A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
🎁 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! →
← Return to Topics List

TPC 209.016 and expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Started by BillD16 • 5 replies • 48 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 975
Posted:
Texas Property Code 209.016 reads:

Sec. 209.016. REGULATION OF RESIDENTIAL LEASES OR RENTAL AGREEMENTS.
(a) Repealed by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 951 (S.B. 1588), Sec. 22(3), eff. September 1, 2021.
(b) A property owners' association may not adopt or enforce a provision in a dedicatory instrument that:
(1) requires a lease or rental applicant or a tenant to be submitted to and approved for tenancy by the property owners' association; or
(2) requires the following information to be submitted to a property owners' association regarding a lease or rental applicant or current tenant:
(A) a consumer or credit report; or
(B) a lease or rental application submitted by the applicant, tenant, or that person's agent to the property owner or property owner's agent when applying for tenancy.
(c) Repealed by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 951 (S.B. 1588), Sec. 22(3), eff. September 1, 2021.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the adoption or enforcement of a provision in a dedicatory instrument establishing a restriction relating to occupancy or leasing.
(e) A property owners' association may request the following information to be submitted to the association regarding a lease or rental applicant:
(1) contact information, including the name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address of each person who will reside at a property in the subdivision under a lease; and
(2) the commencement date and term of the lease.

Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1077 (H.B. 2489), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2015.
Amended by:
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 951 (S.B. 1588), Sec. 20, eff. September 1, 2021.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 951 (S.B. 1588), Sec. 22(3), eff. September 1, 2021.

With reference to
(e) A property owners' association may request the following information to be submitted to the association regarding a lease or rental applicant:
(1) contact information, including the name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address of each person who will reside at a property in the subdivision under a lease; and
(2) the commencement date and term of the lease.

Can this realistically be interpreted to mean that a property owners’ association may not insist on additional information (like automobile license plates, pet names, etc) be collected from a tenant under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others)?

A ‘friend’ insists that because the Texas legislature took the time to specifically enumerate exactly what data an HOA is permitted to request, it strongly implies they do not have blanket authority to demand data outside that list.

Thanks in advance,

Bill
HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,063
Posted:
Could be. Who is willing to test it in the courts, you or your friend?
ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 1,339
Posted:
A ‘friend’ insists that because the Texas legislature took the time to specifically enumerate exactly what data an HOA is permitted to request, it strongly implies they do not have blanket authority to demand data outside that list.
I agree with the 'friend,' and yes, because of the expressio unius yada rule of statutory interpretation.

Consistent with the above: A number of web sites say that the HOA can have only contact info and the terms of the lease. For example, see https://woodgroupmortgage.com/articles/new-texas-hoa-laws

The legislative history also indicates that the Texas legislature sought to prohibit HOAs asking for social security numbers, driver's license numbers and more. This is also consistent with your 'friend's' interpretation.

Shall readers here now count the ways your board's proposed rule (per https://hoatalk.com/topics/384752/new-str-rules) violates TPC 209.016?

Be advised that your board will almost assuredly not understand the application of the expressio unius rule. For purposes of persuasion, the web site I linked above is probably your better bet.

The HOA attorney is not going to like you. [wink]

FWIW: Good job.


Aside: I am now happily using the click-to-italicize feature. Thank you site owners and site editor.
BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 975
Posted:
Well, that was fun! The Board waffled and “decided” they had no way to enforce a no STR policy, and tabled it. I’m counting that as a success; y’all can believe me or not, but I raised enough ruckus over the issue before the meeting that they took notice and self-tabled the notion.

I’m taking it as a win.

Thank you everyone who contributed! I’ll attempt to be quiet for awhile!

(Unless I get elected on Thursday :)

Bill
HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”
ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 1,339
Posted:
That is a success. :)
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,063
Posted:
Yep, that is a win!

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here

Terms of Use and Privacy Statement