WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
What do you associate with the phrase "Grant of Limited Common Area? Please give me some examples.
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
Grant of Limited Common Area
Started by WilW1 • 58 replies • 2400 views
💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account →
⚡ Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By WilW1 on 08/05/2016 11:59 AM
What do you associate with the phrase "Grant of Limited Common Area? Please give me some examples.
What do you associate with the phrase "Grant of Limited Common Area? Please give me some examples.
Would this have to do with parking spots?
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
I think it's the same thing as Limited Common Elements but I'm not sure. A lawyer used the term with me.
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868
Posts: 3,868
Posted:
This might help. While it is what we use in California, it may or may not apply to your state, but it has some good examples.
Separate Interest. When someone buys a condominium, their "real property" is typically defined as a cube of air bounded by the unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls, ceilings and floors. All improvements contained in that space, such as carpets, cabinets, light fixtures, plumbing fixtures, etc., are part of the real property defined as the owner's "separate interest" because it is separate from real property that is owned in common with other members of the association, i.e., "common areas."
Exclusive Use Common Area. Exclusive use common area, sometimes referred to as "restricted common area" or "limited common element," is defined as those common areas outside the owner's separate interest which are for the exclusive use of that owner.
1. CC&Rs. Newer CC&Rs specify areas for owners' exclusive use such as balconies, patios, storage areas, parking spaces, plumbing, electrical, etc. Older documents (pre-1985) normally do not use the term. Sometimes, even when the term is used, maintenance responsibilities are unclear.
2. Condominium Plan. The association's condominium plan typically designates areas, such as balconies and parking spaces, set aside for an owner's exclusive use.
3. Davis-Stirling Act. The Davis-Stirling Act contains a default definition of exclusive use common areas if none is found in the CC&Rs or condominium plan. Civil Code §4145 defines the following as exclusive use common areas:
shutters, awnings, window boxes,
doorsteps, stoops, porches,
balconies and patios,
exterior doors, door frames, and hardware,
screens and windows,
fixtures designed to serve a single interest but existing outside the boundaries of the separate interest,
telephone wiring.
Granting Exclusive Use. Unless already granted in the governing documents, boards cannot give an owner exclusive use of the common areas. With a few exceptions, such grants require membership approval.
Recommendation: Older CC&Rs frequently fail to properly address the maintenance responsibilities of exclusive use common areas. This deficiency can be cured by amending or restating the CC&Rs and by creating a maintenance chart.
Separate Interest. When someone buys a condominium, their "real property" is typically defined as a cube of air bounded by the unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls, ceilings and floors. All improvements contained in that space, such as carpets, cabinets, light fixtures, plumbing fixtures, etc., are part of the real property defined as the owner's "separate interest" because it is separate from real property that is owned in common with other members of the association, i.e., "common areas."
Exclusive Use Common Area. Exclusive use common area, sometimes referred to as "restricted common area" or "limited common element," is defined as those common areas outside the owner's separate interest which are for the exclusive use of that owner.
1. CC&Rs. Newer CC&Rs specify areas for owners' exclusive use such as balconies, patios, storage areas, parking spaces, plumbing, electrical, etc. Older documents (pre-1985) normally do not use the term. Sometimes, even when the term is used, maintenance responsibilities are unclear.
2. Condominium Plan. The association's condominium plan typically designates areas, such as balconies and parking spaces, set aside for an owner's exclusive use.
3. Davis-Stirling Act. The Davis-Stirling Act contains a default definition of exclusive use common areas if none is found in the CC&Rs or condominium plan. Civil Code §4145 defines the following as exclusive use common areas:
shutters, awnings, window boxes,
doorsteps, stoops, porches,
balconies and patios,
exterior doors, door frames, and hardware,
screens and windows,
fixtures designed to serve a single interest but existing outside the boundaries of the separate interest,
telephone wiring.
Granting Exclusive Use. Unless already granted in the governing documents, boards cannot give an owner exclusive use of the common areas. With a few exceptions, such grants require membership approval.
Recommendation: Older CC&Rs frequently fail to properly address the maintenance responsibilities of exclusive use common areas. This deficiency can be cured by amending or restating the CC&Rs and by creating a maintenance chart.
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
I found this in MA law:
CHAPTER 183A CONDOMINIUMS
"Section 5, Interest in common areas or facilities; percentage; division
(2) The organization of unit owners, acting by and through its governing body, shall have the power and authority, as attorney in fact on behalf of all unit owners from time to time owning units in the condominium, except as provided in this subsection, to:....
(ii) Grant to or designate for any unit owner the right to use, whether exclusively or in common with other unit owners, any limited common area and facility, whether or not provided for in the master deed, upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners; provided, however, that consent has been obtained...."
CHAPTER 183A CONDOMINIUMS
"Section 5, Interest in common areas or facilities; percentage; division
(2) The organization of unit owners, acting by and through its governing body, shall have the power and authority, as attorney in fact on behalf of all unit owners from time to time owning units in the condominium, except as provided in this subsection, to:....
(ii) Grant to or designate for any unit owner the right to use, whether exclusively or in common with other unit owners, any limited common area and facility, whether or not provided for in the master deed, upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners; provided, however, that consent has been obtained...."
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
RichardP13 & JeffT2,
Thanks.
Your posts seem to reinforce what I was thinking. I took limited common area to be something like a parking lot, storage cage, mailbox, a rooftop deck, etc.
The reason I started my post was to determine whether anyone has ever heard of a condo owner getting a "grant of limited common area" to take over a hallway by tearing down their unit wall and constructing a new wall around the common area so that the hallway becomes part of their unit.
And that this can happen if the person gets a vote of 51% approval of the percentage interest. Also, that the person taking over the common area gets their mortgagee to consent.
Thanks.
Your posts seem to reinforce what I was thinking. I took limited common area to be something like a parking lot, storage cage, mailbox, a rooftop deck, etc.
The reason I started my post was to determine whether anyone has ever heard of a condo owner getting a "grant of limited common area" to take over a hallway by tearing down their unit wall and constructing a new wall around the common area so that the hallway becomes part of their unit.
And that this can happen if the person gets a vote of 51% approval of the percentage interest. Also, that the person taking over the common area gets their mortgagee to consent.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Wil
Personally I doubt that a simple 51% majority vote could cause loss of a common area. I believe here was a post about sell off some common area.
Personally I doubt that a simple 51% majority vote could cause loss of a common area. I believe here was a post about sell off some common area.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
If I go to my Declaration of Trust, Article VIII. Then go to section (g) Amendment to Documents, then subsection (ii). It states:
"The consent of the owners of units to which at least SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT (67.0%) of the votes in the Condominium Trust are allocated, and the approval of at least FIFTY-ONE PERCENT (51.0%) of the First Mortgagees...."
