Abolishing rentals

We live in a small rural development in Central Texas. Our board has placed a ballot item for vote on our yearly election ballot that would deny property owners in our subdivision the right to rent their single family properties to others. I question their legal right o place the item up for vote and also question the legality of the proposed rule. Can anyone offer any information regarding this?

Thanks

Thanks KirkW1! That is very good information!

I really don't know. Quite honestly I don't know why someone would want to put this into effect right now. I think it is very short sighted. I would rather have a renter then an empty house.

Now one thing I would like to see our neighborhood do is to put a minimum initial lease term on the books. Partly because another neighborhood in the area has a house that is rented for weekends and has had problems as a result. They have a court case in progress but I have been told it isn't going well.

As others have stated, now is a bad time to be limiting rentals. I would be willing to wager that most of us here started out renting and were fair tenants. The way to go IMO would be to put in place protections to protect your Association from bad renters and landlords. While the homeowner is ultimately responsible for their tenant's actions, you can add some protections by requiring certain language in the lease or as an addendum to the lease. Some of the things I would suggest in no particular order are:

1. Make the minimum rental term at least 6 months preferably a year.

2. Add something to the effect of if the homeowner becomes delinquent with their assessments then the Association can collect them and any past due amounts directly from the tenant and the owner must credit the money paid by the tenant as rent. In other words if your assessment is $150.00 and the H/O is delinquent then the BOD collects the $150.00 from the tenant directly. When the tenant sends the owner his rent minus the $150.00 the owner must credit it as if the tenant paid him in full. This would also protect the renter by giving them a heads up that their landlord is having financial problems.

3. I would also include language that if you have amenities (pool, tennis court etc.) the owner either assigns the amenity to the tenant and cannot use it for the term of the rental or keeps it for themselves and the tenant can't use it.

4. Give the Association the power to initiate eviction actions against problem tenants with the cost to be born by the homeowner.

5. Have the renter sign off that they have received a copy of the rules of the Association and agree to abide by them.

6. If you live in an area having problems with speculators you could also require an owner to occupy the home a specific time frame before it could be rented to prevent this. Of course this would not affect the houses currently for rent but could be phased in; I would however have a hardship provision where an owner could apply for a variance on this as emergencies do happen.

And finally when you have the whole thing drafted have it looked over by an attorney to make sure it doesn't violate the landlord - tenant law in your state and adequately protects your Association as much as possible.

An excellent article on what it would take to ban renters can be found at:
http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20020102_hoarentals.htm

Our by laws read as follows:

The bylaws of this corporation may be ammended, repealed, or added to, or new bylaws may be adopted by votee of fifty one percent (51%) of the members entitled to vote or by the vote of fifty one percent (51%)of a quorum at a members meeting called for the purpose according to the articles or bylaws.

After reading the Texas property code that KirkW1 directed me to, I believe this portion of our bylaws is contrary to the State code.

Any comments?

First, the tough thing is decifering which chapter applies to your association. I just love all the talk about if you live in a county with a population or a city with a population (or the extra-territorial jurisdiction, etc.

But my reading is that the law specifically addresses covenants and not bylaws. And further that an organization can allow for fewer owners to ratify a change but not more.

Our neighborhood POA has been run by a small group of people for quite some time, and the only time the rest of the neighborhood gets involved is when the board and their band of followers decide to do something radical such as this--abolishing rentals. They gave no warning on this issue, did no research and gave no consideration to how it would affect the existing renters and landlord property owners. They just decided that they didn't like having renters in the neighborhood and put it up for vote. What it does is cause tremendous anger and division amongst the residents. The little band of elitists could care less as long as they get their way. We have tried electing more sensible people to the board, and have succeeded, but it only takes the rest of the board a few months to run that person off and then they are allowed by our bylaws to "appoint" a replacement. For the most part, none of this affects us on a daily basis, but then every now and then they like to see if we're paying attention.

Charles, I am working this week on some specific legislative proposals for the Hoosier General Assembly. I am going to include your comments in the supporting arguments. It is a concise, considered explanation of the "culture of non-participation" that permeates homeowners associations--and the outcomes it can cause

I plan to use your comments to illustrate the need for legislation which enables just five percent of (but not less than two) members to require the board to call a special meeting of members to vote on any action by the board of directors.

Thanks!

The biggest difference between the bylaws and covenants is that the bylaws set rules concerning the operation of the association. The covenants set restrictions upon the use of the land. And if you have design guidelines, they further refine the covenants and must be consistent with the covenants.