Posted on 04/03/2007 6:15:39 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
Community Sues To Oust 3-Year-Old
Child With Drug-Addict Mom Lives With Grandparents
POSTED: 3:04 pm EDT April 1, 2007
LARGO, Fla. -- A Florida homeowners group wants 3-year-old Kimberly Broffman to take her Big Wheel and hit the road.
They've banded together to oust the toddler from their Tampa-area community, which bans residents under 18.
The child's grandparents, Judie and Jimmy Stottler, admit Kimberly's been living there in violation of homeowners' association rules for three years. They said her mother has a drug problem, and isn't capable of caring for the child.
The grandparents said they live on a fixed income and can't afford to move until they sell their house. So far, there have been no takers to buy their house, even after they lowered the $189,000 asking price by $10,000 six months ago.
They also said they can't afford to hire an attorney.
Judie Stottler supports the family with her $18,000-per year dishwashing job because Jimmy Stottler is disabled and is unable to work.
Judie Stottler's friends told the St. Petersburg Times that they are worried.
"It is so ridiculous that this has gone so far," said Keith Tinsley, a cook who works with her. "She's trying her best to sell her house. It's like they are trying to force her to put Kimberly in foster care.
"These people keep batting her down and batting her down. They're just mean."
Judie Stottler said she is scared that she wil lose her house before she is able to sell it.
"We don't have any family to take us in," Judie Stottler said.
The Lakes homeowners association filed suit to oust Kimberly last month.
Yeah...sure I would. :-)
“I don’t know if their HOA allows them to rent out their place while trying to sell it.” Good suggestion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t allow it.
The house is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it, apparently the owners in this situation feel entitled to violate their contract because they don’t want to accept the loss. So do you expect the HOA to continue to ignore this violation even after giving them 3 years to vacate? By not moving to enforce this covenant they are leaving themselves open to having this restriction recinded all together, you can’t enforce these things selectively. Maybe this HOA should disolve itself so as to accomidate this family, because basically that’s where this is leading if they continue to ignore enforcing things. You are putting the rights of one irresponsible mother and her child over the rights of the rest of the community.
(It's a very old and obscure kids book, but I bet someone here remembers...)
We agree - scroll back more.
Entirely different circumstances, but I’m curious as to how many people took this same attitude when it came to stories about homeowners associations putting restrictions on the display of American flags.
And if that kid places a flag sticker on the bigwheel - watch out..
lol
I'll have you know I'm neither old nor obscure...I just happen to be a voracious reader.
(snicker)
For the record;
If the HOA contract limited the size and/or display of flags when it was signed, the homeowner MUST abide by them.
If the HOA tries to make and/or enforce rules written after the homeowner has signed the contract, that's illegal.
It's known as an ex-post facto law, and is unenforceable.
Three years is enuf time for this couple to resolve the problem. I give the association credit for allowing them three years leeway. That said, I back the homeowners' association for starting the legal process, which may take a long time to conclude.
I’ve previously lived in a condo assoc with stupid restrictions, but I realized when I moved in what they were and agreed to them. I happen to love having children around myself and don’t think much of those curmudgeonly old fools who think they should be kept out of sight, but even those miserable old bastards are entitled to expect that the agreements signed by everyone admitted into their community be enforced. Don’t like the restrictions - don’t move there to begin with. I know from experience I will never live in such a restricted community again. My condo used to require background checks on any guest staying with me for more than 2 weeks, I’m already well aware of how intrusive and finicky these types are.
Nobody has yet brought up the likelihood that the grandparents are receiving funds from the state for caring for this child. Food stamps, etc. It’s understandable that the grandparents want to stay on the gravy train and continue to receive these funds. It may sound heartless to say this, but they’re saying, Me first, We don’t care about the community’s needs, just continue to give us those state funds.
What about moose’s?
Actually there’s a lot more to changing the rules after the fact.
Depending on WHERE the HOA/POA is located .. and the way the by-laws are written. In our association it CAN be done - but it’s a matter of getting the majority of property owners to agree... hahaha ...like that’s going to happen. There was a time limit on when our restrictions could be changed ... and the ONE year the board had the opportunity to change them they did NOT take the opportunity to attempt to do it.. so it will be another 10 years I think before the opportunity arises.
It really depends on the HOA/POA... if the rules can be changed .. generally though it is so much trouble it’s a pain in the neck...
Wow, how...liberal...of you. Change the rules, or ignore them, or challenge them, to get the outcome we want.
Either rules mean something, or they don't...and if they don't, then anything goes.
That's quite the conclusion you jump to, that they want the child in a foster home. A much simpler explanation would be that they resent these particular grandparents making it the neighborhood's problem.
James, you usually set a higher standard than this...shame on you. These people are not advocating anything for anybody...they are resisting having what is the grandparent's problem become the neighborhood's problem.
No-win situations happen all the time; that's life. It's become increasingly popular for some to create them, then throw themselves upon the mercy of strangers.
It's not "about the child," and it's not "about the grandparents." It's about a neighborhood.
Covenants are a legally enforceable contract. We've all made commitments that we later regretted; it's not the fault of the person who signed the contract with us.
If you don't like HOAs, DON'T BUY A HOUSE IN ONE! And, if you do...don't try to rewrite the rules, retroactively. Three years is long enough; it's too long.
A contract’s a contract. The slave was not a party to the contract, nor was the child. What a crazy line to draw that it would be that protects the slave but not the child! And it wasn’t the 13th that first outlawed slavery — it was natural law, as the folks in the fighting to stop that improper contract knew.
So might have said Supreme Justice Taney in 1856, Dred Scott v. Sandford! Well, then count me as a Republican, as the current Wikipedia entry says:
Democrats characterized Republicans as lawless rebels, provoking disunion by their unwillingness to accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land.
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.