visitors vs. occupants in single family home

Hi!

Here is a twist on a previous discussion regarding Associations for which the homes are specified as single-family use only in the gov docs (whether a single family home or condo). The gov docs do not further address this nor place limitations on number of people or number of families or number of unrelated people which may which may occupy a home in the Association. Village requirements would apply.

Here is the question that may not be addressed by the Association nor Village: is there a minimum time that must pass before the number of people living in the home or condo is considered to be unlawful? This same question could be asked of a HOA with rules specifying a limit on the number of individuals and/or families which may occupy a home or condo.

In other words, can an owner allow another family to stay at their home for a weekend as visitors, but longer than XX days this would not be allowed? What is that number of days? As I said this is not specified. So at what point does a 2nd family staying in a home become occupants living there vs. visitors?

Thanks,
Bonnie

In other words, can an owner allow another family to stay at their home for a weekend as visitors, but longer than XX days this would not be allowed? What is that number of days? As I said this is not specified. So at what point does a 2nd family staying in a home become occupants living there vs. visitors? Bonnie
__

Bonnie,

Are you concerned about ‘guests’ staying in a vacant unit or about ‘guests’ staying in the unit while the owner is present?
If the former, it may present problems. Our covenants do not define ’guest’ at all. Some condos are quite restrictive and do not allow an ‘overnight guest’ in a vacant unit at all. Period. That would be hard to enforce in a small community, I would think. What are your lease/rental restrictions?

Thanks, everyone! I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Mary said: “I think we just recently discussed the whole issue of "single family residence" -- it's not about how many people are living in the home!!”

Yes, it was discussed, but my question re duration did not enter into the discussion.

Can the number living in a household exceed what is allowed by local laws if it is for a short duration?

Scenario: townhome style condo, 2 bedroom, 1 ½ bath, 1100 sq. ft. home (no basement), 1 car garage, only short term visitor parking, one owner occupant. 4 person family (2 adults, 2 children, 2 cars) move in.

If they are visiting for short term, is this OK?

If they are staying 1 – 2 months, is this OK?

What is they are paying “rent” for the longer stay?

What I am getting at is that locals laws (or HOA rules) may restrict the number of occupants per some criteria such as square footage or number of bedrooms. In this scenario, the criteria has been exceeded.

But, what if homeowner says they are just visiting? How long before just visiting becomes living there – when does the local law kick in?

Thanks for your thoughts!
Bonnie

Bonnie, whatever the homeowner "claims" is between that homeowner and the zoning enforcement office and not the business of the HOA.

Duration of the "visit" is moot if your documents don't address it, and they most likely don't.

I'm not sure, as Mary said, what the extreme interest in this is.

It's already been determined that "single-family residence" addresses the dwelling type and occupancy therein is dictated by local statutes. (Unless for some reason the HOA has them in its docs which is extremely unlikely.)

For example, the homes in our HOA are designated (and zoned) for single-family residences.

But for about 6 months about 4 years ago, my daughter's family "visited" with us as she was awaiting her home to be finished.

It was tight, but that's what family's for. If she had needed to stay for year, then she would have stayed for a year (I'm not promising that her significant other would not have been bound and gagged for a major portion of that year, but. . . )

At any rate, two families, one house, but still within the allowances for local zoning.

So it was nobody's business.

We, as leadership in HOAs, continually get black eyes for power grabs and over-reaching.

This, to me, is one of those cases where the HOA needs to keep its nose firmly in place on its own face.

If it bothers someone that much, drop the dime with the zoning enforcement officials. Then back away and let them address it.

Mary,
this is what is happening in our association and others as well. Please keep in mind that we do deal with seasonal rentals during the winter monts.

