[Desertdog]

It looks like the liberal judges are at it again.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pflag11sep11,0,4807489.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

By Peter Franceschina
Staff Writer
Posted September 11 2003

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.

[KC]

"There has to be a way to give the association a right to enforce its claims on the property,"

:cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If there is anyone in the whole world that I would like to see get terminal tetanus infections, it's this HOA, and the ******* ******* lawyer who uttered this remark. After all; if there isn't anyone left on the HOA, and no lawyer to press the case, it becomes very much less likely that this guy will loose his home to a bunch of blood-sucking social parasites over a twelve-foot flagpole. Guess the retired Nazis and Communists that tend to congregate down there don't like that symbol shoved in their faces every day.

....um.
Sorry. I'll shut up now and talk quietly to myself over here in this little corner....

[NewShooter78]

So he's going to loose his property because he's flying Our flag on a banned flagpole. ***! I swear some people in this country are just plain nuts! You think that lawyers would be comming out of the woodwork to help this veteran out. Where's the ACLU when it is needed. I'd say this gentleman has earned the right to fly that flag no matter what a HOA has to say. :fire:

[spartacus2002]

I will never own a home with an HOA.

The place I'm renting has one, and they send me a nastygram because I had grass growing between the cracks in my driveway. The landlord went nuts, and the property manager sent me a violation letter.

Thing is, I fixed it the day I got the first nastygram. The HOA didn't notify the landlord for TWO WEEKS, so by the time TPTB get involved, it's been long ago rectified.

I look around the neighborhood, and now I'm the only one WITHOUT grass in the cracks in my driveway...

[Spot77]

The HOA smells money, and just think about what all that money could do FOR THE CHILDREN, who have had to look at that nasty, overbearing symbol of American freedom for so long. :fire:

Hey Spartacus....Tell your landlord to FIX the cracks in the driveway, and the grass problem will take care of itself. Send a letter to the HOA regarding the owner's neglect of the property; how dangerous thise cracks are; AND be sure to specify that you are RENTING the property, and see how everybody likes THAT.

[starfuryzeta]

Hate to do it, but gotta play devil's advocate for a second. :evil:

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.

So, he moved into the HOA knowing the bylaws. He "came to the nuisance". Similar, not identical, but similar to people move into areas knowing that a gun range is there. However, unlike Andres, the ranges try to be good neighbors.

<advocate off>

I hate HOA's. I don't want some other tenant telling me what I can or can't do with my land, house, property, etc. You move into a HOA, you better know what you're getting into. However, if there was a RKBA HOA....with dues funding a neighborhood range....that just might be different. :)

[Lone_Gunman]

To play the Devil's Advocate here, the veteran did enter to Home Owner's Association voluntarily and knowing full well what the covenants were.

Why did he join if he knew he was going to immediately break his word and violate the agreement?

Also, the US Flag is thrown into this discussion to create emotional appeal, and nothing more. The HOA does not disallow the flag. It disallows free standing flag poles.

If he had flown his flag from an angled pole attached to his porch or house, he would not have violated the covenants, broken his word, or ended up in this mess.

The bottom line is, don't enter into legal contracts that you will not honor.

While this man my be patriotic, he is nonetheless wrong.

[Spot77]

No doubt he's in violation of the HOA agreement.

But the HOA is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

To violate a person's freedom is just wrong. This association, with all of it's members can't find a way to peacefully settle a dispute with ONE resident? Over the nation's most emotional symbol?

Also remember; it's probably not that easy for a 66 year old veteran to remove a flagpole.....I throw the veteran part in there because in addtion to the physical difficulty of removing this flagpole, the emotional trauma is just as tough.

I suppose we don't know how much the HOA has offered to help, or what solutions they've suggested since these articles are specifically written to hide certain facts so the public will be inflamed for one side or the other

Is the HOA right? No. By law, do they have the right to pursue this? Yes.

But it's just not right to take a 66 year old's house over this. It's gotten way out of hand, no doubt due to a few bruised egos.

