HOAs foreclose on big banks

[Winehole23]

South Florida homeowner associations are foreclosing on some of the nation's largest banks, accusing the lenders of failing to pay thousands of dollars in maintenance fees on repossessed properties.


The foreclosure filings are a growing trend as associations become more aggressive in going after delinquent fees that have crippled HOA budgets during the housing bust.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/images/pixel.gif


http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/images/pixel.gif
Banks owe a portion of the past-due maintenance fees and the full amount from the date they take title to the property, attorneys said. If the lenders fall behind, they're subject to foreclosure just as an individual owner would be.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-12/features/fl-hoa-foreclose-banks-20120810_1_maintenance-fees-deutsche-bank-foreclosure-filings

[coyotes_geek]

..chuckle..

Pay up deadbeats!

[Blake]

Hard to figure who the lesser of the two evils is here.

Slight edge to Hoas as the lesser, I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

Hard to figure who the lesser of the two evils is here.

Slight edge to Hoas as the lesser, I guess.
Really?

Anyone owing a property covered under an HOA contract/agreement, etc. is bound by those rules.

I find this a great thing to do to teach these banks a lesson.

[Blake]

Really?

Anyone owing a property covered under an HOA contract/agreement, etc. is bound by those rules.

I find this a great thing to do to teach these banks a lesson.

No doubt there is no excuse for a bank that has foreclosed to not pay hoa dues or to let a property go without maintenance

But an HOA being able to take control of the property and ultimately sell it because the owner failed to live up to the contract is pure evil, imo.

[Wild Cobra]

No doubt there is no excuse for a bank that has foreclosed to not pay hoa dues or to let a property go without maintenance

But an HOA being able to take control of the property and ultimately sell it because the owner failed to live up to the contract is pure evil, imo.
I agree it's a bad contract for someone to sign. The fix... is not to sign such a contract.

[Blake]

I agree it's a bad contract for someone to sign. The fix... is not to sign such a contract.

Impossible to avoid if you buy a home in any subdivision built in the late 90s or later.

[vy65]

But an HOA being able to take control of the property and ultimately sell it because the owner failed to live up to the contract is pure evil, imo.

Huh? Why?

[Wild Cobra]

Impossible to avoid if you buy a home in any subdivision built in the late 90s or later.
Impossible?

I doubt that.

I am no fan of HOA's myself, but they do have theses provisions to keep everyone's house values from going down. If one home is allowed to rot, then what does it do to the neighboring values? The neighboring home values diminish, right?

[Blake]

Huh? Why?

Because, deed restrictions or not, the HOA shouldn't have the right to take over property in this manner.

[vy65]

Because, deed restrictions or not, the HOA shouldn't have the right to take over property in this manner.

Why?

Those are the terms the homeowner agreed to in the bylaws? Why shouldn't the HOA be able to enforce its contractual rights?

Are HOAs "taking over property" -- or just foreclosing on them (i.e., selling them off)?

[Blake]

Impossible?

I doubt that.

Honestly, I can't speak for the rest of the US, but if you can find a newly built subdivision without a forced HOA membership built into the contact here in San Antonio, please let me know.


I am no fan of HOA's myself, but they do have theses provisions to keep everyone's house values from going down. If one home is allowed to rot, then what does it do to the neighboring values? The neighboring home values diminish, right?

most cities have code compliance departments that handle dilapidated structures, so there is usually no need for an HOA rep to do anything there but play middle man........which they usually do any way (from personal experience).

[Blake]

Why?

Those are the terms the homeowner agreed to in the bylaws? Why shouldn't the HOA be able to enforce its contractual rights?

Are HOAs "taking over property" -- or just foreclosing on them (i.e., selling them off)?

This is just an example of what's currently wrong with HOAs:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Frisco-soldier-comes-home-to-find-home-sold-by-HOA-93829194.html

There are plenty more examples similar to that.

[vy65]

This is just an example of what's currently wrong with HOAs:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Frisco-soldier-comes-home-to-find-home-sold-by-HOA-93829194.html

There are plenty more examples similar to that.

You didn't answer my questions. This article doesn't provide any answer either.

Should people get in the habit of picking and choosing which debts they should pay without fear of recompense?

[vy65]

"When Michael went to Iraq, I went into a very bad depression," she said.

The mail piled up unopened and Mrs. Clauer missed $800 in payments to her HOA. Then she missed the letters saying the association planned to foreclose.

"I ignored a lot of our bills," she said.

lol some dumb bitch doesn't pay HOA dues and people are shocked that the HOA does something about it.

"I got depressed" isn't nor should it be a reason to escape your legal obligations.

[Blake]

You didn't answer my questions. This article doesn't provide any answer either.

Should people get in the habit of picking and choosing which debts they should pay without fear of recompense?

I did answer your question.

You asked why I think it's evil. I told you because they shouldn't be able to take control/sell off a home in this manner.

Nobody is saying they shouldn't have to pay their debts.

[vy65]

I did answer your question.

You asked why I think it's evil. I told you because they shouldn't be able to take control/sell off a home in this manner.

Nobody is saying they shouldn't have to pay their debts.

In what manner? The only matter here is: people fail to pay --> HOAs foreclose. That's the manner. Are you suggesting HOAs are acting deceitfully or fraudulently or otherwise shady? That's certainly not suggested in the depressed wife article.

It's ok to admit that you think people shouldn't have to pay their HOA dues.

[Blake]

In what manner? The only matter here is: people fail to pay --> HOAs foreclose. That's the manner. Are you suggesting HOAs are acting deceitfully or fraudulently or otherwise shady? That's certainly not suggested in the depressed wife article.

The point of that was that they were only $800 behind in HOA dues when the HOA took the house and sold it.


It's ok to admit that you think people shouldn't have to pay their HOA dues.

I think people should be allowed to purchase a home without being forced to join an HOA.

It's ok for you to continue to believe it's not evil to kick a military family out of a home over $800. Agree to disagree.

[vy65]

The point of that was that they were only $800 behind in HOA dues when the HOA took the house and sold it.


The mail piled up unopened and Mrs. Clauer missed $800 in payments to her HOA. Then she missed the letters saying the association planned to foreclose.

"I ignored a lot of our bills," she said.

Even after the HOA foreclosed and sold the home at auction, Mrs. Clauer didn't open the letters that said she had six months to get the home back, and that time lapsed, too.

Sounds like pure evil to me. Definitely not the result of some dumb depressed bitch's negligence.


I think people should be allowed to purchase a home without being forced to join an HOA.

Interesting but irrelevant.

And of all the people on this board, I figured you would be the one who'd be most concerned with holding people to their promises.

[ElNono]

I think there's a disconnect in this conversation... Blake didn't say it was illegal, he simply said he thought it was evil...

Legally speaking, if you enter into an agreement, obviously you'll be asked to keep your end of the deal or there will be consequences.

As a person that has been shopping for properties recently, I can also agree with the sentiment that it's getting increasingly harder to find relatively recent property that doesn't include a HOA... I've been purposely avoided them, because in general I like to do what I please with my property (obviously, within the city/township imposed limits).

[Blake]

Sounds like pure evil to me. Definitely not the result of some dumb depressed bitch's negligence.

I explained the real point of me posting it, but it went right past you.


Interesting but irrelevant.

:lol who are you to tell me what should be relevant to my opinion of evil?


And of all the people on this board, I figured you would be the one who'd be most concerned with holding people to their promises.

oh look. You resorted to taking a personal shot because you are failing to comprehend what is being said.

Neat!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You didn't answer my questions. This article doesn't provide any answer either.

Should people get in the habit of picking and choosing which debts they should pay without fear of recompense?

I think the better question is should any entity be able to take somebody's home as liability without even an inherent financial obligation.

It's a contract sure but the terms by which they are constructed are bullshit.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hard to figure who the lesser of the two evils is here.

Slight edge to Hoas as the lesser, I guess.

My first thought was: "Great. An HOA with an attitude." :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do find it funny that it is allowed to go on in a right to work state.

[Wild Cobra]

The point of that was that they were only $800 behind in HOA dues when the HOA took the house and sold it.



I think people should be allowed to purchase a home without being forced to join an HOA.

It's ok for you to continue to believe it's not evil to kick a military family out of a home over $800. Agree to disagree.
Grow up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Grow up.

Die horribly in a chemical fire.

[Blake]

Grow up.

I could say ”lol you're an idiot” per the usual with you, but I'm genuinely curious why you think my opinion is adolescent.

Explain yourself.

[Das Texan]

It's ok for you to continue to believe it's not evil to kick a military family out of a home over $800. Agree to disagree.

Why should that matter then?

So it would be ok to kick out a family out of their home if they are firefighters? bankers? sanitation workers? workers at a production plant of some sort? managers of a company?

If that doesnt matter, then why add in that its a military family being thrown out.

Or are the debts incurred by military families special and should we treat them in their own special category.

Just trying to wrap my head around your logic.

[vy65]

I think the better question is should any entity be able to take somebody's home as liability without even an inherent financial obligation.

It's a contract sure but the terms by which they are constructed are bullshit.

I dunno what you mean by inherent financial obligation, but HOAs develop financial interests in property (I.e., improvements, liens, etc...).

There's no duress. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract. Otherwise, why shouldn't you be stuck with your bullshit obligation?

[vy65]

I think there's a disconnect in this conversation... Blake didn't say it was illegal, he simply said he thought it was evil...

Legally speaking, if you enter into an agreement, obviously you'll be asked to keep your end of the deal or there will be consequences.

As a person that has been shopping for properties recently, I can also agree with the sentiment that it's getting increasingly harder to find relatively recent property that doesn't include a HOA... I've been purposely avoided them, because in general I like to do what I please with my property (obviously, within the city/township imposed limits).

Putting aside the inherently subjective nature of what constitutes evil, my point is that a party who, without duress knowingly signs onto the HOAs by laws, they've incurred a legal obligation that is not "evil." Theres no allegation of fraud, deception, or duress. In the example cited, the bitch flat out ignored the multiple notices given to her. She lost her house as a result. I don't see the evil in exercising a legal right when the other party does nothing because she's :cry.

[vy65]

The point of the OP was that HOAs are foreclosing on bank-owned property that has been neglected. Is that some kind of evil being visited upon the likes of JP Morgan and Citi? Does one example of a negligent bitch who didn't take her meds make HOAs illegal? Should I be able to get out of my mortgage, car note, etc ... because I'm sad and to otherwise hold me responsible is evil?

[ElNono]

Putting aside the inherently subjective nature of what constitutes evil, my point is that a party who, without duress knowingly signs onto the HOAs by laws, they've incurred a legal obligation that is not "evil." Theres no allegation of fraud, deception, or duress. In the example cited, the bitch flat out ignored the multiple notices given to her. She lost her house as a result. I don't see the evil in exercising a legal right when the other party does nothing because she's :cry.

Yeah, I'm not singling out that incident or even saying the "evil" applies to the legal obligation of keeping their end of the bargain. But I can see how it would be frustrating that it's becoming increasingly harder to purchase a fairly new property that isn't tied to a HOA. If you particularly don't like HOAs, it makes sense that you consider their proliferation "evil".

[vy65]

Yeah, I'm not singling out that incident or even saying the "evil" applies to the legal obligation of keeping their end of the bargain. But I can see how it would be frustrating that it's becoming increasingly harder to purchase a fairly new property that isn't tied to a HOA. If you particularly don't like HOAs, it makes sense that you consider their proliferation "evil".

Fair enough.

I use to live in Edison and Toms River. That near you?

[ElNono]

Fair enough.

I use to live in Edison and Toms River. That near you?

I'm right in-between... redbank area :lol

[symple19]

Hard to figure who the lesser of the two evils is here.

Slight edge to Hoas as the lesser, I guess.

this

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I dunno what you mean by inherent financial obligation, but HOAs develop financial interests in property (I.e., improvements, liens, etc...).

There's no duress. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract. Otherwise, why shouldn't you be stuck with your bullshit obligation?

As has been pointed out, there are almost no options to purchase a home without a HOA being involved. Your argument is about as compelling as the argument in non right to works states that if you don't want to join the union then you do not have to work. It's monopolistic bullshit.

I guess there is no duress in that situation either.....

As for inherent financial obligation, what I mean is that their liens, valuations of improvements etc are all arbitrarily created within the contract. they do not loan you the money. they just generate financial obligation on arbitrary standards. I put it on the same level as the banking industries shenanigans.

