In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
talzara
Posts: 4745
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:40 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by talzara »

celia wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:07 pm I started with the title company who agreed the property couldn’t be sold until the conflicting deeds were cleared up. Since I was family, I was able to sort out what had happened and found appropriate paperwork to take corrective actions before listing the property. The title company did upfront research and advising so that the title issues wouldn’t hold up a sale, or come back to haunt me in subsequent sales.

Based on my experience, title insurance is worth more than what I paid for it.
No, it isn't.

The same thing would've happened in Iowa, but you would've paid a lot less.
7eight9
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 7:11 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by 7eight9 »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:04 pm
Californiastate wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:11 pm
newyorker wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:25 am HOA is such a nonsense. Its a free country people! Why would you get Involved with HOA in the first place.
Freedom is an illusion. There are countless laws and regulations that effect every moment of our lives. There are even rules that govern my response to you here.

It appears the OP's in-laws might be on the hook for this one.
Yeah, but...

The town might tell me to adhere to electric code, or where my well can be, but they won’t tell me what color I can paint my house or whether or not I can turn the lawn into a meadow.
Most towns have a Municipal Code. Yours may allow you to paint your house purple and pink and let nature take over your front yard. Others don't.

City of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida:

Prior to painting, staining or otherwise coloring the exterior surfaces of any structure located
within the city, the property owner shall obtain a painting permit from the city. No more than three
approved colors (base, accent & trim) may be used on the property. Only those colors permitted
by the city may be used on exterior surfaces of structures.


All grassed areas shall be mowed and maintained at a height not to exceed six inches, including
areas abutting plants and objects. The same shall be edged to prevent encroachment onto adjacent
roadways, curbs, sidewalks, driveways or walkways.

https://lauderdalelakes.org/DocumentCen ... t---2017-5
I guess it all could be much worse. | They could be warming up my hearse.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Sorry to have taken the thread OT. FWIW, I made my choice about where to live.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
michaeljc70
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by michaeljc70 »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:54 pm Sorry to have taken the thread OT. FWIW, I made my choice about where to live.
I'd avoid an HOA as much as possible, but if you live in a very urban environment there may be no SFHs. Also, some municipalities have nothing but homes in HOAs. It seems every new subdivision has something (fountain, lighted entrance, pond, clubhouse, etc.) that requires an HOA. Then you also have people that want to own rather than rent but want everything on the exterior maintained for them (without hiring it out themselves) and are willing to pay for that. I've had a couple run ins with the HOA in the 8 years I've lived in my townhouse, but overall they are fairly reasonable. Without an HOA and with loose zoning/ordinances you can wind up with Sanford and Sons next door.
User avatar
JonnyDVM
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:51 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by JonnyDVM »

8foot7 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:27 am
riverguy wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:17 am Seems to me like you have to figure out how to prove if the sellers knew the $8000 special assessment was lurking out there. Seems like they disclosed the lawsuit and may have not known what was coming. In laws did not do their DD.

Hard to imagine title insurance doing anything about this as it doesn’t affect title of the property.
Of course an $8000 unpaid pending lien against the home from an association would affect the title.
That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
I’d trade it all for a little more | -C Montgomery Burns
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by quantAndHold »

JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm
8foot7 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:27 am
riverguy wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:17 am Seems to me like you have to figure out how to prove if the sellers knew the $8000 special assessment was lurking out there. Seems like they disclosed the lawsuit and may have not known what was coming. In laws did not do their DD.

Hard to imagine title insurance doing anything about this as it doesn’t affect title of the property.
Of course an $8000 unpaid pending lien against the home from an association would affect the title.
That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra 8 grand for kicks. All the above are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
Agreed. I can see a naive seller not knowing what to disclose, and a naive buyer not knowing what to look for, but somewhere along the line, one or more of the professionals didn't do their job properly. An $8000 assessment to deal with a decade old problem would have been in the works ages ago. The buyer shouldn't be getting surprised by this now.
michaeljc70
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by michaeljc70 »

JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm
8foot7 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:27 am
riverguy wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:17 am Seems to me like you have to figure out how to prove if the sellers knew the $8000 special assessment was lurking out there. Seems like they disclosed the lawsuit and may have not known what was coming. In laws did not do their DD.

Hard to imagine title insurance doing anything about this as it doesn’t affect title of the property.
Of course an $8000 unpaid pending lien against the home from an association would affect the title.
That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
We don't know if the $8k was an assessment, we don't know if they even used an attorney and there almost for sure wasn't a lien on the property. We really need more information. Why did the HOA wait 7 months to ask for the money??? If it was owed earlier, they likely wouldn't have waited that long to ask for it.

