I think that the system here is incredibly screwed up. It looks like the HOA screwed up however by not complying with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. As such, this is going to be litigated and the HOA is going to get more bad publicity than they know what to do with.
This is one of those areas in which I would rather deal with the city than deal with the HOA.
I’m still confused over this. Obviously, you don’t have to join the HOA in the first place, per SteveG1’s experience. What happens then? You don’t get to use the sewer? You can paint your house whatever color you want? It seems to me that whatever slight value an HOA might have is negated if not everybody is on board.
And after you’ve joined, can you quit? If so, you’d think that non-payment of dues would be tantamount to quitting, like a gym membership or a newspaper subscription.
This whole situation smells weird, even before the foreclosure stuff.
It is a bit more complicated than that. You really only see HOAs in newer communities. In those, however, you are being in the HOA because it conveys with the deed. They work very similarly to a condo board. The Wikipedia article gives a decent overview.
As a sidetrack, I think an interesting legal question presents itself if the buyer of this house wasn’t in cahoots with the HOA.
As repugnant as it may be, it’s apparently legal to do what the HOA did in Texas…except in the case of members of the Armed Forces. So does it become incumbant upon the buyer to do the necessary research to determine if that exception exists? I wouldn’t think so.
If the buyer was what’s called a Buyer in Good Faith, it may be possible that he or she does not need to give back the house.
What then? The two questions would be how does the family even get their property back when it’s the only one of its kind and it’s already been sold. Also, if the HOA is on the hook for the amount, how much? If the owners claimed $300,000, the HOA may easily push back and say “your house wasn’t worth that much. See? It sold for $135,000”
This is what gets to me. IF the house must be sold to pay the dues, then the house should be put on the open market for a good period of time (at least six months), during which time the homeowner can come up with the dues plus late fees. I’d also like to see a requirement for the owner to actually be SERVED a notice in person, not just have a notice sent. Notices get lost or stolen. Finally, there must be more than three bids for the house.
Seriously, it’s quite apparent that DiSanti knew someone in the HOA office, and they were acting unethically. I think that these cases need to go in front of a judge…including the proposed amount of sale.
Yeah, but in reality you still have to deal with the county government, state government, federal government and whatever other government entity has jurisdiction over your area. And you still have to pay taxes to all those governments. So it’s not like if you live in an HOA, you’re suddenly liberated from all other government.
No, but because it’s a private arrangement, it’s freedom, so it’s not an undeserved/illegitimate restriction on your rights.
And that’s why big-L Libertarianism is essentially anarchy. Whoever has the most money and ruthlessness wins. There’s no redress, and no protection.
Because it’s Texas; the laws protecting primary homesteads tend to apply only to civil judgments and liens, which Texas law skips entirely for HOAs.
I haven’t seen SteveG1’s post, so I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to, but HOA membership is a requirement in most states (where an HOA exists). Here in the Sun Belt (and I presume this applies to most of suburban Texas) there are so few old-construction communities that your options for avoiding an HOA are renting an apartment or living in a trailer park.
We count ourselves very lucky to have landed in a neighborhood with a non-asshole HOA.
Then we can buy their houses for $3,500.00. 
Most of the time an HOA is started by the developer for a new subdivision before any property is sold. Membership in is a requirement for purchasing a home in the subdivision. It is a part of the deed and the by-laws fo the HOA are similar to deed restrictions placed on the property by the city.
In SteveG1’s case (I think) he lived in a exsisting neighborhood that had no HOA when he purchased but later on people in the neighborhood formed one. In his case he did not have to become a member because he already owned his property. ( I think that is what he meant, if not maybe he can clear it up).
As far as HOA’s I think they are totally worthless and I would never purchase a home in an HOA. I have no problem with a city having codes and a Code Enforcement to make sure yards and lots aren’t overgrown, junk cars on blocks and falling down buildings, but no way would I put up with some nosey neighborhood group telling what kind of trees I can plant, what color I can paint my house or that I can only drive a certain type of vehicle that meets their standards.
My husband and I have recently decided to buy another house. We started listing things, and on both of our lists are “NO HOAs!!!”. Top of the list, all caps, extra exclamation points.
I concur, and think that there needs to be a thorough investigation of the board of the HOA as well any links to the “buyer” who got such an amazingly good deal. If any under the table shenanigans are found, jail time all round would be fitting.
