, which should not be linked to the other articles.

The English article starts with this: A homeowner association is a corporation formed by a real estate developer for the purpose of marketing, managing, and selling of homes and lots in a residential subdivision.

This is not the way it works in the other countries where this article wrongfully has been linked to. Nor is this described in the other articles.

So I propose that this article should be split up so the American rules are put into a separate article. --IvarT (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Renters

After living at my residence for nearly a year h.o.a sends me a letter for a thousand dollars in which i had never heard from them until they send me this letter does renters have hoa dues , in which is not mention in my lease agreement.

=== Hard to say since you did not say what state you live in. An HOA in Florida can demand rents if the owner is late paying assessments. The HOA can even evict the tenant for not paying rent upon demand, but the statute protects the tenant from any claims related to rent by the owner. That particular statue is fraught with problems, that some of us are trying to get changed, so there is less room for abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Inheritance?

I think it's established that, if the owner of a house in a HOA sells their house, they're required to sell it to someone who agrees to the HOA agreement. However, if the owner dies and leaves the house to a beneficiary who refuses to sign the contract, what happens? Obviously the new beneficiary cannot legally be forced to join the HOA, and obviously contracts are not transferable to parties who don't agree, and obviously it would be illegal to refuse a person their rightful inheritance just because they don't agree with a home owner's association. So, unless there's something I'm overlooking, the HOA has no recourse in this situation? Yes? Then why not mention this in the article? It seems inheritance is one way to undermine the authority of a HOA.50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

POA Misconduct

Our POA is ruled by a bunch of thugs who run the neighborhood like a cell block in prison. They cater to their friends and relatives and to hell with the rest. We have some really nice and decent people in this community who pay their dues every year and are treated like dirt. The way they conduct their annual meetings every year is crazy. The board members stand at the head of the room and look as though they are daring you to have an issue they don't like. And if you do speak up they flip a coin to see with one is going to (nip this one in the bud). We had our annual 4th of July picnic yesterday and our common area and this year was even worse. They did not even put up a sign this year at the gate or the mail box area to let people know about the picnic as far as the day and time. I talked to several people who did not even think we were going to have one this year. And a lot of them have stopped going because it is nothing but a big drunk fest anyway. They put a sign up at the gate that says we have security cameras and security patrol. But we do not. They allow their kids to ride their ATVs on the roads here at full speed and then they themselves ride theirs drunk. If you call the sheriffs office they say it is a POA matter. I don't think so! We don't want to move. We love our home and have put a lot in to it. Plus we have some good neighbors as well. Their friends and relatives keep voting the same ones in every year. Its like and eternal cycle. Or a never ending nightmare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.18.100.66 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to run for the board and/or get a personal attorney to sue the association for negligence. FirstDrop87 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The government that you get is the one you deserve. Owners get to vote as they are the stakeholders. They van delegate their proxies to people they support. Candidates for election can run campaigns, hold rallies, and conduct as detailed a campaign as they like. Unlike "public government" there is very little movement to suppress voting by minorities, or other hurdles to registration such as photo ID. You own, you get to vote. If a "bad" set of directors is elected that is the fault of enough of those good people dong nothing96.254.115.29 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Bob Tankel

Grammatical mistakes

The following sentence:

   Some associations little or no common property and the expenses solely involve enforcement of use restrictions or assumed services.

lacks a verb, and is therefore impossible to understand for someone unfamiliar. Could somebody more versed in the article revisit the content? Thanks. Cowprophet (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge section with CAI?

Hello, I am looking for a correct template (as {{Unreferenced section}} etc. templates) to indicate that there are some advertising text, and that the current Homeowner association#Industry (permalink) can be merged with CAI.

"Homeowner association" is a generic concept, and CAI is a specific trade association. --Krauss (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

For advertising, you can use {{advert section}}. For a merging the content into CAI, {{merge|section=yes}} seems to be what you are looking for. In the future, these lists of templates might be helpful to you: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging. Sjrct (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Corporations

In the beginning of the article, it states that homeowners are corporations and asks for support for that statement. Homeowners associations are not all corporations and many states don't have any laws requiring them to be so. Accordingly, this statement should be changed to state that some homeowners associations are corporations or it should be removed completely. Below is the full text of Section 11B-101 of the Maryland Code, Real Property Article. As you can see in 11B-101(i)(2), it states that homeowners associations can be incorporated or unincorporated.

§ 11B-101. Definitions

(a) In general. -- In this title the following words have the meanings indicated, unless the context requires otherwise.

(b) Common areas. -- “Common areas” means property which is owned or leased by a homeowners association.

(c) Declarant. -- “Declarant” means any person who subjects property to a declaration.

(d) Declaration. --

(1) “Declaration” means an instrument, however denominated, recorded among the land records of the county in which the property of the declarant is located, that creates the authority for a homeowners association to impose on lots, or on the owners or occupants of lots, or on another homeowners association, condominium, or cooperative housing corporation any mandatory fee in connection with the provision of services or otherwise for the benefit of some or all of the lots, the owners or occupants of lots, or the common areas.

(2) “Declaration” includes any amendment or supplement to the instruments described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) “Declaration” does not include a private right-of-way or similar agreement unless it requires a mandatory fee payable annually or at more frequent intervals.

(e) Depository; homeowners association depository. -- “Depository” or “homeowners association depository” means the document file created by the clerk of the court of each county and the City of Baltimore where a homeowners association may periodically deposit information as required by this title.

(f) Development. --

(1) “Development” means property subject to a declaration.

(2) “Development” includes property comprising a condominium or cooperative housing corporation to the extent that the property is part of a development.

(3) “Development” does not include a cooperative housing corporation or a condominium.

(g) Electronic transmission. -- “Electronic transmission” means any form of communication, not directly involving the physical transmission of paper, that creates a record that:

(1) May be retained, retrieved, and reviewed by a recipient of the communication; and

(2) May be reproduced directly in paper form by a recipient through an automated process.

(h) Governing body. -- “Governing body” means the homeowners association, board of directors, or other entity established to govern the development.

(i) Homeowners association. --

(1) “Homeowners association” means a person having the authority to enforce the provisions of a declaration.

(2) “Homeowners association” includes an incorporated or unincorporated association.

(j) Lot. --

(1) “Lot” means any plot or parcel of land on which a dwelling is located or will be located within a development.

(2) “Lot” includes a unit within a condominium or cooperative housing corporation if the condominium or cooperative housing corporation is part of a development.

(k) Primary development. -- “Primary development” means a development such that the purchaser of a lot will pay fees directly to its homeowners association.

(l) Recorded covenants and restrictions. --“Recorded covenants and restrictions” means any instrument of writing which is recorded in the land records of the jurisdiction within which a lot is located, and which instrument governs or otherwise legally restricts the use of such lot.

(m) Related development. -- “Related development” means a development such that the purchaser of a lot will pay fees to the homeowners association of such development through the homeowners association of a primary development or another development.

(n) Unaffiliated declarant. -- “Unaffiliated declarant” means a person who is not affiliated with the vendor of a lot but who has subjected such property to a declaration required to be disclosed by this title.

72.194.198.141 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)