Split: HOAs, Laws and Contracts

[Swordsmyth]

If I'm the seller, I'm not controlling anything after I sell it. The people that buy the property are freely and willingly entering into a contract with their new neighbors as part of the transaction.

You are retaining control even if it is only momentarily before transferring that control to a third party, all while claiming to sell "ownership" to the second party, that is fraud because you have given control and therefore ownership to the third party.

[Swordsmyth]

Only if the HOA restrictions aren't disclosed would it be misrepresentation.

Making two contradictory statements to the buyer does not change the fact that the first one is a misrepresentation, it is in fact a common technique used by cheats.

And again, the seller does not retain control. The deed contains restrictions.

The property is controlled by those restrictions, therefore the person who imposed those restrictions is controlling the property, ownership=control therefore the seller has defrauded the buyer by retaining control of property they claimed to sell ownership of to the buyer.

[EBounding]

Making two contradictory statements to the buyer does not change the fact that the first one is a misrepresentation, it is in fact a common technique used by cheats.



The property is controlled by those restrictions, therefore the person who imposed those restrictions is controlling the property, ownership=control therefore the seller has defrauded the buyer by retaining control of property they claimed to sell ownership of to the buyer.

So you're saying that if I own a lot next to my house, I have no right to sell the property with the condition that it can't be used for a rendering plant?

[Swordsmyth]

So you're saying that if I own a lot next to my house, I have no right to sell the property with the condition that it can't be used for a rendering plant?

You could lease it with that condition but ownership=control.

[EBounding]

You could lease it with that condition but ownership=control.

I guess we have radically different ideas of property rights and voluntary exchange.

[nobody's_hero]

Maybe if I moved 50 miles away from work. This is the hottest real estate market in the country right now. You can't buy acreage or put up a house for what we could sell this house for. Besides, we like where we live. It's convenient. It's the right size for the two of us. We like our neighbors and they like us. Why should I move out to the country? There is no need for us to move.

I don't need a 2000sf house to maintain and clean. Little is good.

I just threw out an example to say that you can live comfortably in the countryside for the same cost of living in the city. I've lived on both sides of the city limits sign. Got out and never looked back. I suppose when you are used to it, the thought of going without the conveniences the city has to offer is a bit frightening. But it all comes at a cost, and the cost only gets higher as the city raises taxes and grows which attracts more liberals who vote to raise taxes and grow the city which attracts more liberals who vote to raise taxes and grow the city which attracts more . . well, you get the point.

They can keep their level 1 trauma center. I may die in the back of an ambulance on the way from Backwaterville but at least I'll die having experienced a bit of freedom in my life.

[angelatc]

I guess we have radically different ideas of property rights and voluntary exchange.

As well as voluntary association.

[angelatc]

Making two contradictory statements to the buyer does not change the fact that the first one is a misrepresentation.

Nobody is making contrdictory statements to the buyer, though. The seller tells the buyer about the deed restrictions. The end.

[Swordsmyth]

Nobody is making contrdictory statements to the buyer, though. The seller tells the buyer about the deed restrictions. The end.

Which means that the offer to sell "ownership" is false.

[angelatc]

Which means that the offer to sell "ownership" is false.

Only according to you. The buyer and the seller are both content though. Your definition of ownership need not apply.

[devil21]

No, it is fundamentally the same. A right of way or easement is deeded the same way as an a CC&R.



http://realestate.findlaw.com/owning...-of-cc-rs.html

Which means that the offer to sell "ownership" is false.

All it really does is expose that no one owns the property they "buy". They're merely tenants on the King's Land. Slaves paying rent for their own quarters. Some slaves can afford to rent nicer quarters than others but all are slaves nonetheless.

Only according to you. The buyer and the seller are both content though. Your definition of ownership need not apply.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Brian4Liberty]

It becomes harder to avoid HOAs of some kind in urban and suburban areas. Existing neighborhoods are the best bet, but even then, there will be people proposing the formation of new HOAs. It's overcrowding that causes it. Like a bee in a brood cell saying "I am not part of this hive!"

