Condo? Single Home? Patio Home?

Started by MarianneG • 40 replies • 3203 views

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

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

In another thread regarding condo insurance, Donna and Mary made the following statements:

Donna wrote. The defining factor is whether or not there is any common wall or walls of the structures, in other words, are the joined in some place. That is where an association could OR should require insurance to cover that area where an event could cause damage to the ajoining wall or members unit.

Mary. This has nothing to do with insurance coverage but another defining factor in determining whether a unit/lot is a condo or single family home is who owns the common areas. If the unit/lot owner has an undivided interest in the common areas, it is a condo, regardless of whether the unit is referred to as a townhome, a duplex, a villa, or whatever. If the common areas are owned solely by the assn, then it is a planned community.

Both Mary and Donna add incredible and reliable information to this site, but I must take issue with both their comments with respect to how you categorize a home and the insurance to cover it. It is truly a case that one size does not fit all. What is true in AZ, TN, or FL is clearly not ALWAYS true in IN. I know we've discussed this before and as Donna says, we could argue until the cows come home.

Donna - An association does not necessarily require insurance to cover a building with a common wall. As I have stated before, we here (and in many, many like developments in the central Indiana area) own our half of a paired building. We own the land from the sidewalk to the back fence. We own the exterior of our half of the building. We have a deed for the land. We carry our own full homeowners insurance. Our homes are single family homes even though they share a wall with the home next door. In the event there is damage to our half of the exterior of the building, our insurance covers it. In the event of damage to the shared wall, the two home owners share the cost of repair. However, the rule of law regarding liability for negligent, intentional, or willful acts or omissions will apply and the offending homeowner will bear the cost of repair of the wall.

Mary - Ownership of the common areas does not necessarily determine whether a unit/lot is a condo or single family home here in the central Indiana area. We have communities of single family homes on large lots where the HOA owns and maintains the ponds, pools, club houses, and playgrounds. It is true that we who own patio homes have an undivided interest in the common areas, but we are not condos. We are single family homes in communities that here are called "managed communities" --maybe similar to what you refer to as "planned communities."

With this, I do not mean to offend, but just to point out that we live at a time where there are many varieties of living/owning arrangments in different areas of the country.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Marianne,

Well, the cows are home but I do want to clarify what I had written. You wrote "Donna - An association does not necessarily require insurance to cover a building with a common wall. As I have stated before, we here (and in many, many like developments in the central Indiana area) own our half of a paired building. We own the land from the sidewalk to the back fence. We own the exterior of our half of the building. We have a deed for the land. We carry our own full homeowners insurance. Our homes are single family homes even though they share a wall with the home next door. In the event there is damage to our half of the exterior of the building, our insurance covers it. In the event of damage to the shared wall, the two home owners share the cost of repair. However, the rule of law regarding liability for negligent, intentional, or willful acts or omissions will apply and the offending homeowner will bear the cost of repair of the wall.

Yes, we all know that an association does not nescessarily require insurance. The O.Ps does not and that is what prompted this thread.

My (VILLA) paired building is owned by myself (my half) and my neighbor (their half) We have a deed for the land, we carry our own insurance,we are considered single family units and our insurance covers damage exactly like yours. We own the land as far out as the eaves and after that, it becomes common property.

Now where mine becomes different is in the common structural elements and that is the roof appurtenages(trusses) and the common internal wall structure wall that divides the 2 sides from each other. There is common sewer pipes and other utilities that split inside the unit. Theirs and mine but the common utility lines are association responsibility to maintain and repair.

In the event of a fire or damage caused by one side, their insurance will cover any damage caused to the other unit.

AND THAT MY FRIENDS IS WHY INSURANCE IS REQUIRED. SO THAT SOME SLACKER WHO DOES NOT HAVE COVERAGE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY FOR DAMAGE TO THE AJOINING STRUCTURE.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Thanks for the clarification, Donna. That was exactly what I was looking for -- that single family homes can have a common wall with another owner.

With respect to insurance, it would indeed be a slacker (and a stupid one at that) who did not carry homeowners insurance on his/her home.

Now I see the cows comin' over the hill and headed toward home. Thanks again!

