Home
Latest images
Search
Register
Log inEnforcement abnormalities and the dangers
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Enforcement abnormalities and the dangers
dparker Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:13 am
Just about every homeowner's meeting I have been to since Traube was elected has included his repeated assertion that ALL deed restrictions are enforced and often a repeated dire warning that "someone" was being sued by the homeowner's association for non-compliance. Neither are true. (RealManage confirms this)
I'm not being cute here and saying there are occasions where the restriction about not being able to own more than 4 pets is not being enforced (like when your dog had puppies).
The deed restrictions have been amended multiple times, usually the reason is the addition of a new section like Silver Oaks or Milburn. As a new section is contemplated and before its really built the amendment gets filed. If you take the time to read all of the documents you'll notice some things appear to have been copied word for word, after all copy and paste is probably fastest.
Read the part about fences. Every paragraph that addresses that issue in every amendment describes the fences construction and always depicts it as needing to be "wood, wrought iron or some combination thereof" and fences of property backing up to a greenbelt are supposed to be made of wrought iron.
Not only are the Milburn area fences completely out of compliance, numerous houses in other sections are out of compliance because they are on a greenbelt and constructed of wood. The newly constructed fences along East Park are backyard fences made of a masonry composite.
Real Manage has very quickly stated that the sundivision "got a variance" for those fences out of compliance but it would seem that the variance would have had to have been considered at the time the Amendment was filed with the Milburn area and therefore should have been discussed in their version of the Amendment. To date Real Manage cannot produce documentation of any sort of a variance even though those documents should have been maintained by the Architectural Control Committee. They say their trying to track down the long gone developer.
Here's the bottom line:
1. The amendments do NOT require the HOA to enforce all of the deed restrictions (contrary to another fabrication oft told by the current board president.)
2. The HOA does not enforce ALL of the deed restrictions (only the ones that the current HOA president believes SHOULD be enforced)
3. The reason the HOA does not enforce the restriction on fencing is because doing so would create a formal uprising in the community.
4. No homeowners have been sued for non-compliance even though that has been reported publicly by the current board president over the past several years.
5. One deed restriction has been enforced on more than half of all homeowners over the past few years and this number is evidence that the majority disagrees with it (parking "overnight" on the street) and, as written is technically unenforceable since the HOA has no proof that any violations involve "parking overnight" which would mean from sunset to sunrise.
6. ...and the most important point of all: If a homeowner IS sued by the HOA for non-compliance a court will hear that the deed restrictions are enforced arbitrarily and capriciously - previous HOA presidents have not bothered to try to enforce a deed restriction that involves parking on the roadway overnight. This means that a homeowner will likely win and, if damages are a part of the judgement against the HOA we will lose.
Its time for us to all stand up and demand truth from an elected board president.. Most of us abhor being lied to at all but to have one person stand up time and again to not only bully hard-working people who have growing families over a deed restriction that involves preventing actions deemed appropriate all over the planet (parking in front of your own home) is particularly distasteful. Scare tactics from a bully pulpit are contrary to good leadership.
I'm all for legally enforcing restrictions that affect home values such as not mowing or painting your house with blue polka dots.
Demand the resignation of someone that would threaten legal action against those that don't have the financial means to defend themselves or move from the neighborhood during this time of financial crisis especially for such a minor issue.
I'm not being cute here and saying there are occasions where the restriction about not being able to own more than 4 pets is not being enforced (like when your dog had puppies).
The deed restrictions have been amended multiple times, usually the reason is the addition of a new section like Silver Oaks or Milburn. As a new section is contemplated and before its really built the amendment gets filed. If you take the time to read all of the documents you'll notice some things appear to have been copied word for word, after all copy and paste is probably fastest.
Read the part about fences. Every paragraph that addresses that issue in every amendment describes the fences construction and always depicts it as needing to be "wood, wrought iron or some combination thereof" and fences of property backing up to a greenbelt are supposed to be made of wrought iron.
Not only are the Milburn area fences completely out of compliance, numerous houses in other sections are out of compliance because they are on a greenbelt and constructed of wood. The newly constructed fences along East Park are backyard fences made of a masonry composite.
Real Manage has very quickly stated that the sundivision "got a variance" for those fences out of compliance but it would seem that the variance would have had to have been considered at the time the Amendment was filed with the Milburn area and therefore should have been discussed in their version of the Amendment. To date Real Manage cannot produce documentation of any sort of a variance even though those documents should have been maintained by the Architectural Control Committee. They say their trying to track down the long gone developer.