[repsychler]

starfuryzeta
However, if there was a RKBA HOA....with dues funding a neighborhood range....that just might be different.

That's basically what Front Sight, Nevada will be. Maybe I'll win the lottery so I can have a winter home there. :D

[feedthehogs]

If George had defied orders when he was in the Marines, he would have been court martialed.
He knew what he was doing was wrong and hoped the media exposure would change opinions.
But the association already spent the money fighting the case. They have a right to recover those funds.
If you threw one rule out the window, you would have to throw them all out.
George could have flown the flag on the house and fought to change the association laws to allow in the ground flag poles while still being patriotic.

The other down side is that he has Barry Silver representing him at no cost.
Barry has a reputation of throwing himself in the middle of a media blitz representing the down trodden for no cost. The problem is Barry loses most everything he gets involved in.

Don't throw the veteran or flag angle into this. It has no place.

[Lone_Gunman]

Spot, you are appealing to emotion.

The HOA is not wrong. They have freedom to choose what is allowed and what is not allowed. They are limiting no one elses freedom, because the home owners voluntarily agree to participate. If a person freely enters an agreement stating they will maintain their property in a specific manner, then they certainly should honor that agreement.

It is no more tragic for a 66 YO veteran to lose his house, than a 30 YO non-veteran. Its not the HOA's problem that it might be hard for a 66 yo to remove a flagpole. He put it up, so he must have the wherewithall to take it down.

In my neighborhood, there is a covenant against above-ground swimming pools. I knew that when I bought the house, so I wouldn't consider putting one up, because it would violate an agreement I had made.

The vet may be 66, but he needs to grow up, take some responsibility, and honor his commitments.

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think many of y'all understand the situation described and are instead are knee jerk reacting to the apparent trampling of Andres rights.

First and foremost, the title of the thread appeals to this knee jerk reaction and is in error. Andres isn't facing foreclosure for flying a US Flag. So get off the soapbox about the patroitic stuff. This is not a patriotism issue. What Andres may get foreclosed for is not the US Flag, but for violation of the homeowner's association contract that he agreed to when he purchased his home. The association does not allow flag poles or flags. He is displaying both. It could have been a Russian flag, Disney flag, or whatever and he would still be in the same trouble.

How can the homeowner's association take away his rights? First of all, they did not take away his rights. He agreed to sacrifice certain rights as being a member in the homeowner's association. The association has taken away his rights about as much as an employer takes away your rights. It is a contractual deal. When you are employed, you agree to sacrifice some rights such as freedom of speech, expression, and religion. You can get fired for backtalking the boss, for wearing your tyedie shirt to the job when a suit is required, and you likely won't be allowed to hang up all your religous stuff around your work area.

I find it really amusing at how many of y'all think Andres is being treated so badly when it was Andres who made the idiotic agreement to be a member of the homeowner's association that no doubt was tied directly to the purchase of his house. He should not have purchased the house if he did not agree with the homeowner's association obligations.

Homeowner's associations suck. I can't understand why anyone would purchase a home in an area with a homeowner's association.

[Baba Louie]

Breach of Contract, plain and simple.

Andres could always work to get together enough of the voting members to revise the rule and set a policy guideline for freestanding flagpoles if he so chose, setting up height limits, placement, lighting and limits of flag size and time of day for flag display...

Not an easy task, but it beats losing your home and whining about it, expecting the problem to go away via court injunction.

His decision, His consequences.

HOA typically keep home values up (and that's a good thing) by setting guidelines and rules. Read ALL of the text in your agreement before you sign and decide a little anarchy is a good thing.

Adios

[Lone_Gunman]

Baba Louie,

I think you summed the situation up well, and I agree totally.

[Dorrin79]

While I agree that the HOA (and all HOAs, for that matter) are basically evil, he did knowingly enter into a contract with them, that he is now in breach of.

