|
Pillowpants posted:I wrote stop talking here, talk to your lawyer.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I wrote Hello to whatever sucker is hired by opposing counsel and finds this. Stop posting and talk to one of the attorney resources people provided
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Good job on doxxing yourself thoMunin posted:If they are full of hubris it is good news since it's easier to get them to gently caress of (based on the assessment and advice of your lawyer and probably some monkeying about in court). If they have a good lawyer it means that they assessed their case and found that it has a very good chance of clearing these hurdles which makes having proper legal representation on your (Pillowpants) side all the more important. Good lawyers file bad lawsuits it’s just part of the game
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:Hello to whatever sucker is hired by opposing counsel and finds this. Same don't doxx me but if you do my retainer for an Anti-SLAPP is $10k hmu
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Saucer Crab posted:My non-laywer opinion is that HOAs suck major poo poo and you made a mistake buying a house in one in the first place. Alternative opinion: HOAs are a way of dealing with lovely neighbors without having to do something drastic, and can create and enforce 'good neighbor' policies effectively. For example, if you have a motorcycle that's noisier than my alarm clock, then I can point to the HOA documentation that says, 'no vehicles with more than 75 Db of noise from 10 meters'. The result is a quiet neighborhood or you get fined. Alternatively, alternatively, paying someone $300 / month to mow my lawn is of questionable value...
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Those are things your city can do instead, you know. Like my city says we can't leave garbage bins out front for more than 24 hours, and they enforce it. You don't need a petty extra-governmental neighborhood cabal to have "good neighbor" laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Those are things your city can do instead, you know. Like my city says we can't leave garbage bins out front for more than 24 hours, and they enforce it. You don't need a petty extra-governmental neighborhood cabal to have "good neighbor" laws. The city I live in has a noise ordinance of 95db, and doesn't enforce it. The HOA does a lot more on that front than the city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah, so, they're a bad solution for wealthier people to compensate for governmental failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
The problem with a good HOA is that it can turn into a bad HOA in one election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Javid posted:The problem with a good HOA is that it can turn into a bad HOA in one election. Isn't that every governmental entity? You're definitely right though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
You never hear about good HOAs because they’re good by reason of inaction. Unlike bad HOAs where, for example, a friend recently told me she got a legal threat from the HOA for displaying a bird statue smaller than a soccer ball. The form to seek approval for said statue is $35.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Javid posted:The problem with a good HOA is that it can turn into a bad HOA in one election. That's the thing about HOAs - like pretty much everything in social consciousness, you don't hear anything about the 99.99% of times everything goes smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That's the thing about HOAs - like pretty much everything in social consciousness, you don't hear anything about the 99.99% of times everything goes smoothly. And that's a valid statement, and all good. Except for the fact that they are poorly regulated by law and have a title encumbrance on the largest asset most people will ever own, so they can turbofuck you. It's an out sized risk that deserves this kind of exposure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That's the thing about HOAs - like pretty much everything in social consciousness, you don't hear anything about the 99.99% of times everything goes smoothly. I think i've told this story before, but I spent seven years as president of my HoA just so I could be the one making sure the HoA didn't bother anybody. It worked for six years and about six months. Then it all collapsed into chaos and I ended up having to engineer a coup against myself just so I could exit safely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That's the thing about HOAs - like pretty much everything in social consciousness, you don't hear anything about the 99.99% of times everything goes smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
The best HOAs are the ones that collect like $20 a year from residents to pay for the every-five-year re-graveling of the shared driveway, and that's all. It's when HOAs decide that for the sake of property values they are going to regulate parking in your driveway, what kind of curtains you're allowed to have, what paint colors you can use, how many days between mowing of your perfect green grass lawn you can go, etc. that they swing wildly into the busybody petty dictatorship horseshit that drives people crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
