You shouldn't be able to foreclose on someone whose house is paid off AT ALL.
Why? It is basically a tax and you can for not paying property tax, water bills, ground rent, etc. Owning outright doesn't make you immune.
i think it is shady, but this sounds like it wasn't handled properly and she is not innocent. We will have an hoa and it basically maintains common grounds. It offsets taxes by maintaining the area, including snow removal, in an area with a short supply of such equipment. So far, I am ok with it.
You shouldn't be able to foreclose on someone whose house is paid off AT ALL.
So this is a good point. I alway thought of a foreclosure as a bank-initiated procedure. Here, the debt was owed to the HOA so they could initiate it I guess but it still seems......unsettling, to say the least, that your HOA can foreclose on your house. My secured transactions knowledge is really weak now and was never very strong anyway, but it just all seems "off."
Also, I don't think it really matters how "innocent" the homeowner was. She may have been willfully obtuse, let's say, but I don't think she thought her house was in danger over 288 dollars. And really, who would?
But even that doesn't matter bc the HOA messed up the foreclosure process. They didn't give her proper notice. That's a big effin deal. It's not like "well she messed up so they messed up so it evens out." No.
The burden is on those serving notice to show it is received. I don't know how foreclosures work, but if I file a lawsuit against someone and they ignore it, the first thing the judge will ask me before granting a default judgment is what steps I took to notify the defendant. If all I had was, "I sent it certified mail to an address that I thought nobody lived at," there's no way in hell the judge would say, "welp, personal responsibility! Too bad, so sad, defendant loses!"
Instead, I would need to produce evidence of the efforts I took to notify them, with "reasonable notice" being weighed with the damages. That kind of effort by the HOA here might fly for small claims court (unlikely since they admit it was a bad address), and no way would it fly for something serious. Due process, the bedrock of our legal system, requires that people get notice before their rights are extinguished and property taken.
Things I would do in this instance: run Internet searches to locate either other residential addresses or a place of business, run a search through the NCOA database, utilize other people finding searches (lexis offers them), and if that all fails, a PI. Given the rights at stake, a sheriff or PI is not unreasonable.
You know how you get notices in the mail for class action lawsuits? Courts require that, at a minimum before those notices are sent, address checks are run, typically through NCOA (run by the post office). For things involving a few dollars. Surely they could have done more here.
I have a lot of issues with how the foreclosure went down, but I don't thinks she is exactly an innocent victim. If this was a NYT article we'd all be lamenting how they always choose unsympathetic victims
There are lots of people who aren't "innocent victims" but that doesn't mean we don't have a ton of outrage at the magnitude of the consequences levied against them.
Earlier this week everyone agreed that three strikes rules were ridiculous, and people shouldn't go to prison for life for stealing a jacket. The whole thread was rage, not "well it's stupid he is in prison for life, but bootstraps and all, so no tears."
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions I asked several posts ago, among them being whether people actually think n this instance the punishment fits the crime, and if this is in the best interest of the HOA.
Fwiw, I'm not anti-HOA. This might even be the first HOA thread I've posted in. I just think they acted so incredibly irresponsibly in this instance that I don't understand why people are piling on the homeowner. Her actions seem irrelevant to the question of whether the HOA overreacted, and acted irresponsibly and recklessly.
Also, I don't think it really matters how "innocent" the homeowner was. She may have been willfully obtuse, let's say, but I don't think she thought her house was in danger over 288 dollars. And really, who would?
But even that doesn't matter bc the HOA messed up the foreclosure process. They didn't give her proper notice. That's a big effin deal. It's not like "well she messed up so they messed up so it evens out." No.
I think I am not surprised because of my time in Baltimore where people were kicked out of their homes for less. The notice, though, is an issue for sure, but the amount doesn't negate some responsibility to read documents at purchase.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions I asked several posts ago, among them being whether people actually think n this instance the punishment fits the crime, and if this is in the best interest of the HOA.
NO.
I agree with you that they should have worked a lot harder to find the lady. Especially since we are talking about less than $300.
I don't really get why they escalated to foreclosure; an owner at a condo building we lived in started pulling this business and she got liens put on her and she couldn't sell---the HOA made her life a living hell lol, but it was a LONG TIME and ROAD before foreclosure.
I don't get why people keep going back to "oh she should have known so everything that followed is her fault."
If you believe that it's more likely she screwed up, not the RE broker, title people, and HOA etc, do you think a fair punishment for failure to pay $288 is to lose one's home without an opportunity to contest it, and effectively pay a $40k fine? Is that a reasonable punishment to you? Do you think that is fair to everyone in the HOA, who have to live with the impact of a foreclosed home in the neighborhood? Even if you think she signed the papers, do you think she agreed to a contract that would allow her home to be stolen from her as a punishment for failing to pay $288? Would you agree to that?