I deliberately found a house in a neighborhood with no HOA. Some of my neighbors having not-so-nice lawns is a small price to pay for my freedom to not worry about mine either.

:cool:

[Augustwest]

Homeowner's associations are a great example of why pure democracy is a bad thing - you submit to mob rule when you choose to live somewhere with covenants like these.

While it's a foolish rule, he chose to live in a community that promulgates such nonsense...

[Coronach]

Agreed.

While it is a stupid rule for the HOA to have, it is the HOA's right to make such rules. Andres did not have to live there. He did not have to purchase a house with a covenant requiring him to obey the rules of the HOA. But he did.

This is why I will never, ever, ever live under a homeowner's association. Now, I'll be the first to agree that most of their rules are reasonable and proper, and do keep the place looking nice and keep resale value up. However, even if they have no weird rules when I move in, the covenant is likely worded in a manner that requires compliance with all existing and future rules of the HOA.

Its the "and future" part that will get yah. How many of us would accept a little reasonable gun control if we somehow magically knew that it would be the end of it, forever and ever amen? Under those conditions you'd be a fool not to consider it...the same way that in the real world you'd be a fool to acquiesce.

So, yes...must keep lawn mowed...must keep fences to X height...ok. You can live with that? Fine. What happens when the blue-haired lawn nazis get control of the HOA and start making ever increasing demands on you?

Thanks, no.

Spot:
But the HOA is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

To violate a person's freedom is just wrong.Uh...sir. This is what homeowner's associations do. This is their sole purpose. Sure, the restriction of individual liberty is quite often reasonable and for the common good, but never pretend that even the most benign of HOA rules are a retriction on the liberty of the property owner.This association, with all of it's members can't find a way to peacefully settle a dispute with ONE resident? Over the nation's most emotional symbol?This implies that the homeowner was willing to cooperate. My guess is that anyone thick-headed enough to 1. agree to follow a set of rules and then 2. deliberately break the rules for 3. 6 years (IIRC), is probably not willing to work with the HOA....unless "working with the HOA" means the HOA giving up and allowing him to fly his flag in peace.

Again...silly, stupid rule. But he agreed to follow it.

Mike

[DRC]

And granted a contract is a contract but I'm unaware of any provisions in an Associations contract that can legally allow them to foreclose on property purchsed and being paid for by another. The only people with any legal authority to do this that I'm aware of are the mortgage companies for non payment or the Federal Government.

I'm very curious as to how this works so if someone envolved with one of these associations can shed some light on how they can do this I'd be most intrested.

Thanks in advance,

DRC

[Dorrin79]

I'm pretty sure that an HOA contract can specify foreclosure/seizure to recover unpaid dues/fees/penalties.

I don't know if many actually do include a clause to that effect, but it would seem clear that this one does.

Some HOAs charge very high fees (approaching prop. tax levels at times) and in this guys case, they are also holding him liable for legal fees resulting from the whole issue.

[Spot77]

Uh...sir. This is what homeowner's associations do. This is their sole purpose. Sure, the restriction of individual liberty is quite often reasonable and for the common good, but never pretend that even the most benign of HOA rules are a retriction on the liberty of the property owner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I meant to put a sarcasm note on that one. My fault.

And I'll say it again, I do believe the HOA has the law behind it, but it still doesn't make it right. The law also says we must go through background checks, limit our variety of the evil black "assault" rifles, and all the other b.s. that limits our RKBA. But is THAT right either? Slightly different scenario, I know, but I think it's a fair comparison so you can understand why I say this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This implies that the homeowner was willing to cooperate. My guess is that anyone thick-headed enough to 1. agree to follow a set of rules and then 2. deliberately break the rules for 3. 6 years (IIRC), is probably not willing to work with the HOA....unless "working with the HOA" means the HOA giving up and allowing him to fly his flag in peace.

Again...silly, stupid rule. But he agreed to follow it.

Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it's one grouchy new neighbor that's complaining about it, and the other 99.7% of the residents didn't care for 3.6 years. There's the media again, with an interesting article, but not enough meat for any of us to know everything about it.

