Undeveloped Lot Fees

Currently our developer has several undeveloped lots. For the past couple of years there has been 0 effort to try and sell or develop these lots. They are an eyesore, and I believe they are negatively impact the value of other homes. We do control our HOA; Can we significantly increase our assessment fees on undeveloped lots to "encourage" the developer to take some action?

I think our covenants currently spell out that undeveloped lots aren't charged anything. I guess what I was asking is, since we have the votes to be able to change the covenants, if we chose to do so, could we set the fee for undeveloped lots at something significantly higher that what developed lots pay. Say $10,000 instead of $300.

I see your point on service usage and how would we justify it, but that is where we feel that the state of the lots being undeveloped is negatively impact home values in the neighborhood. Is this not justification enough?

John:

Go for it. Undeveloped lots usually exist because the owner has inflated ideas of what the property is worth yet lacks the funds to build on it himself.

I see this all the time in the city where I live because there is no incentive for the owner to do anything. A huge fee for an undeveloped lot will spur the owner to either build on it himself or sell it to someone who will.

The only thing I would worry about is wording so that the lot owner cannot transfer title back and forth between family members to evade the fees. I would suggest a monthly fee that continues until a certificate of occupancy is issued. If you were to extend a grace period for a new owner or suspend the fees while under construction, the owners(s) may find ways to play games. The certificate of occupancy is irrefutable evidence that the lot has been developed.

You can certainly try what you say... If you did this to me, I would do the following:

Sue/countersue, and during discovery, demand proof that my lots are negatively impacting the value of the houses. Without proof, all we have is conjecture that this lot causes any loss of value. I would also demand proof of loss, ie, who has sold their home for less than X, and so, has actually suffered a loss of real $$? Just because someone thinks their home is worth $100,000 doesn't make it so, and if they are not interested in selling, then the "value" of the home is moot.. a home not for sale has no "sale value". If you go by tax/assessment value, then you will need to provide proof that the assessor factored in the vacant lots. Then, attempt to recoup my legal fees because of the board's malicious intent in legislation/enforcement, or whatever other legal avenue I could.

Read the CC&R's, and see exactly what is required to be "developed"... and what I could get away with. You want a home, I would build a home. Is sheet metal/tin siding forbidden? If not, that's what you will get. Paint schemes? How about Orange, purple, and green dots? You had best make sure your CC&R's are well written, or else I will find every loophole and thing in them that the board cannot enforce/regulate, and drive a truck through it.

> If enough of the owners vote to amend their CC&R's, the opposing owners have no recourse unless you can prove that there was some violation of law.

This is my understanding also.

Steve is correct. A judge can do whatever he/she wants.

True quote, from a seated judge, during a trial I attended, when presented with a copy of the STATE LAW that required him to take the action required by the attorney:

"I don't care what the law says, this is my court, and I will rule my way."

FYI, the ruling, against state law, held. Judges are able to do what they want, period.

plus, my argument was mostly to point out the fallacy of trotting out the (IMO dead horse of) "affecting property value" in order to solve a situation. The OP would be wiser to try some other course of action, rather than that one, that he stands a chance of proving... harboring vermin, harboring weeds, violation of city codes, unsafe conditions existing, etc..

Not so.

As I understand it, in this case all the vacant lots belong to one person, so there would be one challenge instead of hundreds. The owner of the vacant lots is going to have to put up a minimum of $10,000 just to start his case with no upper limit on how much he will spend with little to no chance of winning. His most effective remedy is to build on his lots or sell them to someone who will. The HOA's insurance will cover their costs of litigation.

Could you provide us with a written opinion from any state court that overturned an HOA amendment simply because an owner did not like the amendment?

This is what I would look at first forget my lawyer is smarter then your when one strongly quoting law here is not a licensed lawyer.