I thought this would apply to the person trying to take over the common area. But the condo association lawyer claims that it does not apply because:
"The short answer as to why is because the language in the condominium statute about grants of limited common area trumps the language in the condo docs."
"The consent of the owners of units to which at least SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT (67.0%) of the votes in the Condominium Trust are allocated, and the approval of at least FIFTY-ONE PERCENT (51.0%) of the First Mortgagees...."
I thought this would apply to the person trying to take over the common area. But the condo association lawyer claims that it does not apply because:
"The short answer as to why is because the language in the condominium statute about grants of limited common area trumps the language in the condo docs."
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Wil
I read that as 67% of the owners plus 51% of the mortgage holders. Unless a unit/home is owned outright by the owner, the mortgage holder needs to approve. Put both of those things together and I doubt a consensus (agreement) could ever be reached for anything.
A MA story. Our BOD approved some modifications that could be made to a unit (townhomes). One of the owners (a condo manager of another condo building) did not like the mods and claimed that the mortgage holders would also have to approve any change. Our BOD lawyer communicated with her and her lawyer, and her objection was dropped. She did not know of what she spoke of.
I read that as 67% of the owners plus 51% of the mortgage holders. Unless a unit/home is owned outright by the owner, the mortgage holder needs to approve. Put both of those things together and I doubt a consensus (agreement) could ever be reached for anything.
A MA story. Our BOD approved some modifications that could be made to a unit (townhomes). One of the owners (a condo manager of another condo building) did not like the mods and claimed that the mortgage holders would also have to approve any change. Our BOD lawyer communicated with her and her lawyer, and her objection was dropped. She did not know of what she spoke of.
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
It also requires the approval of all (100%) units that are immediately adjoining the common area, as well as other requirements.
Are you opposed?
Are you opposed?
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
If this owner closes off the common area on his floor (I assume), and turns it into a limited common area, how do the other floor-residents get to their units?
But wait, if it becomes internal to his unit, it will then be his separate interest, not limited common area, imo. I think the attorney misunderstands or misinterprets what this owner wants....or I misunderstand.
There are only two units on the top-25th- floor of our high rise. The Owner of one bought the 2nd and combined them. In the process a portion of that floor's common area corridor became his separate interest--it's within his unit now. I'm just realizing that he should be paying extra for that sq. ft. that he picked up. (We have a sq. ft. variable for units's assessments)
But wait, if it becomes internal to his unit, it will then be his separate interest, not limited common area, imo. I think the attorney misunderstands or misinterprets what this owner wants....or I misunderstand.
There are only two units on the top-25th- floor of our high rise. The Owner of one bought the 2nd and combined them. In the process a portion of that floor's common area corridor became his separate interest--it's within his unit now. I'm just realizing that he should be paying extra for that sq. ft. that he picked up. (We have a sq. ft. variable for units's assessments)
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
I'm one of the trustees. This person who wants the common area space (about 40 square feet) is also a trustee but she has recused herself from the decision-making as she should. Then there's one other trustee. We have 3 trustees in total in our condo association.
Let me explain the layout:
There are 12 units in the whole building. The argument by the person trying to get the common area is that they are the only one who uses this common area. The area is immediately in front of her front door. There are 4 staircases in the whole building, and they are parallel to each other. In other words, there are 4 front entrances to the building. When you enter a front entrance door on the first floor there's a small hallway, the front door to the first condo and a staircase that leads to the second floor landing. This second floor also has a small hallway and the front door of the second condo. On the end of this hallway is a staircase that leads to third floor landing. The third floor is the top floor. There's a small hallway and the front door of the third condo. But there's no staircase leading to a higher floor. It's this landing/hallway, which is a common area, that this person wants to take over and add to their unit.
I'm just concerned because I've never heard of someone tearing down a wall and building a new one that surrounds what was previously a common area. Yet the lawyer says she can do this if we give her a "Grant of Limited Common Area."
He also claims that no one's percentage interest would be affected.
If someone sold their condo and a title search was conducted would this cause a problem? According to the lawyer, there wouldn't be a problem.
Let me explain the layout:
There are 12 units in the whole building. The argument by the person trying to get the common area is that they are the only one who uses this common area. The area is immediately in front of her front door. There are 4 staircases in the whole building, and they are parallel to each other. In other words, there are 4 front entrances to the building. When you enter a front entrance door on the first floor there's a small hallway, the front door to the first condo and a staircase that leads to the second floor landing. This second floor also has a small hallway and the front door of the second condo. On the end of this hallway is a staircase that leads to third floor landing. The third floor is the top floor. There's a small hallway and the front door of the third condo. But there's no staircase leading to a higher floor. It's this landing/hallway, which is a common area, that this person wants to take over and add to their unit.
I'm just concerned because I've never heard of someone tearing down a wall and building a new one that surrounds what was previously a common area. Yet the lawyer says she can do this if we give her a "Grant of Limited Common Area."
He also claims that no one's percentage interest would be affected.
If someone sold their condo and a title search was conducted would this cause a problem? According to the lawyer, there wouldn't be a problem.
PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
Fire codes immediately come to mind.
Sounds like they want to 'encapsulate' a fire exit.
This may become Pandora's Box.
Whether, as the sole 'top floor' unit, this would be permissible ?????
? Widows in stairway ?
? Fire-Fighter egress after ladder entry to structure ?
etc.
Sounds like they want to 'encapsulate' a fire exit.
This may become Pandora's Box.
Whether, as the sole 'top floor' unit, this would be permissible ?????
? Widows in stairway ?
? Fire-Fighter egress after ladder entry to structure ?
etc.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By WilW1 on 08/07/2016 1:01 PM
I'm one of the trustees. This person who wants the common area space (about 40 square feet) is also a trustee but she has recused herself from the decision-making as she should. Then there's one other trustee. We have 3 trustees in total in our condo association.
Let me explain the layout:
There are 12 units in the whole building. The argument by the person trying to get the common area is that they are the only one who uses this common area. The area is immediately in front of her front door. There are 4 staircases in the whole building, and they are parallel to each other. In other words, there are 4 front entrances to the building. When you enter a front entrance door on the first floor there's a small hallway, the front door to the first condo and a staircase that leads to the second floor landing. This second floor also has a small hallway and the front door of the second condo. On the end of this hallway is a staircase that leads to third floor landing. The third floor is the top floor. There's a small hallway and the front door of the third condo. But there's no staircase leading to a higher floor. It's this landing/hallway, which is a common area, that this person wants to take over and add to their unit.
I'm just concerned because I've never heard of someone tearing down a wall and building a new one that surrounds what was previously a common area. Yet the lawyer says she can do this if we give her a "Grant of Limited Common Area."
He also claims that no one's percentage interest would be affected.
