Posted on 01/25/2004 5:49:41 AM PST by DelaWhere
Edited on 04/12/2004 6:04:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Couple lose their home over $120 debt By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.
COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
It sounds like you don't understand what a conservative is. What exactly are you suggesting the conservative position would be in a situation like this?
Be careful with your answer, I am your stereotypical evil land baron with a company store and poor saps paying me rent for broken down shacks. I might just follow your suggestion.
I think you are referring to one of the phrases in Amendment V, U.S. Constitution to make your contention stated above.
Your contention is incorrect for two reasons:
One, the correct version of Amendment V is "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" The Radcliff's were afforded the "due process of law."
Two, the Constitution only applies to government entitities. It has no jurisdiction within a private contract.
An HOA is private organization that the Radcliff's were a member of just becasue they were a propery owner. You have no constitutionally enumerated rights to be allowed or protected within a private organization.
More than likely when they signed the contract to purchase their home, they also signed an affadavit acknowledging receipt of the HOA rules, explaining to them what would happen to them if they became in arrears on their association fees.
The Radcliff's also probably had an opportunity to attend annual or semi-annual association meetings in which board members were nominated and elected. As with most HOA's, very few members attend these meetings and subsequently are surprised by the HOA's actions, when, due to their laziness or negligence, fail to attend the annual or semi-annual meetings when board members are elected and when rule changes are suggested and enacted.
It is easy to call the board members who foreclosed on the Radcliff's Nazi's, but they were doing the job that the other HOA members had elected them to do.
Quite, simply this entire matter is nothing more than basic contract law.
The Radcliff's are adults. They entered into a contract and failed to keep up their side of the contract agreement.
Fortunately, here in my home state of Missouri, the Missouri Constitution states, Article I, Section 13, "That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted."
Okay, I'll count you among those who's fairness gland is malfunctioning. :o)
They were behind in their taxes, too,
Income taxes. The IRS very rarely does home foreclosures for that.
Till your neighbor becomes an antiwar demonstrator, the guy down the street is into Gay rights, and the sign you see out your bedroom window calls Bush a Nazi. A neighborhood awash in signs.
Large pieces of property where you can't see your neighbors are desirable. But for those who live in small-lot developments close together, most have chosen to self-regulate to protect their investment through covanents and HOAs.
I never seen one (Brown Recluse), they must hide real well is all I can say. On the other hand, We have lots of black widows here around and under rocks.
Have took time to show them to my boys for their safty.
Tax sale in California can't occur unless the property taxes are five years in arrears.
I disagree. From a business perspective, SOMEBODY was going to bid $75,000 before the gavel fell, with a $258,000 home on the auction block. And after that, somebody was going to bid $80,000, and so on. It wouldn't have made it to $258,000, of course--who would pay full price when the home is in such a totalitarian neighborhood--but $70,000 sounds like a backroom deal to me.
The owners should have paid the $120. Having failed in that, they seem to be on the hook for almost two grand. But having their home sold out from under them for less than a third of its worth? Someone was out to hurt them badly.
There's a reason they call 'em "brown recluse" :)
Nasty things - I came within an eyelash of having one drop onto my chin once when I was crawling under a stage laying power cables for lighting.
Deeds of Trust are foreclosed on on the courthouse steps. All bidding occurs in the wide open. Check it out
This is very true. Today though that really limits you to places that were built more than 20 years ago. The American Planning Association has long encouraged local governments to REQUIRE all new developments have HOA's. Why? Because they, as private entities, can enforce rules that in most states government is not permitted to. Generally, local government can tell you have to shovel your sidewalk (as a safety thing), but not that your car must be parked in the garage; that you have to mow your lawn (to control noxious weeds), but not that you have to paint your house. In their pursuit of Utopian communities that look perfect, the APA is giving our local governments all the information they need to get these kinds of rules in place through a third party - the HOA.
Abiding by the agreement is the right thing to do, but there's another essential question here.
How did HOA's get this much power? Because our local governments are REQUIRING HOA's, often with very restrictive rules, as a condition of development. If you don't agree to form the HOA, your development will not be approved. In our area, I know for a fact the paid planning staff provides developers with the proposed HOA rules. The developer can make changes, but the planning staff better agree with them. HOA's are a surrogate for government, requiring restrictions and 'taxes' (dues) that government is not permitted to require.
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.