[vy65]

As has been pointed out, there are almost no options to purchase a home without a HOA being involved. Your argument is about as compelling as the argument in non right to works states that if you don't want to join the union then you do not have to work. It's monopolistic bullshit.

Except there are options -- you can buy an older house. It's not analogous to a monopoly. I don't know what the housing market is for "new" homes, but my point was simply that the prevalence of HOAs =|= evil.


As for inherent financial obligation, what I mean is that their liens, valuations of improvements etc are all arbitrarily created within the contract. they do not loan you the money. they just generate financial obligation on arbitrary standards. I put it on the same level as the banking industries shenanigans.

I don't know how a lien would be arbitrarily created. You need a financial obligation (dues) and a default. What's arbitrary about that?

As for the value of improvements, I'm unaware of any HOA provisions that deny homeowners a right to contest the valuation of any given improvement.

More to the point, just because an HOA doesn't loan you money directly doesn't mean that they don't add value to your home -- and -- that added value functions much like a loan (i.e., allowing you to benefit from home/residential area and any appreciation to wit).

There's no fraud, duress, deception, or anything of the like. It's hyperbolic to equate this with shit like robo-signing, the LIBOR scandel, or any other banking shenanigan.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except there are options -- you can buy an older house. It's not analogous to a monopoly. I don't know what the housing market is for "new" homes, but my point was simply that the prevalence of HOAs =|= evil.



I don't know how a lien would be arbitrarily created. You need a financial obligation (dues) and a default. What's arbitrary about that?

As for the value of improvements, I'm unaware of any HOA provisions that deny homeowners a right to contest the valuation of any given improvement.

More to the point, just because an HOA doesn't loan you money directly doesn't mean that they don't add value to your home -- and -- that added value functions much like a loan (i.e., allowing you to benefit from home/residential area and any appreciation to wit).

There's no fraud, duress, deception, or anything of the like. It's hyperbolic to equate this with shit like robo-signing, the LIBOR scandel, or any other banking shenanigan.

And you can move to a right to work state if you want to get a job as well. the new construction market is a well differentiated market and over and again I have read decisions that reject your reasoning.

The only thing that saves it is its done independently by developers.

I did not specify what shenanigans so nice strawman. I was thinking more along the lines of fees, surcharges, percentage based transaction fees and the like.

Those two thoughts made me think though. This comes from the developers. I am sure that there are consumers that want a HOA however I know that it is not 95%. This is smacks of collusion. A HOA in track housing? gmafb but that is common practice. It's obviously in a developers best interests to keep property valuations high because that means they can charge more for new construction.

This new viewpoint of home as investment is part of the problem anyway.

And there are other valuations other than monetary. For example, it's a common theme in property law that your possessions are your possessions. Control. HOA is ceding control and it's all but compulsory in new home construction today. Perhaps you do not value it but I do and a custom home is worth it. The lack of choice within the developer market is disturbing.

[Wild Cobra]

I could say ”lol you're an idiot” per the usual with you, but I'm genuinely curious why you think my opinion is adolescent.

Explain yourself




The point of that was that they were only $800 behind in HOA dues when the HOA took the house and sold it.

They signed a contract. Her failure to ever look at the bill is her fault.


I think people should be allowed to purchase a home without being forced to join an HOA.

Nobody is forced to sign shit. Part of the reason such properties are so attractive is because of diligence on the HOA's part.


It's ok for you to continue to believe it's not evil to kick a military family out of a home over $800. Agree to disagree.
Evil or not is not legal or illegal. Now I would say that someone should have knocked on her door and made sure she knew. You would think in such a community it would have. Maybe there is something kissing from the story. Keep in kind, you are only hearing one side.

I say grow up, because you seem to thing a signed contract doesn't matter. I would probably never buy a home that falls under a HOA.

There had to be some kind of certified correspondence sent before this took place also.

Again, I seriously doubt we are seeing all the facts behind this case.

[coyotes_geek]

I really want to live in this neighborhood with all the community amenities like swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, walking trails and picnic areas but it's so unfair that I'm forced to be a part of the big meany HOA that's funding it all.....

[Drachen]

As has been pointed out, there are almost no options to purchase a home without a HOA being involved. Your argument is about as compelling as the argument in non right to works states that if you don't want to join the union then you do not have to work. It's monopolistic bullshit.

I guess there is no duress in that situation either.....

As for inherent financial obligation, what I mean is that their liens, valuations of improvements etc are all arbitrarily created within the contract. they do not loan you the money. they just generate financial obligation on arbitrary standards. I put it on the same level as the banking industries shenanigans.

I bought a home (a good one) that wasn't in an HOA. I wasn't even trying. (then again, my wife and I discussed that we preferred a non-boring floor plan and trees so that immediately axed any houses built in the last 15 to 20 years.

[RandomGuy]

lol some dumb bitch doesn't pay HOA dues and people are shocked that the HOA does something about it.

"I got depressed" isn't nor should it be a reason to escape your legal obligations.

If you weren't such a judgemental fuck who has to feel superior to others based on a two sentence snippet, you might do a bit of reading for context.

The $800 debt balooned into a $3500 penalty, and a fully paid for 300,000 house was sold, (shocker), to a friend of one of the HOA directors for $3,500, who then turned around and sold it for $180,000 or so.

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be to seize a house for $300,000?

Is that what you are saying was the right outcome here?

People like you who place more emphasis on feeling better about themselves by crowing about others' perceived moral failings are part of the intellectual and spiritual rot of this country.

You make me sick, counselor. Legal and ethical do not always intersect, but hey, anything for a dollar. You will make a great lawyer. (spits)

[vy65]

I really want to live in this neighborhood with all the community amenities like swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, walking trails and picnic areas but it's so unfair that I'm forced to be a part of the big meany HOA that's funding it all.....

Evil, tbh

[vy65]

If you weren't such a judgemental fuck who has to feel superior to others based on a two sentence snippet, you might do a bit of reading for context.

Wow, ok. But like, you don't know me bro.


The $800 debt balooned into a $3500 penalty, and a fully paid for 300,000 house was sold, (shocker), to a friend of one of the HOA directors for $3,500, who then turned around and sold it for $180,000 or so.

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be to seize a house for $300,000?

Is that what you are saying was the right outcome here?

Yes, that's what I've been saying. That is the correct legal outcome (with the caveat of me not having read the HOA bylaws).


People like you who place more emphasis on feeling better about themselves by crowing about others' perceived moral failings are part of the intellectual and spiritual rot of this country.

You make me sick, counselor. Legal and ethical do not always intersect, but hey, anything for a dollar. You will make a great lawyer. (spits)

I'm pretty impressed that you can tell what I place emphasis on by reading a few responses on an internet forum.

The only thing I'm saying is that :cry girl had a legal obligation to pay her dues -- she didn't despite several notices. She has to deal with the consequences of not living up to her promise. Do you think that she shouldn't bear those consequences and be above the law?

lol spit

[Das Texan]

I'm sure in the HOA bylaws it lays out the procedures for not paying HOA dues and what they will do.

Ignoring bills is usually a good way to make them go away anyway.

[vy65]

This new viewpoint of home as investment is part of the problem anyway.

?


And there are other valuations other than monetary. For example, it's a common theme in property law that your possessions are your possessions. Control. HOA is ceding control and it's all but compulsory in new home construction today. Perhaps you do not value it but I do and a custom home is worth it. The lack of choice within the developer market is disturbing.

I think your understanding of property is wrong. There are very few instances where people have fee simple absolute in their property estates. They've alienated certain rights (via lease, easement, license, reversionary interests, etc..) to their property to others via contract. I don't see how that is "compulsory" much less evil. You still get value for it (i.e., all those things cg identified).

[Blake]

Why should that matter then?

So it would be ok to kick out a family out of their home if they are firefighters? bankers? sanitation workers? workers at a production plant of some sort? managers of a company?

If that doesnt matter, then why add in that its a military family being thrown out.

Or are the debts incurred by military families special and should we treat them in their own special category.

Just trying to wrap my head around your logic.

it's evil regardless of what family it might happen to, to be sure.

I think doing it to a military family is extra evil.

[Blake]

Does one example of a negligent bitch who didn't take her meds make HOAs illegal?

Nobody said they want to make HOAs illegal.


Should I be able to get out of my mortgage, car note, etc ... because I'm sad and to otherwise hold me responsible is evil?

again, nobody made that assertion. Why are you continuing to make these faulty assumptions about my reasoning when I have explicitly stated otherwise?

Is this something they taught you to do in law school?

Chilling if true.

[vy65]

Nobody said they want to make HOAs illegal.

Was on my phone. Meant to type evil.


again, nobody made that assertion. Why are you continuing to make these faulty assumptions about my reasoning when I have explicitly stated otherwise?

Is this something they taught you to do in law school?

Chilling if true.

Sure you made that assertion. At least twice.


But an HOA being able to take control of the property and ultimately sell it because the owner failed to live up to the contract is pure evil, imo.


Because, deed restrictions or not, the HOA shouldn't have the right to take over property in this manner.

bl:lolke

[Blake]

I dunno what you mean by inherent financial obligation, but HOAs develop financial interests in property (I.e., improvements, liens, etc...).

There's no duress. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract. Otherwise, why shouldn't you be stuck with your bullshit obligation?

if I want to buy a piece of land, why should I be forced into an agreement with an HOA to forfeit my property if I don't pay their membership dues?

I shouldn't have to be a member if I don't want to be.

[vy65]

if I want to buy a piece of land, why should I be forced into an agreement with an HOA to forfeit my property if I don't pay their membership dues?

I shouldn't have to be a member if I don't want to be.

Because, in your hypothetical, that piece of land is subject to an HOA - and - a precondition to the purchase is membership in the HOA. Being a member of the HOA makes you subject to its bylaws.

Should a buyer be able to dictate the terms on which a seller sells his land?

[Blake]

Was on my phone. Meant to type evil.



Sure you made that assertion. At least twice.





bl:lolke

your reading comprehension skills blow, counselor.

[vy65]

lol resorting to reading comp smack when shown statements you deny making
lol sticking up for the oppressed housewife
lol cuck
lol http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202234

Bl:lolke

[Blake]

Because, in your hypothetical, that piece of land is subject to an HOA - and - a precondition to the purchase is membership in the HOA. Being a member of the HOA makes you subject to its bylaws.

It's an evil precondition


Should a buyer be able to dictate the terms on which a seller sells his land?

In this manner, no, imo.

It's evil.

[coyotes_geek]

The $800 debt balooned into a $3500 penalty, and a fully paid for 300,000 house was sold, (shocker), to a friend of one of the HOA directors for $3,500, who then turned around and sold it for $180,000 or so.

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be to seize a house for $300,000?

Is that what you are saying was the right outcome here?

Per the article she had 6 months after foreclosure to get the house back. I'd think it's safe to assume that it took at least another 6 months to get from the original bill showing up in her mailbox to the foreclosure becoming official. No mention in the article about a financial hardship. No mention about any utilities getting cut off, so apparently she managed to ensure that those bills were getting paid. No effort on her part to contact the HOA at all to explain her situation and ask for assistance. Basically, she just decided to blow off her HOA for a year or more.

So, having said all that, what is the right outcome here, in your opinion?

[Blake]

lol resorting to reading comp smack when shown statements you deny making
lol sticking up for the oppressed housewife
lol cuck
lol http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202234

Bl:lolke

no smack on my part.

I never said or alluded to the notion that HOAs should be illegal. Thus your reading skills blow.

It sure didn't take you long to go right back to downstairs level trash talk.

Par for your course.

[vy65]

I never said or alluded to the notion that HOAs should be illegal. Thus your reading skills blow.

I never said they were illegal. That was a typo. You might wanna double check on what was said in this thread before throwing out more reading comp smack.

What you did, in several places, allude to was the ability of HOAs to foreclose on someone's home being evil.


No doubt there is no excuse for a bank that has foreclosed to not pay hoa dues or to let a property go without maintenance

But an HOA being able to take control of the property and ultimately sell it because the owner failed to live up to the contract is pure evil, imo.


Because, deed restrictions or not, the HOA shouldn't have the right to take over property in this manner.


It's an evil precondition

In this manner, no, imo.

It's evil.

Given the facts of the article you posted -- my question to you was -- should I be able to get out of my legal obligations because I'm 1) sad and 2) think the counter-party is evil? Clearly your answer is yes, even though you refuse to give a straight-forward answer.

[coyotes_geek]

It's an evil precondition

So don't buy that specific piece of land. Problem solved.

[Blake]

Evil or not is not legal or illegal.