Or do you think that even if it is her fault, other penalties would be a more appropriate response?
Even if she signed the papers, I cannot get past how unbelievably inappropriate the HOA's response was. It's just so unreasonable to me -- among other things, it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood, bad publicity, and it subjects them to litigation -- that I have to conclude that they had major paperwork issues and no record of her joining -- that would lead them to make such an irrational decision. They must have had bad information and made these decisions on that bad information.
If all the ducks were in a row, and there was just no issue, then it seems any sane organization would make smarter choices. So either the HOA is reckless and irresponsible, or they acted on bad information. I just don't see how you can come to a different conclusion. If you believe she had to have been given the paperwork in a non-fraudulent manner, then put yourself in the HOA's shoes and ask yourself if this is really the best course of action for the organization?
I concur that there must be other issues at hand. For our owner, we took away her parking privilege, and we keep a record of penalty fees, but otherwise it's not in our best interest to foreclose on her even if we could. I do worry about the structural integrity of her property (we live in town homes).
It may have to do with her previous experience with the HOA. Something tells me that despite the amount she's had previous run ins with the HOA and this was the last straw.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions I asked several posts ago, among them being whether people actually think n this instance the punishment fits the crime, and if this is in the best interest of the HOA.
Fwiw, I'm not anti-HOA. This might even be the first HOA thread I've posted in. I just think they acted so incredibly irresponsibly in this instance that I don't understand why people are piling on the homeowner. Her actions seem irrelevant to the question of whether the HOA overreacted, and acted irresponsibly and recklessly.
I think that question depends entirely upon what the particular HOA does/how much they "need" those dues. In this case, no. I can't figure out how the community is harmed by this woman's missing $48, particularly as her ownership is causing no issues to the community at large.
However, as much as I am again the very concept of HOAs and barring the fact that this particular HOA handled things very badly, I'm wondering what other options we expect them to exercise. The dues are a debt. Unlike utilities, they cannot simply turn them off in a bid to get the homeowner to pony up the cash. On one hand, I despise that HOAs have this ability even when done with proper notice. On the other, how else does a HOA enforce compliance? Or do they just let people who avoid them not pay?
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions I asked several posts ago, among them being whether people actually think n this instance the punishment fits the crime, and if this is in the best interest of the HOA.
Fwiw, I'm not anti-HOA. This might even be the first HOA thread I've posted in. I just think they acted so incredibly irresponsibly in this instance that I don't understand why people are piling on the homeowner. Her actions seem irrelevant to the question of whether the HOA overreacted, and acted irresponsibly and recklessly.
I think that question depends entirely upon what the particular HOA does/how much they "need" those dues. In this case, no. I can't figure out how the community is harmed by this woman's missing $48, particularly as her ownership is causing no issues to the community at large.
However, as much as I am again the very concept of HOAs and barring the fact that this particular HOA handled things very badly, I'm wondering what other options we expect them to exercise. The dues are a debt. Unlike utilities, they cannot simply turn them off in a bid to get the homeowner to pony up the cash. On one hand, I despise that HOAs have this ability even when done with proper notice. On the other, how else does a HOA enforce compliance? Or do they just let people who avoid them not pay?
They can take steps like other debt holder. Put derogatory marks on credit, call homes regularly to the point of harassment to collect the debt, file lawsuits to collect the unpaid amounts, and if successful with the lawsuit but unsuccessful itch collections, put liens on bank accounts or the home itself (which would not result in foreclosure but just means they collect when the house sells or a heloc is taken out). Or they can also do what most owners of small debt do -- sell the unpaid debt at a discount to a debt collector, and wipe their hands of it.
No doubt it cost the HOA far more than $288 to foreclose, and it is going to cost them more if they get sued.
They can take steps like other debt holder. Put derogatory marks on credit, call homes regularly to the point of harassment to collect the debt, file lawsuits to collect the unpaid amounts, and if successful with the lawsuit but unsuccessful itch collections, put liens on bank accounts or the home itself (which would not result in foreclosure but just means they collect when the house sells or a heloc is taken out). Or they can also do what most owners of small debt do -- sell the unpaid debt at a discount to a debt collector, and wipe their hands of it.
No doubt it cost the HOA far more than $288 to foreclose, and it is going to cost them more if they get sued.
These efforts don't cost money either? And it isn't just a small debt. It's a length of the time frame that the homeowner owns the home and continues not to pay. If I stop paying my cell phone bill, they cut it off and the bill no longer accrues. But for an HOA, they are still not getting their money and there's no way to wipe their hands of it. Are they meant to sell off the HOA debt anew every other year?
And who will be doing the harassing? The HOA board member who lives down the street?
