Board wants owners vote to eliminate renters except for family

The HOA has NOTHING to do with a lease agreement. The HOA does NOT own one's house. The power of rental is pretty limited in most states. You can put all the rental restrictions you want in a document but doesn't make it "legal" or enforceable. A good lawyer can easily get it tossed out.

Your HOA needs to study up on the laws and their part in rentals. The best thing your HOA can do? Is to make sure it's in lease agreements that renters must obey HOA rules. If you have the owners put that into their lease agreements it gives them power to take action against their tenants for failing to follow HOA rules. Otherwise even they can't touch the renter. The HOA can ONLY hold their owner/member feet to the floor for their tenants violations.

I believe if the documents are properly drafted and passed by the membership, the HOA may prohibit you from renting those units to other than family members.

Oddly enough, my community's board has decided that we should try to eliminate rentals altogether. The board refuses to see that we don't have the votes to approve the necessary amendments to our CC&Rs. But try they will, so we'll be watching this play out over the next few months. First skirmish begins this week.

Any changes like this will need to be in your CC&Rs, meaning you need approval from a majority of owners (usually a super-majority of 67-75%). If you try to tighten up your rental restriction, expect all of your current landlords and some percentage of current owner-occupants to vote "no". Several years ago we tried for a milder version of what your board is proposing, and it did not pass. We had about 15% of our units rented at the time, proposed change allowed exceptions for first degree relatives (parents, children, siblings). About 65% of owners voted "yes", we needed 75%.

Regardless of what the board wants, there is a window of opportunity during which you can tighten up your rental restriction. Once you have too many landlords, you won't have the necessary votes to approve it. And that's assuming there are no state laws that limit what HOAs can do in this area. Things like this are worth a discussion, but it may not be possible to do anything useful about the rental numbers.

I believe that would be unconstitutional.

And.....what happens when a homeowner has no relatives? Or....the homeowner's relatives all live on the opposite coast or in a different country? How does the board verify the renter is a relative.....require DNA tests? It could be argued that such a restriction is unreasonable and thus unenforceable.

The constitution only regulates government activity.

One could argue the mater in court, but an HOA with their ducks in a row can argue it is reasonable. Decreased property values, increased enforcement from renters, increased complaints from homeowners, increased maintenance costs due to renters, ect.

You have stated a theory that is beside the point. If a member has no relatives, the only tenant pool he has is the public which would violate the new rule. That is absurd. What is he supposed to do, leave it vacant?

The OP is not talking about protected groups.

The point is: if HOA made a rule that renters could only be relatives, it would necessarily be denying rentals to protected groups. It's a caution and I believe in violation of public policy and civil rights protections and therefore a bad move.

Gary,

Prior to presenting the proposal to the membership, I would recommend that the Board seek a legal opinion on the amendment.

There no constitutional issues that I can see. Any discrimination against protected groups would be an Fair Housing issue. It’s an interesting thought, but I don’t think it would qualify as a violation. Definitely worth running by an attorney.

With David, your point is interesting, Terri. But all persons, including those in unprotected groups, would be kept out of these homes. It would be descrimination against all non-close relatives of the owner.

Up front - I am not a lawyer. Also, I do not live in your state. You should consult a lawyer familiar with your state's condo law.

Lots of condos prohibit rentals in one form or another. My amateur understanding is that these restrictions have generally held up in my state's courts and federal court when they don't try to define concepts that get them in trouble with anti-discriminatory laws.

I know of condos that prohibit rentals outright, permit them only after you have lived in the building for at least a year, permit new leases only if the percentage of condos leased is under a threshold and which keep a wait list, and permit them only a few years at a time. We have city and state laws that create other restrictions like number of people relative to the size of the unit.

I know of none that permit rental only to family. I can guess why - your definition will almost certainly vary from that of at least some of your neighbors.

What defines your family? It's a social concept with a genetic gloss. Ask 10 people and probably at least 5 will differ from yours. For most people, family is a blend. Here are some hypotheticals, all are based on people I know.

1. Step-children. If I get divorced, are my adult step-children still family? Would I need to kick them out? Or what if I decided to let my ex-wife stay until her minor children, my former step children, are out of high school.
2. Now-adult foster child still participating as part of the family.
3. The children of my long-term partner. What if it's a poly relationship, with more than one long-term partner?
4. Sibling who isn't biologically my sibling but has been a part of my family since we were 2 year olds. Their kids call me aunt/uncle.
5. Mother-in-law after my spouse died.
6. What if I take in a friend who is down on their luck and ask them to contribute to the household expenses. Is that an informal rental arrangement?

Even though I favor rental restrictions in condos, I would vote against a restriction with a family clause.