# Fuck HOAs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 30, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023 "2010-06-30T02:56:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/101 "2010-07-06T21:33:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > These are not lienholders in teh sense taht mortgage holders are lienholders. yes they are. one is a contractual lienholder, the other one is a judicial lienholder. Doesn’t matter much, though. > [@](#): > > These are not secured creditors. And most states in the country do not allow for foreclosure based on these sort of liens and the commercial activity has not dried up in these states. of course they do. you get a lien, you can foreclose. that’s the entire point of liens. > [@](#): > > Once again this was not a mortgage. once again, I’m not saying it was. > [@](#): > > Most states only allow a lien that will make it impossible for you to sell your home or borrow money against your home. this is just patently not true and it’s contrary to how liens operate. > [@](#): > > Conspiracy and fraud are always relevant. Its a stupid Texas law. it’s relevant to the actual incident, but not to the overall point that i’m referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/102 "2010-07-06T22:32:11Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > I’m going to take issue with this, and the post above (it) that prompted this. > Lienholders foreclosing upon property for non-payment of debt is in no way, shape, or form, “unjust”, an overreaction, or a flight int the face of common sense. The punishment exactly fits the crime, in the fairest way possible. > > How else is a secured creditor supposed to get payment on a debt, hmm? We are weeping for this family (without knowing full details, which, I assure you, are glaringly absent and vital to understanding that they didn’t sweep in 30 days after filing and take the home from them) you’re completely ignoring the fact that an entity was owed money. > > How else would you set up a system for a debtor to properly use his collateral and obtain credit based on property he owns? Allow the collateralization for the benefit of the debtor, but when push comes to shove and it’s brass tacks time, just wave it off and say “pfft. 300 dollar debt can bring down a 300,000 asset? no thanks!” how is that fair to the creditor? > > then we can analyze the special provision that HOAs have to circumnavigate the (wisely) chosen restrictions on foreclosing on a residence. Well, seeing as that HOA is so intimately connected with the piece of property that is destined to be a homestead, what else would you have them do? Cry really hard and waste time and money trying to garnish wages or seize bank account assets, when they have an extremely valuable piece of property they can go after - and consequently homeowners would be very very keen on protecting by paying their debts? > > Many lienholders receive special priority in law - mechanics, tow-truck yards, etc - because the absence of these special provisions renders the standard debt collection mechanism ridiculously complex and costly for what usually are very small debts - but debts that are vital to the functioning of that entity. > > Whether the creditor in this case is malicious or is working a fraud with a connected third party is immaterial (albeit probable) to the justness of the remedial mechanism being used here. So stop bitching about “stupid texas law” or some other junk about how foreclosure is _so_ unfair, mmkay? > > Basically, pay your fucking bills and read your mail. Not that hard\* > > \*and for servicemembers, Congress has gone ahead and recognized that that’s not feasible when you’re squat-shitting in a trench, so they gave you great protection. However, that says nothing of the propriety of the legal action at question - rather it is relevant to this specific application. . Do you understand the word “disproportionate”? Read what **Lisa** said. “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime” are her exact words. (And yes, I’m well aware this is not criminal law – the phrase is often used metaphorically, as for example the impounding of a car (with a $250 recovery fee payable to the municipality) for failure to pay a $2 or $5 parking ticket.) In fact, I’m mildly curious as to whether a case could be made that such a foreclosure, without involvement of the courts, by a HOA is not a strict-language violation of the due process clause. And a final point: For someone so hot to defend the concept of paying for what you use, it’s interesting to note that your status is “Guest.” ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/103 "2010-07-06T23:33:08Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Do you understand the word “disproportionate”? Read what **Lisa** said. “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime” are her exact words. (And yes, I’m well aware this is not criminal law – the phrase is often used metaphorically, as for example the impounding of a car (with a $250 recovery fee payable to the municipality) for failure to pay a $2 or $5 parking ticket.) yes. do you not understand that lienholders using the legal mechanisms at their disposal to collect on a debt that the debtor did not pay is not disproportionate. the punishment exactly fits the crime - namely the debtor is being punished exactly by the amount of money the debtor owes. pay the fucking bill, even after being hauled into court, and this never happens. i’ll break it down for your amoeba-level intellect: person buys a piece of property with HOA covenants on the deed; either by virtue of law or deed/contract agreement, person impliedly agrees to be foreclosed upon if they don’t pay debts due to the HOA; person doesn’t pay the debt; person doesn’t respond to any legal notices involving the foreclosure, which would have given said person the ability to pay the debt and completely avoid the foreclosure person loses the house what, pray the fuck tell, is disproportionate about that, exactly? it doesn’t matter if it’s a million dollar debt or a dollar debt - it’s the only fair and just way for someone to get what they are owed when the debtor is unwilling to actually pay the debt. the way, by the by, is going to court and getting the remedy that all parties were aware of when they entered into the transaction (or availing yourself of statutes that eliminate this step). how else would you do it? tell the creditor to fuck off and pound dirt? (keep in mind, at this point i’m not delving into the specifics of this case, because servicemembers are apparently (i haven’t researched it) provided generous protections against creditors when they are deployed. i’m merely talking about the overall principles and legal actions that are claimed to be “disproportionate” in foreclosing for a small (percentage wise) debt) > [@](#): > > In fact, I’m mildly curious as to whether a case could be made that such a foreclosure, without involvement of the courts, by a HOA is not a strict-language violation of the due process clause. because she was given due process by being notified of the court/non-court proceeding against her? and because this has nothing to do with government action? > [@](#): > > And a final point: For someone so hot to defend the concept of paying for what you use, it’s interesting to note that your status is “Guest.” no, i’m hot to defend the concept of paying for what you owe, sweetie. god, I hope you’re not barred anywhere - your rank inability to comprehend the actual concepts that are being discussed (or the difference between use and owe) and your learning-disability-level understanding of what the due process clause is and is not would be quite shocking if you were an actual attorney. if you’re not, it’s just plain embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/104 "2010-07-06T23:41:31Z")
Does Rand Rover have the day off or sumptin? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/105 "2010-07-07T03:19:05Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Does Rand Rover have the day off or sumptin? Yeah – Rumor’s doing a good job filling his shoes, though. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/106 "2010-07-07T06:32:20Z")
I thought he was ivn1188 for a minute. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Wombats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Wombats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Wombats)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/107 "2010-07-07T16:03:05Z")
**Rumor\_Watkins** , since you’ve taken it upon yourself to defend the HOA, here for executing a perfectly reasonable judicial mechanism over the matter of unpaid bills, perhaps you could answer a query. Is the HOA under no obligation to sell the house in a commercially reasonable manner? Foreclosing and selling the house for .5% of what the homeowners paid and for, what?, 1.1% of the immediate subsequent sale was in no way suspect? I call bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/108 "2010-07-07T16:20:36Z")
Since this discussion has flared up again, I’ll post the email I received from my father-in-law who recently retired from his condo board here in Calgary: > [@](#): > > This very question came up at one of our Condo Board Meetings. We had a resident that had not paid his fees in at least 2 years. Here is what we learned. First off, if the owner ever decides to sell, any charges against the unit must be paid before the mortgage can exchange hands. Usually the mortgage holder (i.e. bank) will pay outstanding condo fees to insure their investment. That is what happened in this case. Every 6 months the bank would pay all back fees. We found out that existing Alberta Condominium Act legislation allows the condominium corporation to take legal action against the owner of the unit to recover outstanding fees. Legal steps could be taken up to and including the removal of the owner (which would entail the mortgage holder foreclosing on the property) However, none of this action could be taken without the owner’s knowledge. This type of action would be extremely costly in terms of legal fees and would only be undertaken in extreme cases. In our case the bank eventually got tired of paying the fees and I assume, also got tired of missed mortgage payments and foreclosed on the property evicting the tenant/owner. So it could happen here, but not in such a short time, and not without informing the owners. I will give the Texas condo board credit - they did send letters, and you can’t make people open their mail, but at some point I’d pick up the damned phone already. And her making a payment and them not mentioning that they’re already in foreclosure proceedings - that sounds highly suspicious to me. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/109 "2010-07-07T16:36:48Z")
