Busch put a sign on his garage stating he should have property rights and there should not be an HOA. He's been fighting with the Sand Lake Hills homeowners association since 2008. He sued the HOA and 99 homeowners because he claims the HOA was formed illegally.
Each homeowner is supposed to agree to form an HOA, but he says that did not happen."This is property rights. How can they come on my property and assess me for anything they want?"
-------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's attorney is also contending the HOA "dumped trash" on his client's title with dubious liens.
5 comments:
"Busch put a sign on his garage"
Uh-oh...
"WFTV spoke with another HOA attorney not related to the case. He said most likely individuals homeowners would not be responsible for legal feels, only the association."
?? If the association is liable, wouldn't the homeowners have to pay? Where else does the association get its money?
"Busch says that's not the point, and a judge recently agreed. The neighborhood was built in sections and she said Section 2 HOA was not authorized to enforce use restrictions in Section 3 after 1985."
This guy's lucky he's not in Colorado. There was a court case 3 years ago, Hiwan HOA vs Knotts:
BEGIN QUOTE** In a decision issued Wednesday [8/6/2008], Judge Berryhill provided great case law for communities in Colorado. The decision makes it clear that a community which, by its declaration, requires owners to pay for the "maintenance" of real estate described in the declaration other than their own property is a common interest community and thus subject to CCIOA. In the Hiwan Homeowners Association v. Knotts case, the community's declaration provided that the assessments were paid to the association. The association's purpose was "maintenance of the association." Judge Berryhill found this sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CCIOA even though the association owned no common elements. **END QUOTE
The Association's right to "obtain court approval of proposed amendments and restatements of the restrictive covenants that govern the Hiwan residential subdivision" was affirmed in by an appeal court a year later.
So (if my understanding is correct) people who bought homes in Hiwan that weren't subject to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (which does not recognize the rights of homeowners), with an association that "owned no common elements," are now subject the dictates of an organization that can "obtain court approval" to amend the rules without the necessary approval of the homeowners.
Makes perfect sense to me, because they agreed to it.
That WFTV report was pulled by the editors for false information.
The HOA has no common property and no authority, yet they insist their rules are legit because people believed they were the HOA for years - something they started by telling people that years ago.
The HOA is still in denial. They claim the ruling only affected the plaintiff's property even though the judge ruled they lacked authority to act since 1985.
The law firm that converted this neighborhood into a "mandatory maintenance" association - a term they coined to skirt the law and claim voluntary status while locking in future owners or those who join, as well as force non-members to pay - has done the same thing in other local neighborhoods, most likely to secure a steady steam of income by increasing their customer base...
An example of why the WFTV article was a sham:
"He sued the HOA and 99 homeowners because he claims the HOA was formed illegally."
Later they write correctly that the judge ruled in his favor meaning Busch didn't claim anything. He stated fact...
Post a Comment