Caretakers Living Rent Free Before 2 Year Restriction

I live/work in NY and bought a condo in Palm Beach County FL that has a 2 year restriction before I can lease it out.

I purchased this condo to be near my very elderly mother and brother who are disabled and live alone in a small apartment nearby.
Since the purchase in June 2022, have been emptying, renovating and updating the unit.
Unfortunately my job situation changed recently and I cannot leave NY now except for a few days a few times a year.

Long time family friends (55+ couple) are willing to care for my mom and brother every day in exchange for me allowing them to live in my condo rent free.
They have no children or pets or smoke. Good quiet hardworking people. My mom knows this couple for many many years and is only comfortable with them attending her. Same for my brother who is so overweight he needs 2 people to move him.

Will I have trouble with the HOA? Can't I as an owner allow my family's caretakers to live in my condo rent free?
There is no lease, no rent, utilities will remain in my name etc.

Someone suggested I ask the HOA to allow for an exception (waiver/??) and that I would pay a fee for the privilege of allowing them to live in my condo. That way I could explain to neighbors that I am simply paying for this privilege and not "getting away with it." That it's for a good reason, and that it's helping the HOA out even more with this special, one-time exception.

Any any any help appreciated. Thank you.

How about giving us the exact wording of the restriction and letting us know what document it's in.

My take is that it would be on the association to prove that they are.

This is a tough situation. I was the main driver behind adding a restriction for no rentals for 1 year after buying. Looking back I wish I had given thought to potential situations like this. Maybe there would have been a way to add some type of thorough review process for someone looking for valid exceptions for medical/emergency situations?

As a nation we are getting older and this problem will probably increase for HOA's

I don't think occupants are EITHER owners OR tenants. How can the HOA prove that these occupants aren't "caretakers" of the home or "guests."

Old friends stayed in our condo for a few weeks while my spouse & I travelled far away in '19. We registered them with our HOA as "permanent authorized guests," to make sure they had access to our amenities without us accompanying them. Even as guests, they did housework, cleaned our balcony floor, watered plants, washed our bath & pool towels and bedding, and our home was immaculate when we returned.

Another option for Ellie might be referring to this couple as her "employees." In exchange for their labor (whatever that may be), Ellie provides them with free housing. there is no lease involved.
(Let Ellie figure out the tax issue if any, an employment agreement, workers' comp & other implications)

The purpose of the 2-year non-lease covenant or rule is to keep the homes, perhaps owned by thoughtless landlords, from the frequent turnover by renters who may not be excellent residents.

Our "permanent authorized guest" rule is exactly that, a rule. It's hard to imagine what kind of covenant it might conflict with. After 22 years, we never have had anyone abuse it, so far as I know. Friends here often have a woman stay in their condo to do light housework, manage their USPS mail, & care for their two little dogs while they travel a couple of times year for a few weeks each. She is not a tenant.

You advise Boards based on what qualification?

Why not move your mother and brother into the condo, problem solved.

We need to know the language of Ellie's governing documents about leases and in which document it's found. Does Ellie even need anyone's approval to place these ppl in her home? Do know, Ellie, that none of this so-called Free legal advice" here comes from lawyers.

Ellie might need an attorney's quick advice on whether she can be an employer who provides housing for her employees. This would involve an employment agreement and most certainly is not a lease.

I was an honest-to-god-very long term active board member in a condo building within 5 blocks of a sports arena, a convention center (15,000 were here last week!), numerous restaurants & clubs, a hands-on kids museum & a "nautical" "village" on the waterfront. Those with sour opinions of human beings would think all kinds of scams are being run by "sleazy" landlords, who bring in rowdy tenants in exchange for big bucks. But it just doesn't happen, except rarely, and hasn't the 16 years I've lived here. And we do have a few actual live-in home health aides. They have caused no problems and tend to stick around for a long time. They are not tenants. Unlike actual lessees who have lots of stuff and, in my building, furniture, that slows down our elevators, when these live-in workers leave, it's usually with a couple of suitcases.

Ellie doesn't want live-in health aides. She wants her long-time personal friends to be her employees to look after patients elsewhere and also maintain Ellie's home. Sure, some could try to scare board members into finding this a threat to the residential quality of the neighborhood, but that simply is not likely. Neighbors might welcome them and ask about them. They can answer very honestly & I really don't think it'd scare the neighbors one bit.

By your logic, as long as the tenants are exceptional, anyone should be able to rent in violation of the two-year rule. This opens the door to selective enforcement problems.

I do not envy a board that has a complaint from an owner about permitting renting (in the two-year window) in one case but not another. Worse, the board will be stuck with speaking at length about Ellie's personal situation to defend its decision-making. This is quicksand.

Our condos have similar 2-year restrictions to prevent investors. After hurricane Ian there was a huge lack of housing. Condo owners were trying to open their condos to homeless families. We had two cases in our condo sub-associations where requests were made for a waiver of the two-year restrictions to provide housing for homeless families who were qualified and passed all the tenant evaluations (background and credit checks). One sub-association worked with their attorney to do a resolution to allow a waiver for six months. The other sub-association refused to even consider.

I can see both arguments. The OP is in a tough situation. Our bylaws define exactly what a guest is vs a tenant and, although we don't have a rental time limit for the master association, if we did have a limit, the OPs tenants would be considered real tenants even if they didn't pay actual rent. The OP could probably do it quietly and move them in, but in our condos the word would be out in no time.