My dad ran for HOA president in his neighborhood on a platform of "I will leave you the gently caress alone unless there's an ACTUAL problem" and won, so it goes both ways, but if your neighborhood has more crotchety old fucks than his it's easier said than done. Personally, I would honestly rather live next to a house with cars grown into the lawn then deal with having to deal with "file a form to put a bird statue in my yard" level bullshit, so I just hard pass on HOAs of any kind, you do you etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
The thing is that if your neighborhood is made up of crotchety, passive aggressive, property value fetishizing, fuckwits then they'll end up being nightmare neighbors HOA or no HOA. They'll just use different tools to get their way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
I wonder if people who work in local government think that HOAs are pretty good because it means the crotchety old farts bother the HOA with their petty bullshit and not the local government. Then again, who am I kidding, I'm sure they bother everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
Never owned a house and am a city boy at heart so my pet peeve isn't HOAs but their urban equivalent. The people who move into a nice lively neighborhood and then proceed to kill everything off with noise and police complaints. Good for their property values, bad for all the people and businesses who were in the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
Munin posted:Never owned a house and am a city boy at heart so my pet peeve isn't HOAs but their urban equivalent. The people who move into a nice lively neighborhood and then proceed to kill everything off with noise and police complaints. Good for their property values, bad for all the people and businesses who were in the neighborhood. While I agree with you philosophically, if it was up to me we would live in the world of A Quiet Place. God forbid I ever get any real power to enforce my silence fetishism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I wonder if people who work in local government think that HOAs are pretty good because it means the crotchety old farts bother the HOA with their petty bullshit and not the local government. Local governments don't really think that much about HOAs, other than if asked to consider it, they would probably decide they like them because they keep cities looking nicer in general, and property values up which means better tax revenue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Saucer Crab posted:My non-laywer opinion is that HOAs suck major poo poo and you made a mistake buying a house in one in the first place. My opinion when I thought the HOA would protect my view was different than my opinion after they didn't do anything to protect my view.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Yeah, you'll really have to take this to a local lawyer. I read this on the shitter for free because I'm not a lawyer and can't get paid for it anyway, but my first thought was that this is more about the (albeit ridiculous and contradictory) contract with the HOA than the trees. But it does seem to include elements of tree law, and whatever bizarro laws about HOAs that may or may not exist where you live. Yeah my issue is more with the HOA than the neighbor. The neighbor is an inconsiderate weirdo but you're going to have that, they're allowed to be that, the HOA is supposed to prevent their being that from impacting myself and my property value. Arcturas posted:So, you're going to lose. You need to take this to a lawyer and on the internet we can't help you, but you're probably going to lose. That paragraph you just quoted said they have to "consider" view protection. They can "consider" it and then say "gently caress it" after "consider"ing it. I've certainly considered that interpretation of the wording. I mean I guess the only way it'd be closer to iron clad is if the CC&Rs flat out said "We will not allow anyone to plant rows of giant trees that will destroy neighboring views" but my hope is that the 8 times they mentioned protecting views plus multiple times they mention protecting property values would lead a reasonable person to conclude that their views would be protected and if they're not going to do that they at the very least need to remove all mention of it from their governing documents. I mean if the answer is always "we considered it but we don't care" then it's misleading to even mention it. It'd be one thing if this was just one or two trees, then they could say "Hey, yeah, it's blocking some of your view but we considered it and decided that it's not an unreasonable amount of blocking" but this is a row of 8 40' tall trees that will block literally everything in that direction. I.e. it's not really possible for any person in the HOA to block someones views worse than this. It's maximum view blockage. In some states I think this could legally be considered a spite fence just because it's effectively going to be a 20' tall hedge that serves no purpose and obstructs my view, but it seems like in Nevada the laws regarding that sort of thing are weak/non existent so probably not any help to me. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Have you tried calling the dude who owns the lot and asking him to plant smaller trees that won't block your view? Offer to buy them for him. It'll be cheaper in the long run. When they were planted I thought they were smaller trees, since the HOA told me they had approved them, which turned out to not actually be true (the HOA may or may not have approved them but the person that told me they were approved didn't know one way or the other.) I doubt he's even aware that I've gone to the HOA at this point. I'll consider it but the guy planted 8 40' mature height trees for some reason I doubt he'd want them replaced with 8 6' tall shrubs even if I were paying the thousands of dollars it'd take to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:My opinion when I thought the HOA would protect my view was different than my opinion after they didn't do anything to protect my view. This is what HOAs boil down to, usually. So real it sounds like a parody. I too would rather live next to a house with cars for a yard than deal with a HOA. I get that there's a community effect when it comes to property values, but I don't have the right to dictate how ugly my neighbor's yard/house is allowed to be. Weed and noise ordinances are sufficient where I live.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:This is what HOAs boil down to, usually. So real it sounds like a parody. My HOA so far: We exist to protect your views and property values! No we cannot stop someone from destroying your view and property value! But we can fine someone $100 if their garbage can is visible from the street the day after garbage day, does that help? My best hope is that their arguments so far seem so stupid and inconsistent that it seems impossible they’d be legally sound. Namely: HOA: None of the houses anywhere in the HOA are specified as view houses so no one has a protected view. Me: then why do the docs mention view protection 8 times HOA: Uhhhhh. and HOA: We’ll check and see if we approved those trees. Me: why does it matter if you approved them if you’re telling me you can’t stop anyone from doing stuff like that? HOA: uhhhhhhhhh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:HOA: We’ll check and see if we approved those trees. depending on the rules, that the neighbor did not jump through the correct hoops to do things is a reason to stop him even if he could have properly jumped through the hoops had he tried. for failure to file the correct forms and get the correct review, they might tell him to rip out the trees and submit a proper plan and then maybe they'll approve new trees. this is the sort of thing that makes people infuriated at HOAs, of course, and it will probably wind up poorly for you if you have to live with this neighbor for a long time bird with big dick posted:My best hope is that their arguments so far seem so stupid and inconsistent that it seems impossible they’d be legally sound. Namely: for any number of reasons, like (a) future-proofing it if someone later wants to add view protection or more likely (b) it is a form agreement that nobody excised the not-needed portions from evilweasel fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Nov 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:My HOA so far: I don’t think them having lots of ways to win the argument is the negative that you’re implying here Lawyers loving love belt-and-suspenders arguments
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
the long and short of it is, the entire document needs to be carefully reviewed and checked against local real estate law, and your personal views (which are really all we have to go off of) are clearly not useful because you don't know what you're looking for in the documents or what the meaning of key things are. which is fine, you're not a lawyer, but it means that we have no useful info to go off of. as to why you need a lawyer, i'll note one key thing: you keep assuming that a reasonable person's expectations after reading a contract mean squat. they don't. but what the intent of the drafters and people who initially agreed to it might make a difference, depending on the state - you are much more able to make an argument that "well, this part of the contract might clearly foreclose my argument, but if you look at the contract as a whole and all this extra evidence i probably didn't intend that" in california, while you would be laughed out of court in new york.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Devor posted:I don’t think them having lots of ways to win the argument is the negative that you’re implying here You think those are good arguments?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:You think those are good arguments? you are assuming that because you don't see why that's a good legal argument it's not. but you're not a lawyer! you have no idea what the phrase "no view easements or rights over adjacent properties in Units 7 & 9 are created by this Declaration" means. if it had not been specifically called out by the HOA lawyer you would not have relayed it to us and it's a very big problem for your argument. you have no idea what the standards for the HOA approval process are, which appears to be an absolutely massive issue you're overlooking (e.g. does the HOA have the right to reject a landscape plan for blocking your view is an entirely different question from does the HOA have an obligation to reject a landscape plan for blocking your view). that is why it may matter if he got approval or not. if he got approval and the HOA had no responsibility to you, you may be poo poo out of luck. if he didn't get approval and the HOA had the right (but not obligation) to reject the plan for being a dick to your view, they may be able to tell him to rip out