Opinions: is this rule enforceable?

Almost certainly not legal. And who is to say what a "family" is?

Yes, the remainder of the paragraph outlines the types of businesses that can’t be run, etc. I have just always been struck by the verbiage I regarding families. If it were legal and usual, that would be great, I have always questioned it. For starters, we have unmarried couples living together. Seems this rule would forbid them.

You guys aren't looking at this from a legal definition.

It's clearly intended to allow families of all types to live in the single family homes. This would include people married, people not married, a group of college students, etc.

It is intended to block non family (non residential) uses of property. For example, a group home for disabled adults; two family homes; and other non family homes.

Whether or not that is enforceable depends on laws and court cases of your state which I am not familiar with.

It's mainly group homes.

Homes for disabled adults.
Homes for aging adults that are similar to small nursing homes.
Homes for groups of homeless or nearly homeless
Homes for groups of young children that are wards of the state
etc, etc, etc

None of the homes listed above are families and the CC&Rs are intended to prohibit these.

They would also prohibit homes with two separate kitchens because those are two family homes which are different than single family homes.

What the hell would we all do without case law.

I agree that the intent is probably to prevent group homes. The problem is that it is so ambiguous that it could be construed to mean traditional families. We have a similar clause in our restrictions and I have heard, on at least three occasions, people argue that non-family members cannot live in the home. Fortunately, the majority of the board has always shot it down because it would be wrong and unenforceable.

We aren't judges, so we really can't say if this is enforceable or not, although I suppose you can find case law on both sides.

For instance, some look at this and think the CCR is designed to keep group homes out for intellectually disabled adults. I've visited these homes as part of my job and virtually all of them were owned by the company providing services to those residents. For the most part, the responsible ones keep the homes kept up and the residents don't roam the neighborhood howling at the moon or whatever people who believe in stereotypes think they're doing.

As some have noted, "family" can mean a lot of things these days. Personally, I'm more interested in rules that can keep renting to a minimum because too many can and do change the character of the community. By that, I mean the constant in and out create more maintenance costs, the landlord owners care more about the rent check than anything else, and all the other stuff you're read about on this website about the pros and cons of tenants.

I think the key is making sure people live in such a way that they don't turn their home into the Amityville house (or Flowers in the Attic house) or whatever haunted house they're showing on the Travel Channel. Stuff like making sure people don't let their pets run wild, turn down the volume of the TV or stereo at midnight, use the trash can cover so you don't create a buffet for rats, raccoons and flies, etc.

One will undoubtedly find trial courts going both ways on this. But trial court decisions are not case law. I expect case law is unified on the point. Why? Because like a buzillion HOA sites on the net say it's unlikely a HOA can keep a group home out. Said buzillion sites do frequently speak to simply enforcing the rules, precisely as you state here:

Also, any chatter about group homes being owned by a corporation and this translating to the group home being forbidden as "commercial": Come on. Lots of rental homes are owned by LLCs and other corporations.

I continue to think HOAs wanting to keep group homes out should home in on the rental aspect of group homes and the HOA's rental covenants.

I think most of us thought that.

You just made this up, right? I cannot imagine any city code defining a multi-family home thusly. I can imagine homes that have a kitchen on the main level and a kitchen in the basement, converted to a rec area.

By my reading, to qualify as multi-family, much more than merely the presence of two kitchens in one building is necessary. E.g. the living space including each kitchen would have to be accessible by a separate, outside locked door. The building one way or another has to be designed for occupancy by more than one family.

There's other sections of CCR's that cover all your scenarios. lets stay on topic here.

My interest is in the OP's covenant and other HOA's covenants requiring use solely for "single-family residential purposes." What does this mean? By my reading, the courts are very flexible when it comes to defining "families." I believe a mere two kitchens in one house (designed for occupancy by a single family) is not going to qualify, even if in fact two sets of parents, each with one kid, with multiple different last names, are residing in the home with, say, one main kitchen and a second, galley kitchen. As this forum points out now and then, if city occupancy limits are being violated, then this is something a HOA could pursue. But if occupancy limits are not being violated, and the aforementioned two kitchen setup happens to exist, then by my reading of the case law, no way do I see a court declaring that this home is not being used for single family residential purposes.

If push came to shove and folks landed in court over a dispute of this covenant, I expect the local city code, including of course the zoning law, may come into some play. Laws like California's that are addressing the housing shortage may come into play as well, potentially (or actually in the case of California) overriding some HOA's covenants.

I agree. Some are reading to much into it.

It occurs to me that if a bunch of experienced folks are having this much trouble interpreting what the proposed rule means, then it's too vague and ambiguous to be useful.

Are 7 college students living in the use a family?

David,

As others have said, to find out what is legal, you need to consult a local attorney.

I interpret that paragraph as prohibiting group homes (halfway houses, rehab centers, etc.). Especially since you identified that the rest of that section identifies business that are not allowed.

With all of that said. The reality of your question is that the Board is free to interpret that covenant how they desire and enforce that covenant based on their interpretation until someone challenges the issue. The challenge might be as simple as raising a question - causing the board to consult with an attorney, or as complex as a full blown court case followed by appeals of any ruling. That is the reality of your question.

The *NUMBER* of persons residing in a unit or home, nor the fact that they share a single kitchen or other common area, has nothing to do with whether they are considered a "family."

Here's a quote from our declaration that includes an occupancy restriction. It's more stringent than the Municipal Code and legally enforceable:

(b) Maximum Occupancy. No unit may be occupied by more than one family, or by more than 2 persons per bedroom. For this section, an infant under one year of age shall not count as a person.

Regards,
Steve