Speaking of "A Hot Tin Roof"....

Started by RickM1 • 17 replies • 1783 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

RickM1 (Texas)
Posts: 9

Posted:

Our HOA covenants has typical general guidelines like - "minimum 1500 square feet" or "finished roof must be installed within 90 days of constuction start date".

We have a new home construction that stopped when the homeowner's money ran out. After 6 months, we remindeded them of the 90 day covenant for the roof. (it has tar paper now) So, they bought some used barn tin, hand-painted it silver, patched holes with caulking and started putting it up...upside down. I know this sounds like a joke...but the neighbors are not laughing.

We are in the "country" and building inspections are not required ... other than septic systems by the county. The roof should keep the home dry, while the paint washes off, and the "Clammpetts" feel it's all they need. Our covenants also state that they must finish within a year - they will not make this date either. The owners made some terrible financial decisions and now the HOA must convince them to deal with the unfinished home...which the HOA has never done. (All officers & board are new in 2006)

As a board member I visited the site and told the worker to stop putting up that nasty tin and have owners contact me. Then I re-read the covenants & by-laws and could not find anything that said the roof must not be "old used painted barn tin". Sooooo...

My two question of the experts on this site is:

1. Can an HOA board determine "reasonable" building materials, we need to do something? (the tin is nasty) But, we also can see the slippery slope of one person's "reasonable" is another person's "extravagant".

2. What's the process to force a homeowner to accept his inability to finish a construction and to sell the property (it will certainly be a loss) to someone who can finish it?

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Before you try to control work not on your property stop and think; yes you are a Board member, you are not the building inspector and you may open your Association to a lawsuit if you try and act as one. (see posts about out of control BOD)

It depends on what is in your CC&R's as to what action you can take as far as materials. Do you have written ACC guidelines? Some regulate what is allowed and the approval process but if it doesn't there may be little you can do.

This is a question for an attorney familiar with HOA's, you may need a cease and desist order from a court to stop the work and to force them to sell. If they are in violation of the covenants and you have to take them to court to force them to sell in some states (check local listings) you can also collect the attorney fees.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

DJ1 (Ontario)
Posts: 798

Posted:

Your interfering by telling the worker to stop doing the roofing may have just shot your HOA in the foot and given the homeowner an out, at least short term, on complying. Get professional advice, don't trespass.

RogerB (Colorado)
Posts: 5,067

Posted:

Rick, I presume your Declaration requires homeowners to get approval from the architectural control committee. If the owner put up something without approval, such as the tin roof, then they can be required to remove it. If they don't you should get a court order to have it removed. If they still don't remove it, then have a contractor remove it but take a sheriff along for protection. Assess all costs to the owner's property. If he doesn't pay the assessment place a lien on the property and begin foreclosure.

RickM1 (Texas)
Posts: 9

Posted:

Thanks Glen & Roger,

The plans did not specify a specific roof or siding material and the past committee did not notice. The last board & officers were not very effective I'm afraid, all they looked for was square footage. If these "homeowners" want to side their house with licence plates, the plans ok'd by the past committee does not indicate something else. But, I'm hoping the following paragraph in our covenants will allow us to stop the use of poor construction materials:

"For the purpose of insuring the development of the land so platted as an area of high standards, the Subdivider researves the power to control the buildings , structures, and other improvments placed on each lot as well as to make such exceptions to these reservations and restrictions as the Subdivider or the Architectual Control Committee, hearinafter provided and hereinafter called Committee, shall deem necessary and proper."

Note: This house is on an expensive lakefront lot and all HOA homes on the lake are the most expensive in the HOA...all containing very nervous owners today.

LindaC3 (Florida)
Posts: 526

Posted:

RickM1--- As someone who lives in an HOA and is in the construction business-I have a problem with HOA BOD Members who have no experience in the construction business dictating standards. Your paragragh in my opinion does little in the way of protecting your neighborhood against shoody construction or the use of "poor" construction materials.If it one thing I have learned from this forum is to be a "proactive" member of my HOA. You may try the softer approach with these homeowners and "talk" with them as to your concerns. I am sure they are at wits ends right now as building a home is a very frustrating experience- I know,I deal with clients like this on a daily basis,approaching these people with an antagonostic attitude just may cause them to explode at you ....Not purposely but reactively.
I also cringe when I read that you have no inspections but you must have a permit for septic...Okay we all know it flows downhill,and your locale is not concerned that a homeowner wired his/her own home?? That's spooky.....Country or no country setting I would be worried about that....I live in the woods and we have inspections for all phases of construction.....Not for quality but for CODE COMPLIANCE.I wish you luck with this and if I can be of any help please do not hesitate to ask....Linda C

BradP (Kansas)
Posts: 2,640

Posted:

Rick:

i am a little confused, did they submit a request (albeit vague) and was it approved by a previous board?

RickM1 (Texas)
Posts: 9

Posted:

They did submit a vague plan and it was ok'd...as I said the square footage was the main focus of the "approvers". Because this is a rural location (in Texas) one can wire his own house without a clue. And yes Linda, the soft "let's talk" approach has been tried. The owner actively avoids the HOA.

