fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Good luck.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FBG Lawyers: Need Free Advice, Dispute with Condo Assoc (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter (HULK)
- Start date
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Yeah, but you're dealing with a condo association. Logical arguments give way to what the board ultimately wants. Still, good luck.
bushdocda
Footballguy
The Big Guy
Fear the Blitz
bumping for anticipation
(HULK)
(Smash)
Sorry to disappoint, but apparently there is no decision being made tonight. They'll deliberate and get back to me, "soon".
Mostly it was me talking for a half hour. They seemed suprised by some points I made. Their lawyer, bless her stupid little brain, was taken to school by me on two seperate issues. If they're rational, they'll decide to update their bylaws. If they're not, then I go to war, phase one being too rat them out to the FHA.
Will keep you all posted.
Mostly it was me talking for a half hour. They seemed suprised by some points I made. Their lawyer, bless her stupid little brain, was taken to school by me on two seperate issues. If they're rational, they'll decide to update their bylaws. If they're not, then I go to war, phase one being too rat them out to the FHA.
Will keep you all posted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hoss Style
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
(HULK)
(Smash)
She said that when a unit changed owners, the 2 year rental limit reset. I pointed out that other sentences refer to "unit owner" and that the particular sentence in question refered to "the unit". So, basically, since I've leased my unit for 2 years already, according to their interpretation of the rule it can never be rented again, no matter who owns it, forever and in perpituity. Which is stupid. But, she hadn't read it closely clearly.
The other was that she said this rule doesn't apply to conveyance as it isn't me selling the unit. I said that isn't how FHA defines conveyance and then read her the exact definition from the paperwork I brought, where is very clearly lists leasing as a form of conveyance, proving her completely wrong.
Its clear she is a terrible lawyer. I hope I exposed that enough that the board is wary to follow her advice.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Nice work counselor.
Hoss Style
Footballguy
How did this turn out?
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Johnny Rock
Footballguy
Good job. What a bunch of aholes.
Hoss Style
Footballguy
(HULK)
(Smash)
Update:
This still is going on. Thus far, I've paid $1600 in fines. I've finally decided to lawyer up and I am meeting the lawyer this afternoon.
I tried everything I could think of to resolve this without suing them, but I'm out of options at this point.
A few notes:
-They let their FHA certification lapse in 2011 apparently. They refuse to seek new certification since they think they won't get it and it will be a waste of money trying. This is what has pushed me to pursue them legally. If they wanted FHA certification, they'd need to change the bylaw they're fining me with (or at least change the interpretation of it). Our condo's value by price per square foot is lagging our zipcode by about 40%... I contend that this is due to lack of FHA certification w/ shrinks our pool of potential buyers and hence drives down price. They insist that isn't true, like the central premise of economic theory doesn't apply here because we're magic or something.
-There are two openings on the board currently. I tried to get on the board, but they refuse to fill the seats. Even though the bylaws say that a vacancy "shall" be filled. So, I guess bylaws are only for following when it suits them.
-They're jerks and I've definitely been railroaded. I've tried and tried and tried to work with them to no avail. Now, I'm going to sue them to stop paying the fine, to recoup the fines I've already paid, and for my legal fees. Get your popcorn.
This still is going on. Thus far, I've paid $1600 in fines. I've finally decided to lawyer up and I am meeting the lawyer this afternoon.
I tried everything I could think of to resolve this without suing them, but I'm out of options at this point.
A few notes:
-They let their FHA certification lapse in 2011 apparently. They refuse to seek new certification since they think they won't get it and it will be a waste of money trying. This is what has pushed me to pursue them legally. If they wanted FHA certification, they'd need to change the bylaw they're fining me with (or at least change the interpretation of it). Our condo's value by price per square foot is lagging our zipcode by about 40%... I contend that this is due to lack of FHA certification w/ shrinks our pool of potential buyers and hence drives down price. They insist that isn't true, like the central premise of economic theory doesn't apply here because we're magic or something.
-There are two openings on the board currently. I tried to get on the board, but they refuse to fill the seats. Even though the bylaws say that a vacancy "shall" be filled. So, I guess bylaws are only for following when it suits them.
-They're jerks and I've definitely been railroaded. I've tried and tried and tried to work with them to no avail. Now, I'm going to sue them to stop paying the fine, to recoup the fines I've already paid, and for my legal fees. Get your popcorn.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Thanks for the update, go get'em.
(HULK)
(Smash)
tough to do as I don't live there anymore.
There will be an election in December. I plan on running (even though I have NO DESIRE to really do the job), unless I am able to legally resolve this before then.
The Big Guy
Fear the Blitz
Yep,time to get your neighbors involved and overthrow the bastards.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
-fish-
Footballguy
Nah, you just need to know how to fight them.