Were I on these sub-associations' boards, I would have used FS 720's emergency powers section to justify a vote supporting the six month waiver, with the conditions you describe. Specifically I would have used the wonderfully vague FS 720.316 (1) (f). I think the latter is just vague enough that by the time certain owners (in the middle of a disaster) had lawyered up and completed their demands, six months would have passed.

But key difference between the approach Lori describes and what the OP wants: Lori's sub-association emergency modification applies to //all// owners and appears to avoid the possibility of emotions playing a role in the board's decision of who gets a waiver and who does not.

Ellie, imo, would not be asking for a "waiver" because she will not be having lessees residing in her HOA home. I did not and would not even try to compare it to Lori's example.

Perhaps. Or maybe a covenant prohibiting occupancy by non-owners without the owners present aims to thwart the same thing as rules against tenants, short-term-rental occupants and so on.

More importantly, I would put the OP's chances of prevailing here (and without even lawyering up) at 50%. Boards are often pushovers; often struggle to understand the legal structure of their corporation; and often do not think about a slippery slope. It's more like: They know they're in-charge. They'll do whatever they want.

The trouble is that we don't know the language in Ellie's governing docs, or in which doc the language is present. Another thought: Ellie wrote that due to a job-duties change she can only visit her family members in FL a few times a year, for a few days each. Assuming she stays in the home she owns in the "spare room," how does that matter if at all?

While I haven't seen that any section from rules or covenants that "[prohibit] occupancy by non-owners without the owners present," we do see various limits from time to time on this forum. I don't think this sample covenant wording is real, is it, ElleN? For one thing, shouldn't it state how much in a given year must the Owners reside on the premises to be considered "present??" How would that be enforced by an HOA?

Our old CC&Rs stated condo units couldn't be used for "transitory or hotel or motel purposes." To deter short-term rentals in the mid-teens, we, with our then-HOA attorney's advice, made a Rule that rental terms must be 30 days or longer. He based this term on the typical minimum terms of many municipalities near us, though our own is silent. He warned us that we really needed to update our CC&Rs to specify a minimum rental term limit, which we did in '22.

I don't think it's useful to predict how any given board will rule on any seemingly tricky subject, how directors may not "think about" a so-called "slippery slope, etc." There're way too many variations among HOAs and among their boards to be so confident.

The board can approve your rental if your governing documents have a hardship provision. Hardship provisions are fairly common. Plenty of articles on the internet. A hardship provision seems to be part of the trend in leasing restrictions.

Ellie, if you're still reading, I suggest you get a hold of your condo declaration (and amendments) and read the section on leasing. This may be what "someone suggested" and sometimes it does have a fee. If you do not have a hardship provision, you can suggest to your board that they get one.

Here is an example of a hardship provision from a condo in CT:
"The Board of Directors may, in its discretion, grant exceptions to one or more of the
requirements of this Article due to proven hardship such as a Unit Owner’s military duty, extended hospitalization, or other extreme circumstances. The Board will respond to such applications within thirty days, but its failure to do so shall not be //deemed consent."

Here is a longer, more detailed hardship clause from GA:
"Hardship Leasing Addendum [this is an addendum to their leasing application]

"Information regarding Hardship Leasing Permits may be found in the Section 4i of our governing documents and bylaws.
"Please see the excerpt from the bylaws:

"If failure to lease will result in a hardship, the Owner may seek to lease on a hardship basis by applying to the Board of Directors for a hardship leasing permit. The Board of Directors shall have the authority to issue or deny requests for hardship leasing permits at its discretion after considering the following factors: (1) the nature, degree, and likely duration of the hardship, (2) the harm, if any, which will result to the Condominium if the permit is approved, (3) the number of hardship leasing permits which have been issued to other Owners, (4) the Owner’s ability to cure the hardship, and (5) whether previous hardship leasing permits have been issued to the Owner. A “hardship” as described herein shall include, but not be limited to the following situation: (1) a Unit Owner must relocate his or her residence outside the greater Atlanta metropolitan area and cannot, within six (6) months from the date that the Unit was placed on the market, sell the Unit except at a price below the current appraised market value, after having made reasonable efforts to do so; (2) where the Owner dies and the Unit is being administered by his or her estate; and/or (3) the Owner takes a leave of absence or temporarily relocates and intends to return to reside in the Unit. Hardship leasing permits shall be valid for a term not to exceed one (1) year. Owners may apply for additional hardship leasing permits. Hardship leasing permits shall be automatically revoked if during the term of the permit, the Owner is approved for and receives a leasing permit.
"Supporting documentation confirming your hardship is required. Applications without supporting documentation will be deemed incomplete and will not be reviewed.
"**Please Note: Hardship leases are approved for a one year term, at which time you will need to re-apply and submit another $50 leasing application fee.**"

I have seen "must be accompanied by owners" provisions for things like guests using the pool, and it makes sense in these situations. Otherwise a private facility could slide over into becoming public, at which case ADA compliance becomes an issue. And liability, of course, which is something a board must always consider.

One thing that I think we're missing is that many of the restrictions, rules, etc. exist for the benefit of the association as a whole, *not* for the benefit of individual owners. In many of the threads we've discussed here, an individual was butting heads with something that was not intended to benefit that particular owner in that particular circumstance. It's not surprising that there are issues, because sometimes the desires of an individual will conflict with the interests of the association as a whole. The trick is deciding where to draw the line, especially if the situation does not involve things like Fair Housing rights where the law as at least somewhat clear.