The homeowner is a recently divorced woman who spent all of her $200,000 settlement to build her dream home on the lake. It turns out she hired relatives to do the construction to save money. They spent it all (badly) and she now has a 2-story home "in the dry". Tar paper on the roof and sides, framed inside, no insulation, no sheetrock, a surround porch with flooring that is simply lying on the joists and warped like potato chips. All exterior wood has turned grey. The new HOA officers & board should not let it continue...it's truely an eyesore that you would have to see to believe.

The owner knows she is in trouble but will not accept the result of her decisions. I've personally contructed three homes and know that $75,000 might finish the house. The owner has been paying the 2007 dues in $20 & $30 dollar checks. The last one bounced. (Total dues are $130/yr).

So, messy? Oh yeah. I would quit the board and walk away but, I'm also one of those concerned homeowners on the lake.

LindaC3 (Florida)
Posts: 526

Posted:

WOW--- I now know how bad it is.......If I were you I would IMMEDIATELY seek legal counsel and find a direction in which to proceed LEGALLY...........I feel your pain and frustration..I always tell clients NEVER NEVER NEVER use friends and/or family to build your "dream" home-- You will lose all 3 in the process....And for what ? To save a few bucks .......Not worth it in the long run...I value my friends and family too much to forsake for the building of a home...My husband is my plumber on my jobsites and by the grace of God and both our good common sense it has worked for us and we are STILL MARRIED....He has learned to take direction from his "Boss" quite well in all these years ..LOL....best of luck with your situation and please keep us informed as to your progress....Merry Christmas HO HO HO Linda C

RogerB (Colorado)
Posts: 5,067

Posted:

Posted By RickM1 on 12/21/2006 5:12 AM
The plans did not specify a specific roof or siding material and the past committee did not notice. The last board & officers were not very effective I'm afraid, all they looked for was square footage. If these "homeowners" want to side their house with licence plates, the plans ok'd by the past committee does not indicate something else. But, I'm hoping the following paragraph in our covenants will allow us to stop the use of poor construction materials:

"For the purpose of insuring the development of the land so platted as an area of high standards, the Subdivider researves the power to control the buildings , structures, and other improvments placed on each lot as well as to make such exceptions to these reservations and restrictions as the Subdivider or the Architectual Control Committee, hearinafter provided and hereinafter called Committee, shall deem necessary and proper."

The Architectural Control Committee did what they deemed necessary and proper based on their approval. Thus your above paragraph was satisfied. Unfortunately they failed the association miserably; and the County does not require inspections to met code. Both of these practices have left both the owner and the association in a very difficult situation. The association should try to work with the owner to either get the house completed in a satisfactory manner; or suggest she sell it with new restrictions from the ACC (if she will agree to them). Apologize to her for the failure of the ACC to do their job but be firm in letting her know the association would have to take her to court if the house Would degrade property values. That is one legal leg the association may be able to stand on.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

Roger - I thought from previous posts that you felt if a previous board or ARC approved something that another board could not come along later and demand it be changed - even if the first board was wrong or were lazy applying the rules. And these rules however are not that specific and could mean whatever anyone wanted them to mean any day of the week. Maybe they were written that way on purpose.
I agree the situation is not good, but demeaning the owner in a public forum by calling her "the Clammpetts" (sic) doesn't help and only shows obvious bias. She was trying to comply with his order to install the roof, which he then halted, probably illegally. Your suggestion that he work with her is good, but it doesn't sound like he's interested in doing that. But to suggest she be forced to sell out - at a loss - just to get rid of the problem and cover up for the sins of a previous board is an awful solution. Whatever happened to due process? Harold

RogerB (Colorado)
Posts: 5,067

Posted:

Posted By HaroldS on 12/21/2006 9:12 PM
Roger - I thought from previous posts that you felt if a previous board or ARC approved something that another board could not come along later and demand it be changed - even if the first board was wrong or were lazy applying the rules. ......

I agree the situation is not good, but demeaning the owner in a public forum by calling her "the Clammpetts" (sic) doesn't help and only shows obvious bias. ........

Whatever happened to due process? Harold

Harold, you are correct and that is what I tried to say in my post.
"The Architectural Control Committee did what they deemed necessary and proper based on their approval. Thus your above paragraph was satisfied. Unfortunately they failed the association miserably"

I don't understand what you mean by deamIng the owner.
I said " Both of these practices have left both the owner and the association in a very difficult situation. The association should try to work with the owner to either get the house completed in a satisfactory manner; or suggest she sell it with new restrictions from the ACC (if she will agree to them).

The only due process I saw for the association was:
"Apologize to her for the failure of the ACC to do their job but be firm in letting her know the association would have to take her to court if the house Would degrade property values. That is one legal leg the association may be able to stand on."

Does that make sense to you? I am interested in other solutions you have to offer to the person asking for guidance?

