Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They won but I think the HOA should have paid their attorney bill too.
Good for them. I generally support HOAs, but like anything else, if they start abusing their powers, you need to fight back.
Hopefully this couple will run for a seat on the Board of their HOA, and work to fire the property management company that was enforcing these restrictions. There are dozens of property management companies out there, you can find a reasonable one, if you JOIN the process and make sure you vote and run for leadership postions in your HOA.
It's a shame they lost $10K though in attorney fees. I wonder if they didn't ask for that during the initial court case, of if they are going to sue the HOA later civilly?
They won but I think the HOA should have paid their attorney bill too.
Just illustrates that HOAs do not "preserve property values". Just ask this couple, they lost $10,000 and they are forced to pay "assessments" to an organization that used those assessments to cause them to incur this loss. The only "winner" in these cases is the HOA attorney who provoked the litigation and was paid by the HOA corporation.
The board and attorney use the HOA corporation as a "mask" behind which they can wreak all sorts of havoc on homeowners. Notice how none of the board members are identified. Apparently this board is so drunk with delusions of power that it has decided it can sit in judgment and "fine" homeowners. Moderator cut: see comment
The suggestion by others that this would all be better if the homeowners would just get on the board is laughable. There are homeowners on the board now and the victims in this case would still be out their $10,000.
You can rest assured that the victims will remember the names of the board members and management company so long as the board members live in the subdivision - and not too kindly either. Perhaps at a time in the not-too-distant future board members will be held personally accountable for their actions. Meanwhile the ego of the board members will now no doubt have to be satiated by some other accusation of violation against the same victims.
This next legislative session, among other things homeowners will be lobbying to eliminate the "one-way" preferential treatment that HOAs get with respect to attorney fees.
Last edited by BstYet2Be; 03-10-2012 at 08:57 AM..
Reason: no specific names as this can result in defamation libel issues
You can rest assured that the victims will remember the names of the board members and management company so long as the board members live in the subdivision - and not too kindly either. Perhaps at a time in the not-too-distant future board members will be held personally accountable for their actions. .
Sigh, and what do you mean by this? "they will be remembered, and maybe held PERSONALLY accountable".
It's a shame they lost $10K though in attorney fees. I wonder if they didn't ask for that during the initial court case, of if they are going to sue the HOA later civilly?
I was wondering the same thing. The news report was not clear if they sued for damages/fees as well. If all they originally sued for was the right to build it and leave it there, they may not have been able to add the fees to the suit. I'd certainly look into a separate suit to recover damages if it were me.
I was wondering the same thing. The news report was not clear if they sued for damages/fees as well. If all they originally sued for was the right to build it and leave it there, they may not have been able to add the fees to the suit. I'd certainly look into a separate suit to recover damages if it were me.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that in a suit like this, they can only sue for the building and costs associated with the building. Once the court finds in favor for them, it definately helps with a civil suit where they can now sue to recoup attorney fees and also for "emotional suffering" which we all know can be in the millions of dollars. You can't really sue for "emotional suffering" in a simple right to build lawsuit.
I would be interested to see how this story turns out. The couple should definately recoup their legal fees, plus the time they spent fighting this. I hope they get a nice chunk of change out of it, which unfortunately their neighbors will have to pay for. I guess it's not different from suing any "government" entity. If you sue City of Austin, you might make a buck, but taxpayers end up footing the bill. Such is society I guess.
I wonder why the HOA issued the halt order to begin with? Seems rather capricious from the way the story is written, I would have liked to hear the HOA's side of it to see why? I find most people aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. But with journalism today, it's a little too much to expect to be told both sides of the story. Shrug.
HOA laws for the most part ensure that the homeowners in most cases aren't going to be able to recoup their legal fees.
Of course the suit was arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. The homeowners received written approval for the initial design. The homeowners also received written approval for the changed design (made it a little larger). The HOA board members or its managing agent decided to provoke a lawsuit. The HOA filed suit against the homeowners, not vice-versa.
The HOA attorney sought a temporary restraining order to prevent construction, his attorney fees and costs, and he demanded $200 per day for every day the building remained under faux theories of "harm" to the subdivision. There is no current right under state law for homeowners to demand $200 per day for every day the HOA board tries to interfere with the homeowners use and enjoyment of property. Perhaps that will change next session.
The victims in this case are still out about $10,000 in attorney fees because of what this unscrupulous board, HOA attorney, and managing agent did...and yes I doubt there will ever be any "neighborly" relations between this family and the board members or the management company involved.
Moderator cut: see comment I would certainly like to see legislation that allows for board members to be held personally responsible for their actions. This is in steep contrast to the industry-sought legislation that would make board members (and their agents) completely immune from any liability. It would be great if the board members and management company in this case were forced to cough up $10,000 to the homeowners - the board members, management company, and HOA attorney didn't have any qualms about causing the victims to incur those fees in defending against the lawsuit that was based upon the false assertions made by the management company. The board and management company used HOA funds to pursue this action while the victims were forced to use their own to defend.
As far as getting "two sides" JayBrown80 - the HOA board and attorney were given an opportunity to present their "side" of the story. They chose not to say anything. They didn't have a story - or perhaps it would be better to say that they reserved "storytime" for the courtroom. The HOA board, management company, and attorney manufactured facts that were readily controverted by the evidence in the case. Yet another reason why board members and managing agent should be held personally responsible for the harm done to the homeowners. In this case the economic damages alone are $10,000.
