Protective Covenants.....

.....who enforces them? When I bought my land in a 'developing' subdivision, I was given a list of protective covenants by the seller. I believe the list was notarized by someone at the country tax office, which may or may not mean anything. One of the covenants was that immediate family members of the owner of the land were allowed to claim residency of the property....in other words, no one is supposed to be able to rent one of these houses. Here's the problem. The house next door to me has changed occupancies a couple of times in the last 4 years. I find out through public land records that the owner has not changed in 7 years. He's obviously renting it out. The family(s) that just moved in are already concerning me. They have that "thug" image with the sideways ball caps, plain white sneakers without socks, and 'busting slack' in their britches....plus the fact that when the guy 'waived' at me the other day, it looked as if he was trying to shake a booger off his finger. I've also taken observation that they have 3 pit bulls running 'loose'. These dogs have not posed an immediate threat to me....however, one of them came on the back porch last week as if to be 'stalking' our dog....which stays in the house. My wife was off work and was here. She said the dog would not leave. It kept staring through the sliding-glass door into the house. Of course my dog (which weighs maybe 5lbs) was beside herself. I plan on dealing with the dog issue by giving my neighbor the chance to retain this dogs to his own property, BUT, I have a gut feeling this is going to cause tension between us. If he doesn't comply, I guess I'll talk to the county authorities to see what they can do. Either way, he will be warned about keeping the dogs off my property....and then it'll be lead treatment. The wife USED to walk around the block. Now she's terrified to do so because of the dogs. She's had an issue with pits ever since the incident with my b-i-l's pit and our daughter. My question I guess is the same....Who enforces protective covenants?

Who enforces protective covenants?

Click to expand...

Well, usually there is a homeowner's association that enforces the covenants. As it appears from your statement of affairs, there is no operative homeowner's association.

So each individual property owner has the "right" to enforce the covenants. This means that you would have to seek an injunction against the owner to prohibit him from violating the covenants. That has to be done on your dime. So you're looking at somewhere between $3000-5000 in legal fees.

For what it's worth, the covenant you quote doesn't restrict the owner from renting the property. It actually is intended to let Mama and Papa in another state buy the property, and let Sonny at the UGA claim to be a resident for tuition purposes. The covenant is actually for the purpose of encouraging "kiddie condo's" or absentee ownership.

Soon the folks will weigh in about how they would never ever live in a development with protective covenants because it would infringe their "rights". In fact, some of those folks may be living next door to you right now.

Protective Covenants

only have teeth, if the homeowner's association and/ or neighboring homeowners sue in the end. Become familiar with the county ordinances affecting housing and residential property, that are enforced directly by the county. Used the latter, on a number of occasions, in the past.
Can't always be the happy/go lucky neighbor, all the time.

Become familiar with your county animal control agency and dog ordinances. Our county removed more than a few roaming dogs on several occasions. One house lost their pit bull, because I doubt anyone had a license listing their current address, to reclaim it. It's amazing how word got around about the disadvantages of living in our neighborhood. Oh, and watch for dogs that are just dropped off in the neighborhood. Hard times bring abandoned pets.

...

As for the dogs, I would go ahead and check the leash laws in the county and file a complaint.

As for the covenants, they cannot be written so as to disallow an owner from renting a property. That gets into the whole "can of worms" regarding property owner rights. Bascially, the convenants apply to the land lot and the dwelling and the occupants (whether they are a renter or not). I lease my home in a neighborhood with covenants and I was provided a copy of the covenants upon moving into the house. I am bound by them via my lease agreement. The owner is ultimately responsible under the convenants but because it is tied to my lease so am I. Convenants for a subdivision are on file with the county clerk and are a legal and binding document that has the force of law to a certain extent.

As for enforcement, as an earlier poster said, until the homeowners association is up and fully functioning, you have an individual right. More importantly, in most instances, until the homeowners association is established, enforcement falls on the developer typically, but good luck in getting them to spend a red cent on enforcement...they honestly do not care from what I have seen.

Enforcement can come in many forms, it can include anything from filinf a lien on the house for the associated fine with a violation of the covenants and it accrues interest over time as well. Also, convenants can be enforced and fines collected through wage garnishment in todays crazy court system. I have a friend that runs an association and they have used this method actually for more serious violations (e.g. nonpayment of association dues, etc).

Good luck...having a bad relationship with neighbors can be no fun sometimes.

No deed covenent or homeowners association can prevent renting out a home. They can specifiy upkeep standards but they cannot prevent a renter from moving in. It has to do with federal anti-descrimination laws that protect certain low-class people from being denied a place to live.