As I said, this probably spun out of control due to some bruised egos. On both sides.


And yes I'm falling prey to the emotional side of this. No doubt. I don't see that as a bad thing. Laws and rules aren't always right, and should be challenged. God bless the old man and I hope everybody can come out of this a winner.

Oh, one more quick thought. Foreclosure might still be reaching a bit. All the HOA has to do is file the lien, and when the owner dies, the house can't transfer or be sold until the lien is settled. Or the money from the sale of the house goes to: The mortgage holder first, to pay off any outstanding loan. Then the HOA, as a lienholder gets their money, usually with a reasonable interest.

Or the next owner can agree to pay the lien as part of their settlement deal. During the title search on the property, the lien will appear in the land records and fall under the "Lis Pendis" rules (Latin I believe for "Pending Litigation"
Source : Md. Supplement for Modern Real Estate Practice
By H. Warren Crawford, and John F. Rodgers, III

I think Florida's real estate laws lean even more in favor of Owner's rights than Md.; not sure though. Any Florida Real Estate Lawyers here? (Don't worry, we won't make too many lawyer jokes).

[DRC]

If you are buying a house and there is a home owners association attached to the subdivision I'm curious as to how they get deeding on the property to take it to foreclosure. It seems like an uninforceable rule in the contract although fining the home owner would be plausible because of the collective agreements with the other homeowners but even that would be difficult to enforce I would think.

This particular association must be charging the home owners way too much money if they can afford all the legal fees associated with this. Makes one wonder. I'm curious to find out how these Home Owner Associations operate in the even that I end up moving in the near future to a subdivision where these are prevelant. Some areas won't even let you buy a house unless you are willing to sign with and abide by all the Association rules. I've never read one of the contracts or done any real research to find out how far the long arm of the law reaches from one of these associations.

Just curious,

DRC

[Bill Hook]

What is to stop the HOA from specifying that homeowners may only have intercourse in a missionary position? It's in the covenants, afterall (hypothetically speaking).

Some things are a little to asinine and intrusive to be reasonably enforced. I'll guess the devil's advocates will say that that behavior goes on inside, out of public view.

You can bet that anything prohibiting Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals, women, etc. would be unenforceable.

[Baba Louie]

Bill Hook et al,

Here in Las Vegas, whenever a developer wants to develop a PUD with CC&R's he/she/they have to have them drawn up and submitted to the City/County planning/zoning dept for review and approval prior to implementation. They are then "Restrictions" on the deed that you (the buyer) purchase when buying your home. All kinds of things may be included, but they must fall under the guidelines that the planning/zoning depts have, such as number and types of pets f'r instance, parking autos in garage, lawn maintenance, house upkeep (paint) etc.

They are usually walled/gated communities (not always tho). Monthly association fees apply.

I've got 8 or 9 sets of various CC&R's here in my office, each about a ream of paper thick (500 sheets or so) with design guidelines, front end legal boilerplate, types of planting allowed, procedure for remodeling home, etc.

I read them because I design homes and other buildings and have to follow the guidelines. I like to point out to each client the pitfalls I find when going over them and you'd be surprised how many of them DO NOT READ THE CONTRACT THEY'VE SIGNED!!!

Its that "social contract" thing... you do give up something for something (quid pro quo or something latin).

As for stating romantic positions allowed... I haven't run into that one yet, but if I do, I'll PM ya.:D

Noise levels? Its in there.

Flagpoles? Real common.

High property values? Thats why they're there.

Liens on property? Oh Yeah.

Even if you're not in a HOA here in LV, should you fail to pay your trash bill for a while... Lien. Go long enough, small claims court. Go farther? They can process you for restitution.

And you thought this was a "free" country, didn't ya? Try not paying your property taxes for about a year or three.

Adios

edited to respond to Bill Hooks last comment about racism... I've got a copy of some CC&R's from the 60's for a neighborhood known as McNeil Development where I was shocked to read, "No families of color are allowed". Used ta be you could do that. Not no mo.