TracieS (Colorado)
Posts: 460

Posted:

Since I'm trying to match descriptions of people's legal property to what happens in my state... Do you think it sounds like the Villa would be like a Duplex in my area? Here, these are single family dwellings connected through a shared wall (there can also be tri-plexes and quad-plexes), and they each own their halves along with related property/land/lot, etc.

Just curious... And, I know, I know, they're really defined in the documents and state law, but I'm just trying to connect some neurons in my brain...

Thanks!

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

MarianneG,
I suggest a lot of these specifics are added by the drafter of the CC&R's (developers) and serve his/her purposes and really are not included to instill uncomplcated directions. I suggest it is always proper to immediately have your CC&R's looked at by compentent advisors upon take over.

Certainly one size does not fit all. Also as a comment the practice of common walls between homes is not new by any means and didn't start with HOA's or condos. An example would be the single family homes through out the world that are commonly described as Row Houses. They don't even have associations when the concept was devised as far as I know and they owned the land the property sat on. I remember reading somewhere that the property line between units was defined as the middle of the wall plus something about a half a brick at corners. Don't quote me.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

TracieS - From your posts here, my impression is that your neurons have good, strong connections. Yes, your Villas, Duplexes, etc. sound as if they are designed to operate very much like our paired patio homes.

RobertR1 - Thanks for reminding us of row houses that were constructed for single family living long before HOAs. Good point. Wonder how they handled two-unit fires/catastrophes?

One of the things I like about single-family/common-wall housing with respect to insurance is that it puts the onus on the homeowner to purchase insurance. It doesn't rely on an HOA to provide insurance, depending on the BODs (or the CCRs) particular perspective.

When the responsibility for insurance is on the homeowners, the danger, as Donna pointed out, is the homeowner who doesn't keep his/her insurance in effect or who invests in a policy that doesn't adequately cover.

When the homeowner relies on the BOD to purchase insurance, the danger is that the BOD may select the low bid or an inferior policy, which may not adequately cover. The homeowners have put their security in the decisions of someone other than themselves.

I guess it could be argued either way.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Marianne,

Well, all I can say is that I quoted the universal definition of a condominium:

From the Free Dictionary: a. A building or complex in which units of property, such as apartments, are owned by individuals and common parts of the property, such as the grounds and building structure, are owned jointly by the unit owners.

I believe the word comes from the Latin word dominium,for "land owned in common".

BTW, who pays the property taxes on the common areas and do you have a deed for your share of them?

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Mary,

In the case of my HOA, the common areas are assessed according to all other HOAs with common property. Area, cost of repairs and maintenances,liability insurance, reserve funds and all other normal common association property assessments, including taxes. Someone has to pay for the roads, street lights, gates, security and that whole list. There are 230 individually owned units in 115 double structured buildings.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 08/20/2009 7:45 AM
Marianne,

Well, all I can say is that I quoted the universal definition of a condominium:

From the Free Dictionary: a. A building or complex in which units of property, such as apartments, are owned by individuals and common parts of the property, such as the grounds and building structure, are owned jointly by the unit owners.

I believe the word comes from the Latin word dominium,for "land owned in common".

BTW, who pays the property taxes on the common areas and do you have a deed for your share of them?

Hi Mary, As a not-for-profit corporation, we do not pay property taxes on our common areas (3 ponds with surrounds, 1 small nature area, 2 entrances). In fact, a previous board paid property taxes and when the error was discovered, the state refunded that amount to the HOA. That refund resulted from a new law in Indiana regarding not-for-profit organizations. I do not have a deed for my share of the common areas, and I have never heard that anyone has such a deed. There is no deed to the common areas in the HOA President's documentation either.

My deed is for my entire lot from sidewalk to back fence and lawn on one side of the building.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Marianne, You may not think there is a deed for the Total Property but there is. It should be referenced under your first few pages of your CC&R's master deed or some such name. It is filed at the courthouse when the complex was registered as a condominium property. It will also be platted on the Master Deed at the Planning office. IN SC>
Not sure exactly where and how many places it is mentioned but certainly one of the areas is under Insurance and the Blanket policy that you as a condo owner should be paying insurance assessments on.

Look at your insurance section where they address dissolution of the association or destruction of the association or matters of that nature. There should be directions that has to do with distribution and application of any monies should it be determined it is not feasible to rebuild.

