Builder's Sales Office / Garage Conversion

Has anyone had any experience with a homeowner refusing to convert a former sales office back to a garage? Our builder used the first home in our community as a model and converted a 3-car garage to his sale's office. The builder went under and the home was bankowned for over a year but was recently purchased "as is, where is" from the bank. The community would like to have the garages converted back, but the homeowner does not wish to do so due to cost and functional reasons.

Our bylaws only require that homes have attached garages, our ACC rules stipulate that homes must have at least a 2 car garage, and our Bylaws give the developer the right to maintain storage areas, sales offices, etc. provided they are "Developer shall restore the areas so utilized
to habitable status upon termination of use." Can the new homeowner, who purchased the home "as is" be required to do this conversion. I would think the "as is" nature of the purchase would put the builder's former conversion requirement on the new homeowner.

Are these garages converted by the builder using some sort of temporary permit? I ask because the house is listed as having a 3-car garage with the city.

Depending on the exact wording of your governing documents, they MAY be used to force the homeowner to actually have a garage (I'm guessing here that the "sales office" conversion walled in the spot for garage doors to a solid wall thus preventing the space to actually be considered a garage).

Also look in your CCRs or rules for parking restrictions - some communities require the cars to be actually parked in a garage or other similar restrictions.

If your governing documents require an attached 2-car garage, and the homeowner does not have one, then it would seem to me that your association could require that he create one.

Providing he does not have something in writing from the developer waiving that requirement.

Now, whether he decides to increase his home's footprint by adding a 2-car attached garage in some way, or whether he decides to go ahead and de-retrofit the "office space," is entirely up to him.

The city says that conversions of this type are allowed ... but they can only comment on what's allowed by code and not on our enforcement rights.

I have not yet confirmed if it is properly permitted. I don't know if these are done under a temporary permit from the builder and what restrictions might be on that or is it was a full permit. It is listed with the assessor as a 3 car garage, so I assume something isn't updated properly.

Dee,

This is really a "sticky wicket"! The CCR requirement for the builder to restore the area to habitable status upon termination of use hasn't been carried out because of the builder's bankruptcy. And, the homeowner bought the home on an "as is, where is" condition which may mean he is not obligated to make any improvements, etc. I would say this is definitely a situation that call for legal advice, especially if the board is adamant that a 2 or 3-car garage is a requirement.

Dee,

As I indicated, I'd be interested in reading more about the particular situation and concerns, if you'd care to post it here.

Susan, the difference being that this home has had the garage door replaced by windows and french doors, effectively eliminating the garage for all practical purposes, and altering the external appearance so that it's evident there is no garage.

We have homeowners who have turned their garages into "man caves." No, they haven't done what the developer did with that house, but on Sundays, when you drive by you can see the the big screen TV, several lazy-boys, grills, ice buckets, cornbag games, and string lights in the favorite team colors inside the garage as the garage door is open and the homeowner is "tailgating" with his buds.

Now, he obviously doesn't use his garage to park his cars, but he has not architecturally altered it to the point where if he were to sell the home, it would be listed as "no garage."

It's more than just the fact it "looks" like a garage. Without a garage, it will sell for a lesser amount than surrounding homes, thus bringing down the average home prices if others were to follow suit.

It's still about preserving home values in the neighborhood, which sometimes does involve more than just "looks," it involves "use" too.

Dee:

You do not need to get into justification for enforcing the covenants. The "why" behind someone's complaint is irrelevant.

The fact is, your documents do control to an extent the "interior" of the home in that you have stated this: Our bylaws only require that homes have attached garages, our ACC rules stipulate that homes must have at least a 2 car garage,

The home no longer has an "attached garage."

It has been converted into living space and that is not allowed under your governing documents.

Therefore you have at least the impetus to explore this with an attorney and get some guidance.