[Quartus]

And granted a contract is a contract but I'm unaware of any provisions in an Associations contract that can legally allow them to foreclose on property purchsed and being paid for by another. The only people with any legal authority to do this that I'm aware of are the mortgage companies for non payment or the Federal Government.


IIRC, the HOA sued him for the legal fees and won a judgement, resulting in a court ordered sale of his assets (the house) to pay the judgement. "Foreclosure" is probably the wrong term to use.

This isn't complicated. You agree to the rules, you keep the rules. Don't like the rules, don't sign the contract. The 'patriotic veteran' here is just a big spoiled brat crybaby. His character is no different from the spoiled brat leftists except for his political leanings.



But watch it. The rules can be changed. A friend of mine sold his gun store in So Cal and moved to Eyedeehoh. Bought a house on 5 acres in the woods where there was an association. More folks moved in, mostly tree-hugger types. After a couple of years of "Oh, I can't be bothered going to those Association meetings", my friend found himself fined for violating the NEW RULE against shooting within the association limits.

HOAs BAD! Freedom GOOD!

[gunsmith]

let him fly the flag in peace!
the HOA should be DOA for messing with him

[Spot77]

Well to anybody still interested......I just saw that CNN is running a piece on this story tonight. Maybe we'll hear some real facts.

I don't know if I'll get to see it or not, so if anybody sees it, please post the highlights.

[Coronach]

And I'll say it again, I do believe the HOA has the law behind it, but it still doesn't make it right. The law also says we must go through background checks, limit our variety of the evil black "assault" rifles, and all the other b.s. that limits our RKBA. But is THAT right either? Slightly different scenario, I know, but I think it's a fair comparison so you can understand why I say this.No, a completely different scenario. The law is applied to everyone, with no option for you to not fall under it. A HOA agreement is something that you willingly sign, wherein you agree to follow the stupid rules they promulgate. There is a major difference, there. In effect, he said "yes, I agree not to fly a flag on my property," and then turned around a flew a flag on his property.

Sorry, sir. You made a deal. You should honor it.

I think the association rule is as stupid as anyone else here, btw. I would never agree to such a restriction. But he did.

Mike

[Mike Irwin]

"Homeowner's associations are a great example of why pure democracy is a bad thing - you submit to mob rule when you choose to live somewhere with covenants like these."

"HOAs are evil..."

etc...

Oh for the :cuss:ing love of :cuss:!

OK, time for a little edumukation regarding HOAs, what they are, what they CAN be, what they don't have to be, and how they operate...

First off, in virtually every state in the US where HOAs operate, they operate in much the same manner as town and city councils, with ELECTED officers, who are elected by the constituency (i.e., the people who live in the HOA). In essence, the HOA is a representative form of government (yes, in most states HOAs can be thought of as a form of government), NOT some sort of mob rule.

Every state that I know of REQUIRES the HOA to provide prospective homeowners with copies of the covenants and regulations, financial disclosures, lists of officers, etc., that govern the HOA when an initial contract to purchase the home is signed.

In Virginia, the prospective owner has THREE DAYS to examine the documents and if he/she so desires, can cancel the sale based solely on what is in those documents with no loss of ernest money.

What town, city, township, village, or county in the US is REQUIRED, by law, to give prospective residents a copy of applicable laws and financial disclosure documentation with the right to rescind a sale?

To the best of my knowledge, NOT ONE.

State laws also spell out what HOAs can and cannot do. The Virginia HOA and Condominium Act runs roughly 100 printed pages in booklet form. It lays out, in statute form, exactly what an HOA or Condo board can do.

Regarding covenants and community regulations. These are no different than what states, cities, and towns employ. Remember, an HOA is a form of government. Yes, in many cases they're more specific that what you would find in other communities. Why? Because the community was planned from the outset. It didn't grow over time as most of the other entities did.

