HOAs foreclose on big banks

[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 en y 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 bull .

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 bull 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 cons utes 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 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 .

[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 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 cons utes 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 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 .

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

[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 bull 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 bull .

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 bull .

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 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 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 . 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 bull .

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 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 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 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 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 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.

blke

[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 bull 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.