I realize they are first time buyers, but the bottom line is like anything in life you need to be looking out for yourself and not expecting someone else will do it. I suspect that even if a 3rd party did something wrong it will be $8k+ in legal fees to get the $8k.
User avatar
sergeant
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: The Golden State

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by sergeant »

We lived in an HOA community when we first got married. The HOA was in litigation about defective roofing. I obtained a loss assessment rider on my home owners insurance. Cost us $8 a month extra. When they leveled a 4k assessment Allstate paid it.
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods. | Pensions= 2X yearly expenses. Portfolio= 40X yearly expenses.
criticalmass
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by criticalmass »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:04 pm
Californiastate wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:11 pm
newyorker wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:25 am HOA is such a nonsense. Its a free country people! Why would you get Involved with HOA in the first place.
Freedom is an illusion. There are countless laws and regulations that effect every moment of our lives. There are even rules that govern my response to you here.

It appears the OP's in-laws might be on the hook for this one.
Yeah, but...

The town might tell me to adhere to electric code, or where my well can be, but they won’t tell me what color I can paint my house or whether or not I can turn the lawn into a meadow.
'
Depends where you live! My current county certainly would not allow someone's lawn turn into a meadow because they have grass / weed cutting requirements. That is not unusual at all.

My previous town had a say in the design and color in externally facing architecture. That's probably less common, but there are still plenty of places with county or municipal codes on this.
Kennedy
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:47 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Kennedy »

I would contact the buyer's agent (and have them contact seller's agent) and tell them they need to make this right for your in-laws. If the seller's agent stated in the listing that the matter had been "settled," that could reasonably be interpreted that the seller had "settled" the issue and the buyer would not be responsible for anything arising out of that storm issue. Seller's agent should have followed-up with the sellers to determine what actually was going on.

If the phrasing (settled) is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in a manner favorable to the person who didn't write the phrase. Check the disclosure notices, too, and see if the seller mentioned anything about losses or known potential assessments by the HOA.

If there wasn't any lien recorded, title wouldn't have any responsibility.
User avatar
JonnyDVM
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:51 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by JonnyDVM »

michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:23 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm
8foot7 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:27 am
riverguy wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:17 am Seems to me like you have to figure out how to prove if the sellers knew the $8000 special assessment was lurking out there. Seems like they disclosed the lawsuit and may have not known what was coming. In laws did not do their DD.

Hard to imagine title insurance doing anything about this as it doesn’t affect title of the property.
Of course an $8000 unpaid pending lien against the home from an association would affect the title.
That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
We don't know if the $8k was an assessment, we don't know if they even used an attorney and there almost for sure wasn't a lien on the property. We really need more information. Why did the HOA wait 7 months to ask for the money??? If it was owed earlier, they likely wouldn't have waited that long to ask for it.

I realize they are first time buyers, but the bottom line is like anything in life you need to be looking out for yourself and not expecting someone else will do it. I suspect that even if a 3rd party did something wrong it will be $8k+ in legal fees to get the $8k.
How exactly would the parents in this particular situation have been able to ascertain the purchase of this property would promptly require another $8000? My point is the posters on this thread have collectively shelled out no doubt tens of thousand of dollars at minimum in total paying people to close on purchased property without unpleasant surprises. The agent and attorney usually show up, stamp papers, point to lines to sign, and collect a fat check. Someone messed up and I really don’t think it’s OPs parents. If this was me I would be identifying that person or entity and holding them culpable. I’ve grown very tired of paying people to not effectively do their jobs especially with real estate transactions.
I’d trade it all for a little more | -C Montgomery Burns
4nickt
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:25 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by 4nickt »

I sat on HOA board during litigation, settlement, and sale of our condo. In a nutshell the settlement didn't fully cover the cost of the needed repairs after we had already closed and moved. The buyer was fully aware of the settlement, but did not not know the cost to repair would be greater than the settlement. In fact, nobody knew for certain that the cost would be more and how much more. Approximately one year after we sold our condo in SF the HOA did a one time assessment to cover the shortfall. There really is no recourse for you to avoid paying the assessment as the new owner.
The good news is that the building is restored and remodeled without draining the building capital fund of the HOA.
criticalmass
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by criticalmass »

MortgageOnBlack wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:39 pm Hoping someone with more experience on HOAs/Home Owner's Insurance Claims can offer some advice on this...

In-Laws recently purchased a town-home with an HOA in September 2020. The real estate listing read the following "2013 & 2014 STORM LITIGATION HAS BEEN SETTLED. :-) ". Fast forward 7 months and HOA is demanding $8000 for the difference in repairs/upgrades from the 2013/2014 storm damage. Most home owners in the the complex are able to use their Home Owner's Insurance for this cost because they were living in the units at the time. In-Laws contacted their Home Owners Insurance and they would not cover the $8000 because the insurance was not covering the home when the damages happened.

On a side note, the HOA fee has doubled in the past 6 months which is making this situation even more infuriating. Any ideas on how to help them avoid paying this $8000 demand? It does not seem right that In-Laws have to cover this $8000 out of pocket. Who dropped the ball here? How can this be resolved? I appreciate any opinions on this and I accept that this is not legal advice. Please let me know if you need more info.

Thank you,
What does the settled storm litigation entail? Damage to the grounds and common area, or damage to a common building, suggesting the unit is a condo? If the latter, are you sure this isn't a condo with a condo association instead of an HMO? Next question is, when was the settlement amount known? Was litigation in progress disclosed to the buyer? Was there any breach of duty?