Here's the bottom line:
1. The amendments do NOT require the HOA to enforce all of the deed restrictions (contrary to another fabrication oft told by the current board president.)
2. The HOA does not enforce ALL of the deed restrictions (only the ones that the current HOA president believes SHOULD be enforced)
3. The reason the HOA does not enforce the restriction on fencing is because doing so would create a formal uprising in the community.
4. No homeowners have been sued for non-compliance even though that has been reported publicly by the current board president over the past several years.
5. One deed restriction has been enforced on more than half of all homeowners over the past few years and this number is evidence that the majority disagrees with it (parking "overnight" on the street) and, as written is technically unenforceable since the HOA has no proof that any violations involve "parking overnight" which would mean from sunset to sunrise.
6. ...and the most important point of all: If a homeowner IS sued by the HOA for non-compliance a court will hear that the deed restrictions are enforced arbitrarily and capriciously - previous HOA presidents have not bothered to try to enforce a deed restriction that involves parking on the roadway overnight. This means that a homeowner will likely win and, if damages are a part of the judgement against the HOA we will lose.
Its time for us to all stand up and demand truth from an elected board president.. Most of us abhor being lied to at all but to have one person stand up time and again to not only bully hard-working people who have growing families over a deed restriction that involves preventing actions deemed appropriate all over the planet (parking in front of your own home) is particularly distasteful. Scare tactics from a bully pulpit are contrary to good leadership.
I'm all for legally enforcing restrictions that affect home values such as not mowing or painting your house with blue polka dots.
Demand the resignation of someone that would threaten legal action against those that don't have the financial means to defend themselves or move from the neighborhood during this time of financial crisis especially for such a minor issue.
Last edited by dparker on Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:15 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : corrected a sentence)
dparker- Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-06-10
Age : 69
DEED REFORM
DEberwein Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:59 am
The problem that I see is that people like to complain, but do nothing in a positive matter to effect change.
The committee was form and changes proposed, but when it came down to business and trying to get the word out. No-one bothered to show up.
I have been at the community center every second Thursday sine the conception of the committee, Many nights to sit there by myself for 20 minutes. I will continue to show up the second Thursday of each month until .
Would it be right to ticket someone for going the posted speed, if the posted sign was incorrect?
The builders and developer put up the Fences- not the home owners. The developer, then declarent, had the right to do whatever he deemed viable. The fences were built under that term, and variance to the DCCR granted.
Mr Parker rather than attempt to get everyone upset, help me work to make the changes
The committee was form and changes proposed, but when it came down to business and trying to get the word out. No-one bothered to show up.
I have been at the community center every second Thursday sine the conception of the committee, Many nights to sit there by myself for 20 minutes. I will continue to show up the second Thursday of each month until .
Would it be right to ticket someone for going the posted speed, if the posted sign was incorrect?
The builders and developer put up the Fences- not the home owners. The developer, then declarent, had the right to do whatever he deemed viable. The fences were built under that term, and variance to the DCCR granted.
Mr Parker rather than attempt to get everyone upset, help me work to make the changes
DEberwein- Posts : 5
Join date : 2010-07-08
deed restrictions
dparker Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:59 am
The commiittee concluded that changing the deed restrictions would have to be approved by an impossibly high number of votes. The declaration mandates that 80% of all of the homeowners MUST vote for the change to change anything in the declaration )(including the 80% standard). We can't get more than 20% to show up at a meeting. I would be happy to donate my time to walk door to door and gather votes if the board would accept them.
he board has repeatedly refused to allow that sort of a vote though. Since a large percentage of the homeowners now live outside the subdivision and are renting their homes, its improbably that even 80% could be touched even door to door. Our only recourse is to educate the community about just how unfair the present deed restrictions are. You SAY the builder built those fences and this is true but the Declaration and the
Deed Restrictions were written by and signed by the builder(s) at about the same time that these fences were built.
- How could the builder knowingly build a fence that is not in compliance with the Deed Restrictions he is imposing on homeowners?
-- How could he build white vinyl fences one day and the following day sign a document declaring all fences should be "wood, wrought iron or some combination thereof" and fences on greenbelts have to be made solely of wrought iron?
--- your argument that "since the builder built it that way there is a variance" is faulty. Homeowners are required to make sure they are in compliance with the Declaration and restrictions; they are the owners now of the fence.