If someone sold their condo and a title search was conducted would this cause a problem? According to the lawyer, there wouldn't be a problem.
I'm one of the trustees. This person who wants the common area space (about 40 square feet) is also a trustee but she has recused herself from the decision-making as she should. Then there's one other trustee. We have 3 trustees in total in our condo association.
Let me explain the layout:
There are 12 units in the whole building. The argument by the person trying to get the common area is that they are the only one who uses this common area. The area is immediately in front of her front door. There are 4 staircases in the whole building, and they are parallel to each other. In other words, there are 4 front entrances to the building. When you enter a front entrance door on the first floor there's a small hallway, the front door to the first condo and a staircase that leads to the second floor landing. This second floor also has a small hallway and the front door of the second condo. On the end of this hallway is a staircase that leads to third floor landing. The third floor is the top floor. There's a small hallway and the front door of the third condo. But there's no staircase leading to a higher floor. It's this landing/hallway, which is a common area, that this person wants to take over and add to their unit.
I'm just concerned because I've never heard of someone tearing down a wall and building a new one that surrounds what was previously a common area. Yet the lawyer says she can do this if we give her a "Grant of Limited Common Area."
He also claims that no one's percentage interest would be affected.
If someone sold their condo and a title search was conducted would this cause a problem? According to the lawyer, there wouldn't be a problem.
Wil
To better understand. Are there any doors, windows, etc. in this hallway other than the entrance to her unit?
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
There are no windows in the hallway in front of the front door to her unit which she wants to take over. There is also no fire egress in the hallway. But her unit does have a fire egress. There's a door in her kitchen that leads to a roof deck. At the end of the deck is a door that leads to a back hallway that has a staircase to the ground floor.
I too have a top floor unit but in a different, parallel hallway to hers. And I have a fire egress via a similar back hallway. All the units have a fire egress.
If a fire-fighter entered her unit with a ladder he would simply open her front door than walk down the staircase to the second floor hallway, then the first floor hallway and walk out the building. Or he would walk across her roof deck and to the back hallway.
I know it's hard to visualize the layout simply from words.
I too have a top floor unit but in a different, parallel hallway to hers. And I have a fire egress via a similar back hallway. All the units have a fire egress.
If a fire-fighter entered her unit with a ladder he would simply open her front door than walk down the staircase to the second floor hallway, then the first floor hallway and walk out the building. Or he would walk across her roof deck and to the back hallway.
I know it's hard to visualize the layout simply from words.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
PiTs asks good question and your answer is clear, Wil. In our case, we required Building Dept. involvement & approvals paid for by the Owner who combined 2 condos into 1 to posses the entire 25th floor. They took out lots of corridor wall. Also needed, of course, our own ARC to approve it.
Maybe I quibble too much about 40 sf. + the stairs (right?). The thing is currently it's common area so the HOA is responsible for maintaining it--the stairway, railing flooring, lighting door & carpet. Once she incorporates it, it seems to me that she should be responsible for paint, light fixture(s) floor covering, etc. I'm thinking this she be an agreement in writing and recorded with her condo. She should pay all clerical and other expense involved.
Whatever the total sf is of common area that's identical, I believe you'd deduct 1/12th and assign it to her as her responsibility. The other 11 Owners should no longer a have to contribute to reserves for those components or to the operating budget if a custodian tends to that common area.
I guess if it did become her separate interest, the whole sf of your common area would change, which, I image, would require a new deed or something. By changing it to limited common area, maybe you wouldn't have that technical issue and possibly costly paperwork. Perhaps that's s why the attorney advised that it become LCA.
Maybe I quibble too much about 40 sf. + the stairs (right?). The thing is currently it's common area so the HOA is responsible for maintaining it--the stairway, railing flooring, lighting door & carpet. Once she incorporates it, it seems to me that she should be responsible for paint, light fixture(s) floor covering, etc. I'm thinking this she be an agreement in writing and recorded with her condo. She should pay all clerical and other expense involved.
Whatever the total sf is of common area that's identical, I believe you'd deduct 1/12th and assign it to her as her responsibility. The other 11 Owners should no longer a have to contribute to reserves for those components or to the operating budget if a custodian tends to that common area.
I guess if it did become her separate interest, the whole sf of your common area would change, which, I image, would require a new deed or something. By changing it to limited common area, maybe you wouldn't have that technical issue and possibly costly paperwork. Perhaps that's s why the attorney advised that it become LCA.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
KerryL1,
This is clearly an easier way out but I'm not sure it's great for the interests of the building as a whole.
In actuality, she's acquiring additional square footage but it's made to seem as though she's not because it's a Limited Common Area.
What precedent will this create for the building?
What about liability? Will the Master Insurance cover the part inside her unit that is an LCA or will it have to be adjusted?
I just never heard of an LCA that is inside a person's unit.
But what do I know?
This is clearly an easier way out but I'm not sure it's great for the interests of the building as a whole.
In actuality, she's acquiring additional square footage but it's made to seem as though she's not because it's a Limited Common Area.
What precedent will this create for the building?
What about liability? Will the Master Insurance cover the part inside her unit that is an LCA or will it have to be adjusted?
I just never heard of an LCA that is inside a person's unit.
But what do I know?
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Good points, Wil.
In our case, the common area was converted to the Owner's separate interest, NOT limited common area (CA exclusive use common area). I'd say that if you approve this, sure the other two 3rd floors can request the same thing.
I'm still thinking that your attorney misunderstands the situation.
In our case, the common area was converted to the Owner's separate interest, NOT limited common area (CA exclusive use common area). I'd say that if you approve this, sure the other two 3rd floors can request the same thing.
I'm still thinking that your attorney misunderstands the situation.
PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
You could grant conditional approval pending:
Certified plans from a state licensed professional engineer. (google 'licensed professional engineer')
Approved building permit.
HOA's insurance carrier 'OK'.
A bond posted to guarantee any HOA costs incurred.
The first item (professional engineer) is VERY important.
Certified plans from a state licensed professional engineer. (google 'licensed professional engineer')
Approved building permit.
HOA's insurance carrier 'OK'.
A bond posted to guarantee any HOA costs incurred.
The first item (professional engineer) is VERY important.
PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
ps. make sure the permit is actually 'signed off' and a certificate of occupancy actually issued BEFORE releasing the bond
a common gimmick is to get a permit, perform shoddy work, then simply 'toss' the permit
a common gimmick is to get a permit, perform shoddy work, then simply 'toss' the permit
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
To me, my feeling is that when one buys a condo one is shown the size. Trying to increase the size, after purchase, is simply not fair.
