older children staying in a unit without owner present.

Some background. One couple owns a unit. This couple's brother-in-law owns another unit. The minor grandchildren of the couple who own a unit are staying in the brother-in-law's unit for about 6 days. The brother-in-law is not sleeping in the unit. Our current President thinks this is against our governing documents. Our governing documents state that units are not to be used for hotel or transient purposes. There is no charge for the children to stay in the unit and they are family not transients. I don't think that allowing these minors to stay in their uncle's unit without him present goes against our governing documents. The children's grandparents do check on the children frequently.

I am asking your opinion on this.
Our current President is a lawyer and I usually agree with her, but on this issue, I disagree with her.

Bonnie Gipson former President.

P.S. for those of you that happen to remember me, my cancer has been in remission for a little over two years, but I will never be getting back on the Board because I have too many "down" days. (arthritis, fibromyalge, trigeneaml neurolgia, in attention to lingering effects of the chemo treatment.

As long as family and no rental monies, it is none of the BOD's business.

Bonnie
How and the heck does this president know so much about the daily activities of these families? When you say minor children my thoughts go to ages that should not be left unattended. If you guys know so much about this family how old are the children? Sometimes you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. By the time she does anything they will be back in their respective houses and all the board will look like is nosey neighbors.

The president lives next to the unit the family is staying in. I learned tonight that the mother is staying with the children.

The Board Meeting was quite contentious tonight. People were calling the Board a gestapo and basically that we should not have to follow the rules. They were also upset about executive sessions. I tried to explain that there is a privacy issue. Also the Board meets with the Association Lawyer in executive session.

The man and his wife had his wife speak. His wife spoke and spoke and spoke repeating herself many times. She was upset with the Board of which her husband is Vice President. This Vice President was acting like the President giving people permission to speak and telling people to wait to speak. In my opinion this issue could have been handled by the Board in an executive session. This couple did not need to "stir the pot." Much incorrect information was presented and I could not let this pass. I corrected much correct information. One couple said they felt unwelcome (their children had forced the to move here ) since day one. I felt like telling them if they had not tried to burn down the building the day they moved in people might have been a little more welcoming to them.

Some one complained that we weren't acting very Christian since this was a "Christian Building". First time I knew it was a "Christian Building" Granted years ago a church built the building.

The issue? Keeping up appearances and nosey neighbors. The HOA is best to keep up with appearances on the OUTSIDE than the inside. Think the board crossed a personal line and needs to butt out.

Actually the Board was not given a chance to act on this manner before the Vice-President had many members riled. In my opinion if the Vice-President had not gotten every riled it could have been handled by the Board. I am not saying that the owners did not have a valid point. I am saying there was no need to get the many members riled. When I was President we had a similar situation. We acted on it without getting everyone riled. It was determined this was not a violation.

On a serious note:

It is NOT, repeat NOT, the CORPORATION's business UNLESS a specific COVENANT and/or RESTRICTION can be shown as VIOLATED by the informant IN WRITING.

else

J'accuse ... J'accuse ...

Darn no edit:

There is Federal, State, and Local law with which to contend including Corporate Law and HOA Law.

Thasts a loot of fun, no?

Nothing but the best as of 1996 here.

... such as the ability to 'code' replies

There is something written in our documents that the units are not to be used for hotel or transient purposes. In my opinion this is not a violation of that rule since they are not paying to stay in the unit and they are not transients.

I see your point. So if one takes not used for transient purposes too literally we could never have any guests?

Rentals may, or may not, be prohibited.

Tenancy may NOT be prohibited.

eg. an owner's guest, child, brother 'in residence' are non rent paying tenants

a renter is a PAYING (for the privilege) tenant

This is EXACTLY why one gets what one pays for ESPECIALLY in contract 'draw up' issues.

ps. the courts have repetitively ruled that nothing beyond the clear and obvious meaning is allowed to be 'read into' a Covenant - if it is ambiguous, it probably will be ruled unenforceable

The "Law" definition of a tenant may be different than the general public's 'interpretation':

tenancy (ˈtɛnənsɪ)
n, pl -cies
1. (Law) the temporary possession or holding by a tenant of lands or property owned by another
2. (Law) the period of holding or occupying such property
3. the period of holding office, a position, etc
4. (Law) property held or occupied by a tenant

WTF? Why is this even being seriously discussed? There is nothing to discuss. Tell the president to STFU and mind their own business. If anyone else agrees with this idiot lawyer gestapo president then tell them to STFU and mind their own business. This is way beyond ridiculous!

? Why ?

Why not ?

it breaks the senile demented boredom



? Do you really think this is a serious discussion ?