Family With Baby Living in Retirement community

If the community hasn't been turned over to the homeowners yet, the builder and declarant can do what they like. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if more kids don't show up if the builder decides to rent the rest of the townhomes. You can check your documents a little more and talk to the builder to see if there's some middle ground - for example, if they're going to allow young families, I would think other residents should be able to have their grandkids visit for up to 30 days.

If this is supposed to be a retiree community, aren't there state or federal requirements for that (you didn't say if "by law" is federal or state)? If so, I would think this is a fair housing question for HUD or whoever enforces that law (there should be a state counterpart as well.) I don't know if this would be a consumer protection issue (the place was marketed as an active retirement community and buyers purchased with that expectation, yet the builder is now renting to younger people - is that a form of bait and switch?) Maybe you can check with the consumer protection division in your state for an answer

This will depend on what the CC&Rs specify.

The Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) allows a certain percentage of homes that can be for younger owners without violating that act. Therefore, unless the rentals are higher then that percentage, there should be no issue there.

What does your governing documents require about ownership (no one under 55, at least one of 55 or older, etc.)?

BTW, if you became the guardian of your grandson, you enter a different status and could have him live with you within the community.

The problem is that the OP bought into a very incomplete development still under control of the declarant, who is able to control the association -- and the association's enforcement of the covenants -- at will.

Technically the baby may be a violation or it may not be. But so what? The OP provides no reason to believe the baby is causing her any problems beyond her belief that there is a violation of the covenants.

Ray,

Just how many lawsuits have you filed? The cost of suing would be astronomical and the chances of winning are not all that certain. Much of the case will hinge on whatever application the developer made to allow the age restrictions. I am not willing to rely on one homeowner's interpretation of the restrictions. There is little doubt that she believes there is a violation of the restrictions but my eyebrows arched when I read, "By law there can be 20% of the population from ages 45-54." I would want to read that statute for myself. Anyone got a citation?

I am over-qualified for one of those 55+ communities but it will be a cold day in hell before you find me living in one. The last thing I would want is to be surrounded by a bunch of old codgers griping about their lot in life. The only good thing about 55+ communities is that it puts all the rotten apples in one barrel.

Larry B,

The citation would be in the link I provided for HOPA (housing for older persons act). The age portion is incorrect (as the act doesn't speak about 45-54) but it does specify on page two of the link I provided, middle column about 1/3 of the way down that "Section 2 of HOPA redefined this portion of the exemption to describe housing: (C) Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older, and (i) At least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older;"

I'm not sure where the 45-54 age range came from.

I agree. Kids are a different lifestyle. Either it's a retirement community or it isn't. It's wrong to sell one thing but deliver another.

Members shouldn't be changing the rules either, changing what people had bought into. They are the ones that need to move.

SusanS14,

You wrote: “The HOA rules and regulations are very specific about children.” Would you be willing to post the exact words from your Documents?

And you wrote: “By law there can be 20% of the population from ages 45-54”. As Tim wrote the 45-54 age range is puzzling.

What law are you referring to?

Also you wrote “I live in an active retirement community” – are those your words, or do they come from some document?

Apparently your community was/is intended to be an Age Restricted Community – but is it? See Question 3 below and the answer.

Since you are still under Declarant control, might the answer to Question 38 below provide some insight?

--------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the link that Tim provided to the actual text of Federal HOPA Act, this HUD site
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/hopa95.pdf provides information in a Question and Answer format. Here are some excerpts:

Question 3
What must a housing community or facility do to qualify for the 55 or older housing for older persons exemption?

Answer
In order to qualify for the exemption, the housing community/facility must satisfy each of the following requirements:

a) at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit;

b) the owner or management of the housing facility/community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate an intent to provide housing for persons 55 years or older; and

c) the facility/community must comply with rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy through reliable surveys and affidavits.

Question 5
May a housing facility or community advertise as "adult" housing and still demonstrate the intent to be housing for older persons?

Answer
Use of the word "adult" or "adult community" in an advertisement, sign or other informational material, or when describing the facility or community to prospective renters or purchasers or members of the public, does not demonstrate an intent to be housing for older persons as defined by the final rule.

The use of these terms, on the other hand, does not destroy the intent requirement of HOPA.

If a facility or community has clearly shown in other ways that it intends to operate as housing for older persons, and meets the 80% requirement, and has in place age verification procedures, the intent requirement can be met even if the term "adult" is occasionally used to describe it. The Department will look at the totality of the circumstances in the investigation of a complaint alleging that the facility or community does not qualify as housing for older persons.

Question 16
May a housing facility/community impose an age limitation more restrictive than that required by HOPA and qualify for the 55 or older exemption?

Answer
Yes. For example, the housing facility/community may require that at least 80 percent of the units be occupied by at least one person 60 years of age or older. The housing facility/community may require that 100% of the units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older, or that 80% of the units be occupied exclusively by persons aged 55 or older. . . . . . ..

Question 17
If a housing facility or community meets the requirements of HOPA but permits up to 20 percent of the units to be occupied by families with children, may the facility/community impose different terms and conditions of residency on those families with children who reside there?

Answer
Yes. If a housing community/facility qualifies under HOPA as housing for older persons, the community/facility is exempt from the Act's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of familial status. The housing community/facility may restrict families with children from benefits of the community, or otherwise treat family households differently than senior households, as long as those actions do not violate any other state or local law. . . . . ……

Question 38
If a developer is building new housing that is intended to be for persons 55 and over, how should the new units be marketed and occupied as the facility/community is being developed?

Answer
Newly constructed housing for first occupancy after March 12, 1989 (including a facility or community that has not been occupied in its entirety for at least 90 days prior to re-occupancy due to renovation or rehabilitation), must be marketed as housing intended for older persons. It does not have to have at least one occupant in each occupied unit who is age 55 and over until at least 25 percent of the units are occupied.

actually, you are wrong

'snowbirds' count

people in nursing homes count

regular 'visitors' count

from:
Questions and Answers
Concerning the Final Rule Implementing
the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA
** HUD INTERNET VERSION **)

"Question 22
Are there circumstances under which a 55 or older owner/tenant might be temporarily absent from a dwelling without affecting the exemption status of the community/dwelling?
Answer
Yes. For example, the 55 or older occupant may be on vacation, hospitalized, or absent for a season without affecting the exempt status of the community. The resident may, if he/she wishes, allow a younger relative or a house sitter under 55 years if age to live in the unit during this absence. In either event, the unit would be included in the calculation of the 80 percent occupancy requirement as long as the dwelling is not rented out, the owner/tenant returns on a periodic basis, and maintains legal and financial responsibility for the upkeep of the dwelling.

I don't say anything. HUD does.

ps.

your CCRs may be amended subject to their own provisions

the declarant is presently in charge with the necessary super-majority

all else is irrelevant

the developer may do whatever he/she wants

should you lose your HOPA exemption from the Fair Housing Act - so be it

best of luck with your attorney

Susan

Check with your town. The developer may have been given a permit with certain restrictions regarding age. Towns get a little nervous when they are facing an influx of school age children.

Many years ago I lived in a condo that was considering going to a 55+ community and the board inquired of HUD whether we could have any restrictions on the 20% such as 45 to 54. Basically HUD said we could do what we wanted about the 20% but suggested we check with the state of CT. CT said absolutely not, that 20% could not be discriminated against.

And so there are no easy answers!