For instance, there are some units that have no opportunity to expand because of their location. Let's go back to the area in front of the front door. The units on the first and second floor cannot take over the hallway area outside their front doors because there is foot traffic to higher floors. If one allows the third floor (top floor) units to take over their hallways because there is no traffic to higher floors, is this fair to the other units?
Even though my own unit is on the top floor and I can benefit from third floor units being allowed to take over their hallways, I feel that it would not be fair to the units on lower floors.
Am I being naive?
For instance, there are some units that have no opportunity to expand because of their location. Let's go back to the area in front of the front door. The units on the first and second floor cannot take over the hallway area outside their front doors because there is foot traffic to higher floors. If one allows the third floor (top floor) units to take over their hallways because there is no traffic to higher floors, is this fair to the other units?
Even though my own unit is on the top floor and I can benefit from third floor units being allowed to take over their hallways, I feel that it would not be fair to the units on lower floors.
Am I being naive?
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Wil
You may not like it but on the surface it sounds like an acceptable idea. Just because others cannot do it, is no reason another cannot do it. Like or or not, similar has been done.
You have "implied" that it might be blocking firefighter access when it seems that "route" is not a public fire exit nor even meant to be a fire exit but more an anomaly (maybe even a feature) in design.
You may not like it but on the surface it sounds like an acceptable idea. Just because others cannot do it, is no reason another cannot do it. Like or or not, similar has been done.
You have "implied" that it might be blocking firefighter access when it seems that "route" is not a public fire exit nor even meant to be a fire exit but more an anomaly (maybe even a feature) in design.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
John,
Are you saying that you have seen a Limited Common Area that is enclosed within a unit as opposed to a deck, parking spot, storage locker in the basement, etc?
Just curious.
Are you saying that you have seen a Limited Common Area that is enclosed within a unit as opposed to a deck, parking spot, storage locker in the basement, etc?
Just curious.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Wil
I believe Kerry posted an example of happening in her association. A local PM who is a golfing buddy said it happened in his high rise building when two units were combined and the dead end of one hallway was incorporated into the "new" unit.
I believe Kerry posted an example of happening in her association. A local PM who is a golfing buddy said it happened in his high rise building when two units were combined and the dead end of one hallway was incorporated into the "new" unit.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Wil, I also don't think "fairness" matters. She sees a way to expand her living area. Just make sure it's structurally sound, she has permits, pays for an engineer if needed, etc. And lower everyone's dues a fraction because your HOA no longer has to maintain the common area she's giving up.
You also n might reduce your HOA insurance a fraction because of less sf (40 PLUS the stairs)
You also n might reduce your HOA insurance a fraction because of less sf (40 PLUS the stairs)
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
John,
Kerry states: "There are only two units on the top-25th- floor of our high rise. The Owner of one bought the 2nd and combined them."
Would you consider her example as typical or esoteric? I'd say the latter.
How many condo owners have the opportunity to buy two units in the same complex? I'd say this is not an example I'd use for the situation in our building.
But I appreciate your feedback.
Kerry states: "There are only two units on the top-25th- floor of our high rise. The Owner of one bought the 2nd and combined them."
Would you consider her example as typical or esoteric? I'd say the latter.
How many condo owners have the opportunity to buy two units in the same complex? I'd say this is not an example I'd use for the situation in our building.
But I appreciate your feedback.
Quote:
Posted By JohnC46 on 08/08/2016 6:20 PM
Wil
I believe Kerry posted an example of happening in her association. A local PM who is a golfing buddy said it happened in his high rise building when two units were combined and the dead end of one hallway was incorporated into the "new" unit.
Wil
I believe Kerry posted an example of happening in her association. A local PM who is a golfing buddy said it happened in his high rise building when two units were combined and the dead end of one hallway was incorporated into the "new" unit.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Kerry,
I think fairness is an important factor to consider.
Condo living is not the same as living in your own house where you have much more freedom to make changes after your purchase. This is precisely why taking over common areas is not supposed to be easy. Every unit owner has an undivided interest in the common areas, I thought.
Lowering the dues everyone pays is not a big concern nor a big favor being done by the person trying to get the common area, if you ask me.
Also, increasing her unit by acquiring the common area means that those not getting the common area are losing something.
You still see no unfairness to this?
I think fairness is an important factor to consider.
Condo living is not the same as living in your own house where you have much more freedom to make changes after your purchase. This is precisely why taking over common areas is not supposed to be easy. Every unit owner has an undivided interest in the common areas, I thought.
Lowering the dues everyone pays is not a big concern nor a big favor being done by the person trying to get the common area, if you ask me.
Also, increasing her unit by acquiring the common area means that those not getting the common area are losing something.
You still see no unfairness to this?
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/09/2016 7:30 AM
Wil, I also don't think "fairness" matters. She sees a way to expand her living area. Just make sure it's structurally sound, she has permits, pays for an engineer if needed, etc. And lower everyone's dues a fraction because your HOA no longer has to maintain the common area she's giving up.
You also n might reduce your HOA insurance a fraction because of less sf (40 PLUS the stairs)
Wil, I also don't think "fairness" matters. She sees a way to expand her living area. Just make sure it's structurally sound, she has permits, pays for an engineer if needed, etc. And lower everyone's dues a fraction because your HOA no longer has to maintain the common area she's giving up.
You also n might reduce your HOA insurance a fraction because of less sf (40 PLUS the stairs)
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
I must be missing something. Wil, when you wrote: "..increasing her unit by acquiring the common area means that those not getting the common area are losing something." What is it they lose if there's never any reason to go to that common area?
Our situation is the same in that the Owner also incorporated a common area hallway into interior of their combined unit.
They did not, of course, incorporate the elevator vestibule & hallway to their two "front" doors & two emergency stairwells that go down, but very importantly, to the roof where a great deal of equipment is.
Our situation is the same in that the Owner also incorporated a common area hallway into interior of their combined unit.
They did not, of course, incorporate the elevator vestibule & hallway to their two "front" doors & two emergency stairwells that go down, but very importantly, to the roof where a great deal of equipment is.
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
Here is the rest of the law. It has very different requirements than what you have stated, but the idea of a grant is the same. Note that the law requires permission from all units that immediately adjoin the area, so this means your third floor units that are on the opposite side of the wall from the area must approve it. Also the last sentence implies to me that once the area has been granted, that you can't get the area back. Ask your attorney about it.