As far as who contracts the Blanket policy for the condo association that is plainly a Board function and the limits and inclusions are a matter between the Board and the Insurance company and then, the contract is proposed to the owners. We do all this yearly with a review by our Insurance Committee and Board consultation.

It is a matter for discussion to determine what limits and values should be set. This is just another issue the BOD has oversight of and some will do a good job and some may not. Ultimately, it is all owners responsibility to know and understand their documents, which includes members of the BOD.

Which can raise the question: Should a BOD make efforts to explain the CC&R's to the membership? With Websites and e-mails and this kind of stuff, is it time for BOD to get involved. I have no doubt some well run condos probably do attempt to educate. Our umbrella HOA is large well funded and managed and does attempt to explain the governing documents. Our Condo BOD's have been responsive in a lot of instances if questions arise but I don't believe they have been proactive. After all, we have all kinds of committees, like Welcome, Insurance, Landscape, Entertainment, Maintenance, etc, etc.

I enjoy this kind of discussion and if anyone feels I am being self serving with my posts, I regret I will not post again on the subject.

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

There is most definitely deeds for common area lots.

But we don't pay property taxes on ours, either.

Our association has just received title to the last common area lot in our subdivision.

The developer didn't want to turn it over to us until some of the drainage problems on it were addressed so we wouldn't have to pay sewer district fees to correct it.

He finished building out the community over 5 years ago. That's how long the drainage issue has been going on (it abutts a protected wetland, so the Corps of Engineers had to get involved).

MicheleD (Kentucky)
Posts: 4,491

Posted:

Egads, "There ARE most definitely deeds. . . "

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

OK Guys -- Here's the deal!

First of all I DO NOT OWN A CONDO!. I own a single-family dwelling that happens to share a wall with another single-family dweling.

As far as deeds are concerned -- I did NOT say that there are no deeds.

What I said was that I DO NOT HAVE a deed to the common area nor can I locate a deed to the property in the President's documentation. There is no deed information in the pages of the CCRs (which BTW are horribly out-of-date and seriously need a re-do - not real well done in the first place).

What that means to me is that the developer either did not turn deeds over to us at the turnover ('way before my time) or succeeding boards did not pass on all the pertinent documentation.

1. RobertR1, I do not think your post is self-serving.
2. This thread does not need to turn into me being put on the defensive.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Oh Phooey!!!! The BF was supposed to stop when I typed in after the word "Condo!" So, as you read this, please read all in regular face after "Condo."

JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MarianneG on 08/20/2009 9:32 AM
OK Guys -- Here's the deal!

First of all I DO NOT OWN A CONDO!. I own a single-family dwelling that happens to share a wall with another single-family dweling.

As far as deeds are concerned -- I did NOT say that there are no deeds.

What I said was that I DO NOT HAVE a deed to the common area nor can I locate a deed to the property in the President's documentation. There is no deed information in the pages of the CCRs (which BTW are horribly out-of-date and seriously need a re-do - not real well done in the first place).

What that means to me is that the developer either did not turn deeds over to us at the turnover ('way before my time) or succeeding boards did not pass on all the pertinent documentation.

1. RobertR1, I do not think your post is self-serving.
2. This thread does not need to turn into me being put on the defensive.

Go to the county tax office ... get a tax map for your area.
Locate the 'common areas' on the tax map.
Go the 'registrar of deeds' ... get a copy of the deed(s) for the common area(s).

complex, but not complicated

JohnB26 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,569

Posted:

Oh Phooey!!!!
I picked up the bold face with the quote!

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

What I said was a general statement and not directed to you. You are anyone else has the same perogative I stated, the only difference is I happened to put it in words. The latter should not put you or anyone else on the defensive. Sorry that it did, was not meant to be.

As far as concluding what happened in your association up to now I really think you or someone ought to go to courthouse or even on-line and track down what is on file about your association. In the past I have made sugestions this is good practice to check courthouse entries once a year to see if anything is new, if fact this will serve as a reminder for me to look at mine. I also check the Court dockets for any listing under our name. In doing your research you might want to Google your developers name and Company and also look at court dockets.

