HOA limits residence to married or lineal descent

Hi,

I am living in an HOA as a homeowner. I want to have a friend and boyfriend live with me but the HOA is not letting me, saying that residence is only for the owner, married couples and direct lineal descent/lineal descent relatives. Is this discrimination or legal?

I want to stand up to the HOA but do not wish to sue.

I am in Texas, so the familial clause for unmarried couples doesn't apply to me. Let me know what your thoughts are or for further information.

It's a townhouse on a single-family residence lot.

I think what the HOA is saying is they don't want your home to become like a "frat house". Which means multiple un-related roommates. Which if you view the relationship between you and your boyfriend it kind of comes across that way. Especially if you plan on "renting" them a room.

It's most likely the last part they don't want. Renting your rooms out. Which did you mention this to your HOA? Because I am sure your friend is going to "rent" their room. Your boyfriend is going to "share" in your house payments as "rent". So this maybe why the HOA is against it altogether. Plus it adds additional parking and noise levels.

Thanks everyone for your replies. I wish Texas laws are like Florida but I don't think we have an anti-discriminatory clause like Florida does.

Melissa, I understand your point. In my view, we don't add any extra parking as we have our own garages, and we are pretty quiet as young professionals vs. a family of young kids. I am also not sure how they can prove someone is living with me, unless they track who is coming in and out of my house. I plan to appeal the violation at the next HOA meeting. If that doesn't go through, I plan on filing an exception and then contacting a lawyer. I am not familiar with HOAs but I hope they are willing to work things out.

I asked our attorney about the status of roommates, non-married partners, etc., and he told me the following:

* A person who is legally married to the person whose name is on the deed is an owner.

* A person who is living with an owner but not legally married to them is not an owner/member of the association. This non-owner group includes roommates, tenants and domestic partners since Ohio does not recognize common law marriage. The non-owner group may or may not include adult, first degree relatives of the owner (child, parent, sibling) depending on the wording of the governing docs.

* A person who is not legally married to an owner doesn't enjoy the legal rights or benefits of ownership. If that person has not signed a formal lease, that person may also not be protected by the state's landlord-tenant laws (although these can get a little squirrelly if you try to evict someone who's been living in a home, with or without a lease).

* HOA rules and regulations can also get squirrelly when dealing with non-owner, non-tenant residents. For instance, our old parking restriction said that owners may not use guest parking, but made no reference to non-owner residents. We ended up amending the restriction, as it was unenforceable as originally worded.

* If I were on the board of the OP's HOA, I'd be talking to a lawyer about this. There are in fact legal forms of discrimination (such as the distinction between owners and non-owners) and an HOA can enforce these. Whether or not they can prevent someone from living in a community is a different question.

(I'd also be having a chat with an attorney before I got myself into a domestic partnership because I may discover that I no longer have the rights that I believe I have. But that's neither here nor there for this discussion.)

How would they enforce the lineal descent part?

Also, depending where you live, there's a chance that marital status might be covered under a local law at the city or county level.

Is this restriction in your CCRs or your Rules and Regulations?

Thought this was a townhouse?

Yes it is, it's called "condominium declaration for ___ townhouses." Odd, I know.

You're right. I may have to do that if they do not allow him to live there since he does have another address which is his "permanent" address (aka his childhood house, which is incidentally relatively close by).

The CCRs say that anyone who stays longer than 10 days is a resident.

It stays in the CC&R that HOA can use forcible entry? Also, I have a delightful neighbor on the board and she likes to keep track of who is coming in and out of our houses.

Can you do anything with the deed? Maybe add them to it and at the same time have an agreement of sale selling you back their ownership for $1 when ever you demand it. I would talk to a real estate attorney and see if there was a way you could add them without losing control of ownership or money down the road.

Townhouses are usually HOAs. But they can also be Condominiums. Different laws apply. Not that odd.

Do they require marriage licenses and DNA tests?

What a ludicrous rule.

Never seen anything like that.

In your shoes, I would probably wait for the Board of Managers to send notice that my boyfriend has to leave. No telling how long that will take or if it happens at all.

After receiving notice, I would have my boyfriend stay at his parent's house every 7-10 days. That would avoid the 10 day trigger.

Silly rule.

If this is the OP's condo, I would modify what I said.

All of page 9 is about right of first refusal. You can't sell, rent, or lease a unit without offering it first to the Association. There is also a right to evict and take possession if you don't get prior approval. Not sure if this would stand up in court, but I wouldn't want to be the one to test it.

There is also a rule in bold type (no page number) that all units are restricted for single family use only with a $1500 fine for violators.

Under these circumstances, I wouldn't wait for a violation letter. But you could still try having the boyfriend stay at parent's house at least once every 7-10 days.

I find it interesting that right of first refusal extends to now living children of Robert F. Kennedy, former Attorney General and the now living children of Bob Casey M.C. a former member of Congress, whichever of their children outlived the other, PLUS the period of 21 years from the date of the execution of this declaration. WOW.

That is a new one on me.

Looks like you ran into the rule against perpetuities Mark. Very old and very confusing.

Definitely a possibility, am definitely considering this option.

This is where I have a major issue with developers and lawyers putting into place a set of boilerplate documents without any knowledge of whether they fit that complex or not.

Just for my understanding, if there's no clause on short-term leases, would short term renting (like airbnb) for <10 days break that CC&R clause? In Texas, we recently had a case go up to the state supreme court (Tarr vs. Tanglewood) that states renting out on airbnb doesn't break the single family residential restriction. If I can't have roommates maybe I can have guests.

And God help those HOA members who think they have a right to make forcible entry over your boyfriend.

It doesn't take an individual to make changes to the documents. It takes a "village". So others may not agree with the rules as well. No reason it can not be changed by following the rules in the documents. If you actually READ your documents and NOT assume them, you will see they state must be compliant with State, local, and federal laws. Which those laws supercede the HOA documents despite what may be written at the time...

These are after all your neighbors.... So hope your not living in a world under constant attack and full of baby hitlers… LOL!

In a country where divorce is rampant and expensive, I cannot blame you for not marrying, of course. But now you want to say you want to consider a status of common law marriage. Texas has a few hefty requirements to establish a common law marriage. They go beyond merely "being together" for many years.

Once you have won your right to be seen as married, under Texas law one party can sue another for proper disposition of what becomes "community property" after establishment of the common law marriage.

In Texas, it seems common law marriage has pretty much the same disadvantages of non-common law marriage. Does the OP want the "boyfriend" to have significant legal rights to what currently is her property? If so, great. Will the boyfriend feel the same? If his "childhood house" (mentioned in an earlier post) translates to his parents' house, and the boyfriend has no property to speak of, sure. Divorce (required once a common law marriage is set up) will make him better off than before (and the OP, worse off). If the boyfriend owns the "childhood house," maybe not.

JaredC, she owns the townhouse-condominium under the terms of the condominium covenants. As long as the covenants do not violate either federal, state or municipal law, or are not wildly unreasonable, the OP is bound by them. Texas law says it is not unreasonable to discriminate on the basis of marital status. No Texas court and no federal court has ruled otherwise. Also, time and again, the courts have likened HOAs, as a matter of law, to landlords.