Now, there's a question of what HOAs cannot do. Well, the BIGGEST cannot do is force someone to live in the HOA. That right there is the biggest limiter on the HOA's power over the individual.

Don't like the laws in a state you're considering moving to? Don't move there. Same with an HOA.

I know everyone has heard the horror stories about HOAs... Board members walking around with paint chips, making sure that your house is the proper color, and doing much, much worse, essentially acting as little banana republics... How is that any different than the yelping that goes on about California? Or New York? Or Massachusetts?

The existing government has ONLY the power that the constituents ALLOW them to have! Don't like the legislature? Toss the bastards out! Don't like the HOA board? Toss the bastards out!

Yet far too often that doesn't happen.

Why?

Constituent APATHY. Most people simply can't be bothered to take an active role in their community, whether it is at the state, local, or HOA level, but they do have the energy to bitch and whine about these horrible, horrible oppressive laws under which they have to live their lives.

To that I say bull:cuss:

I've been the vice president of my HOA for the past 8 years. The ONLY reason I'm still on the board is because of the absolute, intransigent apathy of the majority of the people who live in my community.

The HOA in my community is also one of the biggest reasons why over the past 4 years there has been a near DOUBLING of property values, far exceeding the rise in property values in most other areas in Fairfax County, Virginia. I bought my home for $155,000 10 years ago, given the parade of real estate agents who have barraged me with offers, I could easily sell it tomorrow for $305,000.

Simply put, this old man knew what he was getting into when he chose to move to the community.

From everything I've read on this case (and believe me, as VP of my HOA, I've seen a LOT more than a couple of sentimental, heart-jerking "cold heartless, faceless HOA vs. war hero patriot" newpaper articles) he's dictated the course of action by his adamant refusal to honor the contractual obligations that he entered into when he moved into the community.

I've got about as much sympathy for this old man as I do the gang banger who tries to knock off the local stop & shop and ends up with a .45 in his coconut and his brains leaking out his ears.

You go looking for a fight, chances are you're going to find one.

[Mike Irwin]

"What is to stop the HOA from specifying that homeowners may only have intercourse in a missionary position? It's in the covenants, afterall (hypothetically speaking)."

Not hypothetically, a LOT, starting with the English Common Law concept that the interior of a man's home is his castle.

However, IF an HOA did try this, it wouldn't be much different than the vast majority of the "morality" laws that are now on the books in many states, such as Virginia's anti-sodomy law.

The temporal break would be in enforcement.

AFAIK, while HOAs are in many states chartered essentially as forms of government, powers of police enforcement are NOT extended to them. If an officer of an HOA enters your home to check on your coitus position, it's breaking & entering or trespassing, pure & simple.

[Mike Irwin]

Quartus,

"HOA's BAD, FREEDOM GOOD."

No, more like Your Friend Stupid! Apathy BAD!

[Mike Irwin]

DRC,

"And granted a contract is a contract but I'm unaware of any provisions in an Associations contract that can legally allow them to foreclose on property purchsed and being paid for by another."

The laws of the state that govern HOAs would make that determination.

[Mike Irwin]

"However, even if they have no weird rules when I move in, the covenant is likely worded in a manner that requires compliance with all existing and future rules of the HOA."

Coro,

And that's different from living in a town/city, a state, or the United States how?

It's not.

[jimpeel]

The guy was on Hannity & Colmes tonight and Sean said that if push came to shove he'd raise the $25,000 to save his home and throw in the first $5,000 from his own pocket AND buy another flagpole to place beside the first one.

They also had footage of Jeb Bush showing up at the guy's house to support him.

[S_O_Laban]

It's my understanding from a radio broadcast I heard yesterday that last Year Jeb Bush signed a state law that allows flagpoles reguardless of what the HOA rules might be. It was stated that this particular case was the reason that this law was drafted and passed. I suppose though that this does nothing to help the man in question as this all came about before the new law went into effect. I haven't been able to find something to link to but will keep looking.

