Colleyville homeowners divided over developer's control of HOAs | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News: "COLLEYVILLE – This affluent community, full of beautiful new homes and shops, doesn't look like a hothouse for revolutionaries hellbent on overthrowing the established suburban order.
But a group of residents in five luxury neighborhoods has grown tired of their homeowners associations dictating everything from how many day lilies to plant in a flower bed to what companies they can hire to put in a swimming pool."
-----------
The peasants are revolting!
Thanks to Fred Pilot for the link.
2 comments:
I love the ending quote to that article--the developer says:
"You would be amazed at the anger that ensues when we demand to be told about what people are doing in their backyard."
Imagine that.
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("Act").
If you purchased a "unit" in a condominium or a "lot" in a subdivision that is not exempt, you have an absolute right to rescind the purchase if the developer did not comply with the Act.
There is a statutory limitation of 2 years to demand recission and you must file within 3 years for automatic recission. There is otherwise a 3 years statute of limitations tolled by the discovery rule (when you knew or should have known). You can still get recission but it is not automatic. If you bought a condo or a lot burdened by an HOA corporation, consider giving the never-ending liability back to the developer.
Developers have largely ignored the Act for 40 years. When developers could charge ridiculous prices they didn't have to worry about much liability under the Act. Today is a different story.
One of the requirements under the Act is that the developer must register with HUD and give prospective purchasers a Property Report. Among other things, the Property Report must disclose how certain things (e.g., roads) will be paid for. If the subdivision is not exempt, the developer's failure to register or provide a Property Report or to disclose financial liability for the roads is a statutory violation.
The Act is modeled after the Securities Act of 1933. The Act even has provisions that hold developers liable if they appear to technically comply but have engaged in a course of conduct to try to "purposefully evade" liability under the Act. One example of where this happens is when the developers claim the subdivision will be less than 100 lots but then Phase 2 shows up....
Use federal law to get out of these developer fiefdoms wherever possible. Good luck.
-IC_deLight
Post a Comment