Definition of "lawn furniture"

If you all don't like the rule, then change the rule. There is mechanics for doing that in your documents. Things change so why not change them?

Are you suggesting an HOA is run using common sense?

Jeez, Max.

If the HOA does lawn maintenance, I can see why no furniture is allowed on the lawn.

CC&Rs are hard to change. Do they say nothing is allowed on the porches? Are the porches Owners' separate interest or are they limited common area? Our mother way, what do you documents say about porches?

Who takes care of the front yards, David? Who fixes the porches?

Thinking out loud here...

I'd define as "furniture that is built to withstand repeated exposure to the elements" - so the stuff on the porch would be questionable, although I agree it can look nice.

The trouble is that "lawn furniture" is too vague since we have experienced board members and PMs disagreeing. In court cases judges often refer to "the commonly understood meaning of the term" but that's not helpful either.

The CC&Rs in this case talked about placement in back yards only, which suggests it's a visual thing rather than an obstruction that would interfere with lawn care. In which case something like those cheap aluminum folding chairs or the plastic stuff is probably what they meant, rather than a sturdy and attractive bench.

But still... I think the language is too vague to be reasonably and consistently enforceable. The board should think about making rules to clarify the restriction or amending it, or this will be a continual source of conflict - which means the benefits of enforcing this restriction probably won't justify the cost in terms of time, money and annoyed neighbors. (We amended our CC&Rs to clean up a parking restriction that was unenforceable in its original form.)

To keep this clear. What David cited is the CC&Rs, NOT the rules. I do think the HOA's board can elaborate on the CC&R section IN th rules & Regs y defining "lawn furniture" as a start.

I'm still surprised that the CC&Rs do not state who's responsible for maintaining the porches. Maybe the Architectural Guidelines if they exist? Surely it was not the intent of the developer to have nothing on porches but potted plants & a welcome mat?

Thanks for adding Ben's advice, Augustin--I missed it!

When you get to making rules about what may be on porches, we have a lot re: our patios/decks/balconies on our twin high rises.

Are other items permitted on the lawns, David, like, you know, gnomes, flamingoes, campaign signs. etc.?

Your property manager is being picky. I have a 2 seat porch swing with a canopy that I love. If someone told me I couldn't have it on the front porch, I would tell them to take a hike. I am selling my home to cash in on the hot real estate market right now. I will never purchase another property in an HOA because of stupid stuff like this. Makes life less complicated. I have inquired about a couple of properties and when the agent tells me there is an HOA, that is a deal breaker for me.

This is why people are given copies of the CC&Rs before they close on their homes - and if not, the CC&Rs are public info and would be available at the county recorder's office (and often of their website) to anyone who asks for them.

It's always a good idea to, ya know, read the terms of a contract you're signing before you actually sign it *so that you know what you're getting into*. Particularly contracts involving what, for many, will be the largest purchase of their lives.

If you willingly sign up for stupid, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get stupid.

So you are refusing to enter into any contract ever again because you apparently did not bother reading the last one?

I am not a fan of silly rules either so I live in an HOA that doesn't have them. My last home was not part of an HOA but the town ordinances were much more restrictive than the CC&Rs I have now.

My main objection to HOAs and COAs is that I'm forced into a business relationship with a bunch of people I did not (and often would not) choose.

The silly stuff is just that: silly. It doesn't threaten my financial well-being and is not a hill I'd choose to die on.

It's unfortunate that in some areas it's impossible to find relatively new homes that aren't in community associations, but as land supplies shrink and the need for housing increases (and the desire of municipalities to push expenses for infrastructure onto private citizens also increases) this is way we're going.

I agree with Kerry's comments, but only up to a point.

There are some risks associated with ownership in a community association. And there are ways for owners to minimize these risk to the point where they may become acceptable tradeoffs and not deal breakers.

Pretending that these risks don't exist is not "positive", and as long as discussions are respectful and honest I think the topic is fair game.

Much of the criticism and "drama" arises because people buy without truly understanding what the implications are, and it's in everyone's best interest that buyers go into it with their eyes wide open. (Also, IMHO, many of the big money interests who benefit financially from these communities also benefit by having uninformed buyers who don't question things too closely. People shouldn't have to rely on buying and getting burned in order to learn what they need to know.)

Apparently those of us who prefer no HOA living struck a nerve with you. It is personal preference and it's not whining. You could say that about every poster here presenting a problem is whining.

By the way, I do not have a sad heart. I have a happy heart. I am happy for you that you like your life in your high rise condo. You apparently have a competent board that takes a thorough and objective approach to HOA issues. You can certainly see how one's view of HOAs can be shaped by their experience living in one.

I appreciate your knowledge and experience Kerry, and I do not have board experience but it's not your decision to make about who posts here.

My main point is that HOAs range from zero control over your private property to almost complete control. I guess I'm trying to understand why someone would not live in HOA A because HOA B has draconian rules. You could say the same thing about cities. I won't live in San Antonio because I don't like the laws in Houston. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

When a board goes rogue, then advising people to move seems like valuable advice even though it's arguably negative on HOAs/Condos.

In the last week this forum has seen:

-- A Missouri HOA assessing fines to an owner where the covenants give the HOA no authority to do so. How much is this going to cost the owner to fight legally?

-- An Oregon burned out HOA president-director, in a HOA with five sizable parks, who obviously needs a board to re-structure management, and probably raise assessments, such that the PM takes on a much larger role. The battle this already exhausted HOA president-director will have to fight to raise assessments to get a real property manager is likely going to be unpleasant.

-- A Tennessee condo with a COA attorney telling the members and board that the President-director remains president until the next annual election (even though the bylaws and corporate law say a board majority/plurality can remove him as president). Said COA attorney is an associate or partner in the COA President-director's law firm.

Some HOAs/COAs are fine. But I think sugar-coating is not fair to the public that comes here to learn.

I agree.