Must be a fairer way

Woman shouldn't lose her home over failure to pay dues


Courtesy of the Herald Tribune

Posted August 5, 2005

By PAUL QUINLAN and WILL ROTHSCHILD

 

Karin Healy has been granted five minutes this morning to convince a Sarasota County judge that she should get her house back. Any court's decisions must be made in accordance with the law, but we hope that in this case the judge also factors in common sense and fairness -- to the extent allowed by statutes.

Healy, a single mother of three daughters, fell $1,380 behind in the dues she owed the Fairway Village of Sarasota Homeowners Association. After many unsuccessful efforts to collect -- and Healy's failure to respond to warnings -- the association filed for foreclosure on Healy's home in January. (This was the second time the association had a lien placed on Healy's property because of her failure to pay the fees: In 2001, she avoided additional consequences by paying the overdue fees.)

Two weeks ago, the 6-year-old house was auctioned for $11,000. The buyer would assume Healy's mortgage, which she says is about $137,000.

Healy's home is likely worth much more today. A house across the street sold last year for $218,000. Prices for other homes in the neighborhood have topped $300,000.

Healy says she will ask the judge to let her have her home back so she can sell it and pay her debts, including the money she owes the homeowners association. The purchaser at auction would also be due compensation, despite its minimal investment.

The Fairway Village association was placed in a difficult position -- especially when Healy failed to respond to the court notices.

It would be useful for the judge to ask Healy, under oath, whether she disputes records indicating that she was served a summons in February. (The summons was intended to serve notice of the foreclosure proceedings.) The answer to that question would indicate whether she deliberately ignored the summons and subsequent notices, and simply didn't intend to pay.

Whatever the judge decides, this case points out the power of homeowners associations. Foreclosure is rare, but associations enforce, via warnings and fines, a broad list of rules ranging from the height of grass to the style of roofs and the decibel level of barking dogs.

This case may not provide the best example of abuse of the law by an association. Still, the Legislature should review associations' powers to ensure that the penalty for failing to pay fees is proportional.

One easy step would help guarantee that homeowners are placed on proper notice: Associations should be required to use official process servers or certified mail to deliver all warnings of foreclosure.

In addition, the Legislature should consider requiring associations to meet the standards for selling property when the owners don't pay their local property taxes: That process provides a two-year window for payment.

Homeowners associations have a right to collect what is owed them. But the loss of one's home is not a proportionate penalty for the failure to pay $1,380 in dues. There has to be a better way to settle these disputes.

Usually a lien is placed on a home for dues

I am perplexed -- and many of your readers are too, I'm sure -- about the bizarre chain of events involving the Karin Healy foreclosure in Venice. Something is rotten in Denmark. Many kind folks in the area would have come forward to give her the $1,380, if that is all it would have taken to save her house.

I have served on homeowners association boards and we never had the power to foreclose on someone's home if they were in arrears on their dues. To protect the other property owners from having to assume additional financial burden because of dues in arrears, we could place a lien on the property. That lien was satisfied if paid off with interest by the delinquent owner or at the closing, if the property was sold. We also had money in a reserve account to cover nonpayment of dues.

I can't believe a property in today's market was auctioned off for about 3 percent of its market value. If the word was out on the street that you could buy a house in Venice for $11,000 , the line of buyers would have stretched from Venice to Maine. If everything about this unfortunate chain of events is true, the laws have to be changed. In no way should a homeowners association be allowed to take someone's house. There but for the grace of God go I.

David Woodhouse

Bradenton


Freedom preferable to restrictions

Letter to Editor -- August 6, 2005

 

Plights similar to Karin Healy's are some of the reasons why I avoid deed-restricted communities. Yes, it is true that without those restrictions, one runs the risk of having a neighbor's yard look like a salvage operation, or a neighbor painting a house with some offensive color.

On the issue of an unkempt yard, if one chooses a neighborhood wisely, the neighbors will be people who take pride in the yard. Hence, it won't be an issue.

On the bad color: Well, we all have different tastes. What harm does it really do to me if my next-door neighbor decides to paint his house Day-Glo orange? If he likes that color, then by all means, let him paint it that color. The last I checked, we live in a country that allows for diversity.

I have friends who live or used to live in restricted communities. Some homeowners associations have such outrageous rules that the word Nazi comes to mind. On top of that, there are some people in those communities with nothing better to do than go around looking for violations.

I understand that some people like living with so many controls on what they can and cannot do with their homes. But this is one Florida boy who will avoid such communities every time I go looking for a new home.

Kevin Brooks
North Port


Judge rules woman can keep house

VENICE CASE SPOTLIGHTS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS POWER

Home lost over $1,380 dues -- FAIRWAY VILLAGE OF SARASOTA HOA, Venice


NEWS PAGE HOME HOA Foreclosures