Posted on 09/01/2015 1:54:48 PM PDT by BBell
A judge has sided with a Missouri couple whose purple backyard playset prompted threats of fines – and even jail -- from the homeowners association, according to Consumer Affairs. Marla Stout said the Raintree Lake Neighborhood Homeowners Association told the family they failed to get the color approved and that the purple hue did not conform in the neighborhood, the website reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the HOA doesn’t have recourse to criminal prosecution over CCR violations.
I'd rather have my non-intrusive HOA than live in the mini-McMansion sub a mere half mile north of me where cars line the street, and many of the houses have vehicles in their driveways that are under repair.........
I'm sure you have your own personal experiences with HOA's (You do don't you?) but mine are nothing but positive........
I completely understand that you believe in community standards and protecting your property values, but if private citizen threatened me with imprisonment over a civil matter, as this HOA reportedly did, I’d regard that as a violent threat.
Probably better watch where you threaten to put your hands, Donna.
Ditto.
I would rather live in a dumpster than subject myself to a HOA.
You keep using that word . . .
You keep thinking the HOA is God himself.
Since this is the case, the "subjectiveness" of it should have been decided on by the people the HOA claims to represent, the actual "homeowners." However, the homeowners themselves had NOT complained and did NOT object to purple.
A linked article reported that "Yesterday, the Stouts and their neighbors (the actual “homeowners” whose interests are theoretically represented by the homeowners' association) held a barbecue to celebrate the judge's ruling against the HOA."
Since the HOA's only reason to exist, is to represent the interests of the "homeowners," I think it's clear the HOA was in the wrong.
Contact
Raintree Lake Property Owners Association
825 SW Raintree Drive
Lee’s Summit, MO 64082
Summer Office Hours:
Monday – Friday 9:00am – 5:00pm
Saturday – 9:00am – 1:00pm
Email: office@rlpoa.com
Office: 816-537-7576
Fax: 816-537-5621
It looks wonderful. A lot more tasteful than I thought it would be given the HOA actually going to court over it.
Good that they lost. There objection is trite and petty.
I wonder if some old fart with a clip board on a golf cart just didn’t like the noise the playing kids made....
Buy the home and agree to the HOA - everyone knows what that means. Don’t sign the contract if you can’t keep your part of the deal.
Follow the HOA rules to make changes - that’s okay. But, you have to accept it when you lose.
Fascist? Who is the fascist? The one who uses the courts to have a judge rewrite the law and force everyone else to change the way they legally agreed to do things.
The liberals do the same thing to our Constitution. No difference.
And I seriously doubt the restrictive covenants forbid a purple swing set. There must be something in the RC that allowed a board member to interpret it thus, without specifying "purple swing set", etc. That's why the judge ruled against the HOA.
I can't believe the HOA board threatened anybody with jail. I mean, I believe it, I just can't believe it. Dumb thing to do.
“HOAs can impose jail time now?”
I think the HOA should’ve gone straight to execution. Every HOA should have an execution wall in the common area.
Cute setup. HOA Board needs to be thrown out for wasting everyone’s time.
Don’t give em any ideas! I’m sure about 90% of them dream about that.
all new developments are HOA. Developers use them as nickel and dime sources of ongoing revenue.
Could be. HOAs seem anal retentive to me, if not outright petty tyranny, but then I won't live in one.
I find few sounds as pleasant as the laughter and squeals of delight of children.
Well, actually they just might be able to.
The covenants for the HOA I was involved with specified that a unit owner was permitted to own a cat or a small dog.
The documents didn't state what constituted a "small" dog. Such a determination would be made by a majority of the HOA Board. If their "opinion" was at all reasonable and even-handedly enforced, it would have been very unlikely that a court would overrule such opinion. If a unit owner unsuccessfully sued the HOA, the unit owner would be responsible for the HOA's legal costs.
The HOA was authorized to recover funds owed by unit owners by placing a lien on their property. If the amount owed were substantial, I could imagine that a court could order the unit sold to recover the fees.
There was no way that this HOA could imprison anybody, although they could get a court to jail them for contempt if they interfered with an order of the court.
The HOA of which I speak did not include outside yards where a unit owner could place play equipment. If such equipment was installed, the HOA would have been completely authorized to have it removed or to require it be painted any color selected by the Board.
First, the HOA evidently found some reason for rescinding the fines that would have coerced the home owner into operating within the requirements of the covenants. I think this was a mistake.
Fines were the tool that the HOA I was involved in had to assure compliance. Otherwise, unit owners would simply do what they wanted to and no rules would be obeyed. Once the fines were rescinded, I don't think there would be any way to reinstate them.
Secondly, the court's decision DID NOT award attorney fees to the defendants. My guess is that the home owners won the battle but lost the war by having to pay their own lawyer perhaps thousands of dollars.
In this case, all the parties lost, including all the home owners whose dues were spent on the HOA's attorney fees.
The judge's decision was along the lines of "I want all you idiots to get out of my courtroom and learn to get along. We're not hear to solve your problems."
If the HOA had contented themselves with fines, they could have filed a lien on the property in the amount of the fines, and any future potential owner would insist that the selling home owner pay the fees. A buyer would have to be plenty motivated to act otherwise.
In some areas you simply cant buy a new home without having to subject yourself to an HOA. I know it’s true in the town I like in. Unless you go way out into the country, you really don’t have any choice. If I ever come into a large sum of money (lottery/whatever), one of the fun things I’ll do to spend it will be to fight that in court as far as I can take it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.