Florida Homeowners Association Uses "Reverse Foreclosure"

This is a good idea if your state foreclosure laws will allow this.   The problem:  properties in the middle of a forclosure tend not to pay monthly fees.  And in this economy, the bank drags its feet on the foreclosure, because it will have to pay fees once title transfers.

One answer that worked in Florida is a "reverse foreclosure."   Attorneys went to Court and compelled title to transfer.  Notices were waived, necessary hearings were waived, and it worked:  the Court transferred title in one day.  Now the Bank must start paying monthly assessments.

The Homeonwers Associations figures it saved eight more months of zero fees from the unit in question.    See more about this here.    Consult with your state laws to see if you can do the same.   If you can --you should.

Maryland Law May Block Closeline Bans

A Maryland Legisltor is considering a Law that would make it illegal for a homeowners association to ban clotheslines. See  http://fastflip.googlelabs.com/view?q=homeowners%20association#qozDkXTlHOEBmM

This is intended to be a green law.   Dryers use fuel and I suspect may harm the ozone layer as well.

But is this too extreme?  And might New Jersey follow?

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

  Condominium Associations often get smoke complaints relating to either a fireplace or wood burning stove. Ignoring the problem may very well be costly, and an overall bad idea.

Smoke can penetrate units and affect neighboring unit owners.  Some people are more sensitive to smoke than others.  For those people, definitely a minority, this problem will never go away. And nether will their objections.

The "offender" will invariably take the position that he or she is not breaking the law and has the right to burn.  Many Board members seem inclined to take similar positions.

However this "legal burning" may give rise to a private nuisance complaint in the Superior Court (here in New Jersey.)  The focus will then turn on the reasonableness of the burning, combined with the knowledge that the burning is making some one ill.

The fact that the burning may be cosmetic or aesthetic (the burner likes the crackle or the visual) and not for heat, may suggest that the burning is not reasonable in light of the health problems it is causing.

The victim unit owner may be able to prove through air testing that his or her air has a large volume of soot coming directly from the offending, burner unit..

The burner may be found liable as may also the Association.   Why the Association? Because the smoke is passing through a common element to pass from one unit to another.

So igoring burning complaints may be a bad idea.  Amicable resolutions,  including agreements as to time and duration of burning,  as well as payment for electric heaters and maybe even higher electric bills --all of these things may very well be a better idea than looking the other way.