"(ii) Grant to or designate for any unit owner the right to use, whether exclusively or in common with other unit owners, any limited common area and facility, whether or not provided for in the master deed, upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners; provided, however, that consent has been obtained from (a) all owners and first mortgagees of units shown on the recorded condominium plans as immediately adjoining the limited common area or facility so designated and (b) 51 per cent of the number of all mortgagees holding first mortgages on units within the condominium who have given notice of their desire to be notified thereof as provided in subsection (5) of section 4. In such case as the limited common area or facility shall directly and substantially impede access to any unit, the consent of the unit owner of such unit and its first mortgagee, if such mortgagee has requested notice as aforesaid, shall also be required. Such grant or designation, and the acceptance thereof, shall be effective 30 days following the recording, within the chain of title of the master deed or of the declaration of trust or by-laws, of an instrument duly executed by the governing body of the organization of unit owners and the grantee or designee and his mortgagees, which instrument shall accurately designate, depict and describe the area affected and the rights granted and designated, and shall recite compliance with the requirements of this subsection. Such grant or designation shall be considered an appurtenance to the subject unit and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the unit even though such interest is not expressly mentioned or described in the conveyance or other instrument."
"(ii) Grant to or designate for any unit owner the right to use, whether exclusively or in common with other unit owners, any limited common area and facility, whether or not provided for in the master deed, upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners; provided, however, that consent has been obtained from (a) all owners and first mortgagees of units shown on the recorded condominium plans as immediately adjoining the limited common area or facility so designated and (b) 51 per cent of the number of all mortgagees holding first mortgages on units within the condominium who have given notice of their desire to be notified thereof as provided in subsection (5) of section 4. In such case as the limited common area or facility shall directly and substantially impede access to any unit, the consent of the unit owner of such unit and its first mortgagee, if such mortgagee has requested notice as aforesaid, shall also be required. Such grant or designation, and the acceptance thereof, shall be effective 30 days following the recording, within the chain of title of the master deed or of the declaration of trust or by-laws, of an instrument duly executed by the governing body of the organization of unit owners and the grantee or designee and his mortgagees, which instrument shall accurately designate, depict and describe the area affected and the rights granted and designated, and shall recite compliance with the requirements of this subsection. Such grant or designation shall be considered an appurtenance to the subject unit and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the unit even though such interest is not expressly mentioned or described in the conveyance or other instrument."
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
Wil, I think you are being really silly about the fairness issue. She is improving her unit, which usually benefits everyone. Improvements are generally considered a good thing, unless you are being childish? Others are not giving up anything except empty hallway that they do not use. And she (and anyone else who does it) can pay for the space and take care of maintenance and insurance, which relieves the rest of you from that financial burden.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Me thinks Wil is envious.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Kerry,
Just because no one goes into that area does not make it hers to grab. That area is jointly owned by everyone. This is why if it wasn't for this Limited Common Area channel all the mortgages in the building would have to consent to this. Why would mortgages have to consent to it if the area did not matter?
Just because no one goes into that area does not make it hers to grab. That area is jointly owned by everyone. This is why if it wasn't for this Limited Common Area channel all the mortgages in the building would have to consent to this. Why would mortgages have to consent to it if the area did not matter?
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/09/2016 3:00 PM
I must be missing something. Wil, when you wrote: "..increasing her unit by acquiring the common area means that those not getting the common area are losing something." What is it they lose if there's never any reason to go to that common area?
Our situation is the same in that the Owner also incorporated a common area hallway into interior of their combined unit.
They did not, of course, incorporate the elevator vestibule & hallway to their two "front" doors & two emergency stairwells that go down, but very importantly, to the roof where a great deal of equipment is.
I must be missing something. Wil, when you wrote: "..increasing her unit by acquiring the common area means that those not getting the common area are losing something." What is it they lose if there's never any reason to go to that common area?
Our situation is the same in that the Owner also incorporated a common area hallway into interior of their combined unit.
They did not, of course, incorporate the elevator vestibule & hallway to their two "front" doors & two emergency stairwells that go down, but very importantly, to the roof where a great deal of equipment is.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
John,
I beg to differ. Yes, some of us still believe in fairness. You were shown the condo you were buying. If you did not like the size you should not have bought it. What about this statement don't you understand?
I beg to differ. Yes, some of us still believe in fairness. You were shown the condo you were buying. If you did not like the size you should not have bought it. What about this statement don't you understand?
Quote:
Posted By JohnC46 on 08/09/2016 3:14 PM
Me thinks Wil is envious.
Me thinks Wil is envious.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Jeff,
And let me show you this case:
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
And let me show you this case:
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
Quote:
Posted By JeffT2 on 08/09/2016 3:04 PM
Here is the rest of the law. It has very different requirements than what you have stated, but the idea of a grant is the same. Note that the law requires permission from all units that immediately adjoin the area, so this means your third floor units that are on the opposite side of the wall from the area must approve it. Also the last sentence implies to me that once the area has been granted, that you can't get the area back. Ask your attorney about it.
"(ii) Grant to or designate for any unit owner the right to use, whether exclusively or in common with other unit owners, any limited common area and facility, whether or not provided for in the master deed, upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners; provided, however, that consent has been obtained from (a) all owners and first mortgagees of units shown on the recorded condominium plans as immediately adjoining the limited common area or facility so designated and (b) 51 per cent of the number of all mortgagees holding first mortgages on units within the condominium who have given notice of their desire to be notified thereof as provided in subsection (5) of section 4. In such case as the limited common area or facility shall directly and substantially impede access to any unit, the consent of the unit owner of such unit and its first mortgagee, if such mortgagee has requested notice as aforesaid, shall also be required. Such grant or designation, and the acceptance thereof, shall be effective 30 days following the recording, within the chain of title of the master deed or of the declaration of trust or by-laws, of an instrument duly executed by the governing body of the organization of unit owners and the grantee or designee and his mortgagees, which instrument shall accurately designate, depict and describe the area affected and the rights granted and designated, and shall recite compliance with the requirements of this subsection. Such grant or designation shall be considered an appurtenance to the subject unit and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the unit even though such interest is not expressly mentioned or described in the conveyance or other instrument."
Here is the rest of the law. It has very different requirements than what you have stated, but the idea of a grant is the same. Note that the law requires permission from all units that immediately adjoin the area, so this means your third floor units that are on the opposite side of the wall from the area must approve it. Also the last sentence implies to me that once the area has been granted, that you can't get the area back. Ask your attorney about it.
"(ii) Grant to or designate for any unit owner the right to use, whether exclusively or in common with other unit owners, any limited common area and facility, whether or not provided for in the master deed, upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners; provided, however, that consent has been obtained from (a) all owners and first mortgagees of units shown on the recorded condominium plans as immediately adjoining the limited common area or facility so designated and (b) 51 per cent of the number of all mortgagees holding first mortgages on units within the condominium who have given notice of their desire to be notified thereof as provided in subsection (5) of section 4. In such case as the limited common area or facility shall directly and substantially impede access to any unit, the consent of the unit owner of such unit and its first mortgagee, if such mortgagee has requested notice as aforesaid, shall also be required. Such grant or designation, and the acceptance thereof, shall be effective 30 days following the recording, within the chain of title of the master deed or of the declaration of trust or by-laws, of an instrument duly executed by the governing body of the organization of unit owners and the grantee or designee and his mortgagees, which instrument shall accurately designate, depict and describe the area affected and the rights granted and designated, and shall recite compliance with the requirements of this subsection. Such grant or designation shall be considered an appurtenance to the subject unit and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the unit even though such interest is not expressly mentioned or described in the conveyance or other instrument."