Are you incorporated as a non profit? Are you licensed by the state?
Who is your Agent listed? He should be able to answer some of your questions.

Are you doing this on your own or for the Board or as a Board member?

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Marianne,

The Board Pres should do as John suggests. The HOA should definitely have a copy of the deed to the common areas. It's great that IN eliminated prop. taxes for non profits; AZ changed the property tax rates for HOAs a number of years ago which limits assessed prop. value to $500 thereby reducing the property tax liability quite drastically.

One thing I meant to mention in my last response to you is:

Since the state, or perhaps your developer, has defined the type of housing that applies to your community it really doesn't matter what features qualify as a condo. We get many posts on this forum from people living in townhomes, patio homes, etc who don't know if they should abide by the condo statutes or the planned community (sometimes referred to as HOA) statutes. Their docs only state it is a townhome, patio home, etc community. I've never heard of any states that have statutes for townhomes, patio homes or any other type of housing except condos or planned communities.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Oh Robert, you did not say or imply anything that put me on the defensive. Please don't think that I meant you, because I definitely did not.

My main reason for starting this thread was to say that there are many different types of housing opportunities today and each may be slightly different from the others. That was my only objective, but this has morphed (as so many do) into a slightly different discussion.

I am not real keen on all the business aspects of an HOA, but I'm seriously trying to learn as I go. My skills are more in the area of bringing harmony to a what was a fractured community when I came to the board, and I believe I have accomplished my goal. Residents confirm that. Until the election in early October, I am the president of our HOA. People want me to run again, but at this point, I'm not planning to do so.

By way of background. About a week ago, I noticed that the Corporate Quit Claim Deed in the President's folder was for the neighborhood adjacent to ours. Both additions were developed by the same company. I called the developer for a copy of the deed which applies to us. After a search of their records, they phoned back and said they could not find a copy of it. Because of the economy, the company has gone from 20 or 30 employees to the two owners of the company. They have made several office moves, downsizing each time. Some of their records are still in storage and who knows what happened to the others. They advised me to go to the county tax assessor's office for a copy of the correct deed (that's what JohnB also suggested above), and that is my intention. Judging from the fact that we do not have all the pertinent documentation and the pitiful state of our CC&Rs, I believe the paperwork done by the developer can be called sloppy at best.

We are registered with the Indiana Secretary of State as a nonprofit corporation. Our listed registered agent is me and our HOA secretary is (for lack of a better term) an alternate.

I hope that answers your questions, and Robert, please keep posting! I learn from you and the others.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Thanks, Mary. Evidently I was writing Robert as you were making your post. I hear you. I've searched everywhere I can think of for definitive statements about types of housing -- all to no avail. I guess thats what enables housing types to evolve in so many different ways.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Marianne,

Try googling "townhome definition". The key is to put the word "definition" in your search.

I think what muddies the waters are developers who combine 2 types of housing into one, which seems to be what yours has done. However, since your docs define yours as single family homes the "problem" has been taken care of. As I stated earlier, a problem only arises when trying to determine which statutes to abide by.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Marrianne,
Did you do as I suggested and ask the registered Agent? What did you say?

All things being equal and all different styles, and construction and names considered, it would appear that whatever you are you should have a file at the courthouse of who you are and what that means in the Property description, who is responsible for what, and how the association is managed, among ten thousand other things. It seems true that some documents will be well written and some not, some will be neglected for years and some will be used for other than the good of the association.

So, it seems you have a extremely well founded concern about your documents, you seem to have the drive and desire to right the ship. No doubt your place is lucky to have you.

I even imagine you are willing to accept you are not going to create a utopia when you are finished and you will find detractors to your efforts along the way.

