I’m perfectly happy with my HOA, too. When I was house hunting a little over two years ago I was considering a number of places, and one of the factors I had to consider was that several of them required HOA membership. I had my buyer’s agent get me a copy of the HOA contract and read it over carefully, and I made a point of talking to several of my prospective neighbors what the board was like. I attend the semi-annual meetings and haven’t seen any signs of the horror stories I’ve always heard about. It’s worth the monthly dues to not have to worry about taking care of the front yard, or cleaning the gutters, or any of the other things that the HOA provides. Earlier this year they voted to have the curbside mailboxes on my street replaced out of the common fund, which saved me the trouble and expense of doing it myself (which I had been about to look into doing because mine was in such bad shape).
I posted this excerpt from the Dallas Morning News earlier, but I’ll post it again.
You said “bullshit” and then addressed none of my statements with your reply.
Most people I know who are in HOA-controlled areas would prefer that the HOA did not exist, but they made their decisions based on other reasons. And it really is not the point that most HOAs aren’t designed to steal your houses. The point is that all HOAs should be regulated to ensure that their contractual remedies are not disproportionally harsh.
Are these bodies (HOA’s) answerable to anyone?
In this instance would the owner of the house be able to sue the body or the members of the body?
I’m having a little difficulty seeing where the power of a HOA is supported by law.
When you buy property, you are obliged to abide by any covenants that ‘run with the land’ – i.e., are tied to title to the property, not to the indvidual owner. For example, you may find your predecessors as owners have granted an easement to the neighbors to the right, who are literally unable to safely access their roof on your side from their own property, that they or roofers they employ may enter onto the 12 lineal feet of your property closest to their property line for the purpose of inspecting and repairing their roof. The utilities company has an easement to come onto the roadside portion of your property to repair power lines without notice. There may be a covenant among a dozen neighbors that their kids may swim in the pond at the rear of the Browns’ land, and in return no one will sue the Browns for any normal kid injuries, etc., sustained in using or accessing it. And old man Green, who originally built the subdivision and whose cotnracting business is half a mile down the road, is contractually obliged to keep the streets and driveways free of snow and the water and sewer lines in good repair, and each property owner in the subdivision is obliged to pay an equal share of his annual billing for those services.
Look at those last two covenants. There’s the genesis of a HOA in typical real-property covenants. Now add in the typical Pit-thread annoying-neighbor horror stories: the guy with 12 junk cars up on blocks all over his property, the people who hold loud parties all night, the jerk who put up the spite fence…
Typically a HOA is produced by the developer and imposed as a covenant running with the land on purhasers of new homes in his subdivision, to provide for common services and sometimes the maintenance of common amenities (e.g., the swimming pool and tennis courts open to property owners, their families and guestsm, with title in the HOA) , and restrictions against the sort of eyesores and annoying behaviors that are grist for typical Pit threads.
Where they become a problem is when they get taken over by the sort of neighbor with extensive free time and what he/she sees as his/her God-given right to regulate the property and behavior of his/her neighbors.
As to how they’re enforced, the issue is that they’re contractual obligations. If you consult a doctor, you’re obliged to pay his reasonable charges. If you have a plumber or roofer do repairs on your home, you’re obliged to pay theirs. This is contract law. If you’ve contracted, in buying your home, that you will let Divine Power and Light repair their power lines on the roadside 20 feet of your property, they have a right to do so. If you have access to common services and amenities, like water from a drilled well serving your subdivision and the use of common recreational facilities, you need to pay your fair share of maintaining them to the HOA that ensures they’re maintained. And if you’ve contracted, in buying your home, that you will paint it only in a range of acceptable colors, plant only agreed species of trees and shrubbery, etc., those standards to be set by the HOA you and your neighbors are members of, the HOA has the right to enforce that covenant, and to collect fees for their expenses in doing so.
But it’s obvious how one progresses in easy stages from “protect against petty annoyances and eyesores” to “Mrs. Grundy running your life and mulcting you for the privilege of letting her do so.”
The “association” started up after I had already been here a while. So, in effect, I was here first.
Yes, I was there before there was any block association or HOA.
As other people have kind of touched on, it is usually very easy for YOU to join your HOA or condo board - these types of positions are usually open for anyone who wants to spend the time and effort doing the job.
Uh, not implying that YOU are a power-hungry asshole. 
In our complex there are often fewer people running for the HOA board than there are spots available. Anyone with the least bit of interest can run, and probably win.
