Widow may remarry

Started by BonnieG1 • 18 replies • 1735 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

In our senior community, we have many widows and some widowers.

A widow who on is the Board just asked me if she remarried a man with a 16 yr old daughter, would the daughter be allowed to live here. She mentioned a woman who is now in her 70s who moved in with her parents before she was old enough to live her but I am quite certain she was not a teen when she moved in as the building is only about 33 years old.

I can understanding a person seeing someone currently breaking the rules and getting by with it thinking they can break the same rule. But something that happened before most people and maybe everyone who lives here now was here is usually not used as a excuse the break a rule. I don't know what the circumstances were when the lady moved in with her parents and since the lady is mentally handicapped, I doubt she would know the complete circumstance.
She has told me that she got to move in as a "dependent".

Since the widow who may (or may not) remarry is on the Board she is aware of the procedure to follow to request an exception to the rule. I told her I would print a waiver form for her if she wanted it. As of today she is not 100% positive she will remarry.

I did tell her I would be against it, (but also that I would like to have the rule changed to allow one other younger person live in a unit) but I was only one vote on the Board. She does know she will not be allowed to vote if the Board does consider her request.

Currently per our Master Deed a spouse is the only person who is under the required age that is allowed to live in a unit.

Seems like no sooner than one problem gets solved than another shows its head.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062

Posted:

Bonnie,

Good luck. Without seeing the actual language and knowing where the language is located (what document), I'm not sure such a denial would withstand a legal challenge. Of course, if nobody challenges it, then that's not an issue until it happens.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Bonnie

It is not uncommon that a person over the age of 18 can live with someone that does meet the over 55 requirement.

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

Each 'unit' only requires ONE 55+ occupant to qualify with HUD as per HOPA.

Said occupant need not be a full time resident.

Merely occupy on a 'regular or periodic basis' AND maintain 'financial responsibility' for said unit.

So, a 49 year old widow marries a 55 year old who has a 25 daughter would be A-OK per HUD.

As long as the 55 year old has the bills in their name.

Your documents may state more stringent restrictions, but, y'all had best have all your Tees crossed and your Is dotted.

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 05/11/2015 4:30 PM
Bonnie,

Good luck. Without seeing the actual language and knowing where the language is located (what document), I'm not sure such a denial would withstand a legal challenge. Of course, if nobody challenges it, then that's not an issue until it happens.

Tim,
believe me people in our community would challenge this. Since I have been on the Board we have not allowed any one who did not meet the age requirement occupy a unit. One person's representatives called multiple times and was given the same answer each time we were called.
Article 6 Section D of our Master Deed (similar to CC&Rs) states "Each occupant, and each Owner residing in an Apartment, shall be at least fifty-seven (57) year of age, provided, however, such restriction shall not apply to the spouse of an Occupant or Owner in an apartment.
the rest of section D deals with how many people may occupy each unit.

A person who is 55 or 56 may occupy a unit with Board approval. Right now, I can't find the exact place to give you the exact wording but our documents state the Board may make an exception to a rule due to an emergency or extenuating circumstances.

I have been studying our documents preparing to have a meeting to vote to amend many items in our documents.
One item I would like to amend is this article 6 Section D to allow a younger person to live in a unit as long as one person occupying the unit is at least 55, But currently to amend article 6 e need 100% agreement.
I have sent the amendments we would like to present to the members to our lawyer and have asked him if there was a legal way to work around this 100% agreement issue.

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

ps.

if it is a rule, it would NOT hold up in a court

if it is a covenant, only the membership has the authority to amend

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

Bonnie,

Our posts crossed.

Your documents seem very precise.

Simply follow them and let the BOD vote for the requested exemption.

If in favor - good to go.

If opposed - good to go.

Either way, their is no 'sweating' on your part.

Your ONLY job is to PRESIDE over the vote.

Just relax and don't worry, be happy.

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 05/11/2015 5:01 PM
ps.

if it is a rule, it would NOT hold up in a court

if it is a covenant, only the membership has the authority to amend

I know that Pita, that is why we will have a member meeting for a vote to amend some items in our Master Deed which is the same as a covenant. But since this is an apartment style condominium and not houses ours is called a Master Deed.

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BonnieG1 on 05/11/2015 5:27 PM

Posted By PitA on 05/11/2015 5:01 PM
ps.

if it is a rule, it would NOT hold up in a court

if it is a covenant, only the membership has the authority to amend

Sorry, I jumped the gun, I didn't see your second post.