FWIW, I never said that there shouldn't be other measures they attempt first, only that I understand why foreclosure is eventually on the table.
They can take steps like other debt holder. Put derogatory marks on credit, call homes regularly to the point of harassment to collect the debt, file lawsuits to collect the unpaid amounts, and if successful with the lawsuit but unsuccessful itch collections, put liens on bank accounts or the home itself (which would not result in foreclosure but just means they collect when the house sells or a heloc is taken out). Or they can also do what most owners of small debt do -- sell the unpaid debt at a discount to a debt collector, and wipe their hands of it.
No doubt it cost the HOA far more than $288 to foreclose, and it is going to cost them more if they get sued.
These efforts don't cost money either? And it isn't just a small debt. It's a length of the time frame that the homeowner owns the home and continues not to pay. If I stop paying my cell phone bill, they cut it off and the bill no longer accrues. But for an HOA, they are still not getting their money and there's no way to wipe their hands of it. Are they meant to sell off the HOA debt anew every other year?
And who will be doing the harassing? The HOA board member who lives down the street?
FWIW, I never said that there shouldn't be other measures they attempt first, only that I understand why foreclosure is eventually on the table.
Cutting off services that the HOA provides isn't an option?
These efforts don't cost money either? And it isn't just a small debt. It's a length of the time frame that the homeowner owns the home and continues not to pay. If I stop paying my cell phone bill, they cut it off and the bill no longer accrues. But for an HOA, they are still not getting their money and there's no way to wipe their hands of it. Are they meant to sell off the HOA debt anew every other year?
And who will be doing the harassing? The HOA board member who lives down the street?
FWIW, I never said that there shouldn't be other measures they attempt first, only that I understand why foreclosure is eventually on the table.
Cutting off services that the HOA provides isn't an option?
That brings us back to the uncomfortable truth that the HOA is question likely isn't actually providing any services of use to this woman.
Cutting off services that the HOA provides isn't an option?
Again, I dislike HOAs but most of them maintain the properties and surrounding community. So lawn care of public areas, the roof on the community center, adequate lighting, the pool, the tennis courts, etc. Only some of those things are actual services that you could be barred from. However, most do not pay anyone to staff the entrances to the swimming pool, the tennis courts, and the like so who is going to bar them from those services? In communities where the HOA provides landscaping, the HOA isn't going to cut off its nose to spite its face by allowing one lawn to grow over.
Here is actually exactly what this HOA does: mastersonstation.org/about/faqs/#dues The assessment payable by each homeowner funds both the operating and capital budgets of the association. These budgets cover such things as grass mowing, flower, shrubbery and tree planting and maintenance of all common areas; maintenance and repair of all common area structures, such as walls, fences, entrance lights (not street lights which are the responsibility of Kentucky Utilities), street signs, electrical wiring and irrigation systems, the property manager’s services, and social events.
In short, the bulk of the assessments go toward maintaining and enhancing all the areas owned “in common” by the homeowners within Masterson Station; the proper maintenance of which enhances the look of, the property values for, the subdivision and its’ residents.
It goes on to tell you that you have to pay extra to join the pool.
So basically, they don't actually provide any services specifically to her.
That brings us back to the uncomfortable truth that the HOA is question likely isn't actually providing any services of use to this woman.
Likely not directly, no. But like maternity coverage in a healthcare insurance plan, the community is supposed to benefit. (If the HOA is well run of course, had enough money to maintain the property, actually maintains the property, all of that. Stupid HOAs.)
Here is actually exactly what this HOA does: mastersonstation.org/about/faqs/#dues The assessment payable by each homeowner funds both the operating and capital budgets of the association. These budgets cover such things as grass mowing, flower, shrubbery and tree planting and maintenance of all common areas; maintenance and repair of all common area structures, such as walls, fences, entrance lights (not street lights which are the responsibility of Kentucky Utilities), street signs, electrical wiring and irrigation systems, the property manager’s services, and social events.
In short, the bulk of the assessments go toward maintaining and enhancing all the areas owned “in common” by the homeowners within Masterson Station; the proper maintenance of which enhances the look of, the property values for, the subdivision and its’ residents.
It goes on to tell you that you have to pay extra to join the pool.
So basically, they don't actually provide any services specifically to her.
Here is actually exactly what this HOA does: mastersonstation.org/about/faqs/#dues The assessment payable by each homeowner funds both the operating and capital budgets of the association. These budgets cover such things as grass mowing, flower, shrubbery and tree planting and maintenance of all common areas; maintenance and repair of all common area structures, such as walls, fences, entrance lights (not street lights which are the responsibility of Kentucky Utilities), street signs, electrical wiring and irrigation systems, the property manager’s services, and social events.
