A friend of mine is being harassed by his local Home Owners Association for putting up a shed in his side yard and for building a fence extension on one side of his block wall (to shade his yard from the sun in the afternoon). He asked and received permission from both his neighbors on either side for putting up the shed and the fence (he did it at his own expense).
The HOA has repeatedly sent him notices about the shed (basically telling him he has to tear it down by X date or pay a series of increasingly large penalties), and now is doing the same thing about the fence.
I’m not asking about what legal recourse my friend has (he is basically asking a lawyer about those in any case)…my question, however, has more to do with how these HOA’s work, how they get the power they get, and why they are able to tell home owners what they can or can’t have in their own yards (and back yards in this case). He has to pay a monthly fee for them to maintain his front yard (which they do poorly, IMHO, as I always see him out there picking up trash or other debris, or fixing some plant or other that is dying that the HOA is supposed to be maintaining)…he has no choice in this, the fee is mandatory. Ok…I can sort of see that. But how can they tell him he can’t have a shed on the side of his property (all the houses in his neighborhood have walls around their property, and they have about 5-6 feet of side yard on both sides of the house…he set up the shed on the off side, so that it gives him some shed space while not blocking access to the back yard from the front via the other side gate)? His neighbor doesn’t have any problem with it (the shed, in fact, barely is higher than the block wall that goes around the entire yard). Same with the fence he built. His other neighbor doesn’t have an issue with it (and it’s a pretty well built fence…it basically is just a wooden fence that tops the block wall by about 4 feet and is just used to block the sun when it’s setting in the west in the afternoon).
Their power comes from the fact that they are granted this power in the deeds that were set up by the developer. Buying a house in an area covered by an HOA means submitting yourself to their rules. It is a deal breaker for many home buyers and this is exactly the reason why.
I wish him luck in his fight, but this is one of those things that people should go into with their eyes open. The neighbors on either side don’t mean squat when dealing with an HOA.
He signed over his right to do these things without thier permission when he bought the house. He is basically SOL unless he can find the proper butt to kiss in the HOA and start doing some fence building of another sort.
Has any of this stuff been challenged in court? I’ve never lived in a place with a HOA myself, but it just doesn’t seem right to me. My friend is saying that going over what he signed, it only talks about the front yard (which, according to him, is what they promise t maintain…presumably that’s what the fee his has to pay is for).
What are the advantages of having a HOA that is going to do stuff like this? I can see the maintaining the front yard thing (especially out here), but why would anyone put up with them telling the owners of the houses what they can and can’t have in their back yards? For that matter, if they DO enforce stuff like this, why don’t they hammer the people who don’t do anything with their back yards? A couple houses in that neighborhood don’t have anything in their back yards at all except jungles of desert weeds and trash. It seems counter intuitive to me why they would make such a big deal about my friends back yard (extremely well maintained, grass even though I think that’s a waste, personally, nice garden (another waste IMHO) and very nice landscaping), while not saying boo about the houses that have junky backyards?
HOA’s are established primarily for one reason: to preserve property values of the neighborhood.
HOA rules can vary from group to group and can include broad power provision to the HOA on what you can and can’t do aesthetically and architectually on your property.
They don’t want any Tom, Dick or Harry, moving in and putting up a chicken coop in the back yard.
I live in a neighborhood with an HOA, and we are not allowed to put up any type of privacy fence. Fencing can only be done around the back yard and must be of a wrought iron type that will not obstruct views through the property. If you want to obtain some sort of privacy in your back yard, you can do it through trees and shrubs. The primary reason is that wooden privacy fences grey and age with time and can be considered an eyesore to some potential home buyers.
I wonder about the Constitutional authority to allow the formation of kangaroo governments by contract. We’re not talking about an actual impact on the neighbors, who didn’t mind, but a set of arbitrary rules. I know the right to build a shed was rejected as the 11th amendment, but how far can contracts take away a person’s right to a home they own. I assume its not some condo thing where you don’t own the property, but a covenant in the deed. I have a similar covenant in the deed to my property that says I can’t sub-divide, I don’t want to, but lawyers have assured me that’s easily overturned if I’m not violating any local law or having an negative impact on the public.
Anyway, I feel bad for the guy. I’ve told many people that the joy of home ownership was your right to go out in the back yard and dig a hole if you want to, and nobody can stop you. The best way to understand how I feel was conveyed in an Aussie movie called The Castle.
How do you know they aren’t saying “boo” to those neighbors? I’ve seen some HOA’s that have maintenance requirements go in and the HOA will pay for the maintenance, and then bill the homeowner. If the homeowner doesn’t reimburse the HOA for the costs, they will then file a lien on the house and it can’t be sold until the lien is cleared. All of this is perfectly legal and held up to challenges in court.
I don’t…I can only say that there are few houses in his neighborhood where the backyards are pretty awful, as only unmaintained and undeveloped yards in the South West can get (nasty).
I suppose they COULD be getting fined and such, but if so it doesn’t seem to be having any effect on them making changes (possibly it’s cheaper to continue to pay the fine than to simply weed the back yard, or put in rocks or something like that).
When someone sells property that is under HOA rules, they are required to disclose the HOA rules, etc. to the potential buyer. The buyer purchases the property subject to the rules that are in place for the property. As a property owner, any changes to those rules, he would be entitled to have a vote on. In general, HOA’s have been tested in the courts and have withstood their challenge.