--- there is no official decision in any record that recognizes this "variance" that the board has now decided to latch onto.
--- Using this logic I could then say that the builder only built a 2 car garage for my house and I bought the house when I owned 3 cars. The builder obviously made a mistake and now the board has to grant me a variance.
- The board president has REPEATEDLY and PUBLICLY announced to homeowners that he enforces ALL OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS that are brought to his attention. This is obviously not based in fact. How can we allow someone that deliberately falsifies the record in such a way?
-- the Board President obviously wants to make sure that homeowners can't park a car on the street between 2-5am like every other person can do on this planet. This is his goal in life and has everything to do with his belief that its "unsightly". He has SPECIFICALLY decided to enforce this deed restriction above all others. He needs to understand that real people grow and children get driver's licenses and cars and jobs. Real people take in other family members when they get older and have to store possessions in their garage. The Board President is cowardly for not addressing this issue personally with people who disagree with him and for continuing to pursue people, threatening to fine people and sue people and eventually take their homes away for simply parking on the street. This is absurd.
--- Unfortunately we have a document that EVEN YOU AGREED is not likely to be changed no matter how inventive we as a committee worked to ensure we get 80% of the people to vote. And just to illustrate just how ludicrous this document is, in one place the declaration states that 90% must vote to approve any changes... so even if we got 80% this board president would find a way to invoke the 90% requirement.
------------
No - you can't paint me as the bad guy here. You know and everyone else knows that there is no requirement to enforce any of the deed restrictions. You and I both know that there is no way to change the declaration no matter how many minutes we spend sitting at the community center. You and I both know that the board and the board president is an elitist group of homeowners able to afford a 3 car garage home and a feeling of power to be able to impose their own set of standards beyond what the declaration mandates; the twisting of the overnight parking restriction is a perfect example.
Our only hope is to force the board to enforce ALL of the deed restrictions in order to ensure the homeowners understand the document is faulty.
That means people with more than 4 pets have to be fined.
That means people with 3 vehicles that only have a 2 car garage have to be fined
That means that people with a white vinyl fence have to be fined
That means that people with a wood fence backing up to a greenbelt have to be fined
That means that people with a masonry fence (East Park) have to be fined
That means that people with an air conditioner unit on the side of their house without a fence around it have to be fined.
Its an absolute lie that these are not violations of the deed restrictions. Even the paragaraph you quote about the builder being able to do what he wants is taken out of context. Its intended to allow them do what they think is necessary to put up signs or park vehicles overnight or anything else it takes to make sure construction is unhindered. If it was intended to allow them to build fences that we have to live with then the declaration would have been written to allow it. Its not.
---------
If you can think of something that can REALISTICALLY can be done to change the declaration please let me know.
Denigrating me as someone that talks and doesn't act is wrong and frankly, I'm disappointed. If the board was correct they wold have agreed to meet with me to discuss this. For more than 6 months now I have asked to speak directly to the board and I've been rebuffed - no -- ignored is a better word. There are no public meetings on the matter, Traube makes sure that those comments are reserved for the last 15 minutes of the allotted time and most everyone has gone by then. So its a perfect crime. No one listens to the homeowners complaints - not even the "member at large" who is supposed to be someone who will act as my voice, the voice of the homeowner. Strout has decided he's on vacation for a month - wouldn't THAT be nice.
- Stand up Mr Eberwein -- you know this is wrong and you also know that the community is being run by liars.
he board has repeatedly refused to allow that sort of a vote though. Since a large percentage of the homeowners now live outside the subdivision and are renting their homes, its improbably that even 80% could be touched even door to door. Our only recourse is to educate the community about just how unfair the present deed restrictions are. You SAY the builder built those fences and this is true but the Declaration and the
Deed Restrictions were written by and signed by the builder(s) at about the same time that these fences were built.
- How could the builder knowingly build a fence that is not in compliance with the Deed Restrictions he is imposing on homeowners?
-- How could he build white vinyl fences one day and the following day sign a document declaring all fences should be "wood, wrought iron or some combination thereof" and fences on greenbelts have to be made solely of wrought iron?
--- your argument that "since the builder built it that way there is a variance" is faulty. Homeowners are required to make sure they are in compliance with the Declaration and restrictions; they are the owners now of the fence.
--- there is no official decision in any record that recognizes this "variance" that the board has now decided to latch onto.
--- Using this logic I could then say that the builder only built a 2 car garage for my house and I bought the house when I owned 3 cars. The builder obviously made a mistake and now the board has to grant me a variance.