In short, the bulk of the assessments go toward maintaining and enhancing all the areas owned “in common” by the homeowners within Masterson Station; the proper maintenance of which enhances the look of, the property values for, the subdivision and its’ residents.
It goes on to tell you that you have to pay extra to join the pool.
So basically, they don't actually provide any services specifically to her.
These don't benefit her?
Someone who's not even there enough to check her mail regularly? Not really. She clearly doesn't use any of the common areas so she probably doesn't care if they look beautiful or not.
Someone who's not even there enough to check her mail regularly? Not really. She clearly doesn't use any of the common areas so she probably doesn't care if they look beautiful or not.
She would when it came time to sell her house. She also benefits when their maintenance helps deter burglary or vandalism. And she benefits when there is decidedly less damage to her property because the trees and shrubs and such are well maintained.
Someone who's not even there enough to check her mail regularly? Not really. She clearly doesn't use any of the common areas so she probably doesn't care if they look beautiful or not.
She would when it came time to sell her house. She also benefits when their maintenance helps deter burglary or vandalism. And she benefits when there is decidedly less damage to her property because the trees and shrubs and such are well maintained.
She's 75 years old - what are the chances she's going to sell her house?
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions I asked several posts ago, among them being whether people actually think n this instance the punishment fits the crime, and if this is in the best interest of the HOA.
NO.
I agree with you that they should have worked a lot harder to find the lady. Especially since we are talking about less than $300.
I don't really get why they escalated to foreclosure; an owner at a condo building we lived in started pulling this business and she got liens put on her and she couldn't sell---the HOA made her life a living hell lol, but it was a LONG TIME and ROAD before foreclosure.
I was on our HOA board and we also put liens on delinquent homes. Even that took a long time and involved homeowners being served. It's so foreign to me that foreclosure over dues could be a first option after no contact. I just have to wonder what else is going on because it is so far from my own experience. Not that I'm saying there wasn't shadiness because I think there was. Or there had to be if the HOA went from zero to foreclosure with almost no stops in between.
She's 75 years old - what are the chances she's going to sell her house?
Does it matter? But she could suffer some illness where she'd sell her home to pay for costs or because the upkeep was too much or because she didn't want to visit the place. Or her heirs will sell the place. She doesn't have to benefit directly for their to be a benefit to her.
I can't believe this woman is forcing me to defend HOAs. Freaking oldz.
Quite honestly I'm surprised they didn't just put a lien on the place and call it a day. It does seem like a lot of effort to go through for less than $300.
Here is actually exactly what this HOA does: mastersonstation.org/about/faqs/#dues The assessment payable by each homeowner funds both the operating and capital budgets of the association. These budgets cover such things as grass mowing, flower, shrubbery and tree planting and maintenance of all common areas; maintenance and repair of all common area structures, such as walls, fences, entrance lights (not street lights which are the responsibility of Kentucky Utilities), street signs, electrical wiring and irrigation systems, the property manager’s services, and social events.
In short, the bulk of the assessments go toward maintaining and enhancing all the areas owned “in common” by the homeowners within Masterson Station; the proper maintenance of which enhances the look of, the property values for, the subdivision and its’ residents.
It goes on to tell you that you have to pay extra to join the pool.
So basically, they don't actually provide any services specifically to her.
Is it just me or does this argument sound vaguely familiar? Where have I heard it before? (being TIC, obviously, but this is how many HOAs work.)
If it weren't for this board, I wouldn't know that you couldn't just buy a house and say no thanks to joining the HOA. In fact, until today I didn't know that they could take your damn house for not joining (which is, essentially, what this is).
It is completely crazy that this thing that's basically the mob union from Armed and Dangerous rules so many neighborhoods, and people are okay with it because hey, at least it prevents the neighbors from painting their house an ugly color. What in the hell is wrong with you people that you'd happily pay to live under a suburban mafia if it lets you have a teensy bit of control over your neighbors?!
I hate how on this board, if you have an HOA that you don't mind, since it ensures that my next door neighbor isn't a junked out trailer with a bunch of garbage in the yard (which was what we saw in the vast majority of neighborhoods around here without hoas), it means you must be a crazy person who wants to control your neighbor's beach towel placement. El Oh El.
She also reminds me of that grandma who doesn't want to hear it. Doesn't matter what is it or who is right, grandma has made up her mind and she doesn't have time for your nonsense, young man. In her day, everyone took care of each other without paying a dime. Damned kids these days.
Post by wrathofkuus on Nov 16, 2013 23:31:32 GMT -5
Oh no! Your neighbor might have junk in his yard! That totally warrants mandatory payment of a bunch of busybodies who could sell your completely paid-off house right out from under you.
I really, really don't know what in the hell is wrong with some of you.