If the real estate listing says, ""2013 & 2014 STORM LITIGATION HAS BEEN SETTLED," a followup question for the selling agent is what was the actual settlement?
michaeljc70
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by michaeljc70 »

JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:08 pm
michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:23 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm
8foot7 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:27 am
riverguy wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:17 am Seems to me like you have to figure out how to prove if the sellers knew the $8000 special assessment was lurking out there. Seems like they disclosed the lawsuit and may have not known what was coming. In laws did not do their DD.

Hard to imagine title insurance doing anything about this as it doesn’t affect title of the property.
Of course an $8000 unpaid pending lien against the home from an association would affect the title.
That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
We don't know if the $8k was an assessment, we don't know if they even used an attorney and there almost for sure wasn't a lien on the property. We really need more information. Why did the HOA wait 7 months to ask for the money??? If it was owed earlier, they likely wouldn't have waited that long to ask for it.

I realize they are first time buyers, but the bottom line is like anything in life you need to be looking out for yourself and not expecting someone else will do it. I suspect that even if a 3rd party did something wrong it will be $8k+ in legal fees to get the $8k.
How exactly would the parents in this particular situation have been able to ascertain the purchase of this property would promptly require another $8000? My point is the posters on this thread have collectively shelled out no doubt tens of thousand of dollars at minimum in total paying people to close on purchased property without unpleasant surprises. The agent and attorney usually show up, stamp papers, point to lines to sign, and collect a fat check. Someone messed up and I really don’t think it’s OPs parents. If this was me I would be identifying that person or entity and holding them culpable. I’ve grown very tired of paying people to not effectively do their jobs especially with real estate transactions.
By reading the minutes, budget and asking the HOA if there were special assessments or charges coming (common practice buying into an HOA property). By asking what the "settled" litigation in the listing meant. Who messed up? You don't even know if there was an attorney. I think you are placing too much faith in people that are just making money off of you.
corp_sharecropper
Posts: 590
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by corp_sharecropper »

I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA. There are plenty of zoning rules, laws, and regulations out there already, can't imagine adding an HOA with a bunch of activist busy-body tyrants to the mix. Neighborhoods without HOA seem to be capable of functioning just fine, what's the draw? Why voluntarily give up additional rights to your own property? I genuinely would like to hear a compelling argument for why HOAs are good.
User avatar
JonnyDVM
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:51 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by JonnyDVM »

michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:24 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:08 pm
michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:23 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm
8foot7 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:27 am

Of course an $8000 unpaid pending lien against the home from an association would affect the title.
That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
We don't know if the $8k was an assessment, we don't know if they even used an attorney and there almost for sure wasn't a lien on the property. We really need more information. Why did the HOA wait 7 months to ask for the money??? If it was owed earlier, they likely wouldn't have waited that long to ask for it.

I realize they are first time buyers, but the bottom line is like anything in life you need to be looking out for yourself and not expecting someone else will do it. I suspect that even if a 3rd party did something wrong it will be $8k+ in legal fees to get the $8k.
How exactly would the parents in this particular situation have been able to ascertain the purchase of this property would promptly require another $8000? My point is the posters on this thread have collectively shelled out no doubt tens of thousand of dollars at minimum in total paying people to close on purchased property without unpleasant surprises. The agent and attorney usually show up, stamp papers, point to lines to sign, and collect a fat check. Someone messed up and I really don’t think it’s OPs parents. If this was me I would be identifying that person or entity and holding them culpable. I’ve grown very tired of paying people to not effectively do their jobs especially with real estate transactions.
By reading the minutes, budget and asking the HOA if there were special assessments or charges coming (common practice buying into an HOA property). By asking what the "settled" litigation in the listing meant. Who messed up? You don't even know if there was an attorney. I think you are placing too much faith in people that are just making money off of you.
That is my point sir. Real estate is a racket. The agents, tilte insurer, closing attorney, they all get paid well. Especially on an expensive property and the fees are something you have little control over. I’ve done many buys/sells/refinances at this point in my life and they always have involved an attorney. I would be very surprised if this transaction didn’t. Regardless, I maintain someone along the line should have been the advocate for OPs in-laws and pointed out an upcoming substantial HOA bill. If it was disclosed, fine, that’s on the buyer. But this sounds like it wasn’t. What if the amount were 100k? Would you still feel the same way ? That it’s the parents fault ? Sorry, it’s you’re house now, you’re stuck with a 100k bill. Surprise!
I’d trade it all for a little more | -C Montgomery Burns
michaeljc70
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by michaeljc70 »

JonnyDVM wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:17 am
michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:24 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:08 pm
michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:23 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm

That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
We don't know if the $8k was an assessment, we don't know if they even used an attorney and there almost for sure wasn't a lien on the property. We really need more information. Why did the HOA wait 7 months to ask for the money??? If it was owed earlier, they likely wouldn't have waited that long to ask for it.

I realize they are first time buyers, but the bottom line is like anything in life you need to be looking out for yourself and not expecting someone else will do it. I suspect that even if a 3rd party did something wrong it will be $8k+ in legal fees to get the $8k.
How exactly would the parents in this particular situation have been able to ascertain the purchase of this property would promptly require another $8000? My point is the posters on this thread have collectively shelled out no doubt tens of thousand of dollars at minimum in total paying people to close on purchased property without unpleasant surprises. The agent and attorney usually show up, stamp papers, point to lines to sign, and collect a fat check. Someone messed up and I really don’t think it’s OPs parents. If this was me I would be identifying that person or entity and holding them culpable. I’ve grown very tired of paying people to not effectively do their jobs especially with real estate transactions.
By reading the minutes, budget and asking the HOA if there were special assessments or charges coming (common practice buying into an HOA property). By asking what the "settled" litigation in the listing meant. Who messed up? You don't even know if there was an attorney. I think you are placing too much faith in people that are just making money off of you.
That is my point sir. Real estate is a racket. The agents, tilte insurer, closing attorney, they all get paid well. Especially on an expensive property and the fees are something you have little control over. I’ve done many buys/sells/refinances at this point in my life and they always have involved an attorney. I would be very surprised if this transaction didn’t. Regardless, I maintain someone along the line should have been the advocate for OPs in-laws and pointed out an upcoming substantial HOA bill. If it was disclosed, fine, that’s on the buyer. But this sounds like it wasn’t. What if the amount were 100k? Would you still feel the same way ? That it’s the parents fault ? Sorry, it’s you’re house now, you’re stuck with a 100k bill. Surprise!
The assessment doubling in 6 months could cost them more than $8k over the long run. I doubt there was nothing in the budget, minutes, financials, etc. that foreshadowed the assessment doubling.

I've had friends in different parts of the US not use an attorney for real estate closings. Where I live it is common practice to use one. Sometimes people choose a lawyer they know that doesn't specialize in real estate.

I hope the OP will let us know how it all turns out.
michaeljc70
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by michaeljc70 »

JonnyDVM wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:17 am
michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:24 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:08 pm
michaeljc70 wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:23 pm
JonnyDVM wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:13 pm

That’s what I am assuming. When you buy you have a realtor, a closing attorney, and title insurance. All with their hands out. SOMEONE messed up here. Unless OPs parents were told to expect an HOA assessment in the ballpark of $8000 in which case it’s on them, and it doesn’t sound like they were. This isn’t normal where you agree to buy something and they slap on an extra eight grand. All the above people who cashed a paycheck off the sale of this condo are supposed to protect you from this exact situation.
We don't know if the $8k was an assessment, we don't know if they even used an attorney and there almost for sure wasn't a lien on the property. We really need more information. Why did the HOA wait 7 months to ask for the money??? If it was owed earlier, they likely wouldn't have waited that long to ask for it.

I realize they are first time buyers, but the bottom line is like anything in life you need to be looking out for yourself and not expecting someone else will do it. I suspect that even if a 3rd party did something wrong it will be $8k+ in legal fees to get the $8k.
How exactly would the parents in this particular situation have been able to ascertain the purchase of this property would promptly require another $8000? My point is the posters on this thread have collectively shelled out no doubt tens of thousand of dollars at minimum in total paying people to close on purchased property without unpleasant surprises. The agent and attorney usually show up, stamp papers, point to lines to sign, and collect a fat check. Someone messed up and I really don’t think it’s OPs parents. If this was me I would be identifying that person or entity and holding them culpable. I’ve grown very tired of paying people to not effectively do their jobs especially with real estate transactions.
By reading the minutes, budget and asking the HOA if there were special assessments or charges coming (common practice buying into an HOA property). By asking what the "settled" litigation in the listing meant. Who messed up? You don't even know if there was an attorney. I think you are placing too much faith in people that are just making money off of you.
That is my point sir. Real estate is a racket. The agents, tilte insurer, closing attorney, they all get paid well. Especially on an expensive property and the fees are something you have little control over. I’ve done many buys/sells/refinances at this point in my life and they always have involved an attorney. I would be very surprised if this transaction didn’t. Regardless, I maintain someone along the line should have been the advocate for OPs in-laws and pointed out an upcoming substantial HOA bill. If it was disclosed, fine, that’s on the buyer. But this sounds like it wasn’t. What if the amount were 100k? Would you still feel the same way ? That it’s the parents fault ? Sorry, it’s you’re house now, you’re stuck with a 100k bill. Surprise!
The assessment doubling in 6 months could cost them more than $8k over the long run. I doubt there was nothing in the budget, minutes, financials, etc. that foreshadowed the assessment doubling.

I've had friends in different parts of the US not use an attorney for real estate closings. Where I live it is common practice to use one. Sometimes people choose a lawyer they know that doesn't specialize in real estate.

I hope the OP will let us know how it all turns out.
neverpanic
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sun May 10, 2020 12:26 am

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by neverpanic »

IANAL

What state?
What is the value of the home?
What are the questions that were asked and answered in regard to a 2020 home listing referencing "settled litigation" from 6-7 years prior?

To the prior poster, I don't know that a pending lien is treated the same way as a recorded lien.

To the OP, encourage your in-laws to request a 40-month payment plan.
I am not a financial professional or guru. I'm a schmuck who got lucky 10 times. Such is the life of the trader.
DoubleComma
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:23 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by DoubleComma »

corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA. There are plenty of zoning rules, laws, and regulations out there already, can't imagine adding an HOA with a bunch of activist busy-body tyrants to the mix. Neighborhoods without HOA seem to be capable of functioning just fine, what's the draw? Why voluntarily give up additional rights to your own property? I genuinely would like to hear a compelling argument for why HOAs are good.
Our mountain home is in an HOA and I wouldn’t have it any other way. They coordinate road plowing in the winter, fire abatement in the common areas in the spring. There are several un-built lots remaining, when/if someone chooses to develop them the HOA will ensure structure meets the neighborhood standards.

Without an HOA, even if there are comprehensive CCR, the only way to enforce compliance is for neighbors to sue each other or ignore it. Neither option seems great.

My primary home is in a non-HOA neighborhood. We haven’t had any serious issues; but it sure would be great if we could encourage some neighbors to keep their yard tidy, get RVs/Boats out of the front yard where they interfere with visibility of drivers and better manage parking...some homes have significantly more vehicles than off street parking.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by JoeRetire »

corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA.
Perhaps to ensure that their neighbor doesn't paint their house orange, turn the grass yard into a meadow, and decide to house 9 dogs?
Just a guess..
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Marseille07 »

corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA. There are plenty of zoning rules, laws, and regulations out there already, can't imagine adding an HOA with a bunch of activist busy-body tyrants to the mix. Neighborhoods without HOA seem to be capable of functioning just fine, what's the draw? Why voluntarily give up additional rights to your own property? I genuinely would like to hear a compelling argument for why HOAs are good.
For convenience. Major repairs are all covered by HOA dues, such as piping overhaul, roof repairs and all that. Besides, it's hard to find housing without HOA these days, even as low as $50/mo.
dukeblue219
Posts: 4074
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 11:40 am

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by dukeblue219 »

JoeRetire wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:28 am
corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA.
Perhaps to ensure that their neighbor doesn't paint their house orange, turn the grass yard into a meadow, and decide to house 9 dogs?
Just a guess..
The nuisance stuff can be handled perfectly well by county codes, but what do you care what color their house is?

I don't want my neighbor making a racket at night or parking six cars along the block, I get that, but for stuff that doesn't disturb your property (like paint color) who cares?

Also in many communities the trend is to let your yard becomes more natural and eco-friendly rather than a manicured lawn that sucks down water and chemicals.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by JoeRetire »

dukeblue219 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:40 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:28 am
corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA.
Perhaps to ensure that their neighbor doesn't paint their house orange, turn the grass yard into a meadow, and decide to house 9 dogs?
Just a guess..
The nuisance stuff can be handled perfectly well by county codes, but what do you care what color their house is?

I don't want my neighbor making a racket at night or parking six cars along the block, I get that, but for stuff that doesn't disturb your property (like paint color) who cares?

Also in many communities the trend is to let your yard becomes more natural and eco-friendly rather than a manicured lawn that sucks down water and chemicals.
LOL! Let's just agree to disagree that some might prefer HOAs and some might prefer no rules at all.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
egrets
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:56 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by egrets »

JoeRetire wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:28 am
corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA.
Perhaps to ensure that their neighbor doesn't paint their house orange, turn the grass yard into a meadow, and decide to house 9 dogs?
Just a guess..
It;s their house, they can paint it any color they want. There have been a number of lawsuits brought against people trying to help the environment by having natural yards or having vegetable gardens. As far as I know, the grass people/towns have all lost to the natural yards/garden people in the real world. HOAs may be different. There are often town or state laws governing the number of pets.
hoofaman
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:39 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by hoofaman »

dukeblue219 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:40 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:28 am
corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA.
Perhaps to ensure that their neighbor doesn't paint their house orange, turn the grass yard into a meadow, and decide to house 9 dogs?
Just a guess..
The nuisance stuff can be handled perfectly well by county codes, but what do you care what color their house is?

I don't want my neighbor making a racket at night or parking six cars along the block, I get that, but for stuff that doesn't disturb your property (like paint color) who cares?

Also in many communities the trend is to let your yard becomes more natural and eco-friendly rather than a manicured lawn that sucks down water and chemicals.
But, your neighbors paint color does influence your property value. As does their lack of maintance and upkeep.

In the past I owned a house in the rust belt, no HoA, and some of my neighbors houses were a constant disaster and their backyards looked like landfills. Having lived in HOA for 20 years the worst thing thats happened so far was getting a letter to replace my warn out mailbox, and going through a process to request any exterior work on the house, all of which was approved
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by JoeRetire »

egrets wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:54 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:28 am
corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA.
Perhaps to ensure that their neighbor doesn't paint their house orange, turn the grass yard into a meadow, and decide to house 9 dogs?
Just a guess..
It;s their house, they can paint it any color they want. There have been a number of lawsuits brought against people trying to help the environment by having natural yards or having vegetable gardens. As far as I know, the grass people/towns have all lost to the natural yards/garden people in the real world. HOAs may be different. There are often town or state laws governing the number of pets.
HOAs are different. That's the point.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
criticalmass
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by criticalmass »

corp_sharecropper wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:32 pm I'll never understand why anyone would want to buy property under the thumb of an HOA. There are plenty of zoning rules, laws, and regulations out there already, can't imagine adding an HOA with a bunch of activist busy-body tyrants to the mix. Neighborhoods without HOA seem to be capable of functioning just fine, what's the draw? Why voluntarily give up additional rights to your own property? I genuinely would like to hear a compelling argument for why HOAs are good.
How do you purchase a condo without a condo association or some entity that owns the common building? Who would be responsible for the condo building? Municipal governments don't do that.

How do you purchase townhouses situated inside a common area without a homeowner's association? Who would pave the private parking lots, plow the private driveway/roads, mow the common lawns, and take care of the common grounds? Municipal governments don't do that.

For single family detached homes, sure you don't need an HOA. But for dense housing that includes common areas, common roofs, common buildings, and common private parking lots, some organization needs to have responsibility them.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by TomatoTomahto »

dukeblue219 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:40 am Also in many communities the trend is to let your yard becomes more natural and eco-friendly rather than a manicured lawn that sucks down water and chemicals.
+1

I think there’s a common belief that a meadow just means that you have neglected a beautiful natural lawn. Since we are on our own well, it seemed silly to put chemicals on the lawn, irrigate a bunch, and to then filter our well water. We have a landscaper and a gardener, and converting monoculture lawn to natural meadow is a process which might take 3 years. Our wildlife appreciates the effort.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
criticalmass
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by criticalmass »

MortgageOnBlack wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:39 pm Hoping someone with more experience on HOAs/Home Owner's Insurance Claims can offer some advice on this...
Back to the original problem of the association asking for a big payment (probably a "special assessment"), this can happen as a result of mismanagement, long legal disputes, or large events. When buying in a (Condo or Homeowners') Association, be very careful if there is ongoing or recent litigation in state or federal courts that involve the Association. That is easy to find, especially for your attorney (or even competent real estate agent) you use when purchasing property.

The title says "HOA demanding" but expensive storm damage suggests a roof, which is likely a condo association, not an HOA.

Condo associations are fine until there are big problems. I know of one example (near Washington DC) where a builder's error caused walls to leak, eventually resulting in expensive repairs and mold damage to remediate. The association sued the builder, but due to technicalities and time frames, the builder eventually skated free and relieved by the court of liability for the poor installation of a wall product. To resolve the defects without recovering costs (plus litigation expenses), each unit received assessments of around $20-30k. Buyers really needed to do their due diligence to figure out what was in progress BEFORE buying, so they could decrease their offer accordingly.

In another landmark example (Denver Area/Aurora, Colorado), a hail storm caused significant damage to condos' roofs. Insurance was available, but the condo association decided to hire a big lawsuit mill out of Florida to inflate the damage estimates and thus the insurance claim value. It later emerged that the condo associations' attorneys were in cahoots with the allegedly impartial public insurance adjuster, whose arrangement with the law firm resulted in his personal benefiting from a high claim value.

You can probably see where this is is going, but the condo association's insurance company realized something was wrong by the inflated claim amounts and started sniffing around after they paid the inflated bill. It turned out that the attorneys lied to the court about the impartiality of the insurance adjuster relationship. Two attorneys and the entire law firm with an advertised slogan of "Just Win, Baby," were sanctioned by the judge but managed to retain their licenses. The condo association was stuck with high costs of litigation AND storm damage recovery, which eventually was passed to condo owners (special assessments). The association had to pay interest at a court mandated rate on the funds returned to the insurance company too.

In these cases, the litigation with the association as plaintiff or defendant was well publicized in court records, and even in media.

These are all good examples why a condo or townhouse owner AND buyer needs to understand what is going on. Litigation is very expensive all around, and any "settlements" need to be known to understand what owners will on the hook for. A condo association or HOA owner is part of the corporation and subject to the liabilities of the condo/homeowner corporation, once the association approves special assessments.
http://johnsonstrategiesllc.com/wp-cont ... Owners.pdf
https://casetext.com/case/auto-owners-i ... ssn-corp-6
https://wtotrial.com/files/38237_vol96_ ... _final.pdf
Last edited by criticalmass on Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lhl12
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:24 am

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by lhl12 »

The facts are incomplete, but based on what I've read I think it unlikely your in-laws would have a claim against the real estate agents. Both the seller's broker and the buyer's broker get paid by the seller and have a fiduciary duty to the seller. Neither agent owes a duty to the buyer.

If there is a claim, I think it would be against the seller for not having disclosed the issue. However it's unclear whether that's the case without reading the contract.

If the seller disclosed the issue then the buyer should have built in language keeping the seller on the hook for any assessment (since the seller can make a claim against their insurance company). If the buyer didn't do that they they are on the hook for the $8,000 (with the possibility of recourse to the title insurance company). If they did build in that language (or if the buyer didn't disclose it) then the buyer should have a claim against the seller for the $8,000.

Under any circumstances, your in-laws need a good real estate attorney to advise them. I'd also recommend they look for an attorney who specializes in real estate litigation, not contracts. At a minimum, a demand letter coming from a litigator will carry more weight than one from a contracts attorney.
Lexx
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:21 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Lexx »

Is this correct? I've always thought they buyer's broker has a fiduciary duty to the BUYER. Otherwise what's the point of using your own agent?
lhl12 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:50 pm Both the seller's broker and the buyer's broker get paid by the seller and have a fiduciary duty to the seller. Neither agent owes a duty to the buyer.
7eight9
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 7:11 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by 7eight9 »

Lexx wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:45 pm Is this correct? I've always thought they buyer's broker has a fiduciary duty to the BUYER. Otherwise what's the point of using your own agent?
lhl12 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:50 pm Both the seller's broker and the buyer's broker get paid by the seller and have a fiduciary duty to the seller. Neither agent owes a duty to the buyer.
A real estate broker who becomes an agent of a seller or buyer, either intentionally through the execution of a written agreement, or unintentionally by a course of conduct, will be deemed to be a fiduciary.
https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/f ... 032213.pdf
I guess it all could be much worse. | They could be warming up my hearse.
User avatar
illumination
Posts: 3173
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:13 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by illumination »

I would really go out of my way to avoid HOA properties, just in general I had an especially heavy handed one that both liked to enforce all sorts of trivial rules but was incompetent on things that really mattered.

I had a similar experience where a small clubhouse that nobody used burned down, and they tried to get every homeowner to cough up the difference because it wasn't adequately insured by the HOA. Fortunately it was voted down, it was a jaw dropping amount of money from each home owner.

In the OP's situation, I really think the title company would be the first call I would make. Wouldn't surprise me though if they slither out of it, I've yet to meet a single human being that actually got a payout from a title company.
Lexx
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:21 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Lexx »

7eight9 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:06 pm A real estate broker who becomes an agent of a seller or buyer, either intentionally through the execution of a written agreement, or unintentionally by a course of conduct, will be deemed to be a fiduciary.
https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/f ... 032213.pdf
Here's the narrative from the article linked to:

"A duty of loyalty is one of the most fundamental fiduciary duties owed by an agent to his principal. This duty
obligates a real estate broker to act at all times solely in the best interests of his principal to the exclusion of
all other interests, including the broker’s own self-interest."

My reading of this suggests that the fiduciary duty of a buyer's agent is to the BUYER because that's his/her principal. That's the person who hired him, NOT the seller.
lhl12
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:24 am

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by lhl12 »

Lexx wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:31 pm
7eight9 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:06 pm A real estate broker who becomes an agent of a seller or buyer, either intentionally through the execution of a written agreement, or unintentionally by a course of conduct, will be deemed to be a fiduciary.
https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/f ... 032213.pdf
Here's the narrative from the article linked to:

"A duty of loyalty is one of the most fundamental fiduciary duties owed by an agent to his principal. This duty
obligates a real estate broker to act at all times solely in the best interests of his principal to the exclusion of
all other interests, including the broker’s own self-interest."

My reading of this suggests that the fiduciary duty of a buyer's agent is to the BUYER because that's his/her principal. That's the person who hired him, NOT the seller.
The sellers agent signs a listing agreement with the seller. The buyers agent - if there is one - is a sub-agent or co-agent of the sellers agent, paid by the seller, bound by the contract between sellers agent and seller, with a duty to the seller. The only exception is if the buyers agent executes a “buyers broker agreement” with the buyer (which does establish a duty from the buyers agent to the buyer). In the absence of such an agreement - as is usually the case - the buyers agent does not owe a duty to the buyer.

Just because you have a buyers agent doesn’t mean you are protected by fiduciary duty - this is a common misconception. You are usually better off dealing directly with the sellers agent, insisting that they cut their commission in half, and hiring a good attorney who really does owe a duty to you. This will save you money in the long run (this case being a great example).
7eight9
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 7:11 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by 7eight9 »

lhl12 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:06 pm
Lexx wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:31 pm
7eight9 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:06 pm A real estate broker who becomes an agent of a seller or buyer, either intentionally through the execution of a written agreement, or unintentionally by a course of conduct, will be deemed to be a fiduciary.
https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/f ... 032213.pdf
Here's the narrative from the article linked to:

"A duty of loyalty is one of the most fundamental fiduciary duties owed by an agent to his principal. This duty
obligates a real estate broker to act at all times solely in the best interests of his principal to the exclusion of
all other interests, including the broker’s own self-interest."

My reading of this suggests that the fiduciary duty of a buyer's agent is to the BUYER because that's his/her principal. That's the person who hired him, NOT the seller.
The sellers agent signs a listing agreement with the seller. The buyers agent - if there is one - is a sub-agent or co-agent of the sellers agent, paid by the seller, bound by the contract between sellers agent and seller, with a duty to the seller. The only exception is if the buyers agent executes a “buyers broker agreement” with the buyer (which does establish a duty from the buyers agent to the buyer). In the absence of such an agreement - as is usually the case - the buyers agent does not owe a duty to the buyer.

Just because you have a buyers agent doesn’t mean you are protected by fiduciary duty - this is a common misconception. You are usually better off dealing directly with the sellers agent, insisting that they cut their commission in half, and hiring a good attorney who really does owe a duty to you. This will save you money in the long run (this case being a great example).
A buyer's agent is a real estate agent who is employed by and represents the buyer in
a real estate transaction, regardless of whether the agent is to be paid by the buyer, seller, or
through a commission split with the listing agent. The buyer's agent owes all fiduciary
duties to the buyer.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/docume ... 147301.pdf
I guess it all could be much worse. | They could be warming up my hearse.
User avatar
Quirkz
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:32 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Quirkz »

I've been on both sides of things like this, and in both cases the bill went to the person who owned the house at the time the cost was incurred, rather than the person who owned at the time the HOA voted on the assessment.
- I moved into a place in spring, and in summer they had a special assessment for unusually expensive snow removal. The bill went to the person who'd lived there the previous winter.
- When moving out we had a special assessment for painting. Even though I was leaving and wouldn't benefit from the new paint, and it was set for a 12-month payoff, I ended up having to pay a lump sum to address the amount due on the sale of the house. The new owner paid nothing.

That said, states, towns, and HOAs definitely vary. But I find it really hard to imagine someone buying a place in 2021 would be on the hook for damages that occurred nearly a decade prior.
michaeljc70
Posts: 10843
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by michaeljc70 »

Quirkz wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:55 pm I've been on both sides of things like this, and in both cases the bill went to the person who owned the house at the time the cost was incurred, rather than the person who owned at the time the HOA voted on the assessment.
- I moved into a place in spring, and in summer they had a special assessment for unusually expensive snow removal. The bill went to the person who'd lived there the previous winter.
- When moving out we had a special assessment for painting. Even though I was leaving and wouldn't benefit from the new paint, and it was set for a 12-month payoff, I ended up having to pay a lump sum to address the amount due on the sale of the house. The new owner paid nothing.

That said, states, towns, and HOAs definitely vary. But I find it really hard to imagine someone buying a place in 2021 would be on the hook for damages that occurred nearly a decade prior.
You may have not benefited from the new paint. However, you benefited from the lower assessments in prior years that probably should have included the cost of the new paint job. Special assessments are supposed to be for unforeseen things. I know that it is often not done that way.

On the other special for snow removal I am not sure how an association bills someone that no longer lives there and what recourse they have to collect that. Now, if a special assessment is underway and you sell, the buyer will almost always want a lower price or for the seller to pay the special.
Lexx
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:21 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Lexx »

Perhaps this is different from state to state. In California if the broker is to be a dual agent, there is a form on the standardized California Board of Realtors form that has to be checked, stating that the broker is acting as a dual agent. I've retained a buyers broker in the past and had a signed buyers agreement.

I do like the idea of using an attorney to act on my behalf. I've done this as well. In fact, instead of using a title company, I used the attorney to handle the closing, which saved me some money.
lhl12 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:06 pm The sellers agent signs a listing agreement with the seller. The buyers agent - if there is one - is a sub-agent or co-agent of the sellers agent, paid by the seller, bound by the contract between sellers agent and seller, with a duty to the seller. The only exception is if the buyers agent executes a “buyers broker agreement” with the buyer (which does establish a duty from the buyers agent to the buyer). In the absence of such an agreement - as is usually the case - the buyers agent does not owe a duty to the buyer.

Just because you have a buyers agent doesn’t mean you are protected by fiduciary duty - this is a common misconception. You are usually better off dealing directly with the sellers agent, insisting that they cut their commission in half, and hiring a good attorney who really does owe a duty to you. This will save you money in the long run (this case being a great example).
GibsonL6s
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:17 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by GibsonL6s »

Title insurance protects against unknown liens and fraudulent transfers so I doubt it will respond here. Settling the litigation does not mean no assessments. The buyer and its agent should have done diligence by asking the HOA manger if there were upcoming extraordinary assessments and should have reviewed the budget. Usually these docs are provided through escrow to the buyer. You may have a professional liability claim against the buyers agent if they did not help investigate.

Good to know there is some coverage available through fire insurance. I will note this if I ever buy a condo.
Saving$
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: In-Laws' HOA demanding $8000 lumpsum payment

Post by Saving$ »

First things first.
Did the in laws buy Owner's Title insurance?

There are two types of Title Insurance
1. the type required by the mortgage company, which protects the MORTGAGE company
2. the "rider" the buyer voluntarily purchases on top of the lender's title insurance for "Owners Title Insurance." This is the part that protects the Owner.
These usually appear as two separate charges on the closing statement. Look at the closing statement to figure out.

Do the in laws even have Owner's title insurance?

Second, what, if anything was asked and disclosed during the purchase process? Do you have those documents?

Third, unless there is something in the closing documents prohibiting it, I'd consider getting the previous owner to make a claim against their Homeowner's policy, much like you say many of the other owners are doing.
Post Reply