As far as this site is concerned, it is a good one if we understand, none posting here will be right all the time, and it is laborious to pick out the good stuff. You know more than you did a couple weeks ago so keep up the good work, I think you are on the right track.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Mary,

What does this mean? "what muddies the waters are developers who combine 2 types of housing into one, " I can only tell you one thing. When a developement is filed under the Not For Profit Corp Act in Florida, that developement is assigned a Statute number. Condos are 718, villas, townhomes and stand alones are 720, mobile homes are 723. I Googled Townhomes and it seems that Phoenix is a special place, calling everything condos/townhomes.

condominium
Hide links within the definitionShow links within the definition
Definition
Single, individually-owned housing unit in a multi-unit building. The condominium owner holds sole title to the unit, but owns land and common property (elevators, halls, roof, stairs, etc.) jointly with other unit owners, and shares the upkeep expenses on the common-property with them. Unit owner pays property taxes only on his or her unit, and may mortgage, rent, or sell it just like any other personal property.

townhouse
In architecture and city planning, a terrace(d), row house, or townhouse (though the latter term can also refer to patio houses) is a style of housing in use since the late 17th century, where a row of identical or mirror-image houses share side walls. The first and last of these houses is called an end terrace, usually larger than those houses in the middle.

villa
vil⋅la /ˈvɪlə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vil-uh] Show IPA
3. British. a detached or semidetached dwelling house, usually suburban. ***** This is where our usage comes from

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Donna,

What I mean when I say developers muddy the waters is because a developer may build a home with features of a single family home and house it in a condo-type community where each member has an undivided interest in the common areas. If the particular type of community is not stated anywhere in the gov docs the BOD is left with the dilemma of determining whether the condo or planned community statutes apply.

If you google "definition of townhome" you will find that a townhome is more like a single family home than a condo. The difference being the property is titled "fee simple" which means absolute ownership of land; whereas a condo owner has an undivided interest in the common areas. I know we have had posters here state that they live in a townhome community and have an undivided interest in the common areas. That's an example of a developer
muddying the waters"!

In the Phx area and all of AZ, there are mobile homes, time shares, planned communities of single family homes, condos, townhomes and patio homes, etc., etc. The only statutes we have are for mobile homes, time shares, planned communities and condos. Townhomes, patio homes and any other type are left to fall into either the condo or planned community statutes. There is no state law to tell the BOD which one applies. If it isn't mentioned in the gov docs then it's left to the discretion of the BOD.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 08/20/2009 4:45 PM
Donna,

What I mean when I say developers muddy the waters is because a developer may build a home with features of a single family home and house it in a condo-type community where each member has an undivided interest in the common areas. If the particular type of community is not stated anywhere in the gov docs the BOD is left with the dilemma of determining whether the condo or planned community statutes apply.

If you google "definition of townhome" you will find that a townhome is more like a single family home than a condo. The difference being the property is titled "fee simple" which means absolute ownership of land; whereas a condo owner has an undivided interest in the common areas. I know we have had posters here state that they live in a townhome community and have an undivided interest in the common areas. That's an example of a developer
muddying the waters"!

In the Phx area and all of AZ, there are mobile homes, time shares, planned communities of single family homes, condos, townhomes and patio homes, etc., etc. The only statutes we have are for mobile homes, time shares, planned communities and condos. Townhomes, patio homes and any other type are left to fall into either the condo or planned community statutes. There is no state law to tell the BOD which one applies. If it isn't mentioned in the gov docs then it's left to the discretion of the BOD.

I see that the definition of townhome could be construed to apply to paired patio homes in that they are single family homes with a shared wall. What I don't see is why the way a home is categorized has anything to do with owners having a shared interest in common areas.

What I can be certain about is that in our case and in accordance with our Articles of Corporation, those who are Class A Members of the corporation are referred to as Owners. I also know that the homes are sold as single family homes. The BOD had absolutely nothing (tried that BF again) to do with determining how the homes are categorized. That all occurred long before anyone bought here.

Also confusing is what statutes are you and others referring to? State statutes, national statutes? In other words, are there national or state definitions of types of housing? Are they set in stone so that no variation is allowed?

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Marianne,

Florida has several sets of State Statutes that govern planned communities. These are laws that we are supposed to use , mostly as minimum guidelines for how to govern ourselves.

718 is the condo Statutes, 720 is HOAs, 723 is for mobile homes and our Not For Profit Statutes is 617. California has the Sterling/Davis Act and many States do have similar laws, Statutes and or laws for guidelines. There are no Federal laws other than the HUD,FHA,ADA , etc. but these laws do not get specific on how to run planned communities, voting, members and all of the crappola that the individual documents are full of.That is left to the individual States to deal with.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Thanks, Donna. I'm wondering whether Indiana has any. I've tried to research on the internet with no success. Our Articles of Incorporation reference only the Indiana Code and the IRS code, both of which apply to non-profit corporations.

