Month: August 2011

Amendment Prohibiting Renters Was “Reasonable”

Facts: The declaration of covenants and restrictions of a private residential community included an amendment that prohibited owners from renting their homes to tenants. After the association learned that one of the owners in the community was renting her home to a tenant, it sued the owner. The association asked the trial court for an injunction—that is, an order from the court to the owner to stop renting her home to the current tenant and not to rent to future tenants—without a trial. The trial court granted the injunction, and the owner appealed.

Age-Restriction Rules Challenge Set for Trial

A member of Bayside Estates, an age-restricted community in south Fort Myers, Fla., won't give up his right to let family, friends, and employees younger than 55 years old stay at his house. The community's homeowners association is just as determined to clamp down on the 76-year-old homeowner. In a letter to the member in 2008, the then-association president wrote that without rules there is “anarchy and disorder.”

Clearly Define Rights and Terms in “View Protection” Bylaw

If the community you manage is located in a scenic area, like near a beach or lake, or in a city with a famous skyline like New York, Boston, or Seattle, the view that owners enjoy from their units might be very important to them. Owners often buy their particular units because of the views and are dismayed if they're obscured by structures or foliage added later. Owners who have paid for a specific view that they can no longer enjoy or that previously made their unit more valuable and unique than others, making resale easier, could sue the association.

Owner Can Sue Association for Discrimination and Retaliation

Facts: An owner sued the homeowners association, two board members, and two employees of his condo complex for discrimination and retaliation, claiming that they had discriminated against his family on the basis of their national origin (Indian) by depriving them of services provided to white residents. The district court concluded that the owner's allegations were “insufficient to state plausible claims of discrimination or retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).” The owner appealed.