I literally wrote a book on community association law. Most people just don't understand it, and there are a ton of lawyers who wade into it without knowing what they're doing and they get slaughtered by a specialist in the field.
It will be interesting to see if he can make the FHA/loss of value argument stick. Those of us that do this stuff for a living have been wondering that since the FHA changed the rules in 2008.
As to Quez' comment, that's what associations do. You give up a ton of rights when you move into an association, especially a condo.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Fortunately, in my circumstance, the wording of the relevant documents is vague and not defined at all. So, I am thinking I can win this. Seeing the lawyer in 35 minutes, I'll see what he says.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Good on you. I might keep your PM handy if a client has a problem - I always refer HOA cases out because it is a unique area.
Foosball God
Foos
-fish-
Footballguy
well, they're supposed to help protect and preserve property value, primarily by performing common element maintenance, repair and restoration.What do you think a HOA is for?
Foosball God
Foos
Aren't they also supposed to ensure that architectural standards are maintained according to the HOA covenants?well, they're supposed to help protect and preserve property value, primarily by performing common element maintenance, repair and restoration.
-fish-
Footballguy
that's part of protecting and preserving property value....uniform appearance and all that--a common aesthetic--being perceived as more desirable.Aren't they also supposed to ensure that architectural standards are maintained according to the HOA covenants?well, they're supposed to help protect and preserve property value, primarily by performing common element maintenance, repair and restoration.
the whole idea of whether restricting rental...which is HULK's issue..protects property value has been a debate for about 20 years. traditionally people believed that owner-occupied communities were better-maintained, owners were more invested in the community than tenants, etc.
there actually isn't much in the way of data to back that up, and when the mortgage crisis hit, we weren't just choosing between owners and tenants, we were choosing between owners, tenants and banks--which often meant vacant, dilapidated foreclosures.
Foosball God
Foos
Yeah, the renting thing seems like a gray area. I was more responding to Quez as there are plenty of things an HOA won't allow you to do with your own property.that's part of protecting and preserving property value....uniform appearance and all that--a common aesthetic--being perceived as more desirable.Aren't they also supposed to ensure that architectural standards are maintained according to the HOA covenants?well, they're supposed to help protect and preserve property value, primarily by performing common element maintenance, repair and restoration.
the whole idea of whether restricting rental...which is HULK's issue..protects property value has been a debate for about 20 years. traditionally people believed that owner-occupied communities were better-maintained, owners were more invested in the community than tenants, etc.
there actually isn't much in the way of data to back that up, and when the mortgage crisis hit, we weren't just choosing between owners and tenants, we were choosing between owners, tenants and banks--which often meant vacant, dilapidated foreclosures.
Quez
Footballguy
I was obviously referring to them not allowing you to rent out your property. I'm familiar with what condo associations do.Yeah, the renting thing seems like a gray area. I was more responding to Quez as there are plenty of things an HOA won't allow you to do with your own property.that's part of protecting and preserving property value....uniform appearance and all that--a common aesthetic--being perceived as more desirable. the whole idea of whether restricting rental...which is HULK's issue..protects property value has been a debate for about 20 years. traditionally people believed that owner-occupied communities were better-maintained, owners were more invested in the community than tenants, etc.Aren't they also supposed to ensure that architectural standards are maintained according to the HOA covenants?well, they're supposed to help protect and preserve property value, primarily by performing common element maintenance, repair and restoration.
there actually isn't much in the way of data to back that up, and when the mortgage crisis hit, we weren't just choosing between owners and tenants, we were choosing between owners, tenants and banks--which often meant vacant, dilapidated foreclosures.
I would think they would need to disclose "no investment property" before hand.
Is this only in some states?
the rover
Footballguy
Rental restrictions exist everywhere. There are differences in law whether they need to be in a title document and how they can be adopted.I was obviously referring to them not allowing you to rent out your property. I'm familiar with what condo associations do.I would think they would need to disclose "no investment property" before hand.Yeah, the renting thing seems like a gray area. I was more responding to Quez as there are plenty of things an HOA won't allow you to do with your own property.that's part of protecting and preserving property value....uniform appearance and all that--a common aesthetic--being perceived as more desirable. the whole idea of whether restricting rental...which is HULK's issue..protects property value has been a debate for about 20 years. traditionally people believed that owner-occupied communities were better-maintained, owners were more invested in the community than tenants, etc.Aren't they also supposed to ensure that architectural standards are maintained according to the HOA covenants?well, they're supposed to help protect and preserve property value, primarily by performing common element maintenance, repair and restoration.
there actually isn't much in the way of data to back that up, and when the mortgage crisis hit, we weren't just choosing between owners and tenants, we were choosing between owners, tenants and banks--which often meant vacant, dilapidated foreclosures.