[Suzanimal]

It becomes harder to avoid HOAs of some kind in urban and suburban areas. Existing neighborhoods are the best bet, but even then, there will be people proposing the formation of new HOAs. It's overcrowding that causes it. Like a bee in a brood cell saying "I am not part of this hive!"

Yeah, that happened in our neighborhood. We ended up compromising with the busybodies and came up with a loose set of rules that no one follows and I never even read. In the 15 years since the rules were written, no one has ever mentioned them. I may be mistaken but, unless you join, you don't have to if the neighbors form an HOA after you purchased the property.

As far as HOAs go, don't buy in that neighborhood if you don't want to live that way. It really is that easy.

[Suzanimal]

No, Rand Paul Didn't Have It Coming

I read Elie Mystal’s article on Rand Paul’s assault, which suggests such violent encounters are the inevitable result of libertarianism in practice. He makes two errors. First, he contends Rand Paul ignores the rules of his HOA based on his libertarian philosophy. Second, he contends basing a legal framework on the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) is unworkable.

Private Contracts

Regarding the first error, libertarianism is based on the sanctity of voluntary contracts. An HOA is a perfect example of what libertarians would replace zoning regulations with – an enforceable contract voluntarily entered into by every individual, instead of a set of rules imposed on the whole by a supposed majority. Mystal conflates voluntary contracts with regulations near the end of his piece, writing, “Rand Paul’s broken ribs are a g**damn case study in why we need regulations.” This begs the question, “Why do we need regulations, rather than just enforcement of the HOA?”

Even in the absence of a written agreement, libertarians recognize longstanding local conditions as binding on new property owners.

Neither Mystal nor I know the terms of Rand Paul’s HOA contract, but if they prohibit either pumpkin patches or compost heaps, then Rand Paul appears to be in violation of that contract. Libertarians would side with the HOA, not Rand Paul. However, the HOA contract also provides penalties for violation of the terms, which I’m fairly certain don’t include bum-rushing him and breaking his ribs.

This all assumes there is any truth to reports Senator Paul used his property in ways his neighbors found offensive, whether compliant with the letter of his HOA agreement or not. Several of his neighbors have come forward since Mystal’s piece was written to refute those reports.

Even in the absence of a written agreement, libertarians recognize longstanding local conditions as binding on new property owners. Thus, I cannot come into a quiet community and build an airport on my land, subjecting my neighbors to the noise and other inconveniences of having an airport border their land. By the same token, I cannot buy the land next to an existing airport and then demand the airport stop making noise or doing the other things an airport must do to conduct its business. This principle extends to all sorts of questions, including air pollution, zoning, etc. Murray Rothbard wrote about this concept many times. Here is an example.

...

https://fee.org/articles/no-rand-pau...ave-it-coming/

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, that happened in our neighborhood. We ended up compromising with the busybodies and came up with a loose set of rules that no one follows and I never even read. In the 15 years since the rules were written, no one has ever mentioned them. I may be mistaken but, unless you join, you don't have to if the neighbors form an HOA after you purchased the property.

As far as HOAs go, don't buy in that neighborhood if you don't want to live that way. It really is that easy.

You can escape if you are flexible in your location. But like I said, if you want or have no choice but to locate in an urban area, there are no choices. Even suburbs in less populated areas run into this. When you start eliminating HOAs and similar agreements when looking to purchase, the options become limited.

[Suzanimal]

You can escape if you are flexible in your location. But like I said, if you want or have no choice but to locate in an urban area, there are no choices. Even suburbs in less populated areas run into this. When you start eliminating HOAs and similar agreements when looking to purchase, the options become limited.

Maybe it depends on your city. In Atlanta, you only run into that issue in the new McMansion subdivisions and a few of the historic areas. Frankly, if you can afford to buy one of those, your housing options aren't limited in the least. I've only noticed that issue around here in very high end communities and middle class neighborhoods with amenities that require maintenance such as pools and tennis courts and it's usually optional to join but if you don't, you're not allowed to use the amenities. I think that's fair. Pools, tennis courts, and clubhouses can be expensive to maintain.