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By WilW1 on 08/09/2016 4:42 PM
Jeff,
And let me show you this case:
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
Jeff,
And let me show you this case:
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
I agree with the article. Your board should not automatically approve the grant just because one (or more) person wants it.
Notice that the law states "upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners". In addition to the other requirements in the law, your board has to come up with those terms.
Your board also has to separately approve (or not approve) the removal of a wall. See PitA's post about an engineer.
To do the grant, you will need precisely defined boundaries, and a description/drawing by a licensed architect, licensed engineer, or licensed surveyor. The description can be similar to the description of one of your condominium units in the Declaration. Include as much detail as possible about what is included, such as the wallboard, studs, flooring, sub floor, paint, etc. Consider who will maintain and repair what parts of the area in case of regular maintenance and in case of damage such as fire – this may help to determine the exact description of what you will grant. In some condominiums, you only own the paint and the space, but not the walls themselves, and this granted area may be similar or not to your units. Also consider who pays for insurance going forward. Make these terms a part of the grant.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask: Why is a renovation plan of one owner so important as to require all this?
I agree with the article. Your board should not automatically approve the grant just because one (or more) person wants it.
Notice that the law states "upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners". In addition to the other requirements in the law, your board has to come up with those terms.
Your board also has to separately approve (or not approve) the removal of a wall. See PitA's post about an engineer.
To do the grant, you will need precisely defined boundaries, and a description/drawing by a licensed architect, licensed engineer, or licensed surveyor. The description can be similar to the description of one of your condominium units in the Declaration. Include as much detail as possible about what is included, such as the wallboard, studs, flooring, sub floor, paint, etc. Consider who will maintain and repair what parts of the area in case of regular maintenance and in case of damage such as fire – this may help to determine the exact description of what you will grant. In some condominiums, you only own the paint and the space, but not the walls themselves, and this granted area may be similar or not to your units. Also consider who pays for insurance going forward. Make these terms a part of the grant.
Quote:
Posted By JeffT2 on 08/09/2016 5:22 PM
Posted By WilW1 on 08/09/2016 4:42 PM
Jeff,
And let me show you this case:
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
Jeff,
And let me show you this case:
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
I agree with the article. Your board should not automatically approve the grant just because one (or more) person wants it.
Notice that the law states "upon such terms as deemed appropriate by the governing body of the organization of unit owners". In addition to the other requirements in the law, your board has to come up with those terms.
Your board also has to separately approve (or not approve) the removal of a wall. See PitA's post about an engineer.
To do the grant, you will need precisely defined boundaries, and a description/drawing by a licensed architect, licensed engineer, or licensed surveyor. The description can be similar to the description of one of your condominium units in the Declaration. Include as much detail as possible about what is included, such as the wallboard, studs, flooring, sub floor, paint, etc. Consider who will maintain and repair what parts of the area in case of regular maintenance and in case of damage such as fire – this may help to determine the exact description of what you will grant. In some condominiums, you only own the paint and the space, but not the walls themselves, and this granted area may be similar or not to your units. Also consider who pays for insurance going forward. Make these terms a part of the grant.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Jeff,
To me, these passages on the case really caught my attention:
"Occasionally, Unit Owners seek to perform modifications and renovations within their Units. Often times, this proceeds without incident. Sometimes, however, the modifications implicate or impact the Condominium’s common areas and facilities, and therefore in such instances, prior approval from the Condominium’s governing body is required in advance of undertaking such modifications or renovations. Unit Owners may be frustrated by this requirement, especially in cases where the impacted common areas and facilities may not be accessible or visible to other Unit Owners, but it is important to remember that all Unit Owners hold an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities and such common areas and facilities may not be modified at the sole behest of one Unit Owner absent prior approval."
"The Board of Managers indicated that it would grant approval for the proposed renovations, provided that the Unit Owners acknowledge that the Condominium association owned the two walls in question and agreed to the Board’s reservation of a right to have the Unit Owners reconstruct the walls at their expense for potential future common use, because they were designated as “common elements” on floor plans expressly incorporated into the Condominium’s Master Deed and the Unit Deed. The Unit Owners objected to the condition and filed a fourteen count complaint against the Board of Managers based on various theories of liability, ranging from civil conspiracy to emotional distress."
"In rejecting the Unit Owners’ arguments, the Court held that the floor plans incorporated into the Master Deed unambiguously identified the two walls at issue as common elements and the fact of whether the walls ultimately proved to be structural or not or whether the walls contained common utilities 'would not affect the narrow question of ownership.'”
"Central to the concept of condominium ownership is the principle that each owner, in exchange for the benefits of association with other owners, 'must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property.'”
"While it may be the case that a Unit Owner disagrees with the Board’s decision as it relates to a request to modify common area, the Unit Owner is still obligated to act in compliance therewith, as the Board is simply acting to preserve and maintain the Condominium’s common areas and facilities for the benefit of the entire association of Unit Owners, whom hold an undivided interest therein."
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
To me, these passages on the case really caught my attention:
"Occasionally, Unit Owners seek to perform modifications and renovations within their Units. Often times, this proceeds without incident. Sometimes, however, the modifications implicate or impact the Condominium’s common areas and facilities, and therefore in such instances, prior approval from the Condominium’s governing body is required in advance of undertaking such modifications or renovations. Unit Owners may be frustrated by this requirement, especially in cases where the impacted common areas and facilities may not be accessible or visible to other Unit Owners, but it is important to remember that all Unit Owners hold an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities and such common areas and facilities may not be modified at the sole behest of one Unit Owner absent prior approval."
"The Board of Managers indicated that it would grant approval for the proposed renovations, provided that the Unit Owners acknowledge that the Condominium association owned the two walls in question and agreed to the Board’s reservation of a right to have the Unit Owners reconstruct the walls at their expense for potential future common use, because they were designated as “common elements” on floor plans expressly incorporated into the Condominium’s Master Deed and the Unit Deed. The Unit Owners objected to the condition and filed a fourteen count complaint against the Board of Managers based on various theories of liability, ranging from civil conspiracy to emotional distress."
"In rejecting the Unit Owners’ arguments, the Court held that the floor plans incorporated into the Master Deed unambiguously identified the two walls at issue as common elements and the fact of whether the walls ultimately proved to be structural or not or whether the walls contained common utilities 'would not affect the narrow question of ownership.'”