There should be further investigation of the management company involvement in this. HOA management companies are notorious for provoking these disputes and they are usually in league with (and frequently recommend) the HOA attorney. In the present case the lawsuit was based significantly on numerous false statements asserted by the management company. The management company initially used those false statements in an effort to cause the homeowners to incur citations with the city of Round Rock before provoking the lawsuit. The homeowners were forced to indulge the city of Round Rock inspectors to come upon and inspect their property. After getting a green light from the inspectors and yet another approval from the architectural committee, the homeowners received a letter from the managing agent claiming that approval for the structure had been denied by the board of directors even though neither the managing agent nor board had any authority to review or "deny" approvals.
Last edited by BstYet2Be; 03-10-2012 at 09:05 AM..
Reason: We may attack ideas but we do not attack the speaker of the ideas.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that in a suit like this, they can only sue for the building and costs associated with the building. Once the court finds in favor for them, it definately helps with a civil suit where they can now sue to recoup attorney fees and also for "emotional suffering" which we all know can be in the millions of dollars. You can't really sue for "emotional suffering" in a simple right to build lawsuit.
I would be interested to see how this story turns out. The couple should definately recoup their legal fees, plus the time they spent fighting this. I hope they get a nice chunk of change out of it, which unfortunately their neighbors will have to pay for. I guess it's not different from suing any "government" entity. If you sue City of Austin, you might make a buck, but taxpayers end up footing the bill. Such is society I guess.
I wonder why the HOA issued the halt order to begin with? Seems rather capricious from the way the story is written, I would have liked to hear the HOA's side of it to see why? I find most people aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. But with journalism today, it's a little too much to expect to be told both sides of the story. Shrug.
If the HOA had a valid excuse/reason, don't you think they might have won the case? The verdict pretty much sums it up. The HOA lost, which means what ever twisted reasoning they had was invalid. And yes, people are evil little twits. I've seen this happen over and over again. Most likely the HOA approved the shed because it was in line with the CC&Rs, but once the building started some neighbor complained to his buddy on the board and they decided to just ignore the rules and issued a stop order.
If the HOA had a valid excuse/reason, don't you think they might have won the case? The verdict pretty much sums it up. The HOA lost, which means what ever twisted reasoning they had was invalid. And yes, people are evil little twits. I've seen this happen over and over again. Most likely the HOA approved the shed because it was in line with the CC&Rs, but once the building started some neighbor complained to his buddy on the board and they decided to just ignore the rules and issued a stop order.
Perhaps, but we may never know b/c the reporter did not report both sides of the story.
I know there are a lot of anti-hoa people on this forum, but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't allowed to be CURIOUS as to the Hoas reasoning in this case. The verdict doesn't explain anything as to the HOAs reasoning. Just the fact that the HOA was willing to go to court does indicate that the HOA felt justified in their position, so it probably went beyond "some buddy on the board", I would like to know why they felt justified. I know for you it's good enough to just say "These people, ALL OF THEM, are evil!!!! they are out to kill us all!!!! BWLLLHWKHAWEKHRWELKHREERE". But for reasonable people, that is not a good enough explanation.
What's wrong with wanting to hear both sides of the story? Why do you and IC_delight jump down peoples throats when they are simply asking questions?
Moderator cut: see comment
Last edited by BstYet2Be; 03-10-2012 at 09:02 AM..
Reason: We may attack ideas but we do not attack the speaker of the ideas.
Of course the suit was arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. The homeowners received written approval for the initial design. The homeowners also received written approval for the changed design (made it a little larger). The HOA board members or its managing agent decided to provoke a lawsuit. The HOA filed suit against the homeowners, not vice-versa.
The HOA attorney sought a temporary restraining order to prevent construction, his attorney fees and costs, and he demanded $200 per day for every day the building remained under faux theories of "harm" to the subdivision. There is no current right under state law for homeowners to demand $200 per day for every day the HOA board tries to interfere with the homeowners use and enjoyment of property. Perhaps that will change next session..
That information that you are saying above is not in the original news article. Are you just making it up? Moderator cut: see comment Or are you quoting from another information source that you could share with us?
Moderator cut: orphaned - post comments referred to have been removed
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
As far as getting "two sides" JayBrown80 - the HOA board and attorney were given an opportunity to present their "side" of the story. They chose not to say anything. They didn't have a story - or perhaps it would be better to say that they reserved "storytime" for the courtroom. The HOA board, management company, and attorney manufactured facts that were readily controverted by the evidence in the case. .
Once again...where are you getting this information? Are you just assuming that this is what happened because the HOA lost the case? You know, it is possible for 2 parties to have a disagreement, have it settled by a court of law, and neither party to be "Evil". The civil judiciary is about mediating disagreements....not punishing evil people. Just b/c the HOA lost, doesn't make them evil. Just like if the homeowners lost, they wouldn't be evil either.
Where are you getting the information above? If you have another source, share it. If you are just making it up, a shocker for you I know , then kindly stop presenting your "make believe crazy world" as "reality".
Last edited by BstYet2Be; 03-10-2012 at 09:08 AM..
Reason: We may attack ideas but we do not attack the speaker of the ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, then kindly stop presenting your "make believe crazy world" as "reality".