[TheCount]

You are retaining control even if it is only momentarily before transferring that control to a third party, all while claiming to sell "ownership" to the second party, that is fraud because you have given control and therefore ownership to the third party.

There is no "you." The person purchasing is voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property knowing that there are clauses in the deed. The previous owner (s) have nothing to do with the matter once the property has been sold.

I can't imagine how you must think contracts should work.

What if I were to sell mineral/water/etc. rights for my land to person A and then sell the land itself to person B? Does person A suddenly lose the mineral rights and person B gains them?

[Swordsmyth]

There is no "you." The person purchasing is voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property knowing that there are clauses in the deed. The previous owner (s) have nothing to do with the matter once the property has been sold.

I can't imagine how you must think contracts should work.

What if I were to sell mineral/water/etc. rights for my land to person A and then sell the land itself to person B? Does person A suddenly lose the mineral rights and person B gains them?

In the first place permanent separation of the land from mineral/water/etc. rights is dubious and debatable, and in the second place it is entirely different from giving unlimited control of the property to a third party who is not the buyer.

[opal]

There exists a neighborhood in this area, who's HOA declared the right to dictate what constitutes a "brown" or "dead" spot on your lawn. (decades ago)
They serve a notice - if the home owner does not address the problem - the HOA sends someone to fix it.. charges the homeowner and if they do not pay, they put a lien on the property. They've even got a HOA neighborhood cruising car to narc out the offenders.

This on top of matching trash cans, not allowing choice in house paint colors, (you get two choices.. builder beige and greige) no RV's parked in your driveway over 24 hours for loading and unloading, no "work" trucks parked in your driveway overnight - even if it's your business truck.. garage sales allowed but only twice a year in congress with the rest of the neighborhood... and they charge you for it!


JMHO but you have to be a really special kind of moron to agree to that $#@!

[devil21]

There is no "you." The person purchasing is voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property knowing that there are clauses in the deed. The previous owner (s) have nothing to do with the matter once the property has been sold.

So the real question becomes, why can't the deed be changed? It's only words on paper.

[phill4paul]

So the real question becomes, why can't the deed be changed? It's only words on paper.

Deeds can be changed. HOA's can be dissolved by the members if all agree. Different HOA's have different guidelines for doing this. Also, many HOA's were set up by the original developers and were only set up for a specific time frame, generally 15-20 yrs, so that the developer could maintain a nice appearance of the neighborhood while he sold other lots and homes. Many HOA's have functioned past this date. Some have gotten out of their contracts simply because of this. This is why it is important to exercise due diligence when purchasing and actually read the CC&R's.

[TheCount]

So the real question becomes, why can't the deed be changed? It's only words on paper.

Ooh let me guess:. Something something birth certificate CAPITAL LETTERS real person colons: in-names straw man diagonal stamps corporations WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[devil21]

Ooh let me guess:. Something something birth certificate CAPITAL LETTERS real person colons: in-names straw man diagonal stamps corporations WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

That's not an answer, stop trolling. I ask again, it's just words on paper so why can't the deed be changed? Contracts are two party agreements. Since when is one party not allowed to negotiate their end of the contract?

Deeds can be changed. HOA's can be dissolved by the members if all agree. Different HOA's have different guidelines for doing this. Also, many HOA's were set up by the original developers and were only set up for a specific time frame, generally 15-20 yrs, so that the developer could maintain a nice appearance of the neighborhood while he sold other lots and homes. Many HOA's have functioned past this date. Some have gotten out of their contracts simply because of this. This is why it is important to exercise due diligence when purchasing and actually read the CC&R's.

It's not a question about the existence of the HOA itself. It's a question about why words on a piece of paper can't be changed by the contract parties.

[phill4paul]

It's not a question about the existence of the HOA itself. It's a question about why words on a piece of paper can't be changed by the contract parties.

I just explained that contract parties can change the contract...so....<shrug>

[devil21]

I just explained that contract parties can change the contract...so....<shrug>

Well that's good. We agree that the deed can just be changed and the buyer not forced into terms they don't necessarily agree with. No one does it, of course. They just accept it because "that's the way it is".