Real Estate
Sponsored by

HOA question

5,239 Views | 58 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by histag10
Avocado Toast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have recently started renting a home with my cousin and a friend in a community in Harris county. The HOA has parking stickers that you must apply for. We applied for the stickers and asked for a street parking exemption because the driveway is too steep for two of the three cars to be parked in the garage. The HOA parking board declined to give us an exemption because we are in violation of the single family home statue of the HOA rules. The HOA then told us we have 30 days to no longer have any cars on the street or they will start towing the vehicles.
Since then we alerted the home owner to the problem and he has asked us to re-fill out the lease agreement to claim that all three of us are cousins.

My questions are: Is the HOA allowed to not give us the exemptions because we are not all related?
Is the lease we signed with the owner void because he knowingly rented a home in violation of HOA agreement?
Can we terminate the lease because the owner is asking us to commit fraud?
Should we under any circumstances agree to fill out the new lease knowing that we are not actually all related?

Thanks for any insight.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this a private road? Or public?
Avocado Toast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It is in a gated community, so I believe private.
Martin Cash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reason number 9,452,748 why I will never own a home in a subdivision with an HOA.

Tell them the third guy identifies as your cousin.
SoTheySay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
The HOA CAN have you evicted. I have only seen it happen once but it was exactly this - two cousins and a friend.

I'm not even sure what happened but the guys did move. Personally, I would ask the landlord to terminate the lease and move elsewhere. Sounds like the entire situation is going to be a pain in the ass for as long as you're there.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Get the ACLU involved. Unless the HOA specifically says all members must be related, single family terms are defined in the type of property, not who lives in it.

Not allowing people to live together that aren't related by blood or marriage is discrimination.

Again, unless the HOA code specifically calls this out, they shouldn't be able to do anything (unless there are city ordinances like college station). We went through a long legal battle with our house in college station.

If I were you, I'd terminate the lease and move out.
BigPuma
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tell the hoa that you are all gay lovers. see what they do next
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'd also make an inquiry into the road status, just because there is a gate doesn't mean the roads are privately maintained.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree with Only. Call the city at least
Avocado Toast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for the suggestions, ill look into the road. Puma ill keep your suggestion in mind as a last resort.
Diggity
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The HOA also has strict rules against polyamory
BigJohn76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I own a house in Emerald Forest in College Station and have been taken to court several times by the HOA for allowing people not related to each other to live in my house. A district judge has ruled that only people related to each other can live in a single family house. I may have to spend 5 days in a Brazos County jail for contempt. District judges can rule any which way they want. Lots of pressure from local voters!
BigJohn1976
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
John honest question...

Did you buy the home before the hoa made this rule or after?
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Deed restrictions state the land use must be used as a single family property.

The judge has interpreted that a single family home means everyone must be related. This ruling could impact every rental house in the country, if used as a precedent.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks 09 and I'll wait for John's answer. Single family is pretty easily defined
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's the answer.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dp
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveBott said:

John honest question...

Did you buy the home before the hoa made this rule or after?


No its not. Let's see what John answer is.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The HOA did not make a rule. The deed restriction stated that when the home was bought.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
09 just saw your second post. Interesting so no rental of the property correct? Just guest use?
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieFanatic09 said:

The HOA did not make a rule. The deed restriction stated that when the home was bought.


HOA's enforces rules as well as creates them. When was it created before or after purchase
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure of your question?

Nothing anywhere in the deed denotes whom can live in the home or if it can be rented. Simply - "Land use: must be used as a single family home"

Which everyone in their right mind knows it means you can't build a duplex or a gas station.

Judge ruled that single family means everyone must be related by marriage or blood or an employee of the owner.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The section of land use has always existed. No additional rules were added.

So the phrase in question here existed when the home was purchased.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Actually no one of right mind would interpret "single family home" as a duplex. Much less a gas station. You seem to be biased against the ruling due to personal involvement, I'll move on.

Before I do, if the buyer of the property was given notice of the deed restrictions before purchase, regardless of deed creation, then the buyer is forewarned.

