I think it most interesting that an IMHO post garnered 38 replies overnight, most seem to be saying that there isn’t much to worry about if diligence is exercised.
I haven’t yet got around to checking what the state laws and regulations might say. Nevada is rather goofy in that some things are strictly managed by the state and other things are almost anarchical.
The community of interest is quite exclusive rather near the capitol and the purchase would be a second home for investment - $250,000 ten years ago on the market for $64,000 - not too uncommon for Nevada residences since 2008. ed - [ Want to see some real-estate eyeopeners? You should spend some time here. House next door to where I’m living now sold for $187,000 in 2006 and for $46,000 in 2011.]
You most certainly can own a piece of property. Most residential properties include some types of restriction in the deed*, whether explicit or implied, but that doesn’t mean you don’t own the property. Virtually all chattels include restrictions of one sort or another; you may not be allowed to operate your wholly owned motor vehicle without a driver’s license, or carry your handgun in certain places, and so on.
You may be confused because property ownership is a bunch of rights regarding use and control of property. The rest of your post is more or less accurate, though.
*Not just HOA-related; there are probably utility easements, zoning restrictions, and so on.
Moreover, covenants “run with land” and bind successors who stand in “vertical privity” (which is a term of art used to characterize the completeness of a transfer between a prior and subsequent landowner) and who had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the covenant. Constructive notice is accomplished by recording the covenant with a government agency, which allows interested parties to research the covenants associated with a piece of real estate. This recording is very common.
Covenants are both ubiquitous and generally enforced by forts because, despite complaints, most homebuyers and homeowners at least acquiesce to having them. Put another way: actions speak louder than words, and the experience of the residential real estate market is that most people desire or tolerate them enough such that it is rather difficult to buy a home not subject to a HOA. No enterprising developer has found covenants to be so despised that he could make an easy profit marketing HOA-less subdivisions.
Step One: Buy a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised v. 11 and study it.
Most of the reasons HOA and other small bodies get away with shit is that no one knows parliamentary law to stop them. Bring it with you to the meetings and be ready to support your point of orders. Also, when someone on the board makes a claim about RONR, you can always ask them to prove it. Often they will be wrong through their own ignorance.
Step Two: Read the CCR and know it intimately. Learn what they can and cannot do according to their own bylaws.
To Senegoid, there was a contraversy where I lived when an HOA annexed a house making them a member of the HOA over the homeowner’s protest. How does that fit into your scenerio. We also had a problem with the HOA using the fees of $150/mo to subsidize the water cost in another subdivision also owned by the developer. Seems to me that that is beyond the selling/non-selling of rights.
As far as HOAs go, they are only as good as the people in them. Where I live, we had a bunch of transplants wanting to turn rural Nevada into urban California. They claimed to “want to keep property values up”, but the real reason was they wanted to tell everybody where and what they could park on their property, what color to paint the house, what kind of garage you could build and what kind of landscaping you could do. Generally, to do it “The Calilfornia Way”. It was all quite transparent. The “ringleader” is a notorious Asshole in the community.
It didn’t go well for them. The neighborhood rose up and gave them a collective “Fuck You!” . People do as they want, and don’t bother anybody and nobody bothers them. We have all different color houses, landscaping options, fences and garages. (Mine is especially awsome!) Never have any problems, and never pay any dues/fees.
That’s absurd. HOAs were originally created for the purpose of maintaining common property in condominium complexes, and for the most part that is still their main role.
You know what? Everybody hates that guy. In fact, we don’t really care what his name is. We just refer to him as “Robert’s Rules of Order.” This is the guy that makes meetings interminably long and wears everyone down. And more often than not, he’s the one trying to impose his will on everyone else, not the one fighting for their rights.
I believe the clause about satellite dishes is illegal - the FCC mandated (and I think it’s in the Code of Federal Regulations somewhere) that no HOA can establish conditions on the placement of a satellite dish no larger than 1m in diameter on a person’s property except for specific instances such as safety concerns.