Right. Who implied otherwise?


I say grow up, because you seem to thing a signed contract doesn't matter. I would probably never buy a home that falls under a HOA.

so you've never dealt with HOAs and obviously know very little about the San Antonio housing market.

Thanks for confirming your chiding was coming from ignorant ass talking.

[Blake]

So don't buy that specific piece of land. Problem solved.

As I said before, it is nearly impossible to buy a newer home without being forced into an HOA in San Antonio.

I guess I could just move to a different city or an old house in an old neighborhood. Problem of evil HOA solved.

[Blake]

I really want to live in this neighborhood with all the community amenities like swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, walking trails and picnic areas but it's so unfair that I'm forced to be a part of the big meany HOA that's funding it all.....

it's unfair, nay, evil to lose your house if you fail to help pay for the tennis court, imo.

[coyotes_geek]

As I said before, it is nearly impossible to buy a newer home without being forced into an HOA in San Antonio.

I guess I could just move to a different city or an old house in an old neighborhood. Problem of evil HOA solved.

The shortage of developers and neighborhoods under an obligation to cater to your individual desires can make life complicated.

[coyotes_geek]

it's unfair, nay, evil to lose your house if you fail to help pay for the tennis court, imo.

She could have just paid the bill..........

[Blake]

The shortage of developers and neighborhoods under an obligation to cater to your individual desires can make life complicated.

such a severe penalty is more than just ” catering to my desires”

It's evil. Imo.

[RandomGuy]

Wow, ok. But like, you don't know me bro.



Yes, that's what I've been saying. That is the correct legal outcome (with the caveat of me not having read the HOA bylaws).



I'm pretty impressed that you can tell what I place emphasis on by reading a few responses on an internet forum.

The only thing I'm saying is that :cry girl had a legal obligation to pay her dues -- she didn't despite several notices. She has to deal with the consequences of not living up to her promise. Do you think that she shouldn't bear those consequences and be above the law?

lol spit

Right over your head I see.

You didn't answer the important question, and stuck to the emotional argument that appeals to your ego.

Shocker.

[vy65]

Right over your head I see.

You didn't answer the important question, and stuck to the emotional argument that appeals to your ego.

Shocker.

You're really pissy today, what's wrong bro?

I thought I answered your question. If I didn't, ask it one more time.

[Blake]

She could have just paid the bill..........

The HOA could have just sued her for non payment

[RandomGuy]

Since the good counselor prefers to answer the question he wants to, rather than what was asked, perhaps the people reading can answer a simple yes or no question:

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be the loss of a $300,000 house that was fully owned, free and clear?

[RandomGuy]

You're really pissy today, what's wrong bro?

I thought I answered your question. If I didn't, ask it one more time.

I have decided that judgmental bullshit is not something I have the patience for anymore.

Perhaps you want to blame rape victims for wearing short skirts for an encore?

[vy65]

I told you before, the answer to your question is yes



The $800 debt balooned into a $3500 penalty, and a fully paid for 300,000 house was sold, (shocker), to a friend of one of the HOA directors for $3,500, who then turned around and sold it for $180,000 or so.

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be to seize a house for $300,000?

Is that what you are saying was the right outcome here?



Yes, that's what I've been saying. That is the correct legal outcome (with the caveat of me not having read the HOA bylaws).

Now answer me this: why are you so frothy today?

Lol moral rot

[vy65]

I have decided that judgmental bullshit is not something I have the patience for anymore.

Perhaps you want to blame rape victims for wearing short skirts for an encore?

How short are we talking here?

Forgive me for thinking that people should be held accountable to their legal obligations, especially after several notices of default on said obligations. I guess I'm what's wrong with this country :cry

[coyotes_geek]

such a severe penalty is more than just ” catering to my desires”

It's evil. Imo.

Read your mail at least once a year and you won't have to worry about it.

[Trainwreck2100]

most HOA's are evil
All banks are Evil

[coyotes_geek]

The HOA could have just sued her for non payment

They did. It's called foreclosure.

[Bill_Brasky]

Since the good counselor prefers to answer the question he wants to, rather than what was asked, perhaps the people reading can answer a simple yes or no question:

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be the loss of a $300,000 house that was fully owned, free and clear?

Absolutely not. HOAs aren't a bad concept, but they are executed/regulated very poorly and are open to a lot of shady dealings and corruption.

[Das Texan]

if I want to buy a piece of land, why should I be forced into an agreement with an HOA to forfeit my property if I don't pay their membership dues?

I shouldn't have to be a member if I don't want to be.


because someone that owned the land decided that would be a condition in order to sell said land.

besides, the same principle exists when it comes to property taxes.

[Blake]

Read your mail at least once a year and you won't have to worry about it.

and also the fine print in the contract

[LnGrrrR]

Since the good counselor prefers to answer the question he wants to, rather than what was asked, perhaps the people reading can answer a simple yes or no question:

Should the penalty for not paying $800 in dues be the loss of a $300,000 house that was fully owned, free and clear?

Good question.

[Das Texan]

it's evil regardless of what family it might happen to, to be sure.

I think doing it to a military family is extra evil.


so then the evilness of a non military family in the same boat is what

6 out of 10 on the evil scale as opposed to a 10 out of 10 for a military family or whatever?

[vy65]

Good question.

Except that it leaves out some pretty important facts.

[Das Texan]

Good question.


What if its $10,000 in back taxes.

Is it ok to foreclose at that level? There has to be some level where it is ok, right?

[vy65]

so then the evilness of a non military family in the same boat is what

6 out of 10 on the evil scale as opposed to a 10 out of 10 for a military family or whatever?

Clearly, some negligent depressed bitch should be above the law because her bully of a husband is killing islams on some god-forsaken desert halfway around the world.

:cry they fight for our freedoms :cry

[vy65]

no offense lngrr

[Das Texan]

Clearly, some negligent depressed bitch should be above the law because her bully of a husband is killing islams on some god-forsaken desert halfway around the world.

:cry they fight for our freedoms :cry



at least the poor wifey is falling in line with old school thinking of being dependent on her husband for everything in her life.

:cool


I smell a rat though unless every fucking bill was unpaid.

[vy65]

Seriously, I'd love to live in this fantasy world where I somehow become a champion of civil rights by refusing to pay my bills because I feel :cry

[Das Texan]

I'm going to stop paying my bills I think. That will show them!

[Blake]

because someone that owned the land decided that would be a condition in order to sell said land.

An evil someone.


besides, the same principle exists when it comes to property taxes.

in some ways, that's evil too.

Even then,
the tax principle exists across the board equally for all property owners that go to direct goods and services.

I live in a subdivision that has public streets, no gates, no parks and no pools. My forced HOA fees go to a management company whose main office is out of Arizona if I'm not mistaken.

They take in at least $20k+ a year from my subdivision, probably more, and all I directly see from this is a maintained entrance to the front of the subdivision and a neighborhood picnic three times a year.

The rest of the money obviously is pocketed by the association company.

It's a scam in the name of property value and maintenance.

Evil stuff.

[Das Texan]

An evil someone.



in some ways, that's evil too.

Even then,
the tax principle exists across the board equally for all property owners that go to direct goods and services.

I live in a subdivision that has public streets, no gates, no parks and no pools. My forced HOA fees go to a management company whose main office is out of Arizona if I'm not mistaken.

They take in at least $20k+ a year from my subdivision, probably more, and all I directly see from this is a maintained entrance to the front of the subdivision and a neighborhood picnic three times a year.

The rest of the money obviously is pocketed by the association company.

It's a scam in the name of property value and maintenance.

Evil stuff.

well then you live in a fucking shitty HOA, should have probably done more research before buying your home.

mine provides real services like security and what not (pools, basketball courts, tennis courts, et al). well worth the 230 bucks i pay a year.

[Das Texan]

An evil someone.





but wasnt that within their rights to do as they please with their private property?

[vy65]

:lol

I get a gym, pool, 24 hour securituy, several open areas, happy hours, and some other shit that I don't even know about.

Bl:lolke

[Blake]

Except that it leaves out some pretty important facts.

na, the question is fine on it's own because that's exactly what happened.

[Blake]

but wasnt that within their rights to do as they please with their private property?

how about if it's in the contract that you must refuse to allow blacks on the property?

[coyotes_geek]

na, the question is fine on it's own because that's exactly what happened.

Her deliberate decision not to read any of the certified letters the HOA was sending her over several months is a pretty important fact to be aware of..........

[Blake]

well then you live in a fucking shitty HOA, should have probably done more research before buying your home.

mine provides real services like security and what not (pools, basketball courts, tennis courts, et al). well worth the 230 bucks i pay a year.

I don't want an HOA at all, but I also didn't want to move into an older neighborhood.

If you can find a neighborhood with homes built in the last ten years or so without built in HOAs, let me know, thanks.

[coyotes_geek]

how about if it's in the contract that you must refuse to allow blacks on the property?

:lmao

[Blake]

Her deliberate decision not to read any of the certified letters the HOA was sending her over several months is a pretty important fact to be aware of..........

Nope. Not relevant to the question of ”does the punishment fit the crime”

[Blake]

:lmao

I'm just curious if he really is Rand Paul crazy as he sounds

[LnGrrrR]

Except that it leaves out some pretty important facts.

Not really. Let's leave out the current contract for the moment. We know that people can sign contracts that detriment them, and that's their fault.

The question is... should HOA contracts exist as constituted, where one could forfeit a home that was paid for? Or should that homeowner be reconstituted for their loss?

Not paying $800 in dues and losing a $300,000 home sounds a bit one-sided to me.

[Blake]

:lol

I get a gym, pool, 24 hour securituy, several open areas, happy hours, and some other shit that I don't even know about.

Bl:lolke

more downstairs IQ level posting.

neat :tu

[Das Texan]

how about if it's in the contract that you must refuse to allow blacks on the property?


Federal law took care of that in the 60s. Prior to that it was perfectly legal.


Go cry to the Do Nothing Congress to actually do something.

[LnGrrrR]

What if its $10,000 in back taxes.

Is it ok to foreclose at that level? There has to be some level where it is ok, right?

That would seem fairer, yes. I see it as a good question because frankly I'm not a homeowner, and don't plan on being one until I get out of the military. So all this stuff is good reading for me. :)

[coyotes_geek]

Nope. Not relevant to the question of ”does the punishment fit the crime”

Of course it's relevant. Unless of course you want HOA's to start treating payments that are 1 day late the same as ones that are 1 year late.

[Das Texan]

I don't want an HOA at all, but I also didn't want to move into an older neighborhood.

If you can find a neighborhood with homes built in the last ten years or so without built in HOAs, let me know, thanks.


You are dealing with a market based issue.


You won't find that in tract built housing. Its part of the game, they are selling you on the entire package, not just the pieces you want.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm just curious if he really is Rand Paul crazy as he sounds

He's not the one sounding crazy.........

[Blake]

Federal law took care of that in the 60s. Prior to that it was perfectly legal.

don't have any idea what point you are making.


Go cry to the Do Nothing Congress to actually do something.

I might if I thought it would really make a difference.

Guess what Senator John Carona owns!

http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/State-Senator-defends-HOA--122680849.html

[Blake]

He's not the one sounding crazy.........

He just told me to go cry to the Do Nothing Congress.

Perfectly sane comment!

[Blake]

You are dealing with a market based issue.


You won't find that in tract built housing. Its part of the game, they are selling you on the entire package, not just the pieces you want.

It's a shitty game with shitty rules.

It's evil.

[Clipper Nation]

how about if it's in the contract that you must refuse to allow blacks on the property?
Like everything else an HOA does, that would violate the homeowner's private property rights, tbh....

[Das Texan]

That would seem fairer, yes. I see it as a good question because frankly I'm not a homeowner, and don't plan on being one until I get out of the military. So all this stuff is good reading for me. :)



5 grand?


Because thats about where we were at with this HOA stuff after all the late fees and fines and what not from what I'm reading.

[vy65]

Not really. Let's leave out the current contract for the moment. We know that people can sign contracts that detriment them, and that's their fault.

The question is... should HOA contracts exist as constituted, where one could forfeit a home that was paid for? Or should that homeowner be reconstituted for their loss?

Not paying $800 in dues and losing a $300,000 home sounds a bit one-sided to me.


Of course it's relevant. Unless of course you want HOA's to start treating payments that are 1 day late the same as ones that are 1 year late.

Talking about the fairness of foreclosure without reference to the details concerning notice given is like talking about classical music without reference to Mozart.

