Man Refuses To Remove Flag From His Home

[Carol]

I chafe a bit under the constraints where we're at now. We're renting a house; but the HOA here has already been 'round to tell us that we're not fertilizing enough, my $500 car is 'unsightly' and so on. Urgh.

Ugh Indeed! Sorry Stuff on that level bugs me. My community is entry level...if they did the snobby stuff like lettering on the sides of trucks, bumper stickers, or runabout cars....we'd prolly lose half of our residents.

 

[Bruno@MT]

What I don't get is this: where do they get their authority from?
If I buy a plot of land, it is mine to use, and the only things that apply are the local zoning laws. If I buy a house somewhere, it is equally mine, and any contracts signed by the previous owner are null and void.

I could understand that IF you sign the contract, then the HOA has you by the shorts and curlies. But signing the contract cannot be (in Belgium at least) a legal requirement of the sale.

So what am I missing here?

 

[Carol]

Signing a contract can be a legal part of the sale in the U.S. The buyer is buying in to a managed community.

In the case of my condo complex, I didn't buy a plot of land per se. The deed says I have my one condominium unit and the equivalent to some fraction of land in the complex. I'm in a 3 story building with 8 units per floor...it is not like we all have our own yard. What we have is common areas, and the rights to access appropriately. I can walk in the green space surrounding other the other building or the other sub-developments in my complex. I have access to the playground, the basketball courts, the swimming pools, and the hiking trail that goes across the conservation easement protecting the local brook.

My mom and I each live in managed communities, my sister does not. We all have our own reasons for wanting to live in the type of arrangement we have. I greatly appreciate the freedom to choose what's right for me, and I respect another person's desire to chose what is best for them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Buying a plot of land doesn't grant you all rights to it. Only Texas currently allows you to really own it. (Don't believe me, go buy some land in NY and try digging for oil.)

"in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the US (notably Nevada and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title#United_States

That's a tangent though. Basic thing in the HOA cases are that when you buy your home you agree to comply with this groups terms. These terms can limit what colors you may paint your house, if your kids can play on the front lawn, if you can have pets, and how many, where you may park your car, how many visitors you may have at a given time, and what vehicles you may drive, and more.

My opinion is, piss on em. When I buy a house, I want the ability to paint it purple, put the Prius up on blocks, and fly a Klingon war banner. Not going to do it, but I don't care to be told "no". So our house search eliminates any place with a HOA, or zoning laws that restrict us similarly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What I don't get is this: where do they get their authority from?

Like a 'real' government, the consent of the governed. In the case of an HOA, it's generally a non-profit corporation created at the time a housing development is built - often by the developer. When the housing development is finally sold out, the new residents take over the corporation. That's why you seldom see an HOA in rural areas or in towns that 'grew up' without suburbs or intentionally-developed areas.

The theory is that the HOA gets it's authority from the members of the housing area; they agree to be members of the HOA when they buy a house in that development. They don't have a choice, it's a deed restriction. So either they agree to be members of the HOA, or they cannot complete the sale.

That also gives the HOA the power to levy fines, enforce regulations, collect fees, and in extreme cases, seize houses and sell them without the owner's permission.

If I buy a plot of land, it is mine to use, and the only things that apply are the local zoning laws. If I buy a house somewhere, it is equally mine, and any contracts signed by the previous owner are null and void.

Actually, that's generally not true at all. In addition to things like the mineral rights or other rights that previous owners may have sold (meaning they cannot convey those rights to you when you buy the property), there are deed restrictions to consider. This is why it is so complicated and expensive to close a real estate deal in the USA; for one reason, a title search has to be done, and any deed restrictions discovered and disclosed.

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

A lot of people don't know about them; they assume that when they buy a piece of land, it is theirs to do with as they please (other than zoning laws, as you stated). But no...

And you don't have to live in an area that has an HOA to have a restrictive covenant on the land. Some people have been surprised to find that they bought empty fields that they intended to develop, only to find out that they were forbidden from ever building on the property by the deed itself. Such things can be fought in court, but it's expensive, time-consuming, and if you lose, you own land that you can do nothing with - literally.

