ChristyH1 (Texas)
Posts: 8
Posts: 8
Posted:
So, we are a 55 & over HOA in TX. Covenants require one occupant to be at least 55, no children under the age of 19 can occupy (defined as stay overnight) for more than 90 days in a 12 month period. Married couple moved a young woman and her young child into their home, stating young woman is not a relative, but is the husband's "24/7 caregiver" and that the board cannot deny him his choice of caregiver, therefore she and the child get to stay.
Although our covenants specifically indicate the age limitation, we have no rules/fine schedule established for this specific violation, as the fine policies for specific offenses seem to be created as the need arises, and, quite frankly, this just hasn't happened in the past.
Has anyone dealt with anything like this before? Are there suggestions on the best way to handle it? Technically, of course, we COULD turn a blind eye as we have all occupied homes in compliance with the 55 & over rules, but, of course, other owners are starting to push the board for action.
I suggested that they not challenge the caregiver, just the child, stating that the caregiver can be there as his physical needs require, but that any overnight stay by the child, as outlined and defined in the covenants, must be limited to 90 days within any 12 month period.
Anybody that can chime in with solutions, helpful suggestions, would be appreciated.
It is relevant to the current situation that, in the past, the wife sued our park over an internal board dispute, and during the discovery phase, her lawyer challenged the original wording on our 1990 era original docs, requiring a prolonged period of lawyers re-writing establishment of the HOA corp, the covenants and the bylaws, voting by all residents, etc. The insurance covered much of the original lawsuit, but the cost to rewrite, vote, etc, was over $25,000 and our pool and facilities had to remain closed for an entire season until we could operate 100% legal, plus then our liability/etc insurance more than doubled. Because of this, it did result in the couple in question becoming very unpopular in our park, and indicates that they don't hesitate to sue, even when they have no actual financial gain in the end, as, in fact, their fees had to increase right along with everyone else's.
Although our covenants specifically indicate the age limitation, we have no rules/fine schedule established for this specific violation, as the fine policies for specific offenses seem to be created as the need arises, and, quite frankly, this just hasn't happened in the past.
Has anyone dealt with anything like this before? Are there suggestions on the best way to handle it? Technically, of course, we COULD turn a blind eye as we have all occupied homes in compliance with the 55 & over rules, but, of course, other owners are starting to push the board for action.
I suggested that they not challenge the caregiver, just the child, stating that the caregiver can be there as his physical needs require, but that any overnight stay by the child, as outlined and defined in the covenants, must be limited to 90 days within any 12 month period.
Anybody that can chime in with solutions, helpful suggestions, would be appreciated.
It is relevant to the current situation that, in the past, the wife sued our park over an internal board dispute, and during the discovery phase, her lawyer challenged the original wording on our 1990 era original docs, requiring a prolonged period of lawyers re-writing establishment of the HOA corp, the covenants and the bylaws, voting by all residents, etc. The insurance covered much of the original lawsuit, but the cost to rewrite, vote, etc, was over $25,000 and our pool and facilities had to remain closed for an entire season until we could operate 100% legal, plus then our liability/etc insurance more than doubled. Because of this, it did result in the couple in question becoming very unpopular in our park, and indicates that they don't hesitate to sue, even when they have no actual financial gain in the end, as, in fact, their fees had to increase right along with everyone else's.