Is this only in some states?
BassNBrew
Footballguy
(HULK)
(Smash)
Up to. They've fined me $200 a month for 5 months, then escalated to $300.I have an attorney on retainer now and am very optimistic. It pays to live in uber liberal Montgomery county Maryland I guess. Something called the CCOC will be my saving grace. I'll post more when I'm in front of a keyboard tomorrow, too much for the phone IMO
(HULK)
(Smash)
So, where I live, there is something called the Commission on Common Ownership Communities. Its set up to specifically resolve situations like this. If I file a complaint with them, my fine will stop immediately and will not resume unless I lose the case. So, thats good. The lawyer I hired used to chair this commission, and he's friends with all of the folks on it, so thats a bonus imo. My lawyer is doing a couple of hours of research this week and then we'll file assuming he doesn't find something that indicates I'm wrong (he didn't believe he would, but better to know imo). Finally, if I file via the CCOC and I lose (unlikely imo), my condo association MAY NOT come after me for their legal fees. So, there really is only upside to going this route.
My lawyer thinks I'm right in my interpretation. If the wording is ambiguous (as it is in this instance), then the default intrepretation should be mine, as it favors allows the owner the freedom to exercise his rights. Beyond that, he knew that recently the CCOC ruled that fines that exist in perpetuity as mine does as inappropriate. They ruled that a fine is intended to alter behavior, and if it fails to alter that behavior, then it must be discontinued. Since I've paid this fine for 7 months now while continuing to lease my unit, there is a perponderence of evidence that the fine is not altering my behavior and must be stopped. So, worst case scenario, the fining will be over. If this is how it played out, my condo association would be forced to take me to court for an injunction if they wanted me to stop leasing.
So, best case scenario for me now is to have this end and to get my already paid fines returned to me. Worst case is probably getting nothing back, having the fines stop, and wondering if I'll get dragged to court for an injunction. I'll keep this updated.
My lawyer thinks I'm right in my interpretation. If the wording is ambiguous (as it is in this instance), then the default intrepretation should be mine, as it favors allows the owner the freedom to exercise his rights. Beyond that, he knew that recently the CCOC ruled that fines that exist in perpetuity as mine does as inappropriate. They ruled that a fine is intended to alter behavior, and if it fails to alter that behavior, then it must be discontinued. Since I've paid this fine for 7 months now while continuing to lease my unit, there is a perponderence of evidence that the fine is not altering my behavior and must be stopped. So, worst case scenario, the fining will be over. If this is how it played out, my condo association would be forced to take me to court for an injunction if they wanted me to stop leasing.
So, best case scenario for me now is to have this end and to get my already paid fines returned to me. Worst case is probably getting nothing back, having the fines stop, and wondering if I'll get dragged to court for an injunction. I'll keep this updated.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Update:
After doing research, my lawyer got a lot more pessimistic about our chances. Its still ambiguous and its hard to prove the intent of that line, and he found examples in other states (none in Maryland) where the court sided with the association in those situations. So, he told me my best bet was to track down the author of our bylaws.
Since I'm a google ninja, I was able to do that rather quickly. Just heard back from him today... he agrees that my interpretation is correct and that the way the condo association is interpreting it is definitely not what was intended.
Talking to my lawyer @ 2 PM and we should be filing with the CCOC today or tomorrow! Yay! Can't wait to wipe the smug off of some people's faces imo.
After doing research, my lawyer got a lot more pessimistic about our chances. Its still ambiguous and its hard to prove the intent of that line, and he found examples in other states (none in Maryland) where the court sided with the association in those situations. So, he told me my best bet was to track down the author of our bylaws.
Since I'm a google ninja, I was able to do that rather quickly. Just heard back from him today... he agrees that my interpretation is correct and that the way the condo association is interpreting it is definitely not what was intended.
Talking to my lawyer @ 2 PM and we should be filing with the CCOC today or tomorrow! Yay! Can't wait to wipe the smug off of some people's faces imo.
the rover
Footballguy
some good anti-rental restriction case law coming out of multiple states these days.Update:
After doing research, my lawyer got a lot more pessimistic about our chances. Its still ambiguous and its hard to prove the intent of that line, and he found examples in other states (none in Maryland) where the court sided with the association in those situations. So, he told me my best bet was to track down the author of our bylaws.
Since I'm a google ninja, I was able to do that rather quickly. Just heard back from him today... he agrees that my interpretation is correct and that the way the condo association is interpreting it is definitely not what was intended.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
(HULK)
(Smash)
Well, I've got documentation from the author of it agreeing with me, so I think I'm good to go.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Hope it works out for the best for you. I hate HOAs, myself. Existence of an HOA was on my short-list of deal killers when I was shopping for our most recent home.
