Couple lose their home over $120 debt

The Sacramento Bee ^ | January 24, 2004 | Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer

[DelaWhere]

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.

[Taliesan]

When a free American buys a piece of property, private property rights should be the ultimate and final authority, as long as nobody else's rights are infringed upon. Forgive me for sounding Libertarian, but where am I wrong?

They agreed to the HOA when they bought the property. They voluntarily surrendered some of their property rights. Then, they didn't keep their part of the bargain.

I can't believe this situation couldn't have been averted before it came to this, but to say the HOA is some sort of communist infringement of the Constitution is just simple ignorance. It is a voluntary contract between private property owners.

This is a result perfectly in tune with libertarian principles.

[FITZ]

You'd have to be NUTS to live in a development with an HOA.

I think so. It's hard to believe people want to sign away their property rights for the security of having others tell them what to do.

[xrp]

Another socialist totalitarian who believes in the rule of the mob?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Then we must agree to disagree agreeably.

Correct.

I prefer to want our legal and court system to have some discretion on application of the law. I have a peculiar distaste for a police state.

Requiring people to live up to contracts they willingly sign is not the mark of a "police state." Its the mark of a republic.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Strawmen, and inapplicable to this discussion.

[BSunday]

Because the statement was a general statement.

Is making a profit immoral? No.

Is making a profit blatantly from the misfortunes of others immoral? I would say Yes.

[Ditter]

One poster on here who is in the business of buying forclosures said she did feel like a vulture at times.
What is wrong with putting a lean on homes that don't pay homeowners associations what is due them? The lean would be paid off when the property is sold.

[FITZ]

Some HOA's are benign.

I could see some being good --- as protection, an HOA that you sign that you can cut your grass when you decide to cut it, if you want to hang laundry out in your back yard then you can do that, if you want signs in your front yard --- do it. Here what happens is the gated communities move out to the country and they start paying too much attention to what goes on outside their gates.

[MaryFromMichigan]

Some of the arguments here remind me of the "zero tolerance" laws.

"And this is whose fault? I guess we should just suspend all of the rules for those who are having a tough time."

A midol in a girl's purse merits the same expulsion from school as an illegal drug.
A plastic knife in a lunch box is the same as bringing a switchblade.
There has to be a sense of proportion.

[FITZ]

who doesn't have $120?

That's just it --- they probably had it and probably would have paid --- maybe they're the absent minded types who pay their bills but pay them late.

[CajunConservative]

The real problem is that the HOA's have too big of a temptation to want to see foreclosure's as a means of making money. Let's face it, losing a home over $120 is a bit extreme. That is where there needs to be some regulation as to what is allowed to recover delinquent dues.

There should be several other options available first before foreclosure. They could have gone the route of garnishing a paycheck, placing a lien, working out a payment plan in person (that could have solved the whole problem)or withholding services provided until the bill is paid.

If after all these attempts have been made then go the foreclosure route. It should be sold at fair market value and the buyer should have no connections to anyone on the HOA board unless they pay the fair market value.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I've been investigating a return to Texas for my retirement. So far, the HOA's dues and property tax rates make moving more expensive than living somewhere else.

[FITZ]

The regulation part I'd be torn on --- then you have the government controlling these free associations. I don't understand why so many people seem to be so willing to join up with HOAs and sign those kinds of papers. Having the government start controlling that doesn't seem good either.

[CajunConservative]

I agree about the regulation part and the HOA part. That is why I like living in the country. However, the country around here is fast changing with all the retirees moving out to their "dream farms" and I can see problems down the road. The rednecks will probably come out ahead though ;o)

[MissAmericanPie]

The U.N.'s Agenda 21 is promoting it in cities and townships across America. A thick, expensively packaged, packet was hand delivered to our door and every door in town urging that we develop neighborhood associations.

The packet contained instructions on how to form one, and listed different problems that can be cured by these associations. "Is your neighborhood plagued by traffic because of a nearby church?", "How to have a quiet neighborhood by dealing with traffic and noise polution", "Are your neighbors doing their part by maintaining their homes and landscape"?

I toss'ed it in the trash after reading it to my husband and thought everyone else with good sense would also. Now I'm finding out that many neighbors have gotten together and formed a neighborhood association, now we have a website, a $250,000.00 grant from the city for anything the association votes to spend it on.

[CajunConservative]

Could it be collusion when a deal is brokered between the HOA or someone on the board and the buyer? Some of the tactics I have read as to making it difficult to catch up on the past due fees makes you wonder.

[RGSpincich]

The person who bought this property is in the business of purchasing foreclosures. Or so it seems from a viewing of his extensive real property transaction history in several California counties. I don't fault him one iota. The HOA may have been premature in bringing this action to the courthouse steps, however.

The County Assessment of the improvements and land is only $168k and change. Which seems about right after seeing a picture of the home. The use of the words "dream home" can be misleading. The home looks like a nice California Bungalow that one would find quite readily around the state. The $258k figure probably came from a real estate agent trying to get a listing.

[af_vet_rr]

You'd have to be NUTS to live in a development with an HOA.

You do realize the benefits of living in a development with a HOA, right?

You see, the HOA works to insure that property values remain high through various things - making sure lawns are uniformly cut, your mailbox is of a pre-approved design, you only have certain types of trees and plants, you never ever park in the grass or leave your boat in the driveway, you only paint your house one of four approved colors, you never add a shed or any other detached structures, etc.

By doing so, your home's value rises, so that when you sell it (like everybody does - nobody cares about living in one place for longer than 10 years anyways) you get more money.

Your $130,000 home becomes worth $160,000 when you sell it. So what if you pay substantially more than $30,000 in higher property taxes and required work in the meantime, that's a dirty little secret that doesn't need to get out.

[sauropod]

No, sir, they are not irrelevant to the discussion.

At what point will a law come about that you would willingly disobey it (for civil disobediance reasons, moral reasons or otherwise)?

What is your tipping point?

[sauropod]

Thank you both for your commonsense and rationality.