Yahoo Hosts Anti-HOA Group

If somebody purchases a piece of real-estate with "conditions", that persson is bound by the restrictions. It is up to the purchaser to read the "conditions" before the purchase is finalized. If the purchaseur disagreess with the "condions" after the fact, it is their own fault. The major restriction I have in my area is "no hog farming." I like this. Also, "no second domicile". Can you disagree with that? Not Me.

BB, K5HDG

PS: I did not go to the web site.

 

My thought is that if youv'e got a title in your name, no-one can tell you what your property should look like other than the requirements of the law. For example: the HOA cannot tell you that you can't have an antenna, but the city or county can tell you that you can't have an antenna if they have a legitimate reason.

 

The real issue here is not having a law disallowing cc&r's.

From a logical point of view, someone selling property should not be able to put restrictions or any other connection on it.

If they want to do that, they should instead lease it. I wish more municipalities would make things that way. It seems restrictions on property is a contradiction to property being sold wholly.

The point some hams have about not signing if it's there is legitamately countered by the fact that in some areas, it's getting extremely rare to find property without that restriction.

And finally, even if you agree that cc&r's are ok, listen to this.

In order to close some houses in my development, they waved some provisions for some people (boats in yard, fencing etc). but not others.

rick

 

In the beginning (of the US), land patents, or alloidal ownership was the method of legal claim to property rights. This title was non-transferrable except to members of the 'kingdom' (in the case of royalty) or to the immediate family. Ancestery was the only way a piece of land changed hands.

Thanks to the "New Deal", Trading with the Enemy Act, 1933, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the county clerks have been instructed since that time to never divulge the history of 'absolute ownership' via alloidal land title to anyone. Now, most of them have never heard of it, as well as many veteran surveyors.
Alloidal land title = no taxes. You own it, lock stock and barrel - forever.

This type of land title applied only to Europe's royal families. The peasants (I'll leave that definition alone for now), were subserviant to the king and 'feudal' in regards to land ownership. You literally had to fight and win it (who could fight the king's army?) or you could pay taxes on it with the appearance of ownership.
That, unfortunately, is what each and every last one of us is doing now.

A major enticement for the early colonial settlers to travel across the 'big pond' to the New World was to escape taxation, specifically in the form of absolute ownership of land, and in fact - this becomes the true definition of A REPUBLIC! NOW look around.

Something has gone seriously wrong.

HOAs are an extension of plundered rights to be free from taxation and government intervention. Period.

ke4zjf

 

What happens to you if you break the HOA rules

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5scg @ Nov. 17 2002,22:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What happens to you if you break the HOA rules[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Depends.  In most cases, the HOA *can* sue to force compliance and to recover their costs of suing you.  It's spelled out in the CC&R document, and may vary considerably.  Ultimately they can win a judgement and can have a lien placed on your property.

In some cases the HOA board will vigorously enforce the rules, in some cases they won't.  Our previous neighborhood had CCR&s, but the board pretty much didn't exist, and no one was interested in enforcing the restrictions.  In this neighborhood, things are different - the HOA is very active in keeping the park, entrances and cul-de-sacs well maintained and making sure some restrictions are observed (mostly advertising and campaign signs, roof materials, junkers parked in the street, etc).  They also organize a lot of neighborhood activities ranging from progressive deck parties to Halloween parades for the little kids.

How interested they'll be in enforcing the antenna ban remains to be seen.  I haven't put up anything outside yet, but I plan to take a fresh look at that in the Spring.  Umm...  did I mention I'm going to run for president of the HOA board this Spring?  

73,
Dale - N0XAS

 

Most people appreciate reasonable CCR's, ie: "no hog farming."  The problem in Colorado with covenants and HOA's is there is NO Grandfather provision to protect the homeowner.  An individual can erect a tower that is permitted under the convenants and be forced to remove at a later date should the HOA decided to redraft the covenants.  This sounds crazy, but it happened to KGØKI, even after the he spent about $18,000 in legal fees.  See this link:

http://hometown.aol.com/nrclog/index.html

and look for "KGØKI court case pages."