We rented a house that was in a HOA community (from our close friends). As far as we knew, the HOA rules weren’t onerous, but they did restrict your freedom as a homeowner. I guess the question when considering buying into one is can you live with the particular restrictions imposed by that particular HOA. Some people love knowing that their neighbours can’t paint their porch red; other people hate it (we’re the latter). The penalties for owing fines and dues here are nowhere near as harsh as in Texas, though - as far as I know, they’ll end up putting a lien on your property and the HOA will get paid out before you get the rest of the money for your sale. I’m curious now what would happen here if homeowners simply refused to pay - I’ll have to find out.
Isn’t there the possibility that the HOA board will be taken over by a bunch of rule-loving power hungry assholes? Then you could suddenly find that under the new bylaw #4595, adopted at the last meeting, your mailbox is precisely 2 inches too high, and your 2009 Toyota is not suitable for parking in the neighborhood, since it is not a Lexus.
Among my professional co-workers probably 80% live in their Pleasant Valley Sunday HOAs to keep the scaaaaaaaaaary coloured people out. And every single one of them will swear that their HOA is different. Their HOA is great because it gets them a discount on trash service! (which somehow is more than I pay, not being in an HOA and living right next to their subdivisions, but oh well). And then after a while come the stories:
The person who got two tickets for lawn with grass that was 1-inch higher than regulated.
The person who got a ticket for changing a flat tire.
The person who got a ticket for having his mother park in his driveway when she drove 200 miles to visit and stayed overnight.
The person who had to dig up a tree his daughter planted because it was the wrong species.
The person who got a ticket for leaving her hose uncoiled.
The person who got a ticket because his deck was stained too light a colour.
The person who got 7 tickets for a total of $525 because they went on vacation and left their lawnmower outside. $75 a day for 7 days. On appeal, however, the HOA showed “mercy” and reduced the fine to $75. :rolleyes:
The person who was illegally told by his HOA to take down his TV aerial, and after he took (on my advice) the FCC regs about TV aerials trumping HOA covenants to them, they essentially gave him a giant middle finger and said “See you court, hope you can afford a lawyer.” So he complied to his HOA masters.
Think about it: you buy a $400,000 house and then give your neighbors - you know, average Americans - in other words, drooling idiots - the power of financial life and death over you, with virtually no recourse or appeal unless you file a lawsuit. You elevate petty-minded control freaks who likely believe Jesus rode a stegosaurus and whistling on the Sabbath should be a hanging offense to have control over your most fundamental possession - your home. Sound like a smart thing to do? You don’t actually own your house in any meaningful extent if you allow a non-governmental entity to put liens and even foreclose on you. You live in a $400,000 detached condo. The only thing missing is Mr. Roper bursting in at all hours of the day and night.
Oh, and the complaints of “but…but…there’s nowhere else to buy a house!!!” are bullshit in my area. Scores and scores of nice, close homes in near-zero crime neighbourhoods have sat vacant for years around here because they’re “old.” And there’s sometimes [sub]minorities[/sub] in the neighborhood. Oh noes! Save us, Aryan Jesus! :rolleyes:
Yup, sounds like paradise to me.
Wow, HOAs sound like a nightmare. Particularly the one in the OP, not to mention the despicable buyer. But here’s my question: I though a house had to be sold for fair market value. If not, an elderly person can sell a a 5 million dollar home to his son for $1,000, years back we were looking into how to handle my mom’s house (in NY), and we were told that if she sold it to us kids, we’d have to pay fair market value. Though I might not be remembering the particulars correctly.
Hey, this is AMERICA dude!
Screw the guy thats down, no problem!
Screw the IRS outa its due…oh hell no!
Ah, bullshit. Most HOA’s are not designed to steal your house. I love my HOA. Its perfectly reasonable. This sounds more like an isolated Texas law issue than anything. I’ve never heard of an HOA being allowed to seize your assets in the event of being behind in payments. That it happened here and to a deployed soldier is regrettable.
If the HOA “laws” were so onerous, then read the paperwork and don’t buy a house there. I tend to think this was more of a situation of ignorance on the part of the wife, who only informed her deployed spouse at the last minute. Even Texas can’t steal your house that fast.
Absolutely no offense intended, but I can almost guarantee you are misremembering the particulars. Absent particular laws providing otherwise for good reason, you may sell property to whomever you wish for whatever you choose (assuming a willing buyer). What you’re remembering is that, whatever price you choose to impose, you must pay taxes on the transaction at fair market value. (I think but am not certain that is Federal law.) And I believe there is an exception to that as between spouses.
There are tax shelter laws about this type of transaction, but it has more to do with that then the actual under selling a house. Grandma can’t “sell her house” to grandbaby for $1 so the IRS can’t cease it for her back tax debt, or to avoid paying tax in general, etc and so forth.