Well what do you think, folks? The cows are home by now and I'm beginning to think this horse is about beat to death.

Serious thanks to all for all the comments. For a novice like me, this website is invaluable. Marianne

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Marianne,
You might check CAN site on this page, left side highlighted in Yellow. Also Condolawyer (IL) has a lot of information. (Google)

Regards state statutes. The state can write all the statutes they want but if they choose not to enforce them the homeowners are left to scramble. Then we have owners demanding this and that, justifiable in some cases, some not. FL has addressed the issue as well as most states I guess but FL is certainly not free from strife because of this.

You just keep on gettin and don't expect for each question to have an answer and accept we can't win all the battles even if we are right.

TracieS (Colorado)
Posts: 460

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MarianneG on 08/20/2009 6:12 PM

Also confusing is what statutes are you and others referring to? State statutes, national statutes? In other words, are there national or state definitions of types of housing? Are they set in stone so that no variation is allowed?

As far as I know (and I'm still learning, too!), there are no Federal laws regarding type of housing or Federal definitions (yes, there's Fair Housing, but I don't know about actual laws that affect our communities). If I'm wrong on this one, PLEASE correct me!

When I did the wikipedia for a definition of townhome (I live in a townhome), it helped me a little bit. The information above from Mary(?) (really wish we could edit our posts and see the conversation without having to open a new window) about FEE SIMPLE helped me a LOT. That's actually in my documents.

Just to help you figure a little more out... There's the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (Federal? Or just a nationwide "standard"???) call UCIOA. States can opt to adopt all/some/none of the UCIOA for their own State Statutes.

Colorado (where I am) has adopted some/portions of the CCIOA, BUT...MY association is exempt from HAVING to comply with all parts of CCIOA (too small too old). There's language in CCIOA (pronounced Kiowa) that allows associations like mine to OPT IN, but we don't have to.

After the state adopted CCIOA, the legislature decided to pass Senate Bill 100 to clear up some problems CCIOA created. Also, my understanding is that CCIOA is really more for developer protection. Senate BIll 100 has rules/regs that ALL associations MUST follow, regardless of whether we have to comply with CCIOA.

Then, the very next year, the legislature decided to pass Senate Bill 89 to correct some problems that BOTH CCIOA and SB100 created. Like SB100, SB89 has rules/regs that our association MUST follow.

Now, there's a House Bill that might be signed into law that deals with associations.

So... with ALL that said... I was just giving you that kind of information above, Marianne, so you can see how much there is to learn, how convoluted it can be, and some places you might be able to find information.

While my association doesn't have to follow CCIOA, we're starting to incorporate some of those rules/regs, just in case we get an owner in here who starts getting dangerous with a tiny bit of information (CCIOA compliant stance). We also have to follow State Non-Profit Corporation Law (which we would have to comply with EVEN IF we had to comply with CCIOA).

Finally, my state statutes, in the definitions area, ONLY defines Condominium and Planned Community. Trailer parks, duplexes, townhomes, etc...statutes are silent on a definition. My documents (everywhere) call us a townhome/townhouse association.

Now, I'm still learning, but this shows you how convoluted it is, and why it's so important to take everyone's posts with the knowledge that YOUR LAWS MAY/PROBABLY ARE DIFFERENT.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Marianne,

In my postings all I've tried to get across is that certain types of housing have a definition explaining what that type of housing means. Some states have laws specific to condos and planned communities (what some call HOAs) and the HOAs must abide by them. There are no state laws which are specific to townhomes or patio homes (at least that I've ever heard of) so those type housing must fall into either condo or planned community statutes. It's often the case that the developer only refers to the community as a townhome or patio home community and does not further define it as to whether it falls into the condo or planned community category. When that happens my feeling is that it's up to the BOD to determine. Whether owners have a shared interest in the common areas can be a determining factor when trying to determine whether the project would fall into the condo or planned community statutes because that is one of the defining characteristics of those types of housing. Most HOAs are nonprofit corps so they ALSO must abide by the States' nonprofit corp statutes.