Scenario 1: our lease restrictions - were/are - 90 days minimum. But many investors do not comply with it and rent their unit for 20 days or 14 days stating that the occupants are their 'guests'. This can present a problem, since the Florida law would qualify us as lodging facility and it could also present a liability problems ( pool. etc.) Our covenants say that the Association must keep records of all leases. We are small, everyone knows each other and when people here have no idea who lives here they are quite uncomfortable. This is why the question 'when a guest becomes a tenant'?

Scenario II. We sign a lease with a corporation and only one person is on the lease as a tenant. OK, but it turns out that the corporation is actually using the unit to accommodate their transient employees. When our secretary calls them they simply say, these people are our 'guest'.

What would you do in the situations like these? Let it go?

When guests stay in the unit when an owner is present .. that of course is not a problem at all.

Eva,

If there's a valid reason such as violation of a rental agreement, that's a whole different story. I didn't get that impression from Barbara's message. And regarding your Scenario II, if the entity with the lease says the occupants are guests, why wouldn't you believe them. And what matter does it make anyhow? Aren't tenants allowed to have guests? If not, why not??? This appears to be a lot of "busy work" on the part of the board.

It makes no difference.

Really? Association boards are supposed to have a record of who lives in the unit? Or is this just in your state? Is there a valid, legal reason to know this?

Again, thank you for your thoughts on my questions.

I have tried to keep my questions/posts objective without injecting my personal feelings into the discussion.

I posed my question on HOATalk because, recalling the previous discussion on the matter, the time factor was not brought up. And, the reason why I asked the question was because someone asked me. I did suggest she check our Rules/Regs, and/or check with the PM, and/or check with the Village.

I agree that it is not anybody’s business how many people occupy the condo. If Rules are broken by the visitors, then the procedures in our Rules apply. And, if there is a Village ordinance possibly in conflict, I agree it is the Village’s responsibility to address.

Thanks,
Bonnie

P.S. To answer the question – yes, the homeowner would also be living there.

Also, we have Rules regarding leasing/renting units – notification, length of lease, etc.

The members can just be told that the unit conforms to the documents so go find something else to nit about. Michele
__

Michele,

Are you telling me 'to go and find something else to nit about'? I think may be you ought to cool it. I find your views stubborn and argumentative and not substantiated by any facts. Otherwise, we do not have ‘motel units’ here as far as I know.

By the way, my opinions regarding the corporate scenario are just as "fact-based" as yours.

I'm sorry you don't like my opinion.

I also think that resorting to the mantra, "But the residents are complaining about it." to be childish.

It doesn't matter that they complain about it if it isn't violating the documents.

Then they are nit-picking and if you find yourself in the group that is complaining about an owner having the complete right to loan his property out to whomever he chooses then I can't help that.

If the shoe fits, and all that.

Scenario II..I don't understand the liability and security concerns. But I can understand being concerned about complying with covenants. To address that just inform the owners that they should provide a copy of the CCRs to any quests that stay on the premises when the owner is gone. Mary
__

Mary,

Good idea, I tell the Board to have the Covenants translated to Spanish.

Eva,

A shame you're not in CA, it would be a state requirement to have them printed in both English and Spanish, not to mention French, Italian, German, Chinese, Japanese, Swahili, Pig Latin, Ebonics, etc., etc. LOL

With all due respect, Ann, just because some boards have "written" them [privacy invasion "triggers"] into their rules, doesn't mean such would hold up if challenged.

And I, for one, would challenge an HOA's ability to dictate when MY guests overstay their welcome, if it's not something that is addressed in the governing documents.

If these boards have done this, then I stand by my position that they are over-reaching.

They certainly can control the parking issue, again, IF addressed in their governing documents.

But who can stay, and how long, sorry. Not their jurisdiction.

Turn it over to Zoning Enforcement if they think it violates state or local code. Let the appropriate authorities deal with it.

Otherwise, again, keep their noses snuggly attached to their own faces.

