HOA forecloses home because of missed HOA dues: Do we support the individual or HOAs?

[reardenstone]

"Capt. Mike Clauer was serving in Iraq when he learned that his home was sold because of missed HOA dues. In many states, it is relatively easy for HOAs to foreclose on members' homes for missed payments as little as a few hundred dollars."

Not So Neighborly Associations Foreclosing On Homes
by Wade Goodwyn
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128078864


It happened in Texas where so-called small 'l' libertarian styled repuglicans worship local and states rights. I recognize jurisdiction, where a state should run education and not the government, but I do not recognize the right of any private group to exploit other private individuals and violate home property or homesteading rights. The CRA was also valid because of this; private property business resided on public streets and sidewalks and leased property, therefore the government had to intervene to protect freedom. A person's home paid for or not should be the only place of right of refusal.

This case had my blood boiling and I just could not be vulgar and say that 'oh well' <snarky urbane voice>; it's a private group, they can do what they want.
They can't do what they want when what they do violates another's property and liberty!
It's the vulgar action of a coercive and rigged HOA using a corporate management corporation that is not even on the contract. The HOA is not lending the money and therefore should not be able to foreclose a home. its a coercive racket at best and criminal operation at worst.

Where do most Libertarians stand on this? I call this outrage the perfect storm example of a private local neighborhood group getting too dictatorial. This seriously reads like something that escaped from a Neal Stephenson novel; an oppressive burbclave. We can't let this happen. Its asinine and if we stand for it, no one will respect or believe Libertarian principles.

Most 'management' companies are corporations that 'manage' neighborhoods and have grown into a big business. As a result most communities may no longer have true democratic HOA's but instead the many that remain are puppet HOAINOs (in name only) whose prime directive is following the terms of a professional corporate management company. Our neighborhoods are no longer associations that are community owned.

This NPR article case shows how coercive forces against natural property rights can happen from any group. It doesn't matter if the group is private or government run. This is a situation where the state (for now) should intervene and protect real freedom.

This story was a wake up call. I am firmly against totalitarian private control and only for the true protection of individual and family rights. I will only support truly democratic HOAs where there is no corporate 'management company'. Choosing to boycott professional management companies and only move neighborhoods that are cooperative and not dictatorial seems to be the right thing to do.

 

[bobbyw24]

Individuals-- since HOAs are by nature "collectivist" and usually run by nazi types

 

[Travlyr]

That's collectivism bullshit... property taxes/dues are a crime against individuals and should be abolished.

 

[squarepusher]

the homeowner agreed to HOA's knowingly before he moved to the area.
A free market should allow people to choose HOA's.

 

[angelatc]

the homeowner agreed to HOA's knowingly before he moved to the area.
A free market should allow people to choose HOA's.

Yes, and Captain Mike is supposed to be responsible enough to take care of routine matters. He is a captain, for heavens sake.

If he didn't want to pay the fees, he shouldn't have bought a house in that neighborhood. But I think foreclosure is a little dramatic. It seems like a lien should be sufficient.

 

[Baptist]

the homeowner agreed to HOA's knowingly before he moved to the area.
A free market should allow people to choose HOA's.

Exactly. I owned a condo with HOA fees. I knew before hand about the fees so it was my own fault for living there (although in my case I welcomed the services that $90 a month bought us).

 

[MelissaWV]

Exactly. I owned a condo with HOA fees. I knew before hand about the fees so it was my own fault for living there (although in my case I welcomed the services that $90 a month bought us).

This. People are ignoring that there's a reason for most HOA's. It's a "pot" that you are putting money into for maintenance of common areas, having a pool, perhaps a park area, etc.. In condos, a lot of times it pays for gym access or communal barbecue space, too. HOA's also have "rules" about what houses can look like. To most of us on this forum, that seems ridiculous, but we can choose not to live in that kind of neighborhood. To others, keeping houses clean and uniform helps preserve property values to some extent, and keeps the look of the neighborhood "pleasant." The HOA here also goes towards flood control and other such things, because there is a creek that forks through the neighborhood. This is generally better than having the homeowners that live right next to the creek responsible for putting up an expensive retaining wall, and ensures that the wall doesn't have weak spots (generated by different materials being used, etc.). If the creek leapt its banks, as it has once or twice in the past, it would overflow into the roads and block most of us from being able to leave. It is a community issue.

As for foreclosure, I agree; it's excessive. Maybe this story will have people scrutinizing their HOA contracts. This particular HOA is shooting itself in the foot by jumping to foreclosure so rapidly. If I lived in the area, I would be banding together with neighbors to put pressure on the HOA to change its policies. Everyone stop paying. Will they foreclose on everyone? Then who will pay the dues? And what will compensate them for the property values being in the shitter? No, there needs to be a process, and homeowners can put pressure on the HOA if they are dissatisfied with the process, or they can try to move.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I would never live in an HOA. Stupid rules. As a pest control operator, I do a lot of work in HOAs that require homes to have cedar or tile roofing. Both types of roofing are terrible for inviting pests into your attic. Yet, these home owners aren't allowed to put a composition roof on. Stupid no common sense at all.

 

[reardenstone]

Faith relieved.

I agree that owners can choose, but I wonder how far down in the contract the foreclosure action was buried or if there were a series of steps that should have preceeded the foreclosure.

Yes: be responsible but that goes both ways. Had the HOA chosen to take the matter to small claims court then this would be a non-issue.

Now for the matter of management companies. I know of several in the Atlanta area who live in Condos and Townhomes that are run by off-site management companies. With some fees running over 1000 a month. I can't remember the exact amount but its nuts.

Homes, excepting apartments and rentals, should not be collected as a "community" that is managed by a management company. If they are, people need to wake up and realize what they are getting in to.