I think it’s cute when people use big-boy curse words and forceful language, as if the inclusion of the word “fuck” will somehow mask the weakness of their argument. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/110 "2010-07-07T17:50:51Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > I think it’s cute when people use big-boy curse words and forceful language, as if the inclusion of the word “fuck” will somehow mask the weakness of their argument. Fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/111 "2010-07-07T18:26:14Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Wombats](#): > > **Rumor\_Watkins** , since you’ve taken it upon yourself to defend the HOA, here for executing a perfectly reasonable judicial mechanism over the matter of unpaid bills, perhaps you could answer a query. > > Is the HOA under no obligation to sell the house in a commercially reasonable manner? Foreclosing and selling the house for .5% of what the homeowners paid and for, what?, 1.1% of the immediate subsequent sale was in no way suspect? > > I call bullshit. you must have missed my comments on the specifics of this case: > [@](#): > > Whether the creditor in this case is malicious or is working a fraud with a connected third party is immaterial (albeit probable) to the justness of the remedial mechanism being used here. yes, usually foreclosure sales need to be done in a commercially reasonable manner, and there’s probably some fishy stuff in this specific case. I don’t know the specifics of this non-judicial foreclosure law so I can’t intelligently speak as to what they did or did not have to do,. But if it truly is an auction on the courthouse steps that was properly publicized and all procedures are adhered to, and the only person that comes to bid puts a bid down that is .5% of the “real” value of the asset… well, that’s just tough shit. Debtor could’ve bid, too… My comments are not directed at defending this HOA in this case - it’s more at how some people fffffreak out and spew stupid shit like “zomg, this is SO disproportionate and unfair” in regards to foreclosures, debts, and unpaid bills. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/112 "2010-07-07T18:37:18Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Since this discussion has flared up again, I’ll post the email I received from my father-in-law who recently retired from his condo board here in Calgary: > So it could happen here, but not in such a short time, and not without informing the owners. I will give the Texas condo board credit - they did send letters, and you can’t make people open their mail, but at some point I’d pick up the damned phone already. And her making a payment and them not mentioning that they’re already in foreclosure proceedings - that sounds highly suspicious to me. Although the case in Texas as described seem strange, it certainly is not only in Texas that an HOA can eventually force a homeowner to sell if the dues are not being paid. Indeed, I think that’s the case in every state. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/113 "2010-07-07T18:42:25Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > I think it’s cute when people use big-boy curse words and forceful language, as if the inclusion of the word “fuck” will somehow mask the weakness of their argument. I don’t merely refute your argument; I throw it down on the bedspread and ravish it, leaving it begging for more. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/114 "2010-07-07T18:43:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I will give the Texas condo board credit - they did send letters, and you can’t make people open their mail, but at some point I’d pick up the damned phone already. And her making a payment and them not mentioning that they’re already in foreclosure proceedings - that sounds highly suspicious to me. Her making a payment, and then asking about her late payments, and them not saying that they’re in foreclosure sends up all sorts of red flags to me. Part of the problem is that Texas allows this sort of thing to happen in 27 days…I certainly didn’t know that. That’s less than even the shortest month. It’s not impossible that a family might be on a vacation for a month or so…and might miss those crucial letters. And apparently, other people in this [HOA](http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/soldier-iraq-loses-home-homeowners-association-foreclose) who owed much more in dues, and received personal visits from the HOA when they were about to be foreclosed upon. This is another red flag. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/115 "2010-07-07T18:46:34Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > yes they are. one is a contractual lienholder, the other one is a judicial lienholder. Doesn’t matter much, though. Of COURSE it matters. If I lend you money in exchange for the promise to repay and if you don’t repay I can come and take your house, thats one thing. If I mow your lawn and you don’t pay and I put a mechanic’s lien on your home, I never contracted for the right to sell your home to satisfy your obligation to pay me for mowing your lawn. That lien is a legal construct that the law puts there to give you some osert of recourse and in VERY few places does that lien translate into a right to foreclose. There is a reason that mechanics liens are not given foreclosure rights in most jurisdictions, because of shit like this. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/116 "2010-07-07T18:55:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Of COURSE it matters. If I lend you money in exchange for the promise to repay and if you don’t repay I can come and take your house, thats one thing. If I mow your lawn and you don’t pay and I put a mechanic’s lien on your home, I never contracted for the right to sell your home to satisfy your obligation to pay me for mowing your lawn. That lien is a legal construct that the law puts there to give you some osert of recourse and in VERY few places does that lien translate into a right to foreclose. There is a reason that mechanics liens are not given foreclosure rights in most jurisdictions, because of shit like this. no, not a mechanic’s lien dipshit. a judgment lien. > [@](#): > > You have no idea what youa re talking about. You cannot foreclose on property just because you have a lien. There are some liens that you can foreclose on but the law abhors a forfeiture and it almost never allows foreclosure on small liens like this (part of me thinks taht considering teh cost of foreclosure there must have been somebosy somewhere that was putting up the money for this abomination to proceed) Do you have any legal authority for your bullshit claims? protip: quoting antiquated maxims of equity (incorrectly, i must add) isn’t legal authority. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/117 "2010-07-07T19:10:37Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no, not a mechanic’s lien dipshit. a judgment lien. > > Do you have any legal authority for your bullshit claims? protip: quoting antiquated maxims of equity (incorrectly, i must add) isn’t legal authority. I presume you missed the bit about them not having to take this through the courts, then? “Sale on the courthouse steps,” my mauve-colored great aunt! Considering you said you hoped I wasn’t “barred” anywhere (I’m not, and have never made a secret of it), just what states are you licensed to practice in, Counselor? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/118 "2010-07-07T19:21:48Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I presume you missed the bit about them not having to take this through the courts, then? > > “Sale on the courthouse steps,” my mauve-colored great aunt! > > Considering you said you hoped I wasn’t “barred” anywhere (I’m not, and have never made a secret of it), just what states are you licensed to practice in, Counselor? It’s real simple: certain types of lienholders don’t have to sue to foreclose on their lien. certain types of lienholders do. mechanics lienholders do. certain types of contractual or other lienholders (specifically, in this case, homeowners associations by why I presume is some statutory grant of non-judicial foreclosure power. more generally, mortgagees are the ones most often given this power) don’t. you are, again and unfortunately, missing the broad side of the barn with your pithy attempts at insult. like the difference between “use” and “owe”. p.s. I’m licensed to practice in 2 states and a federal district. p.p.s you didn’t need to make a secret of your not being an attorney. your idiotic posts expose you just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/119 "2010-07-07T20:42:51Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > no, not a mechanic’s lien dipshit. a judgment lien. How the heck does that mechanics lien turn into a foreclosure? They get a judgment on the mechanic’s lien don’t they? that still doesn’t negate the difference between a negotiatesd security itnerest that you have in my home when you lend me money on the promise to pay or you can foreclose and being able to extract a judgment from me by foreclosing on my home. Do you honestly not see a difference beween a contracted right to foreclose and a right to foreclose on just any old debt (converted into judgment or not, depending on what’s required). Why do we NEED to give people the ability to foreclose on mechanics liens? How is commmercial activity retarded by an inability to foreclose on a some trivial judgment? > [@](#): > > Do you have any legal authority for your bullshit claims? protip: quoting antiquated maxims of equity (incorrectly, i must add) isn’t legal authority. Hrmm, it appears that many jurisdictions DO allow for foreclosure on mechanics liens. I’ve seen tons of mechanics liens and i have never seen one foreclosed on. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023/120 "2010-07-07T23:31:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How the heck does that mechanics lien turn into a foreclosure? They get a judgment on the mechanic’s lien don’t they? that still doesn’t negate the difference between a negotiatesd security itnerest that you have in my home when you lend me money on the promise to pay or you can foreclose and being able to extract a judgment from me by foreclosing on my home. why is it any different? take this scenario: Debtor owns a 100,000 house. that’s all the assets they have in the world. nothing else. zip. zilch. i’m even talking about clothes, a random CD, or a penny they picked up in an alley. jack else except for the house. doesn’t work, either. Debtor lives in a state where there are no judgment exemptions (i.e. you can’t shield assets from judgment) Debtor borrows $500 bucks from Creditor / Debtor mortgages his house for $500 from Creditor / Debtor contracts to have housing repair done on his house for $500 Debtor refuses to pay. What is a creditor supposed to do? That’s why there’s no legal distinction between (there are procedural distinctions, yes) taking your house to pay the mortgage or taking your house to pay the judgment against you. It’s a debt. > [@](#): > > Do you honestly not see a difference beween a contracted right to foreclose and a right to foreclose on just any old debt (converted into judgment or not, depending on what’s required). legally? no. there is none. one is done beforehand, via contract (the mortgage), and is operative if and only if you refuse to pay a debt in accordance with the contract you entered into. the other is done after you have refused to pay a debt and you have been taken to court and have a judgment entered against you (the judgment lien). how else are you supposed to get money you’re owed? (incidentally, the same mechanism works if you have a tort judgment against a “judgment debtor” - if i punch you out and you sue me and get a $100k judgment, you either garnish my wages or seize my assets to pay) > [@](#): > > Why do we NEED to give people the ability to foreclose on mechanics liens? How is commmercial activity retarded by an inability to foreclose on a some trivial judgment? because some people won’t pay money they owe, so the only remedy is to go after what they own - either wages, bank accounts, or tangible or real assets. Why do you think penny ante commercial activity is any less deserving of legal protection than large-scale commercial activity? > [@](#): > > Hrmm, it appears that many jurisdictions DO allow for foreclosure on mechanics liens. I’ve seen tons of mechanics liens and i have never seen one foreclosed on. 2 reasons: mechanics liens are only relevant in 2 scenarios: personal property and real property. mechanics liens on personal properties allow the creditor to maintain possession of the article until the debt is paid. so if you don’t pay Gus the mechanic, you aren’t getting your car back. and it’s legal. in real property, i’m sure there is quite a bit of litigation for large-value mechanics liens on incomplete buildings and large commercial real estate. at the consumer level, a contractor would be stupid to not start work on your house without a deposit or pre-payment (i.e. he’s not extending you credit), so the risk is low. you also don’t see foreclosure on mechanic’s liens because it’s costly to prosecute them, and most of the times the items they are foreclosing upon are either exempt from judgment, can be made exempt from judgment, or have larger liens on them (i.e. purchase-money liens like mortgages or car loans). so it’s just not cost effective to get a judgment on your lien for a $300 debt or something. what distinguishes homeowner associations here is that they are given an exemption from judgment exemptions, given expedited non-judicial mechanisms to foreclose, and lastly operate on resident-contributed budgets where there is both a financial incentive ($500 on a small HOA can’t be covered up with accounting - it goes to pay necessary bills) and a fair game incentive (if one fellow resident isn’t paying, but everyone else is…) to vigorously pursue the liens. so you’ve got a situation where these lienholders are in prime position to foreclose. which puts the debtor/homeowner in prime position to ensure that the bill is paid. which is the entire point of rigging the system in the favor of the HOA - so that no one can skate by without paying for communal upkeep. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-hoas/545023.md?page=7)