It’s been challenged many times and is almost routinely found in favor of the HOA by the presiding judge. Basically, when you sue the HOA, you are suing yourself. No judge wants to open a can of worms by finding for plaintiffs. The by-laws for HOAs are very specific as to procedures for putting in things like sheds, decks, etc. When you ignore the procedures, they are within their rights to impose penalties and demand that you remove the offending item. Now, this goes against the grain of the fee-simple property rights of home-owners, but ruling against the HOA throws the entire scheme into chaos and defeats the purpose of a managed community. That said, sometimes these boards think of themselves as autocrats, rather than elected members of the community in which they live. In other words, little dictators wielding the limited power given to them by the by-laws in the manner of self-righteous pricks.
Generally, the association’s by-laws will specify that no modifications can be made to the exterior of the home without prior approval from the HOA board. There’s usually something called an Architectural Request Form, or an Arch. Change Form, etc. that has to be submitted first for approval. If he’d done that first AND gotten approval, there would be no problem. His neighbors’ approval means jack shit, sorry.
I’ve always lived HOA neighborhoods. On balance, I prefer HOA but I’ve always had conflicted feelings about it. On the one hand, it definitely helps preserve property values if the rules are enforced. On the other hand, it becomes a power position for those trophy wives that are closet authoritarians.
New neighborhoods are continually being constructed with HOAs so it is a legal construct that many residents prefer. The initial land construction developer forms the HOA and once enough new houses are built (70% threshold or something like that), the HOA is taken over by the actual residents. The residents could all vote to eliminate the HOA if they wanted to but they don’t. It clearly is something that people want.
HOA bashing is definitely a popular spectator sport but the anger doesn’t seem to jive with the numbers… new neighborhoods are still being built with them in place… especially any neighborhoods that have the marketing slogans like “master planned community” in them.
HOAs are run by humans with all their imperfections and biases. Therefore, it’s possible (and expected!) that they enforce rules inconsistently. Also, the members of the HOA may be a revolving door which adds another factor to inconsistent inspections.
For example, I got a notice for leaving a tiny pile of cut branches next to a tree but a neighbor down the street has had an obnoxious yellow trampoline in plain sight for years. I just roll my eyes and move on with my life. Thankfully, nobody has any broken cars jacked up on cement blocks on their front lawn (yet) so I guess my HOA is doing its job.
I hate to admit it but the backdrop of the HOA is always on my mind so I do things I normally wouldn’t do such as buy stuff from the neighborhood kids that knock on my door… Girl Scout cookies (which I don’t eat) or football raffles (that I don’t watch). I do it because I don’t want to be branded “uncooperative” and become the target of a “over-zealous” HOA board members inspection. Shit, now that I think about it, maybe my neighbor with the yellow trampoline is buying the entire truckload of Girl Scout cookies giving him diplomatic immunity.
So, having the HOA is painful. Not having an HOA is also painful. I choose the pain of buying Girl Scout cookies over the pain of junk cars parked on the grass.
I’ve been repeatedly told that non-HOA neighborhoods look just as nice as HOA ones. In my experience, I’ve never seen evidence of that.
I live in a neighborhood with an HOA. Our rules and governance are fairly vanilla, based on the documents set up by the builder, so are very typical.
We have an Architecture Review Board. If a homeowner wants to erect any permanent structure on his property* he must gain the approval of the ARB. Before the ARB will review it, the homeowner must present a document signed by the adjacent property owners to demonstrate that they have been informed of the intent. This is not permission. This is a statement that the neighbors have been informed of what the homeowner is requesting. No individual homeowner can grant or deny permission. Only the ARB and ultimately the board of directors can do that.
ETA: If you don’t comply, the HOA has remedies that includes fines, and they can put a lien on your house if you don’t pay. This can be a problem when it’s time to sell.
*This includes fences, decks, additions, satellite dishes, awnings, storm doors, pretty much anything that involves bolts, nails, or screws. It would not include a plastic storage chest on your deck, bird feeder, lawn decoration.
What about a retaining wall? He has one of those too and based on this thread I’m wondering if they will come after him for that next. He also has another shed in his yard, and he put in an enlarged patio (concrete base with brick) as well. Sounds like they could come after him for all of that, since I seriously doubt he got permission to build any of it.
ETA…would he get a notice if they put a lien on his house?
Too late to edit the original post but I should clarify that the residents can’t actually get rid of HOA entirely. The neighborhood still needs a separate legal entity that collects money to pay for upkeep of common areas (landscaping front entrances, etc). However, the residents could conceivably rewrite the bylaws that remove all the cosmetic restrictions of about fences, sheds, etc. I’ve not aware of a case where that has happened.
For what it’s worth: some HOAs are virtually impossible to dissolve because of the rules.
Mine requires 75% approval to change the bylaws/CCRs (which is what disbanding the HOA or changing the voting rules would require). But only 65% of the houses have resident owners - the rest are rentals. The bylaws do not permit for absentee or proxy voting of any sort. So even if we got 100% turnout and agreement from the resident owners, we’ve have to fly in 30+ people from out of town.
I certainly went into this thinking than an HOA could be a good thing. At this point, all I know is that my next house will be HOA-free. My HOA makes life miserable for people who want to follow the rules, and is ineffective in punishing those who don’t follow the rules. So I get to look at my neighbor’s junked cars while I fill out my application to trim tree branches.
Shit, now that I think about it, maybe my neighbor with the yellow trampoline is buying the entire truckload of Girl Scout cookies giving him diplomatic immunity.