Check THIS one out!

http://savannahnow.com/stories/020698/CMNstock.html

The weird thing about deed restrictions - you can be the second, third, or one hundredth owner of the property - only the person who put the restriction on the deed can remove it. If that person is deceased, then it cannot be removed, as I understand it.

It seems counter intuitive - if you own something and sell it, you sell all interest in it. But not land, not in the USA. You can put your stamp on a deed by placing a restriction on it, and that restriction will have to be obeyed in perpetuity unless overcome in a court of law.

I could understand that IF you sign the contract, then the HOA has you by the shorts and curlies. But signing the contract cannot be (in Belgium at least) a legal requirement of the sale.

In the USA, it can indeed be a legal requirement of the sale. You agree or you cannot buy the property.

So what am I missing here?

Real estate law is weird and complex in the USA. Nothing a person could guess, and most Americans have no idea about it either.

 

[Carol]

Hey man, I like not having to mow grass, fix doorbells, do landscaping, demuck the gutters, shovel walkways or snowplow lots.

 

[MJS]

I live in a condo, and everyone else that lives in the complex, has a set of rules that we have to go by. There are certain things that can/can't be done. I've seen a number of decks that have US flags flying from them. Now, if it were something other than a US flag, such as in this case, would anything happen? No idea.

We have areas in front of each unit, that have small bushes, flowers, etc. The condo assoc. will take care of the upkeep of this. However, should we decide, and many people have, to take care of this ourselves, all we have to do is notify the assoc. of our decision, and that upkeep now falls on the owner of the condo.

This case sounds to me, like someone wants to live in a place with a HOA, but wants to do what THEY want to do. Umm...no, sorry, doesnt work that way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This case sounds to me, like someone wants to live in a place with a HOA, but wants to do what THEY want to do. Umm...no, sorry, doesnt work that way.

I agree. And with regard to 'stupid' rules being enforced, such as the apparent enforcement of the no-flag rule on the man's Gadsden flag...sure, it seems pretty silly, the flag is not offensive and one might wonder why the rule is being enforced. But when the HOA takes no action on rule violations that it finds 'OK', then it is harder to enforce the same rule on situations that are 'not OK' later on. So today they give the guy a break on the Gadsden flag, and tomorrow someone decides to fly a Nazi flag. While some here apparently don't care, trust me that many would. And the guy with the Nazi flag could legitimately say "Hey, that rule can't be enforced whenever you feel like it. Either it's a rule for everyone, or it's a rule for no one." The HOA could choose to amend their rules to allow the Gadsden flag, but apparently they choose not to. Them's the breaks.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Thanks. It is clear now. Something similar exists here, but only for people who one a condo (because they exist in a shared infrastructure and need maintenance that is common to all). Other than some very specific (and logical) exceptions like that, we generally really own the land for which we own the deed and what we do is noone's business.

It is interesting that the situation you describe exists in a country like the USA where individual liberty is cherished so much. It almost sounds like a communist committee.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thanks. It is clear now. Something similar exists here, but only for people who one a condo (because they exist in a shared infrastructure and need maintenance that is common to all). Other than some very specific (and logical) exceptions like that, we generally really own the land for which we own the deed and what we do is noone's business.

It is interesting that the situation you describe exists in a country like the USA where individual liberty is cherished so much. It almost sounds like a communist committee.

I guess the legal term is 'covenant appurtenant' and it means 'covenant running with the land'. I really don't know much about the history of such covenants, but I know they've been used for 'good' and for 'evil'. For example, in many cases, such covenants were used to ensure that there would be right of passage or an easement granted in perpetuity. No one would want to own property they could never access because it was surrounded by other private property which would not grant them right-of-way to get to their own property. I understand that in some countries in Europe, hunters and fishermen have the right to cut through fields and other private properties to reach hunting grounds and fishing areas; this is a sort of easement, and one could say it encumbers the property, since the owner can never remove the right to passage.