Class A and B members are used to define the types of memberships in the HOA. Class A refers to the members, while Class B refers to the developer.

FYI, following are the IN statutes and applicable websites:

Condominiums, IC 32-25, Article 25: www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title32/ar25/ch1.html

Homeowners Associations, IC 32-25.2
www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title32/ar25.5

I couldn't locate the nonprofit corp code. If it is referenced in your docs by Title number you can do a search under "Indiana Code" and that number. The IN legislative website leaves a lot to be desired, for one thing there is no apparent link to the IN Code. I suggest your BOD thoroughly read and understand the set of statutes that applies to your community as they are bound to abide by them the same as they are bound to abide by your gov. docs. Same suggestion for the IN Non profit corp code.

I hope this helps to explain a few more things to you.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Everyone agree if at some point in a association life and the will is there that these provisions as originally registered could be subject for revision? Probably the sooner the better. I also propose these revisions have to be proposed by a knowledgeable, credited group, with no stipulation they have to be Board members. Once the proposed revisions are recommended and the Board endorses the changes it should go to the members for approval. From the posts on this site there appears to be little agreement as to what should be changed and why. Understandable I think.

Does that then leave most association with the need to closely revise their covenants and make them more effective Would a good management company be a place to start.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Tracie, OMG. You are so right. There is so much that it's almost overwhelming. I've had a chance to look at your CCIOA, and it appears to be very specific about HOA operations. It would seem from what I've read so far that there is a lot of contention about the UCIOA. It's really quite mind-boggling. I'm rather glad that Indiana doesn't lay down so many requirements/regulations.

Mary, I know that you are very serious in what you say and that you have a lot of knowledge in this area, which I'm not going to dispute. The one thing, though, that will not fly with me is that the BOD determines the type of housing. That was determined long before a board was established, and the same situation exists in housing developments all over this central Indiana area.

I appreciate the references you gave. As I said to Tracie, I'm rather glad we don't seem to have so many rules and regulations. George has previously written our Indiana documents are not complete, and for that I'm happy. We out here in George's Hoosierland are an independent sort, and I wouldnt be surprised to find that we do what we darned-well please.

TracieS (Colorado)
Posts: 460

Posted:

I hear you! In Colorado, even with CCIOA, it just doesn't seem *that* regulated. Certainly not like Florida or California! Those states are just crazy-regulated! Out here in Colorado, we tend towards libertarian style of living...independent as well.

I'm VERY glad that my association doesn't have to comply with CCIOA. While it's very nice to have a uniform standard in my state, CCIOA is really for larger communities and build in LOTS of developer/builder protections.

Again, there's A LOT to learn...so go slow. Take little bites, and eventually, you'll get there! I know SO MUCH more than I did a few months ago, but NOW, I know what I don't know, and that's the hard part!

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TracieS on 08/21/2009 2:37 PM
I hear you! In Colorado, even with CCIOA, it just doesn't seem *that* regulated. Certainly not like Florida or California! Those states are just crazy-regulated! Out here in Colorado, we tend towards libertarian style of living...independent as well.

I'm VERY glad that my association doesn't have to comply with CCIOA. While it's very nice to have a uniform standard in my state, CCIOA is really for larger communities and build in LOTS of developer/builder protections.

Again, there's A LOT to learn...so go slow. Take little bites, and eventually, you'll get there! I know SO MUCH more than I did a few months ago, but NOW, I know what I don't know, and that's the hard part!

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Marianne,

You said: "Mary, I know that you are very serious in what you say and that you have a lot of knowledge in this area, which I'm not going to dispute. The one thing, though, that will not fly with me is that the BOD determines the type of housing. That was determined long before a board was established, and the same situation exists in housing developments all over this central Indiana area."

The reason I made that statement is because in many instances the developer states the type of housing to be townhomes. There are no state laws governing townhomes, only condos and planned communities (sometimes called HOAs). Therefore, it's up to the board to determine where their townhome community falls; are they more like condos or more like planned communities. I'm not saying it's the board's resp. to determine what type housing but only to determine where their type housing falls with regard to state laws. Even Tracie stated the CO statutes only define condos and planned communities but her docs only refer her assn to be a townhome. This is a good example of why the board has the resp. to determine which set of statutes their townhome assn falls into.