[Das Texan]

don't have any idea what point you are making.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/State-Senator-defends-HOA--122680849.html

Federal government instituted Fair Housing Laws where you could no longer be denied housing based on race (among other things)

Prior to that you could deed restrict neighborhoods to races (and other things).

My grandparents subdivision was one.

[vy65]

more downstairs IQ level posting.

neat :tu

How's me telling you about my amenities in order to make you realize you got a shitty deal on a house downstairs level posting?

[vy65]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer

Bl:lolke

[Das Texan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer

Bl:lolke


That too.

I guess you could just file a federal lawsuit and hope it makes its way to the Supreme Court declaring that HOA's should be deemed either a. voluntary or b. illegal.

[LnGrrrR]

Talking about the fairness of foreclosure without reference to the details concerning notice given is like talking about classical music without reference to Mozart.

And talking about it without reference to the amount owed seems silly as well. What if the fee owed was $10? Even if the woman didn't respond to months worth of collections, would you agree that it's reasonable to forfeit a $300,000 home over $10 of unpaid debt?

[vy65]

And talking about it without reference to the amount owed seems silly as well. What if the fee owed was $10? Even if the woman didn't respond to months worth of collections, would you agree that it's reasonable to forfeit a $300,000 home over $10 of unpaid debt?

You're mixing issues.

Your original point was that RG's question was a fair characterization of what happened. Now it seems you think it isn't a fair characterization because it ignores the fact that this bitch was getting a year's worth of notice about the foreclosure.

To answer your question -- if I were receiving a years worth of notices saying that if I don't pay my $10.00 fee to the HOA they will foreclose -- yes, I do think that it's reasonable for the HOA to foreclose. I think the issue would be different if little to no notice were provided to me in the case of a $10.00 debt.

[coyotes_geek]

Not really. Let's leave out the current contract for the moment. We know that people can sign contracts that detriment them, and that's their fault.

The question is... should HOA contracts exist as constituted, where one could forfeit a home that was paid for? Or should that homeowner be reconstituted for their loss?

Not paying $800 in dues and losing a $300,000 home sounds a bit one-sided to me.

The challenge is that your property is the only asset an HOA can file a lien against to ensure that they get paid. It's not like the HOA has a legal avenue to take the "less evil" approach and just "foreclose" on your car to pay off your debt.

So while I agree that it is one sided to foreclose on a $300,000 dollar house just to collect an $800 debt, the HOA is legally entitled to collect on that debt and without a homeowner willing to work with them towards making a different arrangement there's nothing other than the house for them to attach to. Is that a sucky situation for a homeowner to be in? Yeah, it would be, but it's also one you'll only end up in through gross negligence on your own behalf.

[coyotes_geek]

And talking about it without reference to the amount owed seems silly as well. What if the fee owed was $10? Even if the woman didn't respond to months worth of collections, would you agree that it's reasonable to forfeit a $300,000 home over $10 of unpaid debt?

If the HOA thinks it's reasonable to foreclose over a $10 debt that's their legal right. That would also be a testament to the homeowners stupidity for not reading their mail.

[LnGrrrR]

You're mixing issues. Perhaps I am. Let's clear that up. :tu


Your original point was that RG's question was a fair characterization of what happened. Now it seems you think it isn't a fair characterization because it ignores the fact that this bitch was getting a year's worth of notice about the foreclosure.

I'm looking at RG's question in a vacuum. Yes, this woman already signed the contract, so until they invalidate that, she's screwed and yes she's dumb for not opening the bills.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure types like you can answer this, but aren't there contracts that are found to be illegal due to being one-sided, unfair, etc etc? This seems like one of those cases. Now, I'm not sure about the specifics that would make it fair (how much would be owed, how long a time in default, etc etc), but having to give up a house you OWN (in theory) just rubs me the wrong way.


To answer your question -- if I were receiving a years worth of notices saying that if I don't pay my $10.00 fee to the HOA they will foreclose -- yes, I do think that it's reasonable for the HOA to foreclose. I think the issue would be different if little to no notice were provided to me in the case of a $10.00 debt.

See, to me, even if you didn't pay that $10 dollars for 5 years, giving up a $300,000 house doesn't seem like a reasonable solution. Now, I don't mind hitting them with lawyer fees or things of that nature, which would run the debt up quite a bit. Jut sending out notices, even if there are quite a few, seems to me like not enough due diligence... I would think at least a phone call or two would be in order if they were going to repossess your house. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

The challenge is that your property is the only asset an HOA can file a lien against to ensure that they get paid. It's not like the HOA has a legal avenue to take the "less evil" approach and just "foreclose" on your car to pay off your debt.

So while I agree that it is one sided to foreclose on a $300,000 dollar house just to collect an $800 debt, the HOA is legally entitled to collect on that debt and without a homeowner willing to work with them towards making a different arrangement there's nothing other than the house for them to attach to. Is that a sucky situation for a homeowner to be in? Yeah, it would be, but it's also one you'll only end up in through gross negligence on your own behalf.

That sounds like a strange way to do business. Couldn't they just take them to court? *shrug* It's laws like this which make me wait until I'm settled down to buy a house, and not try to flip stuff like a lot of military members do. :lol

[Blake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer

Bl:lolke


That too.

I guess you could just file a federal lawsuit and hope it makes its way to the Supreme Court declaring that HOA's should be deemed either a. voluntary or b. illegal.

So it was not evil until 1948 when the Supreme Court said so.

vy65 still doesn't get it.

[insert many funny emoticons]

[coyotes_geek]

That sounds like a strange way to do business. Couldn't they just take them to court? *shrug* It's laws like this which make me wait until I'm settled down to buy a house, and not try to flip stuff like a lot of military members do. :lol

They are taking them to court. Foreclosure is done through the legal system. Even before it gets to foreclosure the HOA has to go to court to prove the debt is valid in order to get a lien against the property.

[Wild Cobra]

I really want to live in this neighborhood with all the community amenities like swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, walking trails and picnic areas but it's so unfair that I'm forced to be a part of the big meany HOA that's funding it all.....
Don't you just love the entitlement mentality.

[Das Texan]

See, to me, even if you didn't pay that $10 dollars for 5 years, giving up a $300,000 house doesn't seem like a reasonable solution. Now, I don't mind hitting them with lawyer fees or things of that nature, which would run the debt up quite a bit. Jut sending out notices, even if there are quite a few, seems to me like not enough due diligence... I would think at least a phone call or two would be in order if they were going to repossess your house. :lol


You send it certified mail because then you have a paper trail. I assume notices were sent via certified mail because then that protects you in court from the 'I never got them' defense. Same thing with a phone call, there is no paper trail. There is a reason why things are done in the mail and not via a phone call. Phone calls dont work. Simple as that, and they can easily be overturned as evidence in a court room. Certified mail, not so much.

[Das Texan]

So it was not evil until 1948 when the Supreme Court said so.

vy65 still doesn't get it.

[insert many funny emoticons]


using that logic, HOAs are not evil. The Supreme Court has not struck them down in any case yet.

[vy65]

I'm looking at RG's question in a vacuum. Yes, this woman already signed the contract, so until they invalidate that, she's screwed and yes she's dumb for not opening the bills.

See, the thing is, you can't look at the question in a vacuum if that means focusing on the amount owed while ignoring the notice given. The whole point of receiving (multiple) notice(s) in a situation like this is to be given multiple opportunities to pay a debt that's owed. It's your right to cure a default and from the sounds of it, it seems like she was given multiple chances to do so. Plus, there's no allegation that the debt was fraudulent, paid off, or otherwise not owed. Like you said, she's signed a contract and has agreed to pay the HOA its dues.

More to the point, she was negligent, by her own admission, in not opening her bills. It's not like she was disabled, or incapacitated, or otherwise unable to open those bills - and receive the HOA's notice. She was feeling blue. Thinking the HOA is some evil monster in this instance is totally myopic because it let's a negligent dumb irresponsible bitch off the hook.

That's really a long way of saying - we're in agreement so far (sans the business about looking at this in a vacuum).


I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure types like you can answer this, but aren't there contracts that are found to be illegal due to being one-sided, unfair, etc etc? This seems like one of those cases. Now, I'm not sure about the specifics that would make it fair (how much would be owed, how long a time in default, etc etc), but having to give up a house you OWN (in theory) just rubs me the wrong way.

If I remember right and understand your question - you're referring to the doctrine of unconscionability. Here's a description:


An unconscionable contract has been defined as one which "is so grossly unreasonable or unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of the time and place as to be unenforcible according to its literal terms. (See 1 Corbin on Contracts, § 128, p. 400.)" (Mandel v Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88, 94.) The doctrine, which is rooted in equitable principles, is a flexible one and the concept of unconscionability is "intended to be sensitive to the realities and nuances of the bargaining process" (Matter of State of New York v Avco Fin. Serv., 50 N.Y.2d 383, 389-390). A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made — i.e., "some showing of an `absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party'

Gillman v. Chase Manhattan, 73 NY 2d 1 - NY: Court of Appeals 1988

As you can see from the legal standard, there's really no way to claim that this obligation is unconscionable.


See, to me, even if you didn't pay that $10 dollars for 5 years, giving up a $300,000 house doesn't seem like a reasonable solution. Now, I don't mind hitting them with lawyer fees or things of that nature, which would run the debt up quite a bit. Jut sending out notices, even if there are quite a few, seems to me like not enough due diligence... I would think at least a phone call or two would be in order if they were going to repossess your house. :lol

I get where you're coming from. However, legally speaking, it doesn't matter how "big" or "small" this bitch's breach has to be. Legally, a default is a default and not paying $1.00 or $100,000 triggers the same rights in the HOA.

If that doesn't seem right to you, keep in mind what CG said - you'd have to be extremely negligent to get to a place where you get foreclosed for not paying a small debt. In this case, losing the home is entirely on :cry bitch :cry.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. Let's leave out the current contract for the moment. We know that people can sign contracts that detriment them, and that's their fault.

The question is... should HOA contracts exist as constituted, where one could forfeit a home that was paid for? Or should that homeowner be reconstituted for their loss?

Not paying $800 in dues and losing a $300,000 home sounds a bit one-sided to me.
Change the law.

Should congress be able to spend us into debt?

[vy65]

So it was not evil until 1948 when the Supreme Court said so.

vy65 still doesn't get it.

[insert many funny emoticons]

you're so fucking stupid it's unbelievable

[LnGrrrR]

They are taking them to court. Foreclosure is done through the legal system. Even before it gets to foreclosure the HOA has to go to court to prove the debt is valid in order to get a lien against the property.

Ah ok. (Seriously, I obviously know nothing specific about buying/owning/selling a home. :lol)

So not only did this woman get notices from the HOA, she must've gotten them from the court as well, correct? Every time I've had to go to court I got notices from the court itself. (This is assuming that her presence is requested for this meeting, which would seem an obvious invite.)

[Das Texan]

See, the thing is, you can't look at the question in a vacuum if that means focusing on the amount owed while ignoring the notice given. The whole point of receiving (multiple) notice(s) in a situation like this is to be given multiple opportunities to pay a debt that's owed. It's your right to cure a default and from the sounds of it, it seems like she was given multiple chances to do so. Plus, there's no allegation that the debt was fraudulent, paid off, or otherwise not owed. Like you said, she's signed a contract and has agreed to pay the HOA its dues.

More to the point, she was negligent, by her own admission, in not opening her bills. It's not like she was disabled, or incapacitated, or otherwise unable to open those bills - and receive the HOA's notice. She was feeling blue. Thinking the HOA is some evil monster in this instance is totally myopic because it let's a negligent dumb irresponsible bitch off the hook.

That's really a long way of saying - we're in agreement so far (sans the business about looking at this in a vacuum).



If I remember right and understand your question - you're referring to the doctrine of unconscionability. Here's a description:



Gillman v. Chase Manhattan, 73 NY 2d 1 - NY: Court of Appeals 1988

As you can see from the legal standard, there's really no way to claim that this obligation is unconscionable.



I get where you're coming from. However, legally speaking, it doesn't matter how "big" or "small" this bitch's breach has to be. Legally, a default is a default and not paying $1.00 or $100,000 triggers the same rights in the HOA.

If that doesn't seem right to you, keep in mind what CG said - you'd have to be extremely negligent to get to a place where you get foreclosed for not paying a small debt. In this case, losing the home is entirely on :cry bitch :cry.

and to follow up, maybe said soldier shouldnt have married such an irresponsible bitch or when he was sent off to war named someone responsible to handle his debts and this would never have happened.