And remember, in many, if not most, cases, the HOA is responsible for the maintainanance of the common property, if there is any. In multiple unit structures, e.g. condo buildings or townhouses, this is at least the entire exterior of the building. In those situations there is no substitute for an HOA.
So it’s kind of funny to hear people complain about HOA’s preventing people from painting their house a certain color. Here, it’s the HOA’s job to do the exterior painting in the first place.
I grew up in townhouses, it’s the kind of living situation my parents liked (my father hated exterior maintainance), so it’s what I’m used to. It’s where I live now. It wouldn’t be possible without an HOA.
I think SteveG1 is talking about an entirely different sort of homeowner’s association. In my area, there is a type of organization that is variously called a homeowner’s association , block association , property owner’s association or resident’s association. They are nothing like the HOA’s being discussed in this thread. Membership is voluntary, dues are minimal (mine are $10 a year) and the association provides no tangible services and imposes no restrictions on members. They essentially function as an advocate for the neighborhood with government agencies and officials. If my neighbor paints his house yellow and purple , they can’t do anything. If my neighbor has 10 cars parked on the street with out-of-state plates for months at a time, they will put pressure on the Dept of Traffic to enforce the law.
A colleague of mine bought a new sofa, so the new sofa was brought in and the old sofa was carted away. His condo association issued a $1,000 citation for “unauthorized moving.” The unauthorized moving rule is in place to ensure that one elevator is dedicated to and equipped for large-scale furniture moving (collision pads, etc.) and also to ensure that only one elevator is tied up for that reason. It’s not for simple delivery and removal of a single piece of furniture. It took him weeks of battling with the condo board to get the citation revoked.
The same person who issued the citation has also been citing cat owners for letting their cats go unleashed, noting that the rules required pets to be leashed.
He’s had to take time off from work to deal with this kind of nonsense.
An ongoing problem with such associations is that the people who are more likely to have the time and inclination to participate on the boards tend to be the kind of people who shouldn’t be given the opportunity to get into their neighbors’ business.
Yeah, I’m cloudy on the particulars for sure. What you say makes sense. DiosaBellissima is probably getting to what I might have been told. It was a while ago. Thank you, both.
Exactly - the villain in this unfortunate tale is apparently the Texas legislature, for having passed a law giving HOAs the right to foreclose on a homeowner over the debt of a fairly trivial amount of money.
And the people of Texas, who keep on electing these jackasses.
But saying that HOAs are evil, because (list a handful of the most egregious HOA abuses), is like saying blacks are dumb and violent because look at how those ghetto kids act. These essentially identical arguments are equally full of shit.
I pit the fucking neighbors.
I recently moved into an HOA neighborhood and did some renovations before I moved in and as I was moving in, some folks came by to “welcome me to the neighborhood” and asked if I had teh shutter painted, I said no I got new windows, and they said, gee the shutters look awfully nice, amd I sure I didn’t get the shutter painted. My neighbor came by later to tell me that these jackholes were trying to get me in trouble with teh HOA because their one joy in life in screwing people over with the HOA.
I used to be on the board of an association and I can vouch for the fact that most of the people that run for these positions are assholes looking for avenues to vent their assholery. The rest have specific issues they want to deal with (I wanted to institute a fine for people who let their dog shit on my lawn without picking up afterwards and I wanted a speedbump right in front of one of my neighbors houses so he wouldn’t peel out of his driveway).
It even worse than that. Foreclosure in almost every state allows you to pay it off even after forclosure right up to the moment before the gavel comes down at the foreclosure auction. Its not like, a foot fault that has some horrible results.
But to be fair, most states do not let homeowner associations to foreclose on property.
I don’t know whether there was really a complaint or someone on the HOA board just took it upon him- or herself to enforce the “law,” but ever since it happened I’ve been looking askance at my neighbors, wondering who’s the rat. Another pleasant side effect: simmering contempt and suspicion.
It also prompted me to examine the shutters and trim of my neighbors’ units, and I noticed for the first time how many of them have old, fading and/or chipped paint. Apparently this is acceptable (no good deed = no punishment) and since I’m not a *meddling fucking asshole * I haven’t felt the need to register a complaint of my own.
That’s only for related party transactions. There have been ways to get around that for decades.
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. .
These are not lienholders in teh sense taht mortgage holders are lienholders.
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.
Once again this was not a mortgage.
Most states only allow a lien that will make it impossible for you to sell your home or borrow money against your home.
Conspiracy and fraud are always relevant. Its a stupid Texas law.