Your step one will be mostly useless. Only board members could use it to their advantage. Visitors, including HOA members, are only allowed to address the board for a limited time. Step Two, however, in essential. (In California, familiarity with the Davis-Stirling Act is helpful. Just mentioning it should give an aggressive board pause.)
Give me some examples of what you’ve seen “That Guy” do and we can see if it really is in RONR and if so, what the Chair should have done to control the meeting. I suspect a big one will be abuse of the debate and if so, the Chair can use RONR to shut him down. What you prbably had witnessed was a pisspoor Chair that couldn’t control their meeting and I guaranty “That Guy” would find some way to be the driving force of a meeting even without parliamentary procedure. And I ask you, are you sure that “That Guy” is using RONR or is he making up shit and claiming it’s in Robert’s Rules when really it isn’t?
While there are certainly those that abuse Robert’s Rules of Order for their own gain, I have seen more cases of those who use IGNORANCE of RONR to impose their agenda. Let me give you one cas that I think a few of you may have seen before.
I’m watching our School Site Committee and everytime a motion comes up for debate, one side gets a few to speak then someone would “call for the question” before anyone can debate the other side. If you don’t know what the means, a member, without being recognized, calls out “Question!” and the chair immediately puts the motion to the vote. Most people assume this is valid under parliamentary law as did the SSC Chair. It’s not.
And I never advocted to the OP to use RONR to abuse the process, but to protect his rights as a member. Read some of the posts here and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
Yes and no to your first point. Remember that the Board is ultimately subordinate to the members as a whole so it is entirely appropriate for the members to hold the Board accountable to the rules, especially on elections, filling vacancies, etc. AND during reqular meetings of the whole HOA.
But there is a bigger issue here
A Board is to handle the day-to-day work of the association with periodic meetings of the membership. If there is no regular meeting of the whole association and the Board can do whatever they want, then the issue is not one of using Robert’s Rules or not, but rather how come the association i.e. the HOA members are not overseeing the Board.
Most states - at least my state, Ohio - prohibit HOAs from making and enforcing “arbitrary and capricious” rules, ie, rules peculiar to the HOA President’s personal tastes. I know of a local HOA which required the board’s approval for all fences, and the President refused a permit to a fellow’s request for a new,small, plastic picket fence along the front driveway because it “looked tacky”. Other homeowners in the association already had such fences though and thus, having been approved by the previous president of the HOA, the local county court prohibited the new HOA president from enforcing his personal dictate prohibiting “tacky looking” plastic picket fences.
Sidenote: when in doubt, pay the money to hire a court reporter to document the HOA meetings. Nothing keeps a tinhorn HOA president in line like having his words put in writing.
What? HOAs predate condos by about a century. The first USA condo didn’t exist until 1960.
I agree fully that for condos, and housing developments that have to contract out communal services, HOAs are useful. But as soon as they start making rules like “acceptable house colors” or “no pickup trucks in the driveway”, they’re just tin pot Nazis. Luckily they’re few & far between here in New England.
Yes, but he said they were banned in 1968, which is more or less accurate; they didn’t become illegal until passage of the Fair Housing Act. You could still enter into or voluntarily abide by a restrictive covenant after 1948; you just couldn’t use the courts to enforce one.
I don’t remember much about our HOA, except that no fences were allowed unless they were back-yard only, which some people got around if their house was on the corner. No metal fences. Tasteful blinds or window hangings if they were visible.
When we bought the house we could have cancelled our membership but if we changed our mind and wanted back in (indeed, if we ever opt out and then change our mind) the re-entry fee is an absurd amount (thousands of dollars) to get back in. We have two tiers. One just keeps us from having to pay thousands of dollars to get back in, the more expensive one gives access to the pool and tennis courts, and voting rights. So we have the honor of paying hundreds per year just to belong, with no other rights whatsoever, on the slight chance we’ll be able to afford the effing pool eventually one year. I HATE paying for a pool and tennis courts that we can’t use.
At least they don’t bug us about anything. Our front yard hasn’t been cut in over a year, and once when my brother stayed with us he parked in the yard. And we still haven’t paid the thing yet, they’re not that strict about late payments except to shame you in the monthly newsletter (which I don’t give two shits about).