If no rental occurred then that is a different matter
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think there's some miscommunication here.

Maybe I'm off-base a bit or there needs to be other input; are the majority of neighborhoods in CS not zoned as single family?

How are all of the single family homes throughout the city and country that people rent to random people not in the same situation here?

The ruling made by the judge defining single family occurred after the home was purchased.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As a mortgage guy I know full well that most of the new subdivisions are deeded no rental. The developers set them up that way to preserve values for his/her clients.

I advise my rental buyers to fully research those restrictions through a competent agent.

If a deed requires SFH, we move on.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I see - new developments specifically say "no rental" or something to that effect.

What about here, where nothing about that exists?
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Deed does not equal city zoning. Totally separate. cities can layer more restrictions on top of the deed.

But it all starts with the deed and who created it.

Not a lawyer
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's right. CS has already imposed restrictions here with the "no more than 4 unrelated" ordinance right?

Confused as to how a judge can define single family home to discriminate against dwellers. There are plenty of examples in deed restrictions where things like this are specifically called out, like your no renter or no one under the age of X.

But for land use to define whom can live inside a single family home, it blows my mind. Does this mean that gay couples cannot live together? That a couple before they get married cannot live together? The ruling a local judge made makes this a crime.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
09 not sure facts are correct and I have no way to verify them, do you have a court case to site?
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pm sent
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As far as devlopment goes, 'single family' means a house and not any conjoined living spaces, I.e. Multiple kitchens (etc) under a single roof. (don't ask me about true to form Jewish or Halah houses which must have two kitchens).

So a typical house with 2-6 bedrooms, random number of bathrooms, and common shared space (dining room/living room/den w/e) is a single family home. No where is that defined as meaning only a single related group of people can live there.

Sounds like the judge, based only on the information here, is making rulings that would be struck down by most of not all higher courts.

Steve is 100% correct though, all it takes is for simple HOA language or other dees restrictions that were in place prior to the house being purchased and none of this matters. When you signed the mortgage papers and agreed to buy the house you agreed to everything in the HOA clauses.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

1. LAND USE AND BUILDING TYPE
No lot shall be used for any purpose except for single family residential purposes. The term "residential purposes" as used herein, excludes hospitals, clinics, duplex houses, apartment houses, boarding houses, hotel and commercial and professional uses, whether from homes, residences or otherwise, and all such uses of the lots are expressly prohibited. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one single family dwelling not to exceed two and one-half stories in height and a private garage for not more than three cars and permitted accessory structures

This is the clause in the deed that which was referred to.

Here is the ruling:
The Court further finds that the Property may not be used for any purpose other than one single family residence and that Defendants should be enjoined from using said Property for any purpose other than as a single family residence including, allowing residence by non-family members through commercial or contractual rental agreement that exceeds incidental lodging or boarding. . . .IT IS ORDERED that Defendants, their family members, agents, servants and employees while living on the property are permanently enjoined from permitting to reside on the Property, by commercial or contractual rental agreement, any non-family persons other than incidental boarders or lodgers
SoTheySay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Is this what's quoted for Emerald Forest? I was planning to look at it today.

Edit. Ignore. I see that you referenced it.
OnlyForNow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So where is "family" defined in legal jargon? Because he is placing all the weight of that ruling on "family" being defined.

No-where does it say blood or marriage relations, it just says family, and while I've never been involved in a court case like this (nor am I a lawyer), the definition of a word like family is what will matter. If it isn't defined with a precedent then all of the "everyone knows, common knowledge" stuff goes out the window if actually tried by a fair judge.

Sounds like this judge has a bone to pick with people who rent their houses out to others.

By this ruling, two people who aren't legally married but co-habitating can't rent this house. All that would need to happen is a couple who has kids from previous people (think step-by-step) and haven't gotten married yet, live together in a rent house in the same neighborhood, would technically be in violation of this ruling but kicking them out would not fly at all.


Please know that I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just enjoying the story.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.