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

I am not worried about it. I know how it is to be handled. I just hate the thought of losing this Board member if she decides to move. Even before she was on the Board she was a great asset to our community.

She is not being nasty about this at all and I haven't mentioned it to anyone else in our community at this time per her request.

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

I just hate the thought of losing this Board member if she decides to move. Even before she was on the Board she was a great asset to our community.

Has NO BEARING and should NOT influence the decision / amendment.

IMO: Do NOT amend the docs to keep ONE good member, the next time it may NOT be a good member but the doc has been changed to allow.

Your 'founding fathers' wanted an ALL 57+ community - your members bought into same !

? Why change it now to allow younger ?

stop 'thinking' and merely preside FOLLOWING THE DOCS

ps. I, personally, despise HOPA, but, I agreed to the Covenants when I bought in.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

The women (owner) marries the girl (16 is legal in many states to marry) and the father moves in as the women's room mate.

Next.......

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 05/12/2015 8:14 AM

I just hate the thought of losing this Board member if she decides to move. Even before she was on the Board she was a great asset to our community.

stop 'thinking' and merely preside FOLLOWING THE DOCS

ps. I, personally, despise HOPA, but, I agreed to the Covenants when I bought in.

I don't intend to amend our documents for this one person. I have been wanting to amend them for over a year. But even if we amend to allow younger people if one occupant is at least 55, I don't want to allow teenagers.
I just hope if this lady does petition the Board for an exception that the other Board Members agree with me since I have only one vote.

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

But even if we amend to allow younger people if one occupant is at least 55, I don't want to allow teenagers.

NO CAN DO - NO WAY - NO HOW

HOPA gave an exemption to the age discrimination prohibition within the Fair Housing Act but only within the HOPA Guidelines and only for 55 and over.

NO ONE may 'cherry pick' age discrimination.

You may not pick an arbitrary age as a 'cut-off' point.

PERIOD, end of argument.

now, if you wish to discuss your OPINION of this matter ..................

ps. stop using the word "I" - ? do you ALL want ..... ?

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

'dam' no edit

But even if we amend to allow younger people if one occupant is at least 55, I don't want to allow teenagers.

NO CAN DO - NO WAY - NO HOW

HOPA gave an exemption to the age discrimination prohibition within the Fair Housing Act but only within the HOPA Guidelines and only for 55 and over.

NO ONE may 'cherry pick' age discrimination.

You may not pick an arbitrary age as a 'cut-off' point.

PERIOD, end of argument.

now, if you wish to discuss your OPINION of this matter ..................

ps. stop using the word "I" - ? do you ALL want ..... ?

BonnieG1 (Nebraska)
Posts: 1,186

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 05/13/2015 5:10 AM
'dam' no edit

But even if we amend to allow younger people if one occupant is at least 55, I don't want to allow teenagers.

The information I have read and also other posters on this sign have read regarding HOPA states that at least on person who is 55 or older needs to occupy at least 80% if the units to be considered a senior facility. Nevertheless a senior facility can make stricter reulations regarding the age of occupants.

I don't know how many members want to amend different Articles and Sections of our Documents, But I do know that all the Board Members agree to what I have sent to the lawyer. I did not send anything to the lawyer that would amend our documents to allow a younger person other than a spouse of an occupant or owner to occupy a unit. That is something I personally would like to change, but will not waste my time unless I think there is a good possibility of this amendment passing.

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

Nevertheless a senior facility can make stricter reulations regarding the age of occupants.

correct

BUT

it refers to raising minimum age above 55 and/or requiring all occupants of a unit to meet same

NOT

'cherry picking' what age y'all would 'like' to admit

EITHER

y'all are HOPA compliant

or

y'all are not housing for older persons

sheez, Bonnie, just follow your docs and wait for a petition to even think about change

IOW: do your job as pres, no more, no less - no thinking/opining involved

ps. we have been through a similar scenario against our attorney's advice and almost (unfortunately in my opinion) lost our HOPA exemption

yes, that is correct, HOPA itself is an exemption from the Fair Housing Act

PitA
Posts: 311

Posted:

to be precise:

(direct from HUD) http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/hopa95.pdf

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. However, the facility/community should review other state and local laws, including fair housing laws that may prohibit discrimination based on age, before establishing policies and procedures restricting occupancy based on age, or affecting survivors' rights to property, that are not covered under HOPA.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here