[vy65]

They are taking them to court. Foreclosure is done through the legal system. Even before it gets to foreclosure the HOA has to go to court to prove the debt is valid in order to get a lien against the property.

And, at the hearing on foreclosure, she could have shown up, written an $800.00 check, and still kept her house. So not only did she ignore all the notice provided her by the HOA, she ignored a court summons telling her that he house was about to be taken away.

[Wild Cobra]

That sounds like a strange way to do business. Couldn't they just take them to court? *shrug* It's laws like this which make me wait until I'm settled down to buy a house, and not try to flip stuff like a lot of military members do. :lol
That would have been part of the process, but to also ignore certified letters of a court notice and be a no-show in court, the court couldn't arbitrate. The court would have no choice but rule for the plaintiff.

Would you prefer the police hunt her down, put her in cuffs, and take her to a court hearing?

[vy65]

and to follow up, maybe said soldier shouldnt have married such an irresponsible bitch or when he was sent off to war named someone responsible to handle his debts and this would never have happened.

tbh I bet she was pretty hot

maybe she wore some of those short skirts RG was talking bout?

[coyotes_geek]

Ah ok. (Seriously, I obviously know nothing specific about buying/owning/selling a home. :lol)

So not only did this woman get notices from the HOA, she must've gotten them from the court as well, correct? Every time I've had to go to court I got notices from the court itself. (This is assuming that her presence is requested for this meeting, which would seem an obvious invite.)

Pretty much.

[coyotes_geek]

And, at the hearing on foreclosure, she could have shown up, written an $800.00 check, and still kept her house. So not only did she ignore all the notice provided her by the HOA, she ignored a court summons telling her that he house was about to be taken away.

Yep. She ignored the HOA for months, yet still found a way to keep the lights on and pay her property taxes (you can be damn sure the County would have been after her had she not paid those). Basically, she just decided she was going to blow off the HOA.

[LnGrrrR]

That's really a long way of saying - we're in agreement so far (sans the business about looking at this in a vacuum).

:tu


If I remember right and understand your question - you're referring to the doctrine of unconscionability. Here's a description: ...

Yes, something like that. Thanks for the find!


I get where you're coming from. However, legally speaking, it doesn't matter how "big" or "small" this bitch's breach has to be. Legally, a default is a default and not paying $1.00 or $100,000 triggers the same rights in the HOA.

If that doesn't seem right to you, keep in mind what CG said - you'd have to be extremely negligent to get to a place where you get foreclosed for not paying a small debt. In this case, losing the home is entirely on :cry bitch :cry.

It doesn't seem right somehow (it's the same reason I hate some hardware makers saying you can't mod their hardware once you buy it... it's your hardware damn it!), but as you said, she entered freely and there were multiple attempts. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm not sure I know a "better" way to work it out than what they attempted.

And I bet that soldier is fucking pissed off. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Yep. She ignored the HOA for months, yet still found a way to keep the lights on and pay her property taxes (you can be damn sure the County would have been after her had she not paid those). Basically, she just decided she was going to blow off the HOA.
LOL...

I never thought of that. She was obviously opening the utility bills and paying them.

[LnGrrrR]

And, at the hearing on foreclosure, she could have shown up, written an $800.00 check, and still kept her house. So not only did she ignore all the notice provided her by the HOA, she ignored a court summons telling her that he house was about to be taken away.

Ah! That's the biggie I was looking for. I wouldn't necessarily trust the HOA (because they've somewhat got a motive for her leaving... 800 bucks missed for a 300,000 house is a pretty good trade), but if she ignored a court summons (which usually come in special envelopes that say, "Hey, this is a court summons, you kinda have to go to these"), then yes, she's a stupid bitch.

Nice to hear that there were those recourses I was wondering about. :tu

[vy65]

She would have to have been formally served with a process server (assuming she hadn't already lawyered up) - so she would also have had to known that a court was ready to take her house away.

But she was :cry so she shouldn't have to pay.

[vy65]

Ironic that lost in the shuffle is the fact that HOAs are foreclosing on the big banks. How can you take issue with that? How's it evil?

[Das Texan]

tbh I bet she was pretty hot

maybe she wore some of those short skirts RG was talking bout?



dumb soliders fault then. dont go boo hooing about your own dumb mistakes then.

[Blake]

Of course it's relevant. Unless of course you want HOA's to start treating payments that are 1 day late the same as ones that are 1 year late.

why would that happen if things changed?

Crazy slippery slope, imo.

[Blake]

Don't you just love the entitlement mentality.

Nobody here feels entitled to free swimming pools or tennis courts.

Nobody here loves constant dumbfuck posting.

Nobody here loves you.

[Blake]

you're so fucking stupid it's unbelievable

coming from someone that had to have the difference between evil and illegal explained to him.

[insert long list of things to lol at]

[RandomGuy]

Seriously, I'd love to live in this fantasy world where I somehow become a champion of civil rights by refusing to pay my bills because I feel :cry

Jesus jumped-up fucking christ you are stupid.

The rest of us are talking about whether it is morally right to seize a house, and all your dumb ass can see is "is it legal".

Should the penalty for an $800 fee be $300,000? Not by any moral standard, but because it is legal, or it makes you feel smug and superior, it's fine with you.

Fuck, let's see where that kind of moral reasoning goes.

"It's perfectly legal to take this Jude business, so it is right. I mean why should they be crying because they are jews. They know the law, so they can't be all crying about it."

"It's perfectly legal to shovel them into ovens, so it is the right outcome. I mean if they weren't jewish in the first place it wouldn't have happened to them."

Yeah, I went there. I believe you are exactly the kind of person who would have been cheering at the rallies, and exactly the kind of person that goosestepped all the way because it was legal, and it seems that no small portion of the US population will be right beside you.

I only ask, who are you going to push into the oven first when it is made legal, vy?

[vy65]

Jesus jumped-up fucking christ you are stupid.

The rest of us are talking about whether it is morally right to seize a house, and all your dumb ass can see is "is it legal".

Should the penalty for an $800 fee be $300,000? Not by any moral standard, but because it is legal, or it makes you feel smug and superior, it's fine with you.

Fuck, let's see where that kind of moral reasoning goes.

"It's perfectly legal to take this Jude business, so it is right. I mean why should they be crying because they are jews. They know the law, so they can't be all crying about it."

"It's perfectly legal to shovel them into ovens, so it is the right outcome. I mean if they weren't jewish in the first place it wouldn't have happened to them."

Yeah, I went there. I believe you are exactly the kind of person who would have been cheering at the rallies, and exactly the kind of person that goosestepped all the way because it was legal, and it seems that no small portion of the US population will be right beside you.

I only ask, who are you going to push into the oven first when it is made legal, vy?

You trollin me?

This thread has pretty much been exclusively about the numerous chances this dumb Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_ had before she lost her husbands house. Not about morals.

I thought you one to :lol at the Nazi references. What happened RG? You used to be ok.

[vy65]

coming from someone that had to have the difference between evil and illegal explained to him.

[insert long list of things to lol at]

Yes. Clearly I needed to be told the difference between the two and clearly it was not a typo as I was not posting from phone. I really appreciate the help you gave Blake. Too bad if maybe you spent less time explaining the difference between evil and illegal to me, DAT BULL wouldn't have rode your wife hard and put her up wet.

[Blake]

using that logic, HOAs are not evil. The Supreme Court has not struck them down in any case yet.

It's fascinating that you and vy65 allow the Court to determine your own personal moral codes.

[Blake]

Yes. Clearly I needed to be told the difference between the two and clearly it was not a typo as I was not posting from phone. I really appreciate the help you gave Blake.

:cry it's my phone's fault I had to be told the difference. :cry


Too bad if maybe you spent less time explaining the difference between evil and illegal to me, DAT BULL wouldn't have rode your wife hard and put her up wet.

More copy and paste from the downstairs regulars! Neat!

You need that list of lols to complete the imitation though, tbh

[Blake]

How's me telling you about my amenities in order to make you realize you got a shitty deal on a house downstairs level posting?

You bragging about your neighborhood amenities is irrelevant.

Dropping the lol after your failed bragging is pure NBA forum regular that doesn't see the fail.

[RandomGuy]

You trollin me?

This thread has pretty much been exclusively about the numerous chances this dumb Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_ had before she lost her husbands house. Not about morals.

I thought you one to :lol at the Nazi references. What happened RG? You used to be ok.

Still with the "its legal" blinders and missing the wider "is it right" that everyone else is attempting to address.

Fucking dolt.

My question wasn't a legal one, it was a moral/ethical one.

If we wrote a law that made the legal penalty for overdue library books a bullet in the back of the head, you would jumping in your jackboots to be the first to pull the trigger. "I was only following the law."

The Nazi reference is entirely approrpriate, because they were as self-righteously vigorous in blaming victims.

That is the kind of moral justification and rationalization that allowed them to depopulate whole towns into shallow graves and ashes.

I'm sure you are incapable of seeing that, but hey, the rank and file NASDAP member didn't either.

[vy65]

Just because you get constantly shit on when you go downstairs doesn't add any sting to your whining about the NBA forum.

[vy65]

Still with the "its legal" blinders and missing the wider "is it right" that everyone else is attempting to address.

Fucking dolt.

My question wasn't a legal one, it was a moral/ethical one.

If we wrote a law that made the legal penalty for overdue library books a bullet in the back of the head, you would jumping in your jackboots to be the first to pull the trigger. "I was only following the law."

The Nazi reference is entirely approrpriate, because they were as self-righteously vigorous in blaming victims.

That is the kind of moral justification and rationalization that allowed them to depopulate whole towns into shallow graves and ashes.

I'm sure you are incapable of seeing that, but hey, the rank and file NASDAP member didn't either.

I think that it's immoral to compare the holocaust to some dumb bitch failing to pay her HOA. And I think it's totally moral to gas anyone who draws such an analogy.

[Blake]

The challenge is that your property is the only asset an HOA can file a lien against to ensure that they get paid. It's not like the HOA has a legal avenue to take the "less evil" approach and just "foreclose" on your car to pay off your debt.

So while I agree that it is one sided to foreclose on a $300,000 dollar house just to collect an $800 debt, the HOA is legally entitled to collect on that debt and without a homeowner willing to work with them towards making a different arrangement there's nothing other than the house for them to attach to. Is that a sucky situation for a homeowner to be in? Yeah, it would be, but it's also one you'll only end up in through gross negligence on your own behalf.

or they could take the non evil approach by simply cutting off the services provided by the HOA and go through a collection agency like any other entity such as credit lenders, utility companies, cable tv companies etc might do.

[Blake]

Just because you get constantly shit on when you go downstairs doesn't add any sting to your whining about the NBA forum.

I'm not whining. I'm making fun of you for running with tired NBA forum shtick.

You should stop using your phone to avoid this constant reading comprehension fail, tbh.

[vy65]

Sure your whining. I'd be doing it to if I'd been made a fool of in this thread, live in a shitty housing development, and was made a cuck by DAT BULL too. Thankfully, I'm not you.

[Blake]

Sure your whining. I'd be doing it to if I'd been made a fool of in this thread, live in a shitty housing development, and was made a cuck by DAT BULL too. Thankfully, I'm not you.

Nah, not whining.

Just more making fun of your lame shtick and your whining about your phone.

[vy65]

Stop talking about your phone :cry And the NBA forum :cry And my wife :cry

[Blake]

More reading comprehension failure.

damn phone!

[Das Texan]

It's fascinating that you and vy65 allow the Court to determine your own personal moral codes.


I didn't know we were making moral judgments here??

I'm looking at things from the legal side while wrapping my head around your logic.

You stated: it was only evil to deny blacks after 1948 after the court decision

No court decision has happened with hoas so does that deem them not legal per your logic??

[Das Texan]

or they could take the non evil approach by simply cutting off the services provided by the HOA and go through a collection agency like any other entity such as credit lenders, utility companies, cable tv companies etc might do.

Except these are not mutually exclusive. When you are providing things like security it's difficult to 'cut someone off' because it's done to the community Asa whole

While it may not be moral to foreclose based on an hoa fee, it's legally allowed to be done

[vy65]

or they could take the non evil approach by simply cutting off the services provided by the HOA and go through a collection agency like any other entity such as credit lenders, utility companies, cable tv companies etc might do.

That's not a remedy for past use.

If I buy a car from a dealership, but don't pay and keep the car -- the car dealership's barring me from buying another car doesn't compensate the dealership for the car I basically stole.

[Blake]

I didn't know we were making moral judgments here??