[S_O_Laban]

http://www.ccfj.net/HOAartflag.html

This is a link to several article dealing with the situation.

[hammer4nc]

OK, for those THR lawyers and aspirants who have proclaimed this to be a clearcut case of violation of contract law...I have a question.

How come, when an individual sues the state over a clearcut case of violation of contract and/or the law, on the part of the STATE (even when the violations are stipulated, not in dispute), that courts routinely dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the individual has not proved ACTUAL DAMAGES resulting from the violation? The legal phrase thrown out, is that the lawsuit is NOT YET RIPE.

In this case, many have speculated on the positive impacts of HOA's, in general terms. Yet, I have seen nothing attempting to prove actual damages incurred by the HOA (actual monetary loss - lawyer's fees are not damages) because this guy has a flagpole in his yard. Documented evidence of cause-effect; i.e., reduced property values, directly attributed to the defendent's actions.

One could assert that the claim on the part of the HOA is not yet ripe. I'm sure if the defendent were the government in this case, rather than a lowly peon, this defense would be raised and upheld in court.

Can someone explain the reason for this double standard? It's always stuck in my craw. Why does the state get a free pass in cases like this?

[Coronach]

However, even if they have no weird rules when I move in, the covenant is likely worded in a manner that requires compliance with all existing and future rules of the HOA.

Coro,

And that's different from living in a town/city, a state, or the United States how?

It's not.You're correct. It is just one more form of government. But it is one under which you can choose to live or not live, not unlike choosing to live in the country vs the city. I just prefer that people make their choices and not cry about it afterwards, is all. "But that wasn't the rule when I moved in! Boohoohooo!" No, it might not have been, but you left the door open for it when you signed the covenant.

*shrug* I choose not to allow my neighbors to determine the height of my fence. In return, I have no say in the height of my neighbors'.

Also, I caught part of it last night. According to Andres' side, 1. the rules don't prevent flying of a flag or having a flagpole, the HOA is just interpreting it that way and 2. There is a law stating that it is OK to fly the US flag, regardless of HOA rules and 3. He already won that fight, the HOA is now trying to get him to pay their legal bills, for the case that the HOA fought and lost. Needless to say, if true this changes things a little bit.

Mike

[Coronach]

Ah. This explains a bit: http://www.ccfj.net/flyoldglory38.html

Last year, the Legislature passed a bill designed to alleviate Andres' legal troubles, and Gov. Jeb Bush signed it into law.

It allows people to fly a removable American flag "in a respectful manner" regardless of homeowners association rules. On Flag Day last year, Bush delivered an American flag to Andres that had flown over the state Capitol and helped him raise it.

The new law was made retroactive, so it would apply to Andres' situation, but it was passed long after the lien was filed and the homeowners association won its case.

Fine ruled in April that the homeowners association could go forward with the foreclosure, despite the new law. Fine did not say when he would rule, but Andres' house is scheduled for a foreclosure sale May 29.So, the HOA fought and won their case, had the resultant victory turned over by a law that is basically ex post facto (but no one is complaining about that, I suppose), and still has their legal debts, which would need to be paid be either 1. everyone in the community or 2. Andres.

Wow. Thats quite a mess.

Mike

[tyme]

Great, so if Sean Hannity raises the 25k to pay the HOA's legal fees and buys the guy another flagpole, everyone's happy. With the publicity, raising 25k should not be a problem.
You can bet that anything prohibiting Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals, women, etc. would be unenforceable.
Maybe, but there are some communities that have age restrictions.

[Mike Irwin]

Generally, a retroactive law won't serve to dismiss legal fees or secondary legal actions (placing of the lien) incurred prior to legislative action.

I can't remember for certain, but I BELIEVE that the HOA rules didn't specifically call out a flag pole, but did make provisions for free-standing permanent structures (building, sheds, BBQs, etc.). A permanent flag pole is a structure.