"Central to the concept of condominium ownership is the principle that each owner, in exchange for the benefits of association with other owners, 'must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property.'”
"While it may be the case that a Unit Owner disagrees with the Board’s decision as it relates to a request to modify common area, the Unit Owner is still obligated to act in compliance therewith, as the Board is simply acting to preserve and maintain the Condominium’s common areas and facilities for the benefit of the entire association of Unit Owners, whom hold an undivided interest therein."
https://meeb.com/condominium-common-areas-cannot-be-modified-at-sole-behest-of-individual-unit-owners/
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
I think we all agree, Wil, that the Owner needs to do it "right," get approvals fem the Board and/or neighbors, and it's gonna cost her.
Btw, what do your own governing docs say about the HOA's ability to sell or grant common area to an Owner?
Btw, what do your own governing docs say about the HOA's ability to sell or grant common area to an Owner?
PitA
Posts: 1,416
Posts: 1,416
Posted:
But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask: Why is a renovation plan of one owner so important as to require all this?
Because said owner wishes to renovate something which they do NOT exclusively own.
D'OH
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Re: PiTa's last remark (minus the d'oh), In our condo building, and I assume most if not all, any penetration beyond the sheetrock in our own unit requires ARC approval. romping walls or partial walls needs approval. The same applies to our exclusive use balconies, patios & decks, which no one ever has applied to do.
The purpose is to maintain the structural integrity of the building. In the case of walls, too, the architectural and mechanical drawings must be examined to make sure no plumbing or ductwork is behind the wall.
What are the ARC Guidelines in your condo, Wil?
The purpose is to maintain the structural integrity of the building. In the case of walls, too, the architectural and mechanical drawings must be examined to make sure no plumbing or ductwork is behind the wall.
What are the ARC Guidelines in your condo, Wil?
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
I believe Wil's issue is them doing it regardless of how done. Yes it has to be done properly but I doubt that will satisfy Wil.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
Think you're right, John.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Kerry,
Here's how a lawyer described what our condo docs say:
"I took a QUICK look at the condo docs, etc., with regard to the proposal to incorporate what is currently a common area into one of the units. The trustees should be sure to review the following:
"Condo Trust, Article VIII(g)(ii): “The consent of the owners of units to which at least SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT (67.0%) of the votes in the Condominium Trust are allocated, and the approval of at least FIFTY-ONE PERCENT (51.0%) of the First Mortgagees (based on one vote for each unit subject to a mortgage held by an eligible First Mortgagee), shall be required to add or amend any material provisions of the Constituent Documents of the project, which establish, provide for, govern or regulate any of the following: … (5) rights to use the common areas … (8) definition of unit boundaries … (10) convertibility of units into common areas or of common areas into units … (12) reallocation of interests in the general or limited common areas or rights to their use.”
"Also, MGL c 183A s 5(b)(2) governs the ability of the trustees to transfer or grant easements over the common areas, and requires various percentages for approval by owners and mortgagees.
"...You should definitely review the proposal with them [condo association lawyer] before moving forward. I would think this could create a significant title issue for the unit (and maybe other units) if it is not done correctly. Any costs incurred (lawyers, recording fees, postage) should be paid by the unit requesting the change."
But when the proposal is considered under a "Grant of Limited Common Area," the requirements change and the bar is much lower. She paid our condo association lawyer for a consultation and he claimed that this is what is needed:
Her mortgagee's consent and a vote of 51% approval of the percentage interest ("because the language in the condominium statute about grants of limited common area trumps the language in the condo docs.").
Here's how a lawyer described what our condo docs say:
"I took a QUICK look at the condo docs, etc., with regard to the proposal to incorporate what is currently a common area into one of the units. The trustees should be sure to review the following:
"Condo Trust, Article VIII(g)(ii): “The consent of the owners of units to which at least SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT (67.0%) of the votes in the Condominium Trust are allocated, and the approval of at least FIFTY-ONE PERCENT (51.0%) of the First Mortgagees (based on one vote for each unit subject to a mortgage held by an eligible First Mortgagee), shall be required to add or amend any material provisions of the Constituent Documents of the project, which establish, provide for, govern or regulate any of the following: … (5) rights to use the common areas … (8) definition of unit boundaries … (10) convertibility of units into common areas or of common areas into units … (12) reallocation of interests in the general or limited common areas or rights to their use.”
"Also, MGL c 183A s 5(b)(2) governs the ability of the trustees to transfer or grant easements over the common areas, and requires various percentages for approval by owners and mortgagees.
"...You should definitely review the proposal with them [condo association lawyer] before moving forward. I would think this could create a significant title issue for the unit (and maybe other units) if it is not done correctly. Any costs incurred (lawyers, recording fees, postage) should be paid by the unit requesting the change."
But when the proposal is considered under a "Grant of Limited Common Area," the requirements change and the bar is much lower. She paid our condo association lawyer for a consultation and he claimed that this is what is needed:
Her mortgagee's consent and a vote of 51% approval of the percentage interest ("because the language in the condominium statute about grants of limited common area trumps the language in the condo docs.").
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/09/2016 5:43 PM
I think we all agree, Wil, that the Owner needs to do it "right," get approvals fem the Board and/or neighbors, and it's gonna cost her.
Btw, what do your own governing docs say about the HOA's ability to sell or grant common area to an Owner?
I think we all agree, Wil, that the Owner needs to do it "right," get approvals fem the Board and/or neighbors, and it's gonna cost her.
Btw, what do your own governing docs say about the HOA's ability to sell or grant common area to an Owner?
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
PitA,
I beg to differ. I don't think that simply because this person has made a proposal it should be assumed that it must be done, even if it's structurally sound. You are missing the issue. But I will get back to you later.
Because said owner wishes to renovate something which they do NOT exclusively own.
D'OH
I beg to differ. I don't think that simply because this person has made a proposal it should be assumed that it must be done, even if it's structurally sound. You are missing the issue. But I will get back to you later.
Quote:
Posted By PitA on 08/10/2016 4:21 AM
But I don't think it is unreasonable to ask: Why is a renovation plan of one owner so important as to require all this?
Because said owner wishes to renovate something which they do NOT exclusively own.
D'OH
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
John,
The issue to me has never been the structural soundness of the proposal.
I simply do not believe it is fair for this proposal to go through. And I know that I am not alone in feeling this way.
There are many condo associations in America that are with me on this and for good reasons.
Living in a condo is very different from living in a house.
You can try to trash my thinking by claiming that I'm envious of the person making the proposal. But this won't make me defensive. I'll simply try to stick to common sense and the American notion of fairness. Yes, some of us still believe in these seemingly old-fashioned ideas which to some may seem naive.
The issue to me has never been the structural soundness of the proposal.