Post #3


I'm looking at things from the legal side while wrapping my head around your logic.

You stated: it was only evil to deny blacks after 1948 after the court decision

No court decision has happened with hoas so does that deem them not legal per your logic??

evil but legal

[Blake]

That's not a remedy for past use.

If I buy a car from a dealership, but don't pay and keep the car -- the car dealership's barring me from buying another car doesn't compensate the dealership for the car I basically stole.

The dealership/lender can repo that car. And rightfully so.

who doesn't know this

[LnGrrrR]

That's not a remedy for past use.

If I buy a car from a dealership, but don't pay and keep the car -- the car dealership's barring me from buying another car doesn't compensate the dealership for the car I basically stole.

True, but if you've bought the car outright, they can't touch you. It's not like they can say, "You haven't been cleaning the car enough, therefore we're going to repossess it." :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think people should be allowed to purchase a home without being forced to join an HOA.
Which is something people can do...

[vy65]

True, but if you've bought the car outright, they can't touch you. It's not like they can say, "You haven't been cleaning the car enough, therefore we're going to repossess it." :lol

Right, but my hypothetical presumed you don't pay for the car.

Maybe a better hypothetical would be: you drop your car off (which you own outright) for service, but refuse to pay the mechanic. Does the mechanic have to give you your car back? Is there anything wrong with the mechanic selling your car to satisfy its lien if you don't follow up on your car for a year?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

or they could take the non evil approach by simply cutting off the services provided by the HOA
Which isn't fair to the people in the neighborhood who join a homeowners association so every other house is well kept and nice looking.

I don't plan on ever buying a house with a HOA because of this stuff, and I have no sympathy for people who chose to.

[Bill_Brasky]

Which isn't fair to the people in the neighborhood who join a homeowners association so every other house is well kept and nice looking.

I don't plan on ever buying a house with a HOA because of this stuff, and I have no sympathy for people who chose to.

Pretty much this. The HOA in the neighborhood I grew up was fucking terrible. They fined people for having basketball goals in their driveway, without warning.

Never gonna put up with any of dat boolshit.

[LnGrrrR]

Right, but my hypothetical presumed you don't pay for the car.

Maybe a better hypothetical would be: you drop your car off (which you own outright) for service, but refuse to pay the mechanic. Does the mechanic have to give you your car back? Is there anything wrong with the mechanic selling your car to satisfy its lien if you don't follow up on your car for a year?

Agreed, much better analogy. :tu

[coyotes_geek]

or they could take the non evil approach by simply cutting off the services provided by the HOA and go through a collection agency like any other entity such as credit lenders, utility companies, cable tv companies etc might do.

Or they could spend the better part of a year sending her a bunch of letters via certified mail asking her to pay the bill and notifying her what will happen if she doesn't. That seems much more logical than trying to figure out a way to keep her from using the pool or looking at all the community landscaping and thinking "boy my neighborhood sure does look nice".

Or better yet, she could just pay the damn bill like how she's paying some of her other bills........

[Das Texan]

evil but legal


not what you fucking said.

this is what you said:

So it was not evil until 1948 when the Supreme Court said so.

vy65 still doesn't get it.

[insert many funny emoticons]


See where this logic issue is coming into play here?

[LnGrrrR]

not what you fucking said.

this is what you said:

So it was not evil until 1948 when the Supreme Court said so.

vy65 still doesn't get it.

[insert many funny emoticons]


See where this logic issue is coming into play here?

He was being sarcastic in response to Vy.

[Blake]

Which is something people can do...

If you want to buy a new house in a brand new neighborhood in the San Antonio area, no, you cannot.

[Das Texan]

He was being sarcastic in response to Vy.


sorry there is no sarcasm meter on here.

[Blake]

Right, but my hypothetical presumed you don't pay for the car.

Maybe a better hypothetical would be: you drop your car off (which you own outright) for service, but refuse to pay the mechanic. Does the mechanic have to give you your car back? Is there anything wrong with the mechanic selling your car to satisfy its lien if you don't follow up on your car for a year?

If the HOA did repairs on my house and I refused to pay, it might be a decent point.

As it is, it's not.

[Blake]

Which isn't fair to the people in the neighborhood who join a homeowners association so every other house is well kept and nice looking.

From what I've seen, our city's code enforcement is better at keeping neigborhoods looking nice than the HOAs do.

Most of the time the fucking HOA ends up calling the city for enforcement assistance any way.


I don't plan on ever buying a house with a HOA because of this stuff, and I have no sympathy for people who chose to.

Do you plan on buying a new home?

[vy65]

If the HOA did repairs on my house and I refused to pay, it might be a decent point.

As it is, it's not.

In the mechanic's lien context, the mechanic services your car thereby adding value. That value-added serves as the basis for the mechanic's security interest in your car. That security interest (the lien) is the consideration you give (meaning, payment) to the mechanic in exchange for his services. That lien is "extinguished" upon payment of your debt obligation to the mechanic.

The HOA functions in almost exactly the same way. While the HOA may or may not perform repairs (in some condominums, HOAs are responsible for certain repairs), the HOA nevertheless provides certain and definite value-add services to your home (security, pool, parks, open-areas, community centers, trails, etc...). Like the mechanic's lien, the HOA develops its own security interest in your home to secure payment from you because you have received the benefit of the value-add services provided by the HOA. That security interest is extinguished/satisfied upon your payment of dues.

They function almost identically. For purposes of this discussion, the claim that HOAs don't provide repair services is spurrious and irrelevant.

[Blake]

Or they could spend the better part of a year sending her a bunch of letters via certified mail asking her to pay the bill and notifying her what will happen if she doesn't. That seems much more logical than trying to figure out a way to keep her from using the pool or looking at all the community landscaping and thinking "boy my neighborhood sure does look nice".

Or better yet, she could just pay the damn bill like how she's paying some of her other bills........

Seizing her home for not paying the pool and landscape bill et al seems outrageous to me.

Agree to disagree.

[Blake]

In the mechanic's lien context, the mechanic services your car thereby adding value. That value-added serves as the basis for the mechanic's security interest in your car. That security interest (the lien) is the consideration you give (meaning, payment) to the mechanic in exchange for his services. That lien is "extinguished" upon payment of your debt obligation to the mechanic.

The HOA functions in almost exactly the same way. While the HOA may or may not perform repairs (in some condominums, HOAs are responsible for certain repairs), the HOA nevertheless provides certain and definite value-add services to your home (security, pool, parks, open-areas, community centers, trails, etc...). Like the mechanic's lien, the HOA develops its own security interest in your home to secure payment from you because you have received the benefit of the value-add services provided by the HOA. That security interest is extinguished/satisfied upon your payment of dues.

They function almost identically. For purposes of this discussion, the claim that HOAs don't provide repair services is spurrious and irrelevant.

A mechanic is nothing like an HOA.

You are bringing your personal property in for repairs. He directly works on your dilapidated property, bringing it back up to blue book value. He does not "add" value.

The HOA gets paid to maintain common area property that is not directly yours. They do exactly nothing directly to help you repair your own property. Yet they can take it of you don't pay for the maintenance of the common areas.

Based on the way other businesses handle it, there are clearly less evil ways to handle non-payment than to seize the property and sell it for pennies on the dollar.

[vy65]

You are bringing your personal property in for repairs. He directly works on your dilapidated property, bringing it back up to blue book value. He does not "add" value.

Putting aside clearer examples (i.e., a materialman's lien for a custom paint job, soundsystem, rims, etc...), the services rendered definitely add value to your car. You say as much yourself when you say "bringing it back up to blue book value." That clearly implies that your car was not at bbv prior to the work done. The car repair guy adds value in the form of servicing your car -- what you have now (after the repairs) is worth more than what you had before the repairs (the below bbv car)


The HOA gets paid to maintain common area property that is not directly yours. They do exactly nothing directly to help you repair your own property. Yet they can take it of you don't pay for the maintenance of the common areas.

Reread what I wrote. Aside from the condominium situation (where HOAs directly do repairs), the normal HOA case involves value being added through the numerous amenities provided. I never said HOA = Mechanics lien cuz they both do repairs. I said that the HOA adds value to your home in the form of amenities -- and the service of providing those amenities serves as the basis for their security interest in your home.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Liked how the collusion argument was ignored.

Along that vein I decided to actually quantify the relationship between new home construction and HOA's.


Here’s a fact you may not be aware of: properties governed by homeowner associations are the most rapidly growing form of housing in the U.S. today. Nearly 80% of new home construction is connected with an HOA or community association, according to the Community Associations Institute, the trade association representing HOAs.

http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/blogs/lens/homeowners-association-mortgage-loan-defaults-1030485-1.html?site=default_tech

That's completely fucked.

Want eve more fucked? It gets better:


In the so-called super lien states—which include 16 states and the District of Columbia—HOAs have priority ahead of the first mortgage. That means an HOA can, by law, collect unpaid dues and fees before a bank can foreclose upon a property. In the remaining 34 states, overdue HOA fees are wiped out by a foreclosure.


In the case of loan modifications, HOA fees are still owed because there has been no transfer of title. Unfortunately, a servicer may not even be aware of a borrower’s past due HOA fees when considering a loan modification. Having that knowledge would almost certainly help servicers in making decisions on modifications.

Hell they even have their own lobbying group and have become a integrated industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Associations_Institute

That's how they get their interests into legislation.

But hey it's legal so that makes it okay....

/vy65

[Blake]

Putting aside clearer examples (i.e., a materialman's lien for a custom paint job, soundsystem, rims, etc...), the services rendered definitely add value to your car. You say as much yourself when you say "bringing it back up to blue book value." That clearly implies that your car was not at bbv prior to the work done. The car repair guy adds value in the form of servicing your car -- what you have now (after the repairs) is worth more than what you had before the repairs (the below bbv car)



Reread what I wrote. Aside from the condominium situation (where HOAs directly do repairs), the normal HOA case involves value being added through the numerous amenities provided. I never said HOA = Mechanics lien cuz they both do repairs. I said that the HOA adds value to your home in the form of amenities -- and the service of providing those amenities serves as the basis for their security interest in your home.

Lame analogy aside, you're now talking out of your ass that ”HOAs add value to a property.” Plenty of neighborhoods have these same amenities with nothing but voluntary membership to the club house, swimming pool, etc.

Hoas simply add middleman fees.

Even then, if the HOA does ”add value” that value will never come close to equaling the value of the house that they seize and sell.

[Blake]

Nearly 80% of new homeconstruction is connected with an HOA or community association, according to the Community Associations Institute, the trade association representing HOAs.



I'm genuinely surprised it's only 80%

[Wild Cobra]

I'm genuinely surprised it's only 80%
I'm surprised it might be that high.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm genuinely surprised it's only 80%

Keep in mind that that figures include all new home construction. You are not including custom homes that are being built out in rural areas or rural areas in general although i expect tthat there some trailer park HOA.

Down near Ralph Fair at i10 they are Centext is building two or three track home complexes. Fucking $100,000 with HOA built into them. Pay those dues BITCH.

Fair Oaks doesn't do that shit.

The worst HOA I ever had to deal with was a track house that was literally a quarter mile from USAA. It started bad. One of my roommates got shitfaced and carrying on but I think what did it was him pissin on Landro's cardoor.

So they took every opportunity to fuck with us and tow are shit. They figured out who our friends were and changed the rules so thy could tow their shit too

I parked in the garage but sure enough they towed my car because I had a bout 2inches of tire on grass so when I wake the Lexus is not there. And so I spent a trip down to the sw depot planning revenge.

One quickover from homeboy and a had me bolt cutter sheers and a bigold bag of gravel. For fucks sake thoso KB homes needed a bit of HVAC and plumbing maintenance

I can get the thing about legitimate communities like WastLake and Kingwood that need HOA to feed the duck and not have Brandy getting pulled into vans off the greenway then fine.

But if its KB/Centex or any of those other shitbag types making dick living in his $85k home calling towtrucks every night to fuck with me and my friends.

They get a bagof gravel in the clearout and and a whole fuckton of holes in your condensor coil and lineset put the cap on highside and walkaway.

The last 3 months went peaceful and I will never again live in a centex or kb home. the fucking wll wasnot mounted and came down as we were walking to the window.


im sad just thinking about it so
i shall stopp.

[Blake]

I'm surprised it might be that high.

This surprises no one.

[Blake]

Keep in mind that that figures include all new home construction. You are not including custom homes that are being built out in rural areas or rural areas in general although i expect tthat there some trailer park HOA.