I purchased a home in a rural subdivision with very reasonable covenants and no HOA.  An HOA formed at a later date and compelled me to join.  How?  Easy, they file a lien on your property and charge alarming interest on any unpaid balance.  That's what happens (to answer kd5scg's question) if you break the covenants or refuse to join.  Have you ever tried to sell a house with a lien or encumbrance?  Fortunately, in my case, they weren't motivated to eliminate my towers, but they could have, since they did redraft the covenants after incorporating.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K0rs @ Nov. 17 2002,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I purchased a home in a rural subdivision with very reasonable covenants and no HOA.  An HOA formed at a later date and compelled me to join.  How?  Easy, they file a lien on your property and charge alarming interest on any unpaid balance.  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

IMHO, it should be illegal for a situation like this to occur.  They shouldn't be able to force anyone to join
after the fact.  

Are there any Homesteading statutes there that could have protected you from this?
 

m

 

The larger problem with HOA's and CC&R's is that they are spreading fast and wide. This is one of the ways that old legal protections that Americans have always taken for granted get bypassed more and more until they are forgotten and lost. Fast-talking tactics like "would you want a hog farm next door" fool so many people into signing their rights away forever and unchallengably - and this is what is done to the comparatively well-to-do. The poor get their neighborhoods torn down in "urban renewal" and get herded into housing projects where their lives are so rule-bound that it resembles a prison camp. Oh, and one of those rules is "ham radio operation is forbidden". Yes, those very words - I have seen it.

 

In many instances, you may not be given full disclosure statements regarding the CC&Rs at your closing. I wasn't! When I found out, I went to court. At the closing I was given some restrictions, but not the full packet. I didn't know I had an incomplete packet. So I signed the form stating I received the CC&Rs. Because of this, I lost my case in court.

I had to fight the HOA to put up a TV antenna which was forbidden. I submitted a copy of the FCC ruling allowing them and they finally gave in. I just recently ran for the Board of Directors of my HOA and won. I'm now the Vice-President of the Board of Directors. Trust me, things will change!

 

Yes:  I took a brief look at the Yahoo site.
Antennae aren't the only issues covered by CC&R's. Some of the rules make no sence.
 
A friend bought a house in town. He didn't read all the fine print.  It seems there was a clause that the city fathers had the right to look at the color schemes in various nieghborhoods, and if they got tired of the particular colors they had the right to dictate a change.  He had to have his house repainted several times because they got tired of the previous colors.

I was going to buy some acreage a number of years ago. One of the questions I ask was if I could sink a well on the property to irrigate. They said I could,  but since it was in the water district it would have to be metered, and I would have to pay the water district for water taken from my well.
One of the reasons I had for looking at acreage was the intent to have an orchard and a garden. In this area of the world that means irrigation.

CC&R's don't always affect the just city dweller.  Sometimes they can get to the semi-rural and rural areas as well. This holds true whenever some politician figures a way to raid your wallet,  and it goes uncontested.
Doug Flory
WB6BCN

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5scg @ Nov. 17 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What happens to you if you break the HOA rules[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In the State of Texas, they can, and sometimes WILL, foreclose on your house. Cities like these things because THEY don't have to enforce anything.

Brad, W5CGH

 

KZ4EJF says:

"Thanks to the "New Deal", Trading with the Enemy Act, 1933, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the county clerks have been instructed since that time to never divulge the history of 'absolute ownership' via alloidal land title to anyone. Now, most of them have never heard of it, as well as many veteran surveyors.
Alloidal land title = no taxes. You own it, lock stock and barrel - forever"

HELLO..... what planet do you live on? FLASH....this is earth in 2002!

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) deals with the sale of goods....NOT LAND!!!! The UCC has abosolutly NOTHING to do with land.

The title of which you speak was referred to as Fee tail (Male, female, etc.) and IS NOT recognized in this country. It was popular in England hundreds of years ago, but not here in the USA. Even in England, such land was subject to taxes.

There is NO TITLE making the holder free of taxes. None. Never has been. You cannot take title in any form which protects you from taxes, never has been.

The fact is, you cannot take title from a seller which is GREATER than the seller got when he bought the property. If the seller did not have a title free of all restrictions, he certainly cannot deliver title to something he did not have. So whether the seller gives you a deed marked Alloidal, Colloidal, or even Super-duper-oidal, you cannot buy more property rights from the seller then the seller had in the first place. No private property owner can avoid property taxes, save the legitimate 501&copy; non-profit corporation.

What you refer to is the "secret" codicile of the U.S. constitution that permits revisionists to spout utter giberish without knowing what the heck they are talking about. That same "secret" codicil also allows you to avoid income taxes if you just refuse to recognize Article I, Section 8, of the US constitution which gives Congress "the power to lay and collect taxes".