The HOA does allow a flag to be flown from a pole on a wall bracket. But for some reason this wasn't quite good enough for the guy. Why? I'd really like to know that, but none of the articles addresses that, other than his apparent statement that he "has the Constitutional right to fly the flag from a pole." That's pretty indicative that he's not interested in any sort of compromise.

[Spot77]

Quote:

The HOA does allow a flag to be flown from a pole on a wall bracket. But for some reason this wasn't quite good enough for the guy. Why? I'd really like to know that, but none of the articles addresses that, other than his apparent statement that he "has the Constitutional right to fly the flag from a pole." That's pretty indicative that he's not interested in any sort of compromise.

------------------------------

Not positive about this, but it's been my understanding that there is a proper etiquette to flying a flag from certain structures and that a permenant free standing pole was top in the pecking order. Sort of like the most respectful way to fly the flag. So maybe that had something to do with his decisions.

Also as a side note, on CNN last night Andres claimed that 15 or so of his neighbors have filed suit against the HOA for spending their money fighting this. Anybody else hear something similar/dissimilar?

[Mike Irwin]

"Also as a side note, on CNN last night Andres claimed that 15 or so of his neighbors have filed suit against the HOA for spending their money fighting this. Anybody else hear something similar/dissimilar?"

First I've heard that, but it's not surprising.

However, they should realize that they are, in essence, suing themselves because they are the HOA.

Any legal fees spent defending against that suit will, in part, come out of their own pockets.

If they actually win a judgement against the HOA, where would the money come from for the judgement? From the HOA, i.e., in part from the people who filed the suit.

[Spot77]

Don't know where the money would come from, but it'll be interesting to see.

Maybe the HOA has insurance of some kind. :D

[Mike Irwin]

"Insurance of some kind..."

Of course the HOA has insurance. Required by law in every state.

Don't know what kind of insurance levels they have, but in Virginia HOAs generally have to have:

1. General liability & accident insurance

2. Insurance to cover any jointly owned property, such as rec. centers, etc.

3. Various forms of insurances to cover any employees (my association doesn't have employees, so we're exempt).

4. Insurance to cover a board member taking a powder with the association's funds.

Generally there's no requirement anywhere for association/boards to carry insurance that would cover them against lawsuits that arise from their attempting to enforce promulgated covenants, rules and regulations of the community. That's part of their duties as an association board of directors, and is generally seen to be well on the way toward being an affirmative defense against such lawsuits.

Also, and while I'm not up to date on Florida law,if it's like Virginia law board members are generally protected from lawsuits against them individually resulting from good-faith actions taken on behalf of the association.

These homeowners can attempt to sue the association and the board of directors, but given the affirmative defense of working to enforce the promulgated CRR, there's simply not a lot of smoke there.

[Quartus]

No, more like Your Friend Stupid! Apathy BAD!


WHAT?!?!!? MY FRIEND STUPID ?!?!?

Are you talkin' 'bout my fren? MY friend?


My friend that...


bought his house without shopping around? Then found out he'd bought in the high priced snotty area?
then got into real estate (after the inheritance money ran out) and spent the next 6 months telling every client what they SHOULD want, instead of finding out what they DID want? Then complained that nobody can make money in real estate in an area where people were getting rich in real estate?
that alienated every hunter in the area by telling them all how to hunt? Him that had never been hunting in his life?
that stuck his hand in a snow thrower and mangled his shooting hand? (Well, he USED to be a good silhouette shoooter!)



Hmmm. Maybe you've got a point, Mike. :D


But I still have no use for an HOA. In joining one, you have chosen to add one more layer of government to your life.

No thanks.

[Orthonym]

I thought FL (like TX) had a dam-near bulletproof homestead exemption. I mean, the Attorney-General said so! The Feds even noticed and have tried to change the laws because we've had some bad-debtors move here and put millions into creditor-proof houses.

If the govt can void other parts of HOA agreements (no Negroes, no Ham antennae, no Jews, no wrong grass species in the lawn , etc etc ) why can't they void this one?