IMO, a guest would only become a tenant if rent was being paid. Otherwise, it's a guest. And a guest can stay for as long as the owner wants him to. I just don't think you can dictate when a guest becomes a tenant. .. members are complaining I'm thinking it's those nosey types who don't have anything better to do and they should just be ignored. Mary
__

Mary,

this is really hard for me to explain on this forum, so let me just make one point.

In Florida, 'oral leases' are perfectly legal. Just give a guy a key and that is it. Our association is responsible for keeping a record of all tenants occupying vacant units (meaning when the owner is not here).
I do not want to go into an explanation why 'oral leases' are preferred by many investors. But let me just say it does present a problem for the Association and the question when a 'guest' becomes a 'tenant' is relevant. This is why many FL condos took a radical approach 'no overnight guests' in vacant units'. We really ought to be address it somehow. Not because of nosy neighbors who have nothing better to do – which is not the case either -but because the Association is liable.

Eva,

Regardless of whether "oral leases" are legal in FL or not, if the assn requires a copy of the lease as part of their rental policy, then the h/o better provide one or they are in violation of an assn rule and can be fined accordingly. At least that's how it would be handled in AZ!

But, I don't understand what an oral lease has to do with anything. If the person is a guest, he's a guest. Plain and simple. So you have to keep a record of all "tenants" occupying vacant rentals; so keep the record and indicate the individual is a guest. I agree with Michele, it appears you are overreaching.

Stay out of these people's personal and private transactions.

Your "approach" to make them tell you how long they intend to stay. . . well, it's really none of your business.

Your "facts scenario" is rife with hearsay and, again, not anyone's business, and I still fail to see where the Association needs to be "covered."

Follow your documents. That's really all that needs to be done.

Mary,

Personally, I would not give a hoot about 'guests'. And I am not getting into anyone’s personal business. As I said a number of times, many condos and HOAs have severe restrictions when it comes to 'guests'.
Tell them to go and have something else to nit about or that they are overreaching or have nothing better to do. Have you ever considered the possibility that they may have a reason? I was asked to look into the attorney’s recommendation and it is my obligation to the membership to do so, regardless what I may think about it.

The reason, I even brought it up is because I do not feel comfortable with imposing any more restrictions on ANYONE. I do not understand why you are insisting that I want to do something. I do not. I am looking for options and reasonable opinions. And I was hoping to find someone here who has similar ‘guest’ problems and if so, how they handle it and how they are processing leases. Some do background checks, interviews, etc. We do not do any of those things. And, we had a serious and I mean serious crime here and the old folks are simply afraid. The idea of the lease, as proposed by an attorney, may give the association an opportunity to verify if the person has a criminal record and to notify the owner. OK, enough, I will think about it or ask an attorney, and again, my obligation to the membership is to address this issue. And I will not tell them to go and nit pick on something else. Hope you understand.

Mary,

I know you mean well and I also know you are very helpful to everybody, it is overwheleming, I know. I just don't get the point accrosss because I do not want to go into any details. I am researching everything. LOL
You should hear the response to the covenant amendment I tried to slip in.. you know your version on enforcing the rules by members over riding the Board? I do have to take a few punches sometimes. So funny. More about it later.

It's a shame you took offense to my "nit picking" comment.

But I still believe that is the case.

If there is crime or zoning issues, then your local appropriate authorities need to address that, not the HOA.

And, Bonnie, with all due respect, your documents started out that way, I'm guessing?

Eva appears to want to either go around her documents, over-reach from what the documents cover, or create new rules because some residents don't like the flavor of the "guests."

If they do go for a covenant change, then she is of course doing the right thing by getting an attorney involved.

But all of her excuses so far lean to more not liking who an owner selects as a guest rather than anything else.

I say that because either their own documents or local zoning and/or crime officers can and should be doing the job they HOA is trying to usurp.

And Mary you are correct, she did not include the idea of researching this as part of a response to an attorney's opinion until she was trying to defend against over-reaching.

