This BOD determines the meaning differently from.all previous BODs reeking havoc in our community

I live in a small single structure residence restricted gated lake comunity in South Carolina. Our CC&Rs state rhe General Purpose "unless otherwise provisions are outherwise provided for elsewhere in these covenants, our residences will used for the purpose of "for residential purposes only" with no other provision for any other use mentioned elsewhere in our covenant. Now this BOD says that "no where in the covenants does it say you can't rent your house out as vacation rentals daily, nor for any other reason they so choose. The covenant is so simple and straight to the point leaving no doubt the intent of what "for residential purposes only" means, that we can not find enough words to explain it to the BOD. This BOD sent out a mass mailing saying there was a group of members trying to take away their right to rent their home for vacation purposes. Only one home owner has decided to do that and we want the BOD to enforce the covenant as intended not as they chose to interpret it. This is the only BOD that has ever interpreted it this way! This BOD refuses to discuss alternatives...instead we are having and informational meeting telling us it will cost upward of $20,000 to $60,000 to change rewrite the covenant to exclude vacation rentals! We may chose to achallenge this BODs interpretation and test the wording of our covenant it in the SC court system. Any similar situations and advice? Almost all of the homeowers believed this to be a community established for residential purposes only as stated in their CC&Rs given to them at closing. It is the empty property owners who now may want to sell their property to an investor to build vacation rentals only since this BOD apparently allows it. We have 12 such lots on the market now.

Laverne, your CC&Rs need to be amended. Don't rely on an interpretation by the Board. FYI, our management company has assisted HOAs in amending their CC&Rs with the cost being about $400 when no attorney was used. When an attorney was used by one HOA (with our guidence) to draft and file Amended and Restated CC&Rs the cost was about $4,000.

The main problem we have encounter is getting sufficient approvals from owners to pass the amendment. Often this is difficult due to apathy. First every owner was mailed a ballot which stated the amendment word for word and a letter was included which explained in an unbiased manner the pros and cons. We recommend the mailing include a self addressed stamped envelope to improve response. If enough approval ballots are not received then we suggest going door to door or other personal contact to try to achieve the percentage approval of all owners which is required in the CC&RS.

Tim: The South Carolina Attorney General's Office was asked for an opinion of what "for residential purposes only" means and his definition is used through out the SC Code of Laws and then definition is consistently used. And because of his definition, believe our covenant to be defendable.

Our covenant says "unless provisions are provided for elsewhere in these covenants, the residences will be used "for residential purposes only." with the emphasis on "purpose" which means we can rent our homes out for the "purpose" of a tenant(s)residing in this home, living in, and returning to, receiving mail at, etc etc etc.

Since there are no other provisions provided for anyother type of usage, vacation rentals are not permitted as it is not for the "purpose" of residing in the home for the intent of living their.

SC has two acts, one for SC Vacation Rentals Act and one for SC Residential Landlord and Tenant Act...so the State of Caroina via these acts, acknowledges there is a difference between the purpose of renting for vacations versus the purpose of residing/living in the space.

There are many people who have flexiblity of working out of their homes now, which does not change the status
of "for residential purposes only" Neither does selling avon, counsulting over the internet or by phone, having an internet based business....none of these change the status of the home. It is when you have a daycare, hair salon,
auto repair shop, etc that it becomes commercial which changes the status of "for residential purposes only" means.

My closing attorney 10 years ago explained to me what this meant because he was part of the legal group who drafted the covenants. The intent was exactly what how the SC Attorney Generals Office defined it.

Pretty neat how it was defined. The law is usually black and white, what is says is what it means, so his staff went to the Webster's dictionary for the definition of "residential" then for the definition of "purpose" with the emphasis on "purpose" and "only" - So if the rental does not fall under the purpose/intent to live in, use as their legal residence, etc. it is not allowed. Vacation rentals do not fall under that definition.
There is nothing else written in the covenants that muddies the intent of that covenant. It is when so much effort goes into explaining and wording and rewording a covenant that it is at a greater risk of being challenged.

Our Bod says that no where is our covenants does it say you can't rent your house for the purpose of vacation rentals.

Well, according to the SC Attorney General's definition as used in several of the SC Code of Laws, it does say that in four little words "for residential purposes only"

Glen, you are right on! We checked with the tax assessor's office and the house is not even in this person's name. It is in his ex-wife's name and she has it listed as her legal residence, so she is getting a tax break for listing it as a legal residence....Our BOD shouldn't even be communicating with him. Perhaps they have an agreement that he will eventually get the house in the divorce settlement, but until his name is listed as the owner and it is listed as a rental rather than his legal residence. He is renting it for $1500+ a week and has it booked up. Skinny dipping in the pool, loud noises, and as many as 4-5 families stay in it at one time.

We have association fees that keep up the roads these renters speed up and down the streets on.

We have reported this situation to the tax assessor's office.

Thanks for your comments.

Sooo... send out your own mailing. Toss the board of directors on their butt. They are obviously not the majority. They can be replaced, overnight. Renting out a house you own for living in is still residential.

I would rent out my unit anyway and tell the BOD I am within my rights.