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

Roger - I did not say that you were demeaning the owner - it was the first poster Rick, who called her "the Clammpetts" (sic) and thus showed his bias. Your suggestion is mine too - to work with the owner to make the property acceptable. This owner was not given guidelines from the previous board, and now suddenly the new board is trying to enforce what are definitely ambiguous and interpretative rules that the previous board ignored and didn't define. But I don't think that is really what Rick is interested in doing: helping this owner. In his first post, he too suggested the owner sell, so it appears he just wants her gone even if she loses money on her property. And I wonder if your suggestion is legal to demand the sale be made conditional on "new" ARC restrictions. I would definitely challenge that.
Your suggestion to take her to court could backfire too. She could easily counter sue for his trespassing, interfering with construction (that she was doing to satisfy his demand), slander for demeaning her in a public forum, and perhaps libel if he is using the same remarks about her in the neighborhood, not to mention the previous board's total inaction, and finally placing "new" restrictions on her property if it is sold. As you know, anyone can sue anyone for anything. It wouldn't accomplish much except make lawyers richer and prolong the eyesore. Whereas, working with her could accomplish a satisfactory end sooner rather than later. Harold

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Harold, I too was under the impression that you were accusing Roger of calling them the "Clammpetts" from the way your post was written. While Rick should not have interfered with the people putting up the tin roof, if you recall the person was in violation to begin with - 90 days to roof and it had been over six months. He is not slandering her in this forum; if you write it down, its libel - slander is if you make oral statements, plus he didn’t identify her by name.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491

Posted:

Rick, while you say there is no county building department, who gives the "Certificate of Occupancy" to allow human habitation? And even if there is no county building code there may be state statutes that apply, especially state fire codes may specify what materials are allowed in a building for human habitation. Since TX is known for both tornados and hurricanes there might even be statutes to cover roofing. There may also be other sections of the CC&R's that would apply.

You say the covenants require a home to be completed within a year. What is the penalty if it is not completed within the year? And if you haven't done so yet, draft specific guidelines for the ACC and change the application as to what is acceptable building materials and have it reviewed by an attorney to make sure it is enforceable.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

Oh yes, it is so apparent who Rick is calling "the Clammpetts" and it would not be hard to prove who he was referring to - he describes the property and I assume there is not more than that one in his domain. If he is making similar talk in the neighborhood, it is obvious to them too who he is referring to. I don't think you need to name someone specifically when it is so obvious to everyone who the person is who being referred to. Name calling isn't very proactive and doesn't accomplish anything. Libel and slander are difficult to litigate anyway. but they can take up time which defeats the purpose and draws out the time getting this house finished. Better to work toward getting this house built than stand around casting aspersions. In any event, this HOA has given this lady other reasons she can litigate.
The owner was indeed in violation for not roofing within 90 days, in fact for 6 months, but the board did not have methods set up to enforce this violation, but instead simply gave her notice that she was in violation and she then began attempting to comply. Rick admits there were no specific guidelines as to approved roofing material (or any other construction material), and the fact that she was trying to comply after being notified, should have some weight for a judge. . But then again, lawsuits and counter lawsuits are counter productive and will just draw this mess out forever.
And I don't think retroactive guidelines or fine policies can be enforced. Without guidelines when this house was being built, I don't see how they could even take her to court as Roger suggested because her property would degrade the neighborhood. There were no guidelines other than square footage. This HOA should learn by their errors and move forward. Harold

RickM1 (Texas)
Posts: 9

Posted:

Thanks Harold!

You're welcome to focus on my single expresion of frustration but our HOA must focus on an unfinished home with greyed potato-chipped plywood and a partially finished, silver-painted, used tin roof. (She could'nt afford to buy enough used tin.) NOTE-TO-ALL: We have talked nice to this owner ALOT in 2006.

"Better to work toward getting this house built..." good advice Harold, BUT She simply has no money to finish. Someone tell me how an HOA works with that?

"Let's be nice, give her more time, and give her a break" has helped get the HOA to this place over the past 14 months. Bottom line Harold...the now-rotting building will still be in place - even after the HOA says...

"Oh well, we've learned something, lets move forward"; whatever that is.

I've commented earlier on our old original 1983 Restictions & By-Laws, as written by the developer, as very vague and having no specific actions to take when any rules are broken...other than leins against lots for non-payment of dues. Those like the "must have roof on in 90 days" rule - if broken it does not say what an HOA can do about it. If your HOA has "old" rules I bet they are just as vague. We are creating new documents for an HOA vote...a key inclusion will be:

"Exterior walls of all buildings and improvements shall be constructed of masonry, wood or other commercial siding approved by the Architectural Control Committee provided that all exposed wood surfaces and cement block surfaces shall be painted with quality paint or stain. Good quality roofs of at least residential grade must be used, as approved, by the Architectural Control Committee."

RonaldW (South Carolina)
Posts: 901

Posted:

From our CC&Rs:

"SECTION 10 - Completion of Construction. The ACC shall have the right to take appropriate court action to compel the completion of any residence not completed within one year of commencement, and six months on completion of the exterior. "

Examine yours closely.

Ron
SC

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here