What you definitely want to prevent is erosion of the property values by setting the precedent that "attached garages" may be converted.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the builder was to convert back to a garage but because of his bankruptcy that didn't happen. Building permits may not have been required to make this temporary change. Builders do this all the time! Because of the circumstances, I really believe an attorney should be consulted especially since the new owner purchased the home in "as is, where is" condition.

Kirk, the poster already said that the conversion replaced the garage door with windows and french doors. It doesn't look like a "garage" anymore.

I've been getting the impression from other discussion groups that "grandfathered" is just another word for "precedent" in the HOA world. If we allow this to stay, wouldn't we be unable to effectively deny other requests for converting the 3rd car garage into office or living space in the future ... isn't that likely the case?

I do not believe it is anyone's intention to pick on these new homeowners, but rather to be cognizant of both the short and long-term implications of such an alteration for our entire community and to uphold the bylaws if they are applicable.

Spoken like a true attorney.

Good luck with this one if the CCR's say "Developer shall restore the areas so utilized to habitable status upon termination of use." HO isn't the developer. HO's lawyer is gonna say you're talking to the wrong person if you allowed the house to be sold without enforcing the CCR's against the developer to convert it back.

True, and I agree with that.

However, they can require that it an attached garage be restored to the lot, either with an addition (if there is enough square-footage to do that and still be within legal set backs) or by restoring the converted one that was there, because the CC&Rs do say that attached garages are required.

Now, if the homeowners had a written waiver from the developer, that would be golden. Our CC&Rs have requirements that all-vinyl homes are not allowed. There's some percentage or ratio to masonry or brick that vinyl as to stay within.

However, the developer approved about 10 all-vinyl homes. He provided the homeowners with a waiver of that restriction in writing.

That would be my take on it, too, which is why I say that it would be their responsibility to bring it up to the covenant requirement of having an attached garage.

But, and I think others have said this as well, it would be well worth discussing this with an attorney and determining the pros and cons of any action.

I'd be curious to hear how this plays out. Keep us posted.

No kidding? Huh. And because you stated it clearly it must be true. My bad.


No, actually, I think you're just wearing your skin a little too thin tonight. Sleep on it. It'll pass.

You say that like his response upset me? It didn't. My comment was a throw away. He apparently took it as an insult of some kind and did try to get a little personal and jabbing in his response back. Oh well. It happens. Back to your regularly scheduled program. . .

Yes, Michele, it is bad. You have repeatedly accused me of lying, without foundation (except that "you smell a rat", which excuses your outrageous behavior and makes anything you do OK).

When I repeatedly let you have the last word and ignored your childish and insulting behavior, instead of growing up and moving on, you got comfortable in your role as "Forum Harpy" and continued to take free shots whenever the mood struck you.

When I tried to reason with you, when I pointed out your circular reasoning, you ignored the rational argument and said you had not "said anything personal".

I pointed out that going around threads as the Queen of Hearsay was irrational. ("I dub this one hearsay. This one, on the other hand, I think I like. Oh, but him I don't, so I will call that hearsay.) We are posting in an internet forum – everything is hearsay, whether you like it or not. Someone as rude as you might follow some of your own personal vignettes and troubles with, "Aha! Hearsay!" Same with your many relevant anecdotes about your HOA. It would certainly be true, but that does not make it acceptable behavior. Could also dispute any opinion of yours with, "I, too, smell a rat." But that hardly contributes to this forum. In fact, that is the sort of abuse that has rendered other forums useless and chased off good contributors. I'm sure a snide assumption could be voiced about the admitted demise of your own HOA's forum.

I once pointed out gently and briefly that I could easily behave as that, and you started screaming that you are somehow in a different category.

Someone once asked for details about a peripheral issue, which I provided. You then interjected without provocation a personal diatribe about how I always abbreviate everything, but I always go into too much detail. Go figure.

I don't know what I did to set you off, but I don't believe I did anything to earn abuse like this from anyone. I don't think you have any special privilege that lets you do this constantly to me and other participants. And it's certainly a cop-out to just whine that anyone who objects to your abuse is just being too sensitive.

