Different Rules & Regulations for Renters?

I'm just spitballing some ideas. Is it permissible to enact Rules & Regulations that are different for lessees/tenants/renters than they are for homeowners? For instance, our CC&Rs say up to 4 cats and dogs can be kept by a homeowner. Can we enact a Rule that limits a tenant/renter to 1 pet? What about vehicles? Can we allow homeowners to have motorcycles but prohibit tenants (and their guests, visitors and invitees) from brining them into the subdivision? Our other governing documents authorize the board to enact rules and regulations regarding leasing.

My off the cuff guess is that board created rules can not be used to place restrictions on renters that are not in the CCRs. I would certainly want a legal opinion before attempting to do it.

HOA's can and do control lease agreements for rentals within their community. It is how they have had their governing documents crafted, which mean they can have social security numbers on file.

Owners do not pay higher interest because of the number of investment units within a complex. Owners will pay higher interest rates because the property is an investment.

These are facts and you can't do anything about it.

Fact #1 The HOA does NOT fall under any business or other source that needs or requires a Social Security number. The law does say the HOA has the requirement to provide a social security number. I would NEVER EVER give my social security # to my HOA. If they asked, I'd tell them to stuff it your full of crap.

The HOA can put restrictions on the owners NOT renters. It's up to the owner's to apply those restrictions. If they don't, then they are held for violating the restrictions.

My Renter worked on motorcycle in my living room. He also moved a baby Emu into my backyard. Did NOT pay rent for 5 months. The HOA could do nothing about it. It was my responsibility. Plus Tenant's have rights a landlord can't violate. Since I did not have it in my rental agreement the tenant can't have an Emu (or animal not allowed in the CC&R's) I could not evict based on that. The tenant has the right to fight that in court. Which extends the eviction process.

So I don't believe the HOA should be involved in any restrictions other than against the owners/members. Everything else is the owner's responsibility.

Definitely a possibility. The two owners that would be affected by such a change here are both in their mid-90s and in assisted living facilities so I doubt, in any practical sense, they'd be challenging anything. That could change, of course.

I've been looking dozens of HOA CC&Rs here in my county alone and I have to say some of them are really wacky. More than a few restrict rentals and require language in a lease that gives the HOA the authority to evict an owner's tenants. There's no way we'd ever even consider that. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Some newer CC&Rs for single-family subdivisions with fee simple ownership still prohibit all rooftop satellite dishes, or at least they claim to have that power. Some of my admittedly way-out-of-the-box thinking is positively tame compared to things I've actually seen in some of these other CC&Rs.

Whether a HOA can impose substantively different rules on tenants vis-a-vis owners is an interesting topic. HUD has come out with guidance about ex-convicts, asserting that ex-convicts tend to be people of color. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act was to help those who historically had been screwed over by housing practices, and in particular, African American households. So HUD has counseled not discriminating against ex-convicts, even though ex-convicts are not technically a protected class. Tenants are similarly more likely to be African American vis-a-vis owners. Hence I think HUD may similar about discriminating against tenants vis-a-vis owners: Don't do it. I would rather not have a HOA community whose residency is around 50% or more tenants. But there is little I can do about it other than make sure the HOA enforces nuisance covenants in particular.

Since the president got the HOA attorney to write this letter to the tune of $1000 without board authorization, the first thing you need to do is demand she reimburse that money. If she refuses, remove her as president. Note that's not the same as putting her off the board - only homeowners can do that by voting her out or perhaps during a special meeting where recalling her would be the subject.

I live in a community where wacky tenants and the owners who rent to them has been a problem off and on for years, and have found you really need to concentrate on OWNERS. If you drive around a community or visit different floors in a high rise condo, I don't think you should be able to tell the difference between someone who rents vs. an owner occupant because EVERYONE should be complying by the same rules. It's bad enough when you have BS homeowners, but homeowners who allow bad tenants to come in and create chaos and disorder when they site back and collect rent checks is obscene in my opinion.

Instead, focus on the behavior and hammer the owner-landlords when people don't act right (after all all homeowners are ultimately responsible for the behavior of their household and visitors). For example, it matters not if a tenant has 1 pets vs. a homeowner' 4 - both cause problems if they let the animals run wild all over the place making noise, crapping everywhere and perhaps biting someone. The rules you already have to control that stuff should be adequate - all dogs on leashes and under the owner's control when they're out, pick up after your pet or be charged for cleaning and repairs to lawns, if necessary.

If you want a few specifics for owner/landlords, I think it would be OK to require they give tenants a copy of community rules and emphasize homeowners will ultimately be held responsible for violations. I also like requiring owners to notify the property manager of new tenants and their cars - it helps keep track of who's living in the house/townhouse/condo. Some communities have rules giving the association the right to go after tenants directly for rule violations up to and including eviction, but I've always feared that could create more problems and expense than what it's worth. Better to go after the homeowner for creating/harboring a nuisance via the behavior of the tenants - if he/she won't fix it, smack the pocketbook.