I simply do not believe it is fair for this proposal to go through. And I know that I am not alone in feeling this way.
There are many condo associations in America that are with me on this and for good reasons.
Living in a condo is very different from living in a house.
You can try to trash my thinking by claiming that I'm envious of the person making the proposal. But this won't make me defensive. I'll simply try to stick to common sense and the American notion of fairness. Yes, some of us still believe in these seemingly old-fashioned ideas which to some may seem naive.
Quote:
Posted By JohnC46 on 08/10/2016 1:54 PM
I believe Wil's issue is them doing it regardless of how done. Yes it has to be done properly but I doubt that will satisfy Wil.
I believe Wil's issue is them doing it regardless of how done. Yes it has to be done properly but I doubt that will satisfy Wil.
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
I still think there's something screwy about converting this common area into limited use common area since it's be inside of her separate interest (private property).
I also think that s the structural integrity of your building is exactly what the Board should be concerned with along the other issues raised.
I'm very sorry to say that I don't "get" what the fairness issues is, Wil. How is her paying for extra sf unfair to anyone when other residents don't use it anyway???
I also think that s the structural integrity of your building is exactly what the Board should be concerned with along the other issues raised.
I'm very sorry to say that I don't "get" what the fairness issues is, Wil. How is her paying for extra sf unfair to anyone when other residents don't use it anyway???
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Kerry,
Our condo building is situated in a highly desirable real estate market of Greater Boston. Let's put it another way: Our condo building is within walking distance of Harvard University.
Two units have gone on the market very recently. I believe one has just had its closing a week or so ago. The other one will have its closing on September 7th.
Whenever there's a condo for sale in our building, we get very eager people turning up for the Open Houses. And offers are made very fast.
To me, the structural integrity of a renovation project is not that important. We take it for granted that any person proposing to take over a common area space will pull a permit and get all their ducks lined up.
What do you mean by stating that the person trying to take over the common area will pay "extra"? Are you talking about condo fees?
Our condo building is situated in a highly desirable real estate market of Greater Boston. Let's put it another way: Our condo building is within walking distance of Harvard University.
Two units have gone on the market very recently. I believe one has just had its closing a week or so ago. The other one will have its closing on September 7th.
Whenever there's a condo for sale in our building, we get very eager people turning up for the Open Houses. And offers are made very fast.
To me, the structural integrity of a renovation project is not that important. We take it for granted that any person proposing to take over a common area space will pull a permit and get all their ducks lined up.
What do you mean by stating that the person trying to take over the common area will pay "extra"? Are you talking about condo fees?
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/10/2016 6:18 PM
I still think there's something screwy about converting this common area into limited use common area since it's be inside of her separate interest (private property).
I also think that s the structural integrity of your building is exactly what the Board should be concerned with along the other issues raised.
I'm very sorry to say that I don't "get" what the fairness issues is, Wil. How is her paying for extra sf unfair to anyone when other residents don't use it anyway???
I still think there's something screwy about converting this common area into limited use common area since it's be inside of her separate interest (private property).
I also think that s the structural integrity of your building is exactly what the Board should be concerned with along the other issues raised.
I'm very sorry to say that I don't "get" what the fairness issues is, Wil. How is her paying for extra sf unfair to anyone when other residents don't use it anyway???
KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550
Posts: 14,550
Posted:
She will pay "extra" for the permits and whatever else is required by your city & Board.
So what if you're near Harvard? How does that fit your "fairness" concern??
If you do it right, the rest of your HOA should pay fractionally ess for maintenance, reserves and anything else that she encompasses into her ours private property.
So what if you're near Harvard? How does that fit your "fairness" concern??
If you do it right, the rest of your HOA should pay fractionally ess for maintenance, reserves and anything else that she encompasses into her ours private property.
WilW1 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 36
Posts: 36
Posted:
Hi Kerry,
Let me try to explain things a bit more clearly for you.
The cost for permits is negligible within the big scheme of things.
The cost of what HOA will save by her paying "less" for "maintenance, reserves and anything else that she encompasses into her ours private property," as you put it, is no big deal. To me, it certainly does not justify her getting the common area.
Where does the fairness argument come in? Everyone else in the building is living with the space they acquired when they bought their individual unit. Why should others give up what they commonly own so that one person can be happy? So far your reasons don't cut it with me.
Also, I think what this person, when I sought advice, told me cannot be dismissed. He said to me:
"If it were me, I'd argue that, as a unit owner, I own an equal share (1/12th) of the value of all the common areas. Granting a change to the master deed diminishes the value of your (and 10 other unit owners) share of the common property for the enrichment of a single unit owner. If the current value of your unit is $350,000 and after the change it drops to $330,000, is that owner willing to pay you the $20,000 difference? Is there any reason they SHOULDN'T pay you for that loss?"
Let me try to explain things a bit more clearly for you.
The cost for permits is negligible within the big scheme of things.
The cost of what HOA will save by her paying "less" for "maintenance, reserves and anything else that she encompasses into her ours private property," as you put it, is no big deal. To me, it certainly does not justify her getting the common area.
Where does the fairness argument come in? Everyone else in the building is living with the space they acquired when they bought their individual unit. Why should others give up what they commonly own so that one person can be happy? So far your reasons don't cut it with me.
Also, I think what this person, when I sought advice, told me cannot be dismissed. He said to me:
"If it were me, I'd argue that, as a unit owner, I own an equal share (1/12th) of the value of all the common areas. Granting a change to the master deed diminishes the value of your (and 10 other unit owners) share of the common property for the enrichment of a single unit owner. If the current value of your unit is $350,000 and after the change it drops to $330,000, is that owner willing to pay you the $20,000 difference? Is there any reason they SHOULDN'T pay you for that loss?"
Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 08/11/2016 9:50 PM
She will pay "extra" for the permits and whatever else is required by your city & Board.
So what if you're near Harvard? How does that fit your "fairness" concern??
If you do it right, the rest of your HOA should pay fractionally ess for maintenance, reserves and anything else that she encompasses into her ours private property.
She will pay "extra" for the permits and whatever else is required by your city & Board.
So what if you're near Harvard? How does that fit your "fairness" concern??
If you do it right, the rest of your HOA should pay fractionally ess for maintenance, reserves and anything else that she encompasses into her ours private property.
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
The cost to the owner includes legal fees, engineering fees, more legal fees, recording fee, your administrative costs, permits, and her construction costs. Also, you don't have to give her the space. You may sell her the space itself, perhaps for the cost of construction of similar space, or an appraised value. (She should also pay for the appraisal). You may also charge her other costs (an assessment-like surcharge) year after year, since she will have more space, so she can pay more. These are all items of the terms that the law allows you to impose. In fact, if you tell her all the costs, she may decide it is not worth it.
🎯 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