Guest rules in a 55+ not on CCR'S

One owner's daughter is coming to live with her for a while, and has been told by the Board that guest can only stay 59 days? I understood that in a 55+ community as long as they are over 18 and reside with a 55 or older person that's it? Also they are requiring a background check of a family member? Nobody voted for this nor is mentioned on the documents? Oh and the documents mention that in a two bedroom unit only four can occupy so what the heck?

some, not all, 55+ HOAs require 100% occupancy by 55+ (excepting guests)

if this is one, and it is in the CCRs, you are SOL

if the restrictions in the CCRs are 'silent' I would suggest (politely) requesting to be SHOWN the restriction which they are tying to apply

The minimum requirement for a condominium to be considered a senior facitlity is having at least one person who who at least 55 years of age in 80 percent of the units. The documents can be more restrictive that the minimum rule. I have studied this and have this information on my computer.

Our documents require the owners/residents to be at least 57 yrs old. Nevertheless, a spouse can be younger. However the documents do allow exceptions with Board approval and the Board has said they may approve someone who is 55 or 56 since the age of 55 is the federal minimum guideline.

We have a resolution stating that anyone who "visits" a unit for over 30 days is considered to be a resident. If the "visitor" is 55 or over, they just need to register with the secretary. We have a fine schedule for owners who allow anyone under the age of 55 to live in a unit.

Yes sir! What happened with the land of the free!

Yes, Our documents require that every resident register with the Secretary. At this time the Secretary gets emergency contact information and also explains our rules so that 3 months laters, the person can not say they did not know about the rules

Yes, it is actually on our documents.

ok .... please answer my question:

is it in the COVENANTS ?

I will wager NOT - it is probably a 'made up' rule or bylaw by a power mad BOD operating far far beyond any covenant or restriction ACTUALLY ON FILE.

When I have more time I will quote exactly how it is worded in either our Master Deed orr By Laws, I don't remember at this time which one it is it.

if it's in the bylaws (which govern the operation of the corporation) and NOT in the CCRs then:

it does not actually apply as a restriction

the bylaws are derived from and subservient to the CCRs

no restriction may be added to the bylaws which is not based upon or authorized by the covenants

best of luck in court with this one

you will need it as the 'rule' has NO merit in your contract

you have managed to fool your fellow geezers so far, but .........................

actually makes just as much sense as your quoted document

Bonnie;

I am 66 years of age.
I am a retired plumber who volunteers 20-30 hours weekly with Habitat for Humanity.
I am presently the Treasurer for my HOA - I serve as the book-keeper when 'off board' every 4 years for one year (term limits). {Quick-Books and geezers are incompatible}
My 55+ community is composed of many 'owners' who are, as THEY put it, 'circling the drain' and will NOT spend a dime even on essentials unless THEY see the result DIRECTLY.

The vast majority (even though virtually deaf) DESPISE children (including their OWN).

I will be moooooooving soon, but I will NOT be 'chased away'.

Best wishes,
John Bernabeu



ergo: they are probably guilty

why not 'round up the usual suspects'?

you know: the kids, ALL the young 'uns

Fascism: "Private ownership with government control."

remember: Hitler was ELECTED

ps.

as per HOPA:

Iowa has a similar law. In my condo documents, the bylaws are recorded as an Exhibit of the Declaration (CC&Rs). The Declaration states that the provisions of the Bylaws and the Declaration have equal status and are covenants. Our Bylaws are mostly corporate, but not completely - there are a few items that refer to the use of the property. There does not seem to be a distinct line between the Bylaws and the Declaration.

While YOUR declaration so states, imo, it should NOT so state.

However, since the contract was actually recorded, so be it.

CAVEAT EMPTOR

food for thought: if anyone actually read and understood these 'docs' in advance of purchase - would the sale actually 'go through' ?

? voluntary Fascism ?

Jeff;

educate me (formerly JohnB26) re: amendments to said documents

do the covenants and bylaws have the same provisions / vote % for amending?

imo: if so, they ARE equivalent docs

if not, one would be careful about what goes in which, if you get my drift

eg. covenants require actual 66% affirmative from ALL
bylaws require 51% of a quorum (51%) which would allow 26% to make changes

while I am not debating your quoted law refs, this is an absurd 'can-o-worms'

my 'guess' would be that state law would dictate what should be/is actually contained in each document - else why have two?

John Bernabeu, resident PITA

Jim,

a caveat:

don't rely on internet advice no matter how good it appears

use the 'net' only to get a 'feel' for the matter at hand and for your 'homework'

if you have a legal issue, see an attorney

pay for 'top-o-the-line'

John Bernabeu

Here is the Iowa law, 499b.14 (for condos):
"The administration of every property shall be governed by bylaws, a true copy of which shall be annexed to the declaration and made a part thereof. No modification of or amendment to the bylaws shall be valid unless set forth in an amendment to the declaration and such amendment is duly recorded."

So we have to simultaneously amend both the bylaws and the Declaration (with the required percentages). The bylaws are "a part" of the declaration and must be recorded.

I agree that the bylaws should govern the administration of the association, and the CC&Rs should be for property issues, but there are many communities where the bylaws are made a part of the CC&Rs, are recorded, and are designated as covenants.

While age is not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, the law does prevent discrimination based on familial status. In this case, familial status refers to households which include pregnant women or children under the age of 18. However, the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA) provides exemptions to familial status if a community meets either of the following conditions:

1. All of the occupants of the community are over the age of 62.

2. At least 80 percent of the occupied units include at least one resident who is verified to be over the age of 55, and the community follows a policy that demonstrates an intent to provide housing for those aged 55 or older.

Once a community meets the HOPA requirements, they are free to create their own rules for how they will define their age restriction, as long as they are in compliance with state laws. The community can make the age-restriction more strict than the HOPA requirement, such as stating that all of the residents must be over 55 or that 80 percent of the households must include a resident aged 60 or better.

The above I copy and pasted from a site I have savied on my computer. I will try to get the link and try to post it in a separate reply.

we all know that age restricted communities are legal

their legality is not the issue

the rules to maintain legality is the issue

Excellent thinking and point.