Posted on 09/11/2003 10:44:29 PM PDT by Conservomax
Defiant flag flier George Andres once again is facing the prospect of losing his Jupiter home after a Palm Beach County judge ruled Wednesday that his homeowners association could go forward with a foreclosure sale next month to collect legal fees. Andres, a Marine veteran, said he was worried about losing his home, but he vowed to appeal the latest ruling in a legal saga that has spanned more than two years. "We are going to fight," Andres said. It is the second time in recent months that Andres' home has moved toward the auction block. He was granted a reprieve in May when Circuit Judge Edward Fine agreed to reconsider his order authorizing the foreclosure. The Florida Attorney General's Office stepped in and argued that Andres' home was constitutionally protected under the state's homestead law from foreclosure by a homeowners association attempting to collect a legal debt. Andres' homeowners association prohibits flagpoles, and Andres has a 12-foot flagpole in his front yard. Another judge ruled that Andres didn't have a right to put up the flagpole, and the association filed a lien on the property to collect roughly $21,000 in attorneys' fees and legal costs expended in winning the case. Fine rejected the argument from the Attorney General's Office and issued a ruling Wednesday that found the association's right to file a lien against the property was established in 1982, when its covenants and bylaws were recorded in land records, six years before Andres purchased his home. West Palm Beach attorney Steven Selz, who represents the homeowners association, said the ruling makes sense. "There has to be a way to give the association a right to enforce its claims on the property," he said. Boca Raton attorney Barry Silver, who represents Andres, said he would file an appeal. Mediation has failed, while the attorneys' fees continue to pile up for both sides. "They find George to be very intransigent because he has the right to fly the flag, and they think he is stubborn because he fights for that right," Silver said. Selz said he hopes Andres decides to reach a settlement rather than face losing his home, which is scheduled to be auctioned on Oct. 9. Andres said previous settlement offers required more of a compromise than he was willing to make. "They said remove the flag and the flagpole, and that is not a compromise," Andres said. " I'm 66, and I don't have much left anyhow. We have to go ahead and fight." Peter Franceschina can be reached at pfranceschina@sun-sentinel.com or 561-832-2894.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Whao are these f***ing animals? It's called a homestead act, thta's the point. These goddamn lib lawyers want to tear everything down that is intheir way.
Simply, it's a neighborhood where all the neighbors have signed a contract (or by just moving into the house) giving up some property rights to live in the neighborhood. Appearance of the property being the main issue. The association members consists of your neighbors. My wife moved bought a house in an association (which I asked her not to do) before we married, and once married, we decided her house would be the better to live in (it was the best choice). After a tiny run-in with the association last week, she vowed never to do it again. Lesson learned.
We then decided to take a look around the neighborhood. We noted several "infractions" and sent a letter to the association.
Here's where it gets interesting.
One item mentions that no satellite dishes are allowed, another mentions no flag poles are allowed. OK - fine. We noted several homes that have satellite dishes and one home that had a flag pole (an -no-, I don't have a problem with a flag/flag pole in someones yard). After sending our letter noting these "infractions" we received a response from the association that the flag pole was allowed due to state law and that the satellite dishes were now allowed due to FCC law. A subsequent letter to the association asked that these rules be amended if in fact, they are no longer enforceable. The association responded with basically, it would cost too much to do so. Now - I'm no lawyer, but I seem to rememeber that if one portion of a contract was null and/or void or if one part of the contract was no longer enforceable - the whole contract was void. Interesting, eh?
Which is exactly what I was gonna check for when I had time. I ain't tryin' to be petty or vidictive (well - maybe a little ;-)) but if we're gonna have rules - let's make sure everybody knows what they are - and apply them.
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.