There is a word for someone who follows someone else around, repeatedly prodding them and begging for attention.

I am not your buddy, your side-kick or your personal punching bag, so please stop taking liberties and responding as if that is your due.

I make no apology for asking for input on various aspects of my BoD's actual behavior or this large, complex two-year-old dispute which has become a lawsuit costing my HOA over $150,000 for our attorney at last estimate and would probably cost twice that (over $1000 per lot) to extricate ourselves if we could stop it right now. I believe we are in trouble, and we could use some help.

I do regret if I got too caught up and posted too much; as this annoyed people. Responsible posters seemed to feel it obscured other issues in this newsgroup. I'm still not sure how, or if it was more about jumping on the bandwagon, but I've demonstrated my consideration for the opinions and feelings of others. Why don't you do the same?

You have many lengthy posts and comment on almost every thread. Many (I think most) of these posts are reasonable and constructive. You have a lot of knowledge, good reasoning skills and you contribute exceptionally well when you choose to.

I don't think that makes bad behavior acceptable. On the contrary, when you choose to use circular reasoning, write in clichés and hurl unprovoked insults as tools just to harass people, it is clear that you do so knowingly and with mean-spirited intent to abuse, and that you are capable of much better.

If someone is interested in my actual profession and background, they are welcome to ask about it.

I think my posts have generally been well-reasoned, informative, and accurate to the best of my ability. I have tried answered all questions (even snide ones) sincerely with the facts available to me. I posted one analogy attempting humor and you used it as an excuse to attack me for months afterwards (unfairly, as I don't think it really offended any one, and I think it accurately depicted the situation, as analogies go).

I think it's fair to say my posts are on-topic and well-intended. If someone is not interested in a topic, they can always choose to read no further. There are topics I don't reply to, when I think I have nothing to contribute. There are topics I don't read, because they don't interest me. When I ask how details of CoI or some other issue might be handled, or say how it was once done badly, what purpose is served by making pronouncements about how no one should comment on the lawsuit (which I didn't even bring up), other than impeding discussion in order to attack me? Enough of this, "I know what's really going on, and you can't post anything without me telling everyone what I decided you really mean."

When you feel the urge to go all heinous harpy on us, why don't you sleep on it – see if you are still irritable enough in the morning to expose the rest of us to that.

And I wish my skin were tight. Its looseness is not a picture to entertain before bedtime.

There now, let's hope that rant makes you feel better.

Though I find it difficult to equate my simply not believing you are as you represent yourself the same thing as actually point-blank "name calling" (Forum Harpy, heckler, Queen of Hearsay) and labeling me as harassing, rude, childish, insulting and more.

Again, now that you have that off your chest, I do hope you feel better.

I don't see how a term of sale could have any legal impact on the deed restrictions. Even if the home was sold "with no deed restrictions" they still apply. (This leads to the same conclusion Robert obtained through other reasoning.)

If the sale was made under false pretences or failure to disclose obligations or conditions, then the owner may have some recourse against the seller or realtor -- that's not the HOA's problem.

The Developer failed to comply with a contractual obligation, and they are gone so they cannot be held responsible now.

If the BoD determines (based on legal advice, one would hope) that the homeowner must have a structurally functional garage, or that the appearance must be different than it is, then they only owe the homeowner sufficient warning and reasonable time to comply.

If the BoD determines that it looks OK and it would be onerous for the owner to fix or for the HOA to pursue, they can create a grandfather provision (or recommend to the Membership to amend the Bylaws to allow such) to avoid setting a precedent that could create problems for the HOA in future.

Does everyone agree the Board can require the owners to convert the property back to the original configuration of the property. The method of how the Board does this should be left to the BOD's. Time frame of restoration should be a BOD agreement between Owner and Board.
IMHO, my vote would be yes.