his unapproved trees and (if they like you) reject his attempt to get them approved. you are inferring a lot of obligations on the part of the HOA to do things for you and you have cited precisely zero things suggesting they have any such obligations you are very confident for someone who is woefully ignorant about what you're talking about. the woeful ignorance is fine: you're not a lawyer. the absolute confidence is not: you ought to be aware you're not a lawyer. you characterized an argument as a "slam dunk" that is, plainly, not (that a HOA having a "responsibility" to "consider" view protection means that you have recourse if they consider it and approve loving up your view anyway)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the long and short of it is, the entire document needs to be carefully reviewed and checked against local real estate law, and your personal views (which are really all we have to go off of) are clearly not useful because you don't know what you're looking for in the documents or what the meaning of key things are. which is fine, you're not a lawyer, but it means that we have no useful info to go off of. I know you're right and the documents need to be considered as a whole and compared against local law and whatnot but the relevant portions of their docs are pretty short and sweet (not all are directly relevant to trees but are relevant to view protection): CCRs The ARC may disapprove such [landscaping] plans if the ARC determines that the landscaping may unreasonably impair or obstruct the view or outlook of neighboring Lots or Common Areas. The ARC shall consider whether the proposed construction, alterations, or additions unreasonably obstruct the view from any Lot. R&Rs Landscaping: Special consideration shall be given to preserving the views of neighboring lots. Guidelines The goal of the HOA is to maintain an attractive, cohesive look to the neighborhood and to protect the views that contribute to the value of the homes here on the hill. And then four more separate areas in the doc where they talk about not blocking views with (1) trees/shrubs, (2) decks, (3) fences and (4) permanent RV storage. I get that this still could boil down to "we considered it and decided lol we didn't give a poo poo" but if that's the case then gently caress tree law. Unless something changes at the very least I'll get a local lawyer to give me his opinion and probably draft some letters but if it looks like a lawsuit is the only way to resolve it it may not be worth it unless I've got like an 80% chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:but you're not a lawyer! neither is he
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you are very confident for someone who is woefully ignorant about what you're talking about. the woeful ignorance is fine: you're not a lawyer. the absolute confidence is not: you ought to be aware you're not a lawyer. you characterized an argument as a "slam dunk" that is, plainly, not (that a HOA having a "responsibility" to "consider" view protection means that you have recourse if they consider it and approve loving up your view anyway) You're right I thought them mentioning denying applications in order to protect views over and over again meant that they had some obligation to do it but I am now understanding that it may not and that sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Cali: Rustbucket car got jacked. Police recovered it and caught the dudes but its totaled. Because the car is so old I didn't bother to get comprehensive since the deductible would likely reach the car's value. I'm in a pretty tight spot financially, is there any way to get money out of these folks so I can get another rustbucket? They're also college aged millennials like myself so i'm not expecting anything here. Also im not sure if this is how laws work. Guide me goonawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
6. And lastly, if you are not a lawyer please don’t argue with those of us who are attorneys. If we tell you that The Law means X, and you don’t like that response, please do not argue that The Law REALLY means Y. We aren’t trying to fight with you or make you feel bad, so don’t act like we are your enemies just because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. It’s a disincentive for law goons to participate in this thread when people argue with us as those they understand the law better than we do. —— I’m probably trying to fight you and make you feel bad tbh. So that part isn’t exactly true. It’s not your fault it’s my other bad clients
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Unless something changes at the very least I'll get a local lawyer to give me his opinion and probably draft some letters but if it looks like a lawsuit is the only way to resolve it it may not be worth it unless I've got like an 80% chance of winning. This is the smartest thing you've written. It's worth having a lawyer review everything and probably send a nastygram to the HOA and to your neighbor, hoping for some cash, but even if the view interference has driven you insane, if it's only diminished your property value by $20,000 then you'll spend about that (or more) suing over it with an uncertain chance of victory, meaning you have an uncertain amount to end up exactly where you already are. Also everything else evilweasel said is true. (Probably the HOA "may" object, but there's no requirement that they object. The HOA must "consider" view protection, but there's no obligation for them to actually protect views. The CC&Rs allow for "view lots" or whatever, but there are no view lots yet (which is actually fine because the HOA can say that it might designate view lots in the future and it's not insane for documents to have inapplicable language just yet). The ARC "may disapprove" but there's no requirement that they disapprove. The HOA has a "goal" but no obligation to fulfill that goal.) If I were betting I'd still give odds that you are going to lose this, but at least you're starting to think about it the right way. Also yeah, we're not mad at you. It's just that the law is, generally speaking, a jerk institution designed and built by people who have power and want to protect themselves. And assuming the world is just and there's a solution out there to make things right is just going to leave you disappointed. We want you to understand that so you're as miserable as we are. (I think it was blarzgh or evilweasel who said, a long time ago, that there are rear end in a top hat problems and money problems. Most clients come to us with rear end in a top hat problems. Someone is being an rear end in a top hat, and the client wants to stop them from being an rear end in a top hat. The law doesn't do that. The law solves money problems. It can, sometimes, make the rear end in a top hat give you money. That generally doesn't stop the rear end in a top hat from being an rear end in a top hat, it just makes them a poorer rear end in a top hat. Sometimes that helps.) Arcturas fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Nov 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
buglord posted:Cali: Yeah, suing them for the value of the car is a way to make them give you money. If they don't have money, you can't get much out of them. You might be able to garnish their wages. You might be able to get legal authority to take some of their stuff and sell it at auction. You're probably screwed. Also ask the police if they are pressing charges/prosecuting, and if there's any criminal procedure for victims to obtain restitution. Unlikely, but a chance. Check with your insurance to be sure, but without comprehensive coverage you're probably screwed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I know you're right and the documents need to be considered as a whole and compared against local law and whatnot but the relevant portions of their docs are pretty short and sweet (not all are directly relevant to trees but are relevant to view protection): that being a "may" instead of a "shall" is not good for you. one natural reading is that ARC is allowed to veto unreasonable impairments of views, but is not required to - i.e. you can't sue for them not vetoing, but perhaps your neighbor could sue for vetoing arguing the impairment was "reasonable" personally if i were drafting something like an HOA (which i don't do) i would intentionally draft it to minimize the obligations of the HOA to any one resident. because the HOA doesn't want to get sued every time they do something. so i would draft it to be long on powers of the HOA, but very short on any actual obligations of the HOA. and at the end of the day i might get pushback not from the potential busybodies (who would want to sue to get the HOA to do things) but from the people afraid of the HOA being busybodies (who might want some recourse to stop the HOA from doing things). so i would 100% have drafted this to give you absolutely no recourse in this situation, provided the HOA actually approved the stuff. i would have form approval papers for approving landscaping that state the HOA considered unreasonable obstruction and found that any potential obstruction of views was reasonable. i would have tried to ensure that any requirements to consider view, etc, gave you precisely no rights. if you want to be a busybody about what the HOA does, your remedy is to control it by getting elected, not lawsuits (because lawsuits are expensive to fight). a well-written contract minimizes lawsuits: lawsuits are expensive and your clients don't like it when they get sued. they prefer not to get sued, and if you're drafting this HOA agreement the HOA is basically your client. if he did not get the HOA approval, then the HOA may be able to tell him to go gently caress himself and pull down the trees and submit an application, where they could decide to veto it for obstructing your views. again, them having the power to veto his trees is different from you having the power to make the HOA veto his trees. (it also may be important in this case not to be dicks to the HOA so they want to help you out and/or don't want to approve it to spite you!) again, none of this is advice on your hoa, which isn't my specialty and which i haven't read, but all of that is my gut reaction to why i would guess you do not have a claim against the hoa evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
My man I think what you are looking for is confirmation that your HOA agreement is lovely and dumb. It is! You probably wouldn't be so frustrated if it had been reviewed by someone whose job is to draft and review such things. As far as the practical or legal outcome of clauses which might conflict or change the meaning/scope of others  The sooner you get a pro to look at it and give you their professional opinion, the sooner you'll feel better about the situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:15
|
|