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MaryA1 on 08/22/2009 11:36 AM
Marianne,

You said: "Mary, I know that you are very serious in what you say and that you have a lot of knowledge in this area, which I'm not going to dispute. The one thing, though, that will not fly with me is that the BOD determines the type of housing. That was determined long before a board was established, and the same situation exists in housing developments all over this central Indiana area."

The reason I made that statement is because in many instances the developer states the type of housing to be townhomes. There are no state laws governing townhomes, only condos and planned communities (sometimes called HOAs). Therefore, it's up to the board to determine where their townhome community falls; are they more like condos or more like planned communities. I'm not saying it's the board's resp. to determine what type housing but only to determine where their type housing falls with regard to state laws. Even Tracie stated the CO statutes only define condos and planned communities but her docs only refer her assn to be a townhome. This is a good example of why the board has the resp. to determine which set of statutes their townhome assn falls into.

Mary, The little couplet that comes to mind is -- "He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I think we're at a point that neither of us will convince the other, so my hope is that we can respectfully agree to disagree. Thanks, Marianne -- and please know that I truly do appreciate your input on this forum.

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

I think there is a step missing in all this creation of a particular kind of a association. Whether it be a creation of a new HOA or the conversion of a particular type association, there has to be an application to the Planning department somewhere at some level. Now the "Planning Department" as mentioned may be a misnomer in some areas but it appears the property has to be platted and designated or re designated. At that time I suspect there is some designation given and justified by the application...... This re designation from say an apartment building to a Condominium is of interest............ That is clearly done at some government agency level and not internally. Would this indicate that if the essentials for qualification as one thing or the other is not established at the time of application the fault lies or could lie with the approving agency? This could create confusion as to what label to attach to the association. Could some of these labels created at birth be wrong?

We all seem to be familiar with state statutes applying to condo and HOA's and we are reading of new attempts to legislate some kind of HOA statutes. That is already true in some parts.

I would think if the task of determining proper nomenclature or clarify doubtful descriptions falls on the BOD, they would be obligated to make these changes in the documents and seek a stamp of approval of the agency that normally registers associations in the county or whatever. Otherwise, the next BOD could come in and vote in some new standard............

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Robert,

You are correct. The Planning Dept would be resp. for approving the type of development being created. However, if that approval is for patio homes or townhomes, the point I've been trying to get across to Marianne is that there are no statutes for those type developments. There are only condo and planned community (single family homes) statutes, aside from the nonprofit corp statutes which apply to all nonprofits no matter what type housing. The HOA statutes apply to all HOAs so the townhome and patio home communities must fall into one class or the other. If the docs do not state whether the townhomes or patio homes are also a condo or planned community then the board must decide which set of statutes will apply.
As for making any changes in the docs I doubt that would be necessary. There is nothing in any of my gov docs stating my assn is a planned community. The only indication of exactly what type housing is contained in my HOA is in the name of the HOA. We are the XYZ Homeowners Assn indicating we are a planned community. If we were a condo development we would be the XYZ Condominium Assn; if a townhome community we would most likely be the XYZ Townhome Community, etc., etc.

I guess I'm getting old because I can't seem to get this point across to Marianne, so I will not belabor this any longer. As she suggests, I will agree to disagree.

MaryA1 (Arizona)
Posts: 7,043

Posted:

Marianne,

Agreed!

MarianneG (Indiana)
Posts: 170

Posted:

Thanks Robert,
Mary, We are designated by the IN Sec of State the XXX XXX Homeowner's Association, Inc., and I don't think I've ever disputed our being a planned community (here called managed communities by the builders). What I DO dispute is that the board makes the decision since there are at least 4 different developers here who build communities that operate just like mine right from the beginning -- and that's just on the southside of town. There are numerous others, by other builders, on the west and north of Indy so I believe that there is some board, group, organization that accepts the developer's plans to build a certain kind of community under certain conditions/laws/statutes/agreements, whatever.

Sadly, I don't GUESS I'm getting old. I KNOW I'm getting old... and older and older the longer this goes on. OK. I quit! I leave the last word to you.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Marianne,

Kudos to you cause you'll never get the last word in. Mary!! Time out for a cup of Earl Grey.

🎯 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