In any case, I doubt the attorney came to them with this. More like they went to an attorney and that was his suggestion, go for a covenant change.

Just keep in mind that the owners who are renting/leasing/"loaning" out their units will get to vote on it, too. And many times, covenant changes that affect things like (restricting an owner's ability to make money off his investment) that will sometimes require a higher percentage of positive votes than another kind of covenant change. AND, in many cases like that, the owners who are currently renting out/leasing/loaning out their units will be allowed to be grandfathered in.

I know this because we went through the exact same thing a few years ago with residents being "concerned" about the growing number of "rentals" in our neighborhood. We did all the research, because the owners "asked" us. They had "safety" concerns; they had "population density" concerns; they had "covenant violation" concerns (by renters).

What they really had was, how should I say this, "diversity" concerns.

In the end, even though we can change our docs with 51% majority, to change them to affect an owner's ability to make money off of his investment requires a much higher (100%). Even then, if we could have changed it, then we would have still had to allow for those units that were currently "rented" during the change to continue to be "rented," unless they were to stand vacant for 12 months (consecutively).

What did we do?

We assured that we vigorously enforced against the owners with the renters were violating the restrictions, and we contacted (and still contact) local police and/or zoning when the issues are within those venues.

So, I still say it's over-reaching and I still say they (the "residents") need to concentrate on the areas on which the HOA does have jurisdiction and make sure they are not masking a more nefarious "issue."

Oops, sorry I meant Michele.

(I knew I would get your name wrong)

Michele I will respectfully disagree with you on this topic. The associatio ndoes need to know for various different reasons whether individual(s) are guests or tenants or owners for that matter. Placing a trigger date for investigation makes the most sense so as to avoid some of the "nit picking" that does go on with some residents who have "diversity" issues. (liked that phrasing). In my scenerio I was speaking of particular situtions with no guest parking or limited guest parking and limited resident parking, It has been done where a tenant or owner has 2 assigned parking spaces and association ahs say 5 guest parking spots, and the same tenant has 4 "guests" living with them for oh 6 months for the sole benefit of overreaching the number of parking spaces assigned to any one unit and therby denying the use of the guest spaces to other residents. by defining the addtonal residents as guests they are doing and end run around the association and thereby denying access to the amenity by other residents. this is a situation that the board is obligated to control and correct. It is a simple matter for someone to lie. Housing also defines how many people can live in any one unit and an argument we have gotten in the past that due to lifestyle or work there are never more than oh 5 in the home at any one time is not legal if they all call the house home and have mail delivered there etc. No association needs a "flop house" for a group of where 10 or more go into together on rent for a three bedroom unit. It does happen. Beleive me. While I hate to use the addage that "rules are made to be broken" rules can be placed for those situations outside the norm and never ever have to be used or imposed. but if the rule is not in place when the situation does occur there is the catch-22 of how do you grandfather in a rule especially when dealing with an owners ability to use the unit as an investment? so every topic and item on these types of board has an answer and they all have mulitple and infinite answers based on the docuements involved, the state involved, the community involved and the specifcs to each situation. If no rule is in place to trigger "when" a board will act to investigate the situation you do have a situation which could be perceived as "sticking their nose in" on a particulr unit which smacks of discrmination.

PS: the "trigger"? It should only ever be: when a restriction has been violated.

It has been done where a tenant or owner has 2 assigned parking spaces and association ahs say 5 guest parking spots, and the same tenant has 4 "guests" living with them for oh 6 months for the sole benefit of overreaching the number of parking spaces assigned to any one unit and therby denying the use of the guest spaces to other residents..

_AnnJ2

Ann,

I think I know exactly what you are saying. Please let me know if you ever solve the perpetual ‘guest’ parking and occupancy problem. Ha. Would a limit of guest parking to one-two weeks work for you?

Hello JohnR25
Welcome.
Please start a new thread for your comment.
The forum software here is too dumb to lock old threads.

This one is 10 years old.