Down near Ralph Fair at i10 they are Centext is building two or three track home complexes. Fucking $100,000 with HOA built into them. Pay those dues BITCH.

Fair Oaks doesn't do that shit.

The worst HOA I ever had to deal with was a track house that was literally a quarter mile from USAA. It started bad. One of my roommates got shitfaced and carrying on but I think what did it was him pissin on Landro's cardoor.

So they took every opportunity to fuck with us and tow are shit. They figured out who our friends were and changed the rules so thy could tow their shit too

I parked in the garage but sure enough they towed my car because I had a bout 2inches of tire on grass so when I wake the Lexus is not there. And so I spent a trip down to the sw depot planning revenge.

One quickover from homeboy and a had me bolt cutter sheers and a bigold bag of gravel. For fucks sake thoso KB homes needed a bit of HVAC and plumbing maintenance

I can get the thing about legitimate communities like WastLake and Kingwood that need HOA to feed the duck and not have Brandy getting pulled into vans off the greenway then fine.

But if its KB/Centex or any of those other shitbag types making dick living in his $85k home calling towtrucks every night to fuck with me and my friends.

They get a bagof gravel in the clearout and and a whole fuckton of holes in your condensor coil and lineset put the cap on highside and walkaway.

The last 3 months went peaceful and I will never again live in a centex or kb home. the fucking wll wasnot mounted and came down as we were walking to the window.


im sad just thinking about it so
i shall stopp.

wut

[Das Texan]

That's how they get their interests into legislation.

But hey it's legal so that makes it okay....

/vy65


I've never said it was right, simply legal. I'm not even sure I implied it was right, simply only legal.

This hearkens back to my go cry to the Do Nothing Congress.

[Das Texan]

It really boils down to this:

Do your fucking homework before buying a house. You can generally get a good idea about a certain HOA beforehand.

Some offer value, others do not. Do your homework, before you go crying. It is what it is.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you want to buy a new house in a brand new neighborhood in the San Antonio area, no, you cannot.
So you can buy a new house in an older neighborhood then.


Do you plan on buying a new home?
If in order to buy a new home I need to join a HOA, then no. I have my doubts about the notion that you need to join a HOA to buy a new home, at least in the areas I've lived.


Seizing her home for not paying the pool and landscape bill et al seems outrageous to me.

Agree to disagree.
It seems outrageous to me too, which is why I'd never join a HOA and sign a contract enabling a HOA to do that to me.

[coyotes_geek]

Seizing her home for not paying the pool and landscape bill et al seems outrageous to me.

Agree to disagree.

Making a deliberate decision to ignore a steady stream of certified letters and legal notices for a year or more, all over a bill she had the means to pay, is what seems outrageous to me.

[Blake]

It really boils down to this:

Do your fucking homework before buying a house. You can generally get a good idea about a certain HOA beforehand.

Some offer value, others do not. Do your homework, before you go crying. It is what it is.

I'm crying about being forced to join an HOA if I want to buy a newer home.

[Blake]

Making a deliberate decision to ignore a steady stream of certified letters and legal notices for a year or more, all over a bill she had the means to pay, is what seems outrageous to me

It seems stupid to me, but not shocking or ” outrageous” that someone defaulted on their debt in this manner.

Seizing a home valued at 6 figures because of a non payment of debt worth 3 figures is absolutely outrageous to me.

[vy65]

Lame analogy aside, you're now talking out of your ass that ”HOAs add value to a property.” Plenty of neighborhoods have these same amenities with nothing but voluntary membership to the club house, swimming pool, etc.

The fact that other neighborhoods have the same amenities with voluntary membership is irrelevant. HOAs add property value by providing those amenities. I'm waiting to hear how they don't.


Even then, if the HOA does ”add value” that value will never come close to equaling the value of the house that they seize and sell.

The wife and husband knowingly and voluntarily signed onto the HOA. They understood what they were receiving and what their obligations were. They assumed the responsibility of fulfilling their obligations to the HOA and in exchange received some benefit. Why are you trying to deprive them of their freedom to contract with who they like on the terms they want?

Why do you think it's ok for people to be irresponsible simply because they feel like it. That's truly evil.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Seizing a home valued at 6 figures because of a non payment of debt worth 3 figures is absolutely outrageous to me.
Me too.

Signing a contract enabling someone to seize an asset of yours worth 6 figures for defaulting on a 3 figure payment seems pretty insane to me. I'd buy a less modern home before doing that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why do you think it's ok for people to be irresponsible simply because they feel like it. That's truly evil.
It's what this country has become. Somewhere along the line, it became the government's problem to read the fine print people are too lazy to read.

[Blake]

So you can buy a new house in an older neighborhood then.

sure, you could try to find a vacant lot in an older neighborhood and have it custom built, but those are few and far between in my experience.

I also guess if you have the means, you could also tear down the existing structure and start over.


If in order to buy a new home I need to join a HOA, then no. I have my doubts about the notion that you need to join a HOA to buy a new home, at least in the areas I've lived.

If I didn't see it first hand, I might doubt the notion too.

Again, if someone can find a new, non-custom built home in an area that doesn't come attached with an HOA, please do me the favor of letting me know. Thanks.

[vy65]

It's what this country has become. Somewhere along the line, it became the government's problem to read the fine print people are too lazy to read.

That's really what it comes down to. I get the shock value of, at first blush, seeing a 300k house taken because you didn't pay an $800 tab. But it requires an excessive amount of stupidity and irresponsibility to get to a point where you lose your house over said tab. Does that make an HOA bad? Absolutely not -- they're just exercising their rights after trying to contact this dumb whore to get paid for a year.

Thinking that this dumb slut was cheated and should keep this house lets her escape the consequences of her actions and is totally irresponsible. I see a lot of similarities to the bank bailouts here.

[Blake]

The fact that other neighborhoods have the same amenities with voluntary membership is irrelevant. HOAs add property value by providing those amenities. I'm waiting to hear how they don't.

HOAs don't provide the amenities. They maintain the amenities put there by the builder.

It's outrageous that a real lawyer would ask someone else to disprove his claim.


The wife and husband knowingly and voluntarily signed onto the HOA. They understood what they were receiving and what their obligations were. They assumed the responsibility of fulfilling their obligations to the HOA and in exchange received some benefit. Why are you trying to deprive them of their freedom to contract with who they like on the terms they want?

Why do you think it's ok for people to be irresponsible simply because they feel like it. That's truly evil.

I'm not saying it's ok for people to be irresponsible.

Since I've already made this very clear already in this thread, I'm now saying you're a complete idiot.

:cry it's my phone! :cry

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

sure, you could try to find a vacant lot in an older neighborhood and have it custom built, but those are few and far between in my experience.

I also guess if you have the means, you could also tear down the existing structure and start over.
There aren't modernized homes that have either been recently built/remodeled in neighborhoods without a HOA?

Either way, yeah, nothing stops you from tearing something down and starting over. Brand new homes are luxuries that most people can't afford, acting like not being able to buy a brand new home without a HOA is a horrid injustice that needs to be corrected is pretty funny. Do I agree it sucks? Yes. Do I agree HOAs suck? Yes. Do think it gives legitimate cause to breach a contract you voluntarily sign with a HOA. Hell no.



Again, if someone can find a new, non-custom built home in an area that doesn't come attached with an HOA, please do me the favor of letting me know. Thanks.
I know of countless brand new homes just in the area around campus in Tucson.

[coyotes_geek]

Me too.

Signing a contract enabling someone to seize an asset of yours worth 6 figures for defaulting on a 3 figure payment seems pretty insane to me. I'd buy a less modern home before doing that.

Certainly your prerogative to avoid an HOA for that reason, but you might want to keep in mind that HOA's aren't the only ones who can place a lien against your property over non-payment of a bill. If you stiff some teenager who said he'd mow your lawn for $20 he's got the legal right to put a lien against your property.

[vy65]

HOAs don't provide the amenities. They maintain the amenities put there by the builder.

It's outrageous that a real lawyer would ask someone else to disprove his claim.

Maintaining = providing. If they don't maintain the pool, they're not really providing it to you for use, are they?

I made a point about HOAs. You said some irrelevant shit. I asked how that answers the point I made. That's what lawyers do -- but I'm not surprised that point goes over your head.



I'm not saying it's ok for people to be irresponsible.

Sure you are. You just haven't figured it out yet.

[Blake]

Either way, yeah, nothing stops you from tearing something down and starting over. Brand new homes are luxuries that most people can't afford, acting like not being able to buy a brand new home without a HOA is a horrid injustice that needs to be corrected is pretty funny. Do I agree it sucks? Yes. Do I agree HOAs suck? Yes. Do think it gives legitimate cause to breach a contract you voluntarily sign with a HOA. Hell no.

I think it should be illegal to put a forced HOA membership into the contract.

If that's just me that thinks it's an evil practice that should be outlawed, then so be it.


I know of countless brand new homes just in the area around campus in Tucson.


Link?

[Blake]

Maintaining = providing. If they don't maintain the pool, they're not really providing it to you for use, are they?

I made a point about HOAs. You said some irrelevant shit. I asked how that answers the point I made. That's what lawyers do -- but I'm not surprised that point goes over your head.




Sure you are. You just haven't figured it out yet.

Don't blame your reading comprehension failure on me or your phone.

[Blake]

Certainly your prerogative to avoid an HOA for that reason, but you might want to keep in mind that HOA's aren't the only ones who can place a lien against your property over non-payment of a bill. If you stiff some teenager who said he'd mow your lawn for $20 he's got the legal right to put a lien against your property.

At least the kid provided a direct service to the property that owner voluntarily asked for.

Sure, anyone can stick a lien on the property after a civil court judgment has been made.

Good luck to the kid that tries to seize it.
....especially if the bank still has the note.

[coyotes_geek]

At least the kid provided a direct service to the property that owner voluntarily asked for.

Sure, anyone can stick a lien on the property after a civil court judgment has been made.

Good luck to the kid that tries to seize it.
....especially if the bank still has the note.

Good luck to the kid? He's evil!

[Blake]

Good luck to the kid? He's evil!

the next time I hear of a forced lawn service as part of the contract will be the first time.

[coyotes_geek]

the next time I hear of a forced lawn service as part of the contract will be the first time.

the next time I hear of forced residency in an HOA community will be the first time.

[Blake]

the next time I hear of forced residency in an HOA community will be the first time.

I believe we covered this.

Round and round.

[coyotes_geek]

I believe we covered this.

Round and round.

We sure did. We're in complete agreement that forced participation in HOA's is a non-issue.


Plenty of neighborhoods have these same amenities with nothing but voluntary membership to the club house, swimming pool, etc.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It really boils down to this:

Do your fucking homework before buying a house. You can generally get a good idea about a certain HOA beforehand.

Some offer value, others do not. Do your homework, before you go crying. It is what it is.

No, it boils down to there being no fucking way that buyer demand is driving 80% of ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.

It boils down to lack of consumer choice. Do your homework? It's more like: don't buy a new home.

It boils down to said associations conning state legislatiors to make liability to them above all else.

Homeowner's associations have put together an aggressive trade association, just as farmer, oilmen, beermen, steel, lawyers and doctors.

It's a problem for all of vy65's sophistry.

You can argue all day long that they are in their legal rights to take a $300m home for less than $1k.

What needs to be discussed is how they are in a legal poisition to do that.

It's 80% and everyone here knows that's not because of demand or need.

[vy65]

No, it boils down to there being no fucking way that buyer demand is driving 80% of ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.

It boils down to lack of consumer choice. Do your homework? It's more like: don't buy a new home.

It boils down to said associations conning state legislatiors to make liability to them above all else.

Homeowner's associations have put together an aggressive trade association, just as farmer, oilmen, beermen, steel, lawyers and doctors.

It's a problem for all of vy65's sophistry.

You can argue all day long that they are in their legal rights to take a $300m home for less than $1k.

What needs to be discussed is how they are in a legal poisition to do that.

It's 80% and everyone here knows that's not because of demand or need.

Someone should call these guys

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vKkO-Vg3VbQ/TCJFOtnUVoI/AAAAAAAAAUE/k9jv244PPzs/s1600/scully_mulder.jpg

[Drachen]

No, it boils down to there being no fucking way that buyer demand is driving 80% of ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.

It boils down to lack of consumer choice. Do your homework? It's more like: don't buy a new home.

It boils down to said associations conning state legislatiors to make liability to them above all else.

Homeowner's associations have put together an aggressive trade association, just as farmer, oilmen, beermen, steel, lawyers and doctors.