The 'evil' use to which 'covenant appurtenant' was put was racial segregation; people tried to use such deed restrictions to keep blacks, Jews, and Catholics out of 'their' neighborhoods. Such deeds are still sometimes found; but the Supreme Court ruled them all illegal a long time ago, so such requirements cannot be enforced. However, all such use which does not restrict the right of people whose civil rights are specifically protected from infringement can and are restricted in some cases.

Most often, though, such encumbrances on land are meant for good purposes, such as preventing development on farmlands or wildlife refuges, etc.

Let's say you owned some land that you left undeveloped to let wildlife flourish on it, and when you died, you wanted to pass it on to a nature conservancy. You might just give it to them, but who knows if they might decide they really didn't want it after all and sell it to a shopping mall developer? If you put a restrictive covenant on it and then give it to them, if they accept the land, they are prevented from ever selling it to anyone who would develop it; and so on down the line.

I'm not sure what the history is or where it really came from. I agree with you, it's weird for a country so fiercely independent like the USA. If anyone knows, I'd be interested in learning.

 

[WC_lun]

There was a case a couple of years ago where a HOA contract had not been updated in many, many years. A local Jewish familt went to move into the housing development and noticed that the HOA contract had a claus for no Jewish people. of course it was not enforced and the HOA had it removed. It is interesting some of the ignorance we once thought was acceptable. I'm glad we have progressed somewhat.

 

[Carol]

There was a case a couple of years ago where a HOA contract had not been updated in many, many years. A local Jewish familt went to move into the housing development and noticed that the HOA contract had a claus for no Jewish people. of course it was not enforced and the HOA had it removed. It is interesting some of the ignorance we once thought was acceptable. I'm glad we have progressed somewhat.

Sheesh! That's horrible! I don't how that could have been legal to begin with, violation of the Fair Housing act and all that.

 

[Carol]

Thanks. It is clear now. Something similar exists here, but only for people who one a condo (because they exist in a shared infrastructure and need maintenance that is common to all). Other than some very specific (and logical) exceptions like that, we generally really own the land for which we own the deed and what we do is noone's business.

It is interesting that the situation you describe exists in a country like the USA where individual liberty is cherished so much. It almost sounds like a communist committee.

But it is also an exercise in individual liberty to choose whether such a situation is right for you or not.

For example, my mom is 76 years old. She has lived alone since my dad passed away at the beginning of the decade She has a single family home and a small yard. She has the option of making her yard completely private (ie: telling maintenance that it is absolutely off limits, even locking a gate), or she can have the yard crew come in and keep it landscaped. She chose the latter.

My mom leads a very active life but she still has some health problems relating to advancing age. She bought in the community where she did because she can enjoy all the benefits of having a single family home, no common walls, private entries, etc....but without the obligations of the things she cannot do, such as mowing the lawn or fixing an exterior light. The HOA fees as a whole are a fraction of what she would have to pay in landscaping and maintenance had she needed to hire people on her own.

If I were in a position to desire a single family home of my own, I'm not sure I would want that. But I am very glad my mom has that option because it gives her much more independence, and it opened up options in the housing market that she would not have had otherwise.

 

[WC_lun]

Sheesh! That's horrible! I don't how that could have been legal to begin with, violation of the Fair Housing act and all that.

The original contract was written sometime in the 50's. Fair had nothing to do with it. Some people look back as the 50' as the 'good ole' days' but not many of those people are minorities.

 

[Carol]

The original contract was written sometime in the 50's. Fair had nothing to do with it. Some people look back as the 50' as the 'good ole' days' but not many of those people are minorities.

That explains it :asian: Fair Housing Act wasn't written until the late 60s.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I had an argument recently with someone who insists that it's his house, who the hell is the government to tell him what he can and can't do with it, or who he can and can't rent to. Lets just say the restrictions in his mind are "must be same color as me, no kids, no pets, and I can enter their apartment any time I want to since it's my house." Stuck in the 40's is an understatement.

A print out of the various laws that apply, as well as the recent one outlining that the presence of a smoker on site must be disclosed was not well received. (You folks think I post a lot of links in an argument here....argue with me in real life when I drop a ream or 2 of support documentation on you, LOL!)