We are in South Carolina so South Carolina laws apply as does the SC Attorney General's definition of what "for residential purposes only" means which helps our situation. As his definition is used throughout the SC Code of Laws consistently as meaning "for the purpose and intent to rent for the purpose of residing in, your abode, your dewelling, making it your home for a definite or indefinite period of time, a place you return to,
a place you receive mail, pay bills, etc etc etc"

I agree with both you and Roger, we do need to look at how many votes we need to do what we need to do.
We are a community of about 160 lots, about 45 lots have homes (permanent and second homes) The other lots were primarily purchased for resell expecting the demand to be great. These property owners do not have the same drive that those of us who have homes here do. There are 40+ homeowners who have signed a petition to meet with the BOD to look at alternatives. One being to leave the covenant as written, but add under the definitions paragraph, the SC Attorney General's wording/definition of what "for residential purposes only" means in our covenants. Then spend the mega bucks if and when that is challenged. There is just no way you will ever get anything worded in a covenant that offers you protection from lawsuits. If it is the nature of the person to do that,they will find the "t" that was not crossed.

I am a firm believer that the more simple the wording the less risk and easiest to defend than those covenants that are 300 pages that cause so much ambiguity a member would need a lawyer to decifer it, and even at that, lawyers differ on the interpretations.

It boils down to whether or not the lawyer you hire understands your position, and has the ability to present it to the judge with the same enthusiam the membership has toward having their position defended.

Your replies are extremely helpful. Thank you.

FYI, following is an example of an Amendment written by an Atorney we have used which may be applicable to this thread. Many HOAs have problems related to leasing/rental units; and investors buying units for the sole purpose of leasing.

ARTICLE IX - USE RESTRICTIONS

Section 9.1 Use/Occupancy.
The Property is hereby restricted to residential dwellings for residential use and uses related to the convenience and enjoyment of such residential use. All buildings or structures erected upon the Property shall be of new construction and no building or structure shall be moved from other locations onto said premises. No structures of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any portion of the Property at any time as a residence or for storage, either temporarily or permanently without the written approval of the Association as set forth in Article VII herein above. Further, no business or other activity shall be conducted on any Lot or Common Area that creates a sight, smell, or sound which results in an unreasonable disturbance in the Community.

Owners purchasing Units after the date that this First Amendment is approved and recorded shall be required to occupy the Unit as the Owner’s primary residence for 24 months after the date of purchase of the Unit. The Board of Directors may approve one (1) exception to this restriction to anyone who acquired ownership by in inheritance or in case of a verified hardship. After an owner has accrued the 24 months ownership, no dwelling may be rented for less than an annual/yearly lease.

The number of units which many be leased shall be restricted to thirty percent (30%). After the recording of the First Amendment Owners shall apply for a leasing permit prior to leasing. Those Owners who are leasing their Unit upon the effective date of the First Amendment shall be entitled to a leasing permit until the earlier of the expiration of that lease or 12 months, whichever is earlier. The Board of Directors may approve an exception to exceed the 30% limit in the case of a verified hardship. A portion of a unit may be leased to a maximum of two unrelated tenants.

All leases shall include a statement that failure by the lessee to comply with all of the governing documents shall be cause for the owner to terminate the lease. The Owner shall provide an executed copy of a lease; the names of all occupants of the Unit, a phone number and/or email address by which the lessee may be contacted; and the license numbers of all of the lessee’s vehicles. No Owner may lease their unit for transient or hotel purposes. The Owner shall be responsible to provide and review the Governing Documents with each leasee. Failure by a leasee to comply with all restrictions in the Governing Documents may be cause for the Association to void the lease or to pursue any other remedies available at law or in equity.

That it does, but we go in court with a 50/50 chance, and it all falls on the shoulders of the attorney to be so well versed on SC state laws that our non-profit commercial hoa code of laws falls under. A lawyer who loves to win to the point he will accept a challenge such as this has a gold mine in his grasps. Just Remember, who ever believed Casey Anthony would walk out free from a murder charge....Jose did!

ooops..SC is a right to work state...meaning anti-union, pro management.

Excuse me Miss. Your Freaudian slip is showing.........LOL

You are more correct than wrong! I was in human resources in the corporate environment for over 30 years. I worked at the headquarters of a large corporation in Memphis! Tenn is a right to xork state too, nut the company I worked for instilled in us to administer the intent not just the letter of the law, and that if we erred to make sure itvwas in the employees favor! Awesome and that was practiced from the top down.

We moved back to SC 9 years ago to be close to my only daughter who was having my only grandchild! What a shock! I had been out of SC for over 12 years and came back to the same work culture I left. I didn:t see any growth toward how people were treated. They would take an employee out to lunch, but fire them in the parking lot with no compassion, then wonder why morale was low and management wasn:t trusted, and quality was down! I never let an employee leave my office while distressed! I listened as long as it took.

I accepted a position back in SC in a manufacturing environment and struggled every day balancing between company and employee, while standing up for employees who were too afraid to defend themselves. I continued administering policies and up ununtil the company was sold, and my job eliminated!
And I went back to nursing school at 64, and worked at the local hospital in pcu for 1-1/2 years before resigning to care for my mom. Who knew my training would be used to care for my MOM!

SC is a a difficult State! And time for another growth spurt!

I agree!