It's a problem for all of vy65's sophistry.

You can argue all day long that they are in their legal rights to take a $300m home for less than $1k.

What needs to be discussed is how they are in a legal poisition to do that.

It's 80% and everyone here knows that's not because of demand or need.

Fuzzy, if there is such strong demand for the non-HOA neighborhood, but they are not being served, then I think I have found you a new business. Go build some neighborhoods attach a covenant to all of the deeds stating that this property cannot be a part of an HOA charge 5% above the going rate for such a house and BOOM, you will have funds to pursue any goals you want.

[Blake]

We sure did. We're in complete agreement that forced participation in HOA's is a non-issue.

Plenty of ” old” neighborhoods have those amenities with voluntary membership to be clear.

You cannot get those amenities in a new subdivision without being forced to join the HOA.

round and round.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone should call these guys

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vKkO-Vg3VbQ/TCJFOtnUVoI/AAAAAAAAAUE/k9jv244PPzs/s1600/scully_mulder.jpg

First you go with the dismissal argument then you go with ridicule.

Nice little lame 1, 2 you have going here.

They have an aggressive trade association that has pushed this legislation in 16 states. Their mark is in 80% of all new sales and this trend didn't begin until 1995. So is 17 years they dominate the market.

It is what it is.

[vy65]

First you go with the dismissal argument then you go with ridicule.

Nice little lame 1, 2 you have going here.

They have an aggressive trade association that has pushed this legislation in 16 states. Their mark is in 80% of all new sales and this trend didn't begin until 1995. So is 17 years they dominate the market.

It is what it is.

No, I honestly think you're onto something here. The question to me is: how far does it go. First our homes, then what?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, if there is such strong demand for the non-HOA neighborhood, but they are not being served, then I think I have found you a new business. Go build some neighborhoods attach a covenant to all of the deeds stating that this property cannot be a part of an HOA charge 5% above the going rate for such a house and BOOM, you will have funds to pursue any goals you want.

After what happened to a family member regarding medical commercial property, I have decided to stay away from real estate investment.

It's not an easy market to get into for all of your poor attempt at ridicule. That further's my point.

[Blake]

In case anyone was wondering:


DALLAS (AP) —The Frisco soldier and his family who lost their home to foreclosure while he was serving in Iraq will get the house back.

http://m.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/texas-114858-dallas-foreclosure.html

[Wild Cobra]

It really boils down to this:

Do your fucking homework before buying a house. You can generally get a good idea about a certain HOA beforehand.

Some offer value, others do not. Do your homework, before you go crying. It is what it is.
No kidding.

It's the biggest purchase that most people make. Anyone who doesn't do their homework is simply stupid or lazy.

[Wild Cobra]

No, it boils down to there being no fucking way that buyer demand is driving 80% of ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.

It boils down to lack of consumer choice. Do your homework? It's more like: don't buy a new home.

It boils down to said associations conning state legislatiors to make liability to them above all else.

Homeowner's associations have put together an aggressive trade association, just as farmer, oilmen, beermen, steel, lawyers and doctors.

It's a problem for all of vy65's sophistry.

You can argue all day long that they are in their legal rights to take a $300m home for less than $1k.

What needs to be discussed is how they are in a legal poisition to do that.

It's 80% and everyone here knows that's not because of demand or need.
Is that your excuse for buying a ticky tacky Tract House?

[Wild Cobra]

Someone should call these guys

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vKkO-Vg3VbQ/TCJFOtnUVoI/AAAAAAAAAUE/k9jv244PPzs/s1600/scully_mulder.jpg
Maybe these two:

http://www.usanetwork.com/series/psych/games/gusorshawn/06.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I honestly think you're onto something here. The question to me is: how far does it go. First our homes, then what?

I am not sure if you are serious. This smacks of patronage but I will play along.

I would imagine that they would consolidate their on the new housing market completely and push to get their liability paramount in title law for all 50 states.

I am actually interested to see who this trade association is and how interrelated they are with the countrys developers/suppliers. It stands to reason that for them to get such a market share --80%-- they are active far up in the food chain.

I am interested to see how consolidate those latter parties -who were last I check regional in operations- are now.

Maybe it's no big deal to you because it's not illegal and that is all you care about but I find it disturbing that the control of things like the new home we would like to live in are taken out of our hands before the developer gets out of bed in the morning.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is that your excuse for buying a ticky tacky Tract House?

Look, parts changer, you really shouldn't throw stones at people you know nothing about. That girl leave you for Phoenix yet? Couldn't get away fast enough could she?

[vy65]

I am not sure if you are serious. This smacks of patronage but I will play along.

I would imagine that they would consolidate their on the new housing market completely and push to get their liability paramount in title law for all 50 states.

I am actually interested to see who this trade association is and how interrelated they are with the countrys developers/suppliers. It stands to reason that for them to get such a market share --80%-- they are active far up in the food chain.

I am interested to see how consolidate those latter parties -who were last I check regional in operations- are now.

Maybe it's no big deal to you because it's not illegal and that is all you care about but I find it disturbing that the control of things like the new home we would like to live in are taken out of our hands before the developer gets out of bed in the morning.

http://tribalinsight.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/i-want-to-believe.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Look, parts changer, you really shouldn't throw stones at people you know nothing about. That girl leave you for Phoenix yet? Couldn't get away fast enough could she?
Throwing stones... Coming from you that's a riot. What's wrong. Cant take your own medicine?

LOL...

Tract House...

LOL...

I would never... I mean never... buy or rent a tract house. Too fucking ticky tacky...

ahmxbNzxgdU

As for the girl. She moved in March. Came back for a couple weeks recently and treated me so damn good sexually. I don't think you understand such things, or how much she missed me.

[coyotes_geek]

Plenty of ” old” neighborhoods have those amenities with voluntary membership to be clear.

You cannot get those amenities in a new subdivision without being forced to join the HOA.

round and round.

Right. The only thing forcing anyone into joining an HOA is their own decision to limit their options to a newer community with amenities provided by an HOA. Non issue. Anyone who doesn't want an HOA doesn't have to have one.

[Blake]

Fuzzy, if there is such strong demand for the non-HOA neighborhood...

Fallacy aside, there isn't a strong demand for non-HOA neighborhoods.

Most people either have no issue with HOAs or they think they are a good thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Fallacy aside, there isn't a strong demand for non-HOA neighborhoods.

Most people either have no issue with HOAs or they think they are a good thing.
There is still a strong enough demand that the premise you cannot find non HOA places is false.

[Drachen]

Fallacy aside, there isn't a strong demand for non-HOA neighborhoods.

Most people either have no issue with HOAs or they think they are a good thing.

I was responding to fuzzylumpkins who said that the lack of non-hoa neighborhoods was not driven by demand. I took this to imply that there are legions of people who only wish they could get a non-hoa house, but cannot due to "lack of consumer choice."

[Blake]

Right. The only thing forcing anyone into joining an HOA is their own decision to limit their options to a newer community with amenities provided by an HOA. Non issue. Anyone who doesn't want an HOA doesn't have to have one.

What an awesome false dilemma.

America! Love it or gtfo!

[Blake]

There is still a strong enough demand that the premise you cannot find non HOA places is false.

your premise of what my premise is is false.

you're an idiot.

[coyotes_geek]

What an awesome false dilemma.

America! Love it or gtfo!

What's false about it?

Be specific.

[Blake]

I was responding to fuzzylumpkins who said that the lack of non-hoa neighborhoods was not driven by demand. I took this to imply that there are legions of people who only wish they could get a non-hoa house, but cannot due to "lack of consumer choice."

I caught it. I'm further stating there aren't legions of people who wish they could get a non hoa house.

[Drachen]

I caught it. I'm further stating there aren't legions of people who wish they could get a non hoa house.

Ah, I misunderstood your intent. Mea Culpa

[Wild Cobra]

I caught it. I'm further stating there aren't legions of people who wish they could get a non hoa house.
I think most responsible people do want HOA's. Such organization do protect property values. They keep the irresponsible from ruining a neighborhood. Still, there are plenty of neighborhoods that are not under an HOA umbrella. You can even buy your own property and have a house built on it. The reason these tract houses are cheaper, is because a contractor does them all in a short time and only follows one or a few designs. It makes construction so much more predicable, per unit., cheaper, and faster. Since the tract was all owned by one individual or entity, they often start an HOA. Primarily I bet to keep their investment sound, and not having your first few residence trash the place before all the units are sold.

[Blake]

What's false about it?

Be specific.

Specifically, you are implying I have two options regarding this issue: take it or leave it.

[Wild Cobra]

Specifically, you are implying I have two options regarding this issue: take it or leave it.
Yes.

Take it or leave it.

You are a free man, aren't you?

[Blake]

I think most responsible people do want HOA's. Such organization do protect property values. They keep the irresponsible from ruining a neighborhood. Still, there are plenty of neighborhoods that are not under an HOA umbrella. You can even buy your own property and have a house built on it. The reason these tract houses are cheaper, is because a contractor does them all in a short time and only follows one or a few designs. It makes construction so much more predicable, per unit., cheaper, and faster. Since the tract was all owned by one individual or entity, they often start an HOA. Primarily I bet to keep their investment sound, and not having your first few residence trash the place before all the units are sold.

You've never dealt with an HOA. No claims you make in this thread contain merit.

And that's aside from your history of being a pure ass talker.

[Blake]

Yes.

Take it or leave it.

You are a free man, aren't you?

America! Love it or gtfo!

[coyotes_geek]

I think most responsible people do want HOA's.

Wanting / not wanting an HOA isn't about being responsible. You either want one or you don't. Your preference. That being said, you're right that most people do want to live in communities that offer amenities are willing to put up with an HOA in order to get them.


Such organization do protect property values. They keep the irresponsible from ruining a neighborhood. Still, there are plenty of neighborhoods that are not under an HOA umbrella. You can even buy your own property and have a house built on it. The reason these tract houses are cheaper, is because a contractor does them all in a short time and only follows one or a few designs. It makes construction so much more predicable, per unit., cheaper, and faster. Since the tract was all owned by one individual or entity, they often start an HOA. Primarily I bet to keep their investment sound, and not having your first few residence trash the place before all the units are sold.

Yep. Developers will front tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars into these master planned communities and they need to protect that investment as well as maximize their return on investment. To do that they need an HOA.

[coyotes_geek]

Specifically, you are implying I have two options regarding this issue: take it or leave it.

Correct. If you think that's a false dilemma, please state the additional options at your disposal.

Be specific.

[Wild Cobra]

You've never dealt with an HOA. No claims you make in this thread contain merit.

And that's aside from your history of being a pure ass talker.
Well...

Maybe things are different here, then there.

I do know they (in general) protect property values.

Would someone who is irresponsible with home maintenance want to be under an HOA? My point is that the responsible home owners do not want to live next to someone who has a trashy looking house and property. Bad neighbors do drive down other residences property values.

Are you saying I am wrong that tract housing is cheaper per unit than individually built units?

Are you saying that Coyote is wrong here:
Yep. Developers will front tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars into these master planned communities and they need to protect that investment as well as maximize their return on investment. To do that they need an HOA.

[Wild Cobra]

Correct. If you think that's a false dilemma, please state the additional options at your disposal.

Be specific.
Petition for changes, but that still takes time. In the present, it's take it or leave it.

[Blake]

Correct. If you think that's a false dilemma, please state the additional options at your disposal.

Be specific.

Specifically speaking, this was never specifically about what my specific options were.

Very specifically speaking, it was only that HOAs are evil.

Specifically speaking, me finding another place to live does not make the forced HOA system any more or any less evil.

Specifically speaking.

[TeyshaBlue]

Could you be more specific? Thx. /Chump

[Wild Cobra]

Could you be more specific? Thx. /Chump

LOL...

Good one.

[coyotes_geek]

Specifically speaking, this was never specifically about what my specific options were.

Very specifically speaking, it was only that HOAs are evil.

Specifically speaking, me finding another place to live does not make the forced HOA system any more or any less evil.

Specifically speaking.

Translation: You're right CG, it's not a false dilemma.

Glad we've got that cleared up. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

You've never dealt with an HOA. No claims you make in this thread contain merit.

And that's aside from your history of being a pure ass talker.
Specifically how?

[Blake]

Translation: You're right CG, it's not a false dilemma.

Glad we've got that cleared up. :toast

False assumption.

if you want to get more specific, and it's obvious you do, what you offered was a false choice for the dilemma.

Again, specifically speaking.