I would favor a democratic neighbor based HOA that met monthly and voted on anything. Officers would have no real power except to organize meetings and see that the wish of the community was done. Call me a libertarian anarcho-socialist but I do not like the idea of giving over real power to a dictator of high powered representatives.

 

[Travlyr]

This. People are ignoring that there's a reason for most HOA's. It's a "pot" that you are putting money into for maintenance of common areas, having a pool, perhaps a park area, etc.. In condos, a lot of times it pays for gym access or communal barbecue space, too. HOA's also have "rules" about what houses can look like. To most of us on this forum, that seems ridiculous, but we can choose not to live in that kind of neighborhood. To others, keeping houses clean and uniform helps preserve property values to some extent, and keeps the look of the neighborhood "pleasant." The HOA here also goes towards flood control and other such things, because there is a creek that forks through the neighborhood. This is generally better than having the homeowners that live right next to the creek responsible for putting up an expensive retaining wall, and ensures that the wall doesn't have weak spots (generated by different materials being used, etc.). If the creek leapt its banks, as it has once or twice in the past, it would overflow into the roads and block most of us from being able to leave. It is a community issue.

As for foreclosure, I agree; it's excessive. Maybe this story will have people scrutinizing their HOA contracts. This particular HOA is shooting itself in the foot by jumping to foreclosure so rapidly. If I lived in the area, I would be banding together with neighbors to put pressure on the HOA to change its policies. Everyone stop paying. Will they foreclose on everyone? Then who will pay the dues? And what will compensate them for the property values being in the shitter? No, there needs to be a process, and homeowners can put pressure on the HOA if they are dissatisfied with the process, or they can try to move.

This ^ makes sense. I've never paid HOA fees. Those dues are voluntary.
However, I vow to spend some of my time trying to repeal real property taxes that aren't voluntary.

 

[Acala]

Hoa

I used to live in a development with an HOA. I knew it when I moved in and it was one of the reasons I moved out. I don't like having the neighbors tell me what I can do on my property.

The guy chose to live there, agreed to pay the dues, and agreed to foreclosure if he failed to do so. If he didn't read or understand the contract that is HIS fault. If he didn't like it, he should have moved out.

 

[pacelli]

Did the guy actually read the HOA contract before he signed it? DID he sign a contract at all?

I think individuals should have the right to sign their property away to a HOA.

 

[Acala]

Hoa

Did the guy actually read the HOA contract before he signed it? DID he sign a contract at all?

I think individuals should have the right to sign their property away to a HOA.

The HOA agreement is usually incorporated into the covenants that "run with the land". In other words, the obligation to pay fees and obey the rules of the HOA are attached to the deed itself. When you execute the paperwork to transfer title during the purchase, you execute the covenants. So unless something really bizarre happened, he DID sign the agreement to obey the HOA rules.

Doesn't matter if he read the covenants or not. Don't sign things you haven't read.

 

[jkr]

the homeowner agreed to HOA's knowingly before he moved to the area.
A free market should allow people to choose HOA's.

nah man, that is to inhuman.
they should NOT be allowed to organize against people in this way.
its just wrong.

outrage

 

[Pericles]

Extra wrinkle - The HOA probably violated the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act by foreclosing on a deployed reservist.

 

[TexanRudeBoy]

Extra wrinkle - The HOA probably violated the Soldier's and Sailor's Relief Act by foreclosing on a deployed reservist.

Whoops! If he was actively deployed at the time then they may have screwed up royally. I had honestly never heard of that act until now, but according to what I can read ALL civil actions against a soldier currently serving are to be put on hold by this law.

 

[slothman]

I'm biased so I say that the HOA is bad.
I never liked them.
They are like chambers of commerce, unelected but powerful.

At least it wasn't a gated community; those are evil
As evil as DeBeers, who kills people, in my opinion.

 

[CryLibertyOrDeath]

What right does the HOA to control that area of land as if they are a republican form of government? They aren't. If the HOA owns all the property and rents it out, then they should have those rights. But they don't.

As someone who lives in a part of the country with very few HOAs, I absolutely hate them from what I understand about them, and anyone who values their liberties should as well. They have no legitimate authority in my eyes.

 

[Acala]

by agreement

What right does the HOA to control that area of land as if they are a republican form of government? They aren't. If the HOA owns all the property and rents it out, then they should have those rights. But they don't.

As someone who lives in a part of the country with very few HOAs, I absolutely hate them from what I understand about them, and anyone who values their liberties should as well. They have no legitimate authority in my eyes.

The developer, who owns the property, creates the HOA as a deed restriction on the property HE OWNS. He then subdivides the property and sells individual parcels and each purchaser AGRESS IN WRITING to the authority of the HOA. So they have authority because the person AGREED to their authority.

I don't think the person who agrees to the authority of the HOA has any grounds to complain.

However, I think it is a matter for debate whether the subsequent buyer should be forced to pass the deed restrictions on to a subsequent buyer. In other words, I'm not sure I agree that courts should enforce restrictions that "run with the land".

 

[CryLibertyOrDeath]

However, I think it is a matter for debate whether the subsequent buyer should be forced to pass the deed restrictions on to a subsequent buyer. In other words, I'm not sure I agree that courts should enforce restrictions that "run with the land".

This is what I mean. I think you could argue than an HOA is a form of government, especially when they ban gun rights within their borders. Having an organization run with the land despite the owner's individual wishes is, I think, an infringement on liberties and a holdover of the feudal age in England.

The issue isn't between the residents and the HoA, but the rest of the community and the HoA imo. I'm sure there's many people who live in HoAs but would choose to live in the same community without the HoA if they had the choice. They control authority over land without owning it and being incredibly unaccountable, and that's horrible in my opinion.