non-registered occupants

Suppose an owner moved out of the home, decided not to pay dues and moved out of state. Months later, relatives moved into the house, never registered as occupants and has not paid any dues. We have a lien on the property but do we have any other recourse? JI

Tim offers good advice. I just wanted to add to that to send your correspondence to the house HOA address. This way the tenants will realize there is a HOA and maybe forward the mail to the owner. Make sure it is certified when it is legal correspondence. All issues should go to the HOA address as it is the address on record. Your local tax assessors office should have the tax record of ownership if you have the lot number of the property.

We had a six month behind on dues we would lien. After a year consider a foreclosure based on circumstances. Never foreclose on a house in bank forclosure.

Steve,

I think you are on the right track.

The occupant may not have a contract with the HOA but he is the ultimate beneficiary of the services provided by the association. Any adult knows or should reasonably know that those services must be paid for. An association with a freeloading occupant such as this would not be out of line to seek payment from the occupant and let him duke it out with whoever owns the unit. Knocking on the door and seeking payment is a good first step.

Jean

If there are amenities like pools, etc., the association can put a stop to them (even for renters) when back dues are owed.

Hope this helps.

Not so sure. There is a big difference between "there is no legal way" and "I do not know of a legal way because I never looked into it."

Suppose the tenant tapped into the cable TV system and obtained service without paying for it. Would the cable company go after only the property owner, only the tenant, or both? My first guess would be whoever is receiving the service without paying for it is going to be the first one they go after and that would be the tenant. Do you think the cable company would be swayed by the argument that they can't make him pay because he has no contract?

In the matter under discussion in this thread, the association is providing services. Both the tenant and the property owner are receiving the benefit of those services without paying for them. I am unaware of any statutes that prohibit the provider, the association in this case, from seeking payment from either or both parties.

This is such a common situation that there should be no problem finding that statute or the case law that says a tenant is immune from suit under these circumstances. Or the statutes and/or case law that says only the property owner may be held accountable. So amuse me and flood this page with citations to statutes and case law that support the argument that a tenant cannot be held liable for payment.

Matthew,

Your example is two different issues. One, the cable, would be a theft of service.
The other, amenities, would be in alignment with the contract (CC&Rs) which typically specify that a members guests and tenants are allowed to use the amenities.

" So amuse me and flood this page with citations to statutes and case law that support the argument that a tenant cannot be held liable for payment. "

John said that generally there is no legal way to collect from a tenant.

The only State I am aware of with a statute that allows the Association to collect the rent from a tenant in order to pay assessments is FL. FL also transfers the owners Assessment debt to the new owner. However, the OP is from LA. Therefore, the FL statute would not apply.

You stated that you are unaware of any statutes that prohibit the provider, the association in this case, from seeking payment from either or both parties. John said that generally there is no legal way to collect. Since you were unable to locate any thing prohibiting, I expect that you also didn't find anything that allowed it (I know that I didn't). My understanding is that typically, when contracts are involved, the courts want to see some part of the contract or statute that authorizes an action to be taken. Otherwise they tend to consider the omission of the authority in the contract to be an intent to exclude that authority.

Although the case speaks of the authority to fine, the opinion paper for Sarnir R. Farran, et al. v. Olde Belhaven Towne Owners Association stated this very plainly [emphasis added]:

Property owners associations and their members must abide by the corporation's governing documents. Virginia High Sch. League v. J. J. Kelly High Sch., 254 Va. 528, 531, 493 S.E.2d 362, 364 (1997). The governing documents constitute a contract collectively entered into by all the owners in the association. White v. Boundary Ass'n, Inc., 271 Va. 50, 55, 624 S.E.2d 5, 8 (2006). As such, effect
must be given to the intention of the parties. Foti v. Cook, 220 Va. 800,805,263
S.E.2d 430, 433 (1980). Importantly, under the principle of expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, the omission of a particular covenant or term from a contract reduced to writing shows an intent to exclude it. First Nat'l Bank v. Roy N. Ford Co., 219 Va. 942, 946, 252 S.E.2d 354, 357 (1979).

Perhaps you can find statutes or case law in LA that supports your opinion.

Tim

Ahhh...... the world of hypotheticals. This discussion could go on forever.

Tim,

I don't think you get it. You can pursue a claim in court under either contract law or torts. To claim under contract law, there must be a contract and the cases you cited are contract cases. Since there is no contract between the association and the tenant, the HOA would pursue the case under torts.

Torts are what allows you to sue someone you never met before for denting your fender or causing serious injury, among other things.

With all the posters on this forum claiming it is somehow illegal to sue a tenant who benefits from the non-payment of assessments I expected to see a flood of statutes or case law that supports this. So far, zip.

I apologize to Steve. Sorry, I didn't intend to keep the discussion on that tangent. Agreeing to disagree should put the thread back on course.

Florida is the only state I know of that allows renters/tenants to pay back dues on properties the HOA may be foreclosing on. The renter then can sue their landlord/owner for that money back. It allows them to stay in the home without being evicted. Florida has many strange and sometime forward thinking rules/laws. Just don't assume it is for all states.

Agreed!