As for the county clerks, they just record whatever title is presented to them in return for a filing/recording fee. They are not sworn to never reveal some super secret form of title twhat would wash away liabillity for taxes, covenants and restrictions, and enable you to avoid state and federal ltaxes and laws. You could record an Alloidal, Colloidal or even Super-duper-oidal title, they could care less! Heck, you could even form your own country and be your own King! The County clerks don't give advice. The state legislature is who creates forms of title. ie Joint Tenancy, Tenancy by the Entitety, Tennants in common, etc, etc. The County clerks have NO SAY.


BEWARE......BEWARE....BEWARE....BEWARE.....

of the quality of advice/information you get on electronic bulliten boards...it is worth EXACTLY what you pay for it!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W9WHE @ Nov. 19 2002,10:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) deals with the sale of goods....NOT LAND!!!! The UCC has abosolutly NOTHING to do with land.

The title of which you speak was referred to as Fee tail (Male, female, etc.) and IS NOT recognized in this country. It was popular in England hundreds of years ago, but not here in the USA. Even in England, such land was subject to taxes.

There is NO TITLE making the holder free of taxes. None. Never has been. You cannot take title in any form which protects you from taxes, never has been.

The fact is, you cannot take title from a seller which is GREATER than the seller got when he bought the property. If the seller did not have a title free of all restrictions, he certainly cannot deliver title to something he did not have. So whether the seller gives you a deed marked Alloidal, Colloidal, or even Super-duper-oidal, you cannot buy more property rights from the seller then the seller had in the first place. No private property owner can avoid property taxes, save the legitimate 501© non-profit corporation.

What you refer to is the "secret" codicile of the U.S. constitution that permits revisionists to spout utter giberish without knowing what the heck they are talking about. That same "secret" codicil also allows you to avoid income taxes if you just refuse to recognize Article I, Section 8, of the US constitution which gives Congress "the power to lay and collect taxes".

As for the county clerks, they just record whatever title is presented to them in return for a filing/recording fee. They are not sworn to never reveal some super secret form of title twhat would wash away liabillity for taxes, covenants and restrictions, and enable you to avoid state and federal ltaxes and laws. You could record an Alloidal, Colloidal or even Super-duper-oidal title, they could care less! Heck, you could even form your own country and be your own King! The County clerks don't give advice. The state legislature is who creates forms of title. ie Joint Tenancy, Tenancy by the Entitety, Tennants in common, etc, etc. The County clerks have NO SAY.


BEWARE......BEWARE....BEWARE....BEWARE.....

of the quality of advice/information you get on electronic bulliten boards...it is worth EXACTLY what you pay for it![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Fee tail was later abolished in England too, and I'm not really certain if that actually was what the previous poster meant, anyway.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have read enough law to understand what the issues are:

1) People are bound by CC&Rs, even though they have little choice of covenant-free housing. This seriously needs to be changed.

I live just outside a city where every house is restricted this way. I wish there were more hams in the locality, but I know it won't happen. I wouldn't want to live there either. Ironically, I bought a house that isn't in a subdivision mainly to get a single-storey home for the benefit of my XYL.

2) HOAs act as mini-governments, without any of the responsibility. This is wrong.

N3KIP

 

Nope. Sorry. Wrong.
Selective enforcement arguments rarely work against PRIVATE entities. While such an argument (called "equal protection" under the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution) might work against the GOVERNMENT, its generally a lousy argument to make as a defense to a PRIVATE action brought by a PRIVATE HOA. Why? Primaraly because the PRIVATE HOA is unlikely to have equal protection requirements under the HOA bylaws. The Government is stuck with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

While such an argument MIGHT work if you could argue that the HOA was not enforcing the rules against another, VERY SIMILAR antenna installation, it would likely fail if the best you can do is whine that the HOA doesn't enforce rules reguarding garbage cans, dogs, and loud radios.

Like it or not, HOA rules are generally enforcable in court, even if you don't like them or claim "but I didn't know". Moreover, the reasonable attorney fees and expenses a HOA incurs in SUCCESSFULLY enforcing a provision are, under many HOA bylaws, to be paid by the loosing homeowner! And if you, as a looser don't pay, the unpaid fees and costs become a lein on your property. So what? Well, sooner or later you will sell, and the leinholder will get paid before you do, and MAY also get interest!!!

All of which is a darn good reason to GET YOUR ADVICE FROM A LAWYER, not an electronic BBS!