- The board president has REPEATEDLY and PUBLICLY announced to homeowners that he enforces ALL OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS that are brought to his attention. This is obviously not based in fact. How can we allow someone that deliberately falsifies the record in such a way?
-- the Board President obviously wants to make sure that homeowners can't park a car on the street between 2-5am like every other person can do on this planet. This is his goal in life and has everything to do with his belief that its "unsightly". He has SPECIFICALLY decided to enforce this deed restriction above all others. He needs to understand that real people grow and children get driver's licenses and cars and jobs. Real people take in other family members when they get older and have to store possessions in their garage. The Board President is cowardly for not addressing this issue personally with people who disagree with him and for continuing to pursue people, threatening to fine people and sue people and eventually take their homes away for simply parking on the street. This is absurd.
--- Unfortunately we have a document that EVEN YOU AGREED is not likely to be changed no matter how inventive we as a committee worked to ensure we get 80% of the people to vote. And just to illustrate just how ludicrous this document is, in one place the declaration states that 90% must vote to approve any changes... so even if we got 80% this board president would find a way to invoke the 90% requirement.
------------
No - you can't paint me as the bad guy here. You know and everyone else knows that there is no requirement to enforce any of the deed restrictions. You and I both know that there is no way to change the declaration no matter how many minutes we spend sitting at the community center. You and I both know that the board and the board president is an elitist group of homeowners able to afford a 3 car garage home and a feeling of power to be able to impose their own set of standards beyond what the declaration mandates; the twisting of the overnight parking restriction is a perfect example.
Our only hope is to force the board to enforce ALL of the deed restrictions in order to ensure the homeowners understand the document is faulty.
That means people with more than 4 pets have to be fined.
That means people with 3 vehicles that only have a 2 car garage have to be fined
That means that people with a white vinyl fence have to be fined
That means that people with a wood fence backing up to a greenbelt have to be fined
That means that people with a masonry fence (East Park) have to be fined
That means that people with an air conditioner unit on the side of their house without a fence around it have to be fined.
Its an absolute lie that these are not violations of the deed restrictions. Even the paragaraph you quote about the builder being able to do what he wants is taken out of context. Its intended to allow them do what they think is necessary to put up signs or park vehicles overnight or anything else it takes to make sure construction is unhindered. If it was intended to allow them to build fences that we have to live with then the declaration would have been written to allow it. Its not.
---------
If you can think of something that can REALISTICALLY can be done to change the declaration please let me know.
Denigrating me as someone that talks and doesn't act is wrong and frankly, I'm disappointed. If the board was correct they wold have agreed to meet with me to discuss this. For more than 6 months now I have asked to speak directly to the board and I've been rebuffed - no -- ignored is a better word. There are no public meetings on the matter, Traube makes sure that those comments are reserved for the last 15 minutes of the allotted time and most everyone has gone by then. So its a perfect crime. No one listens to the homeowners complaints - not even the "member at large" who is supposed to be someone who will act as my voice, the voice of the homeowner. Strout has decided he's on vacation for a month - wouldn't THAT be nice.
- Stand up Mr Eberwein -- you know this is wrong and you also know that the community is being run by liars.
dparker- Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-06-10
Age : 69
The OTHER reason this is important
dparker Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:25 am
A lawsuit is imminent. The HOA and Real Manage have FAILED to respond to a request for mediation and the HOA is open to a lawsuit. Now I'm concerned that should this homeowner win and the HOA is found deficient then MY FEES HAVE TO GO UP TO PAY FOR THE JUDGEMENT.
This "coverup" by the board to try to suddenly come up with a reason that they have not enforced "all" of the restrictions fairly will be used as further reason to find the board president and members guilty. The declaration provides them with immunity and the costs for trial and punishment will have to come from me and others.
- Mr Eberwein: Has the board assumed this "right of the declarant to build whatever he wants and the board has to live with it" theory been examined by an attorney and officially voted on by the board or it this simply someone's opinion?
This "coverup" by the board to try to suddenly come up with a reason that they have not enforced "all" of the restrictions fairly will be used as further reason to find the board president and members guilty. The declaration provides them with immunity and the costs for trial and punishment will have to come from me and others.
- Mr Eberwein: Has the board assumed this "right of the declarant to build whatever he wants and the board has to live with it" theory been examined by an attorney and officially voted on by the board or it this simply someone's opinion?
dparker- Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-06-10
Age : 69
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum