$288 in unpaid fees, homeowner association took her home

[nioka]

Justbroke,

Here are a few people that disagree with you.

http://gawker.com/5830257/the-horror-of-homeowners-associations

http://www.change.org/petitions/regulate-privatized-government-home-owner-associations

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/11/p...xans-homeless/

[justbroke]

Here are a few people that disagree with you.

It does not matter if they disagree with me. Or the millions of other homeowners that like what an HOA provides, which do agree with me.

If you don't like HOAs, don't purchase in an HOA and subject yourself to the rules (Covenants, Conventions and Restrictions). People seem to want all the (relative) security of the HOA while not wanting or desiring to abide by the rules. The same people are then upset when the HOA seeks to foreclose for non-payment of assessments or dues. Remember, I'm talking about HOA foreclosures and tax certificates. I'm not talking about some HOAs that are unprofessionally run (especially those without a management company), and end up in litigation costing the HOA even more money. I'm talking about homeowners that do not pay their assessments and dues, won't, can't, or refuse to follow the rules, and end up in an HOA foreclosure. No different than a bank or tax foreclosure (period).

Again, purchasing an HOA foreclosure is absolutely no different than purchasing tax certificates (period). I would not personally purchase tax certificates or even HOA foreclosures, but it serves a purpose. It allows HOAs, CAs, towns, cities, counties and States to a.) be paid for back taxes, assessments, dues or fines, and b.) brings a new titled owner into play who is more likely to pay on-time.

Any source that writes that a foreclose is "for profit" is either just an opinion piece or does not understand anything. Foreclosing on $288 is certainly not done for "profit"; especially when sold to a third party. It is sold to recover the dues that are a charge against the land, no different than property taxes. Perhaps someone has a philosophical difference in that they don't believe that HOAs should have "statutory" authority to have a.) a super lien, and/or b.) the ability to fine and later foreclose upon said liens. I would say to petition your lawmakers and just don't buy in an HOA.

Most of the ire with the handful of people, out of millions, in HOA/CAs are typically upset because the HOA prohibits something as simple as overnight parking on the street. They are fined, refuse to pay, and the HOA's recourse is only to sue and/or foreclose. Should an HOA just allow people to do whatever they want against the CC&Rs to which they agreed? Or, not pay assessments -- which is the topic of my particular rant about not blaming the HOA because someone refused to pay assessments?

Simply complaining that the HOA fined you for putting up a confederate flag on your front porch where the CC&Rs preclude such is nothing more than that; an individual complaining. That doesn't make the HOA evil for using their power to levy a fine, or their statutory (not arbitrary, not made up, not some super-powerful evil HOA, but statutory) power to lien and to foreclose upon a lien.

Anyhow, I have given enough information for a reasonable person to understand how an HOA is able to foreclose. I suppose some would rather that the HOA just burn a cross in front of the home until the owner complies, but that would be barbaric! The HOAs statutory power is through fines and foreclosure of their lien (period).

[tobee43]

jb is exactly correct. this subject has nothing to do with the HOA static of collection of such funds. subordinate liens will out live your bk no matter what your view is on the subject matter. it's a simply fact and well worded by jb to help you understand your position.

you can disagree all you with jb, but since i do this half time for a living he is right on with all the information he has given as factual. you don't need to agree, you will experience the end result.

best of luck to you, this is all enough to swallow, trying to understand it from a legal perception is another story.