underage "visitor"

A Board member who is also a lawyer is away for a couple of months. She is the one who informed us of the fact that we need 100% yes vote to amend Article 6 of the Master Deed. This has to do with the use and conveyance of the building. In article 6 it states that the building is not to be used for hotel or transient purposes.
She just texted our President and told the President that her son (who could not be 55 unless she had him when she was 13 or 14 would be using her unit for a while when she was away.
We had to tell 2 couples last yr that they could not move in under smiliar circumstances.
How do you think this lawyer figures she can break the rules like that.
Being on the Board is not any fun.

Well it doesn't sound like it's being used as a hotel or transient purposes. It sounds like she has a "caretaker" of the property. She is the owner and is still maintaining the property whether or not she is physically there. This is a much better option than leaving the property abandoned.

I don't see a problem with the situation as long as they follow the rules of any other tenant/visitor. Could this be a case of lawyer envy? Just because they are a lawyer they must be getting away with something? Not always the case. Sometimes a duck is a duck...and sometimes they quack...

Bonnie,

I agree with Melissa. This sounds to me more like the son (your "underage" visitor) is merely taking care of (watching) the property while the owner is away. It is not being used as a hotel.

Since you referred to the son as an "underage" visitor, I am assuming your community is an adult (55+) community. Most 55+ communities that I am aware of have restrictions on the number of days a visitor under the age of 18 may stay, but there is usually no such limitation regarding the length of stay for visitors between the ages of 18 and 55. Usually, these communities' age limitations regarding use and occupancy are based on the FHA rules for age-restricted communities, which require that at least 80% (I believe) of the units have at least one ONE member of a household age 55 or older, and places limitations on occupancy by individuals under the age of 18. As an example, a person age 55 or over could have a 25-year-old son living with them and that situation would be compliant.

If the owner is a lawyer, they are probably already aware of the age requirements and limitations.

Check your documents regarding any age restrictions before you file any complaints. You may not have a legitimate complaint.

I also agree with Melissa and Bruce.

If there were two people living in a unit, one who is over the age limit and one under the age limit, and the older one went on a month long trip or was hospitalized for a month, would your Association insist that the younger one move out? I would expect that your Association wouldn't.
In my opinion, this is similar.

Now if the lawyer was renting it to people who meet the age limit or not on a short term basis, then I believe that the section you cited would apply.

I still don't think you have a legitimate complaint. In order for there to be a lease in effect, there has to be consideration. In other words, the son has to be paying to live there. You would also prorobably have to produce a document between the parties to prove that there is a lease. More than likely, the owner is just letting the son stay there. This is not the same as the other situation you spoke of.

That fact that there are other vacant units in the building is irrelevant. There are likely no personal belongings or nothing of value in them.

The fact that other units in the building are occupied is also irrelevant. It is not their job to watch over or take care of someone else's property.

I can understand your point of view, but I don't believe you have sufficent information about the situation upon which to base your conclusions. There are two (or more) sides to every story.

I also see this as a non issue. It is her son. What is the difference if she is there or not there for a short time. Your documents probably do not restrict a family to live together. The 55= HUD allowance says that at least 1 person must be 55 years old, not the entire family.

The two couples last year that we told could not move in were definitely going to use it as a hotel. The owners had moved out. With one couple both the husband and the wife were underage. I don't know how old the other couple was. Last year there was no lease agreement for either unit. We have one underage squatter couple that moved in and it has caused some problems. Basically the other two couples were also squatters.

I agree with you, Bonnie. I also live in a 55+ community with shared walls, and our docs say that an underage person is not allowed unless it is the spouse of the title-owner who is 55+. A caretaker who is underage may live with an owner who can document the need for a caretaker, but when the need is not there any longer due to the owner' death or recovery, the caretaker must vacate the premises. A child who is disabled and cannot live alone (must be documented) is allowed to live with a parent 55 or older.

I've brought up this subject here in the past, and felt that I took quite a beating because of my opinion, but I still hold to it. It is not only a violation of the rules, IMHO, it is also very unfair to the other owners who share a walls with the offender.