...

Doyle said:

No deed covenent or homeowners association can prevent renting out a home. They can specifiy upkeep standards but they cannot prevent a renter from moving in. It has to do with federal anti-descrimination laws that protect certain low-class people from being denied a place to live.

Click to expand...

Low class......for being a renter...well that certainly ruined my self image... ...but seriously, I maintain my leased house better than a lot of my neighbors who own their homes...

Here is how you fix the problem. Call the landowner and tell him the situation and if something happens to you or any of your pets, you'll sue him as well as the current tenants.

Then, go get a goat or a pig or a pound puppy and tie it to a stake in the backyard. When the pit attacks it and kills it, you've got to deal with the trauma of the attack etc etc and you can sue and get the dogs taken care of.

Sorry, Mr Harris - didn't mean imply that renters in general were low-class.

Usually a Home Owners Association enforces the rules....Try
contacting the company/seller who authored the so called "rules"..
Most HO associations are pretty strict as far as enforcing the
rules, and hopefully that will take care of the "renter" issue....

As far as the dog situation, contact the LEOs and explain the
problem...They will (should) advise the neighbor of relevant
leash laws...If (when) the dogs return call animal control....

TRY to handle it in a legal manner before you result to more
drastic measures....I have a similar situation with a neighbor,
2 houses up from me, who constantly let their 4 uncollared
Pits run loose...Ate some of my neighbors chickens, and been
around my fence several times...Local LEOS and animal control
know the situation, and IF they see the dogs loose will pick them
up...IF (when) they dig into my yard , like they did to get the
neighbors chickens, I will bury them in the hole they dug....

...

Doyle said:

Sorry, Mr Harris - didn't mean imply that renters in general were low-class.

Click to expand...

Oh I know what you meant...it is all good...just poking a little fun at you.

But it can be tough dealing with protective convenants and homeowners associations and the like...and the means of enforcement of covenants has gotten more and more broad and the associations have gained considerable power in the last 10 years or so.

In the original post, I would be most concerned about the pit bulls roaming freely...a strange dog of any breed roaming loose can cause a lot of trouble. I would not be overly concerned with how the residents wear their hats or britches though...appearance alone does not make someone a thug or a bad person...besides protective covenants do not cover poor fashion sense...

Twenty five ought six said:

Soon the folks will weigh in about how they would never ever live in a development with protective covenants because it would infringe their "rights". In fact, some of those folks may be living next door to you right now.

Click to expand...

That would be me.

Bassquatch said:

.....who enforces them? When I bought my land in a 'developing' subdivision, I was given a list of protective covenants by the seller. I believe the list was notarized by someone at the country tax office, which may or may not mean anything. One of the covenants was that immediate family members of the owner of the land were allowed to claim residency of the property....in other words, no one is supposed to be able to rent one of these houses. Here's the problem. The house next door to me has changed occupancies a couple of times in the last 4 years. I find out through public land records that the owner has not changed in 7 years. He's obviously renting it out. The family(s) that just moved in are already concerning me. They have that "thug" image with the sideways ball caps, plain white sneakers without socks, and 'busting slack' in their britches....plus the fact that when the guy 'waived' at me the other day, it looked as if he was trying to shake a booger off his finger. I've also taken observation that they have 3 pit bulls running 'loose'. These dogs have not posed an immediate threat to me....however, one of them came on the back porch last week as if to be 'stalking' our dog....which stays in the house. My wife was off work and was here. She said the dog would not leave. It kept staring through the sliding-glass door into the house. Of course my dog (which weighs maybe 5lbs) was beside herself. I plan on dealing with the dog issue by giving my neighbor the chance to retain this dogs to his own property, BUT, I have a gut feeling this is going to cause tension between us. If he doesn't comply, I guess I'll talk to the county authorities to see what they can do. Either way, he will be warned about keeping the dogs off my property....and then it'll be lead treatment. The wife USED to walk around the block. Now she's terrified to do so because of the dogs. She's had an issue with pits ever since the incident with my b-i-l's pit and our daughter. My question I guess is the same....Who enforces protective covenants?

Click to expand...

Atleast he waived....

pfharris1965 said:

As for the covenants, they cannot be written so as to disallow an owner from renting a property.

Click to expand...

Doyle said:

No deed covenent or homeowners association can prevent renting out a home.

Click to expand...

Are y’all sure about this? I can't find anything in the Fair Housing Act to support y’alls statements. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm

I'm under the impression that any portion of the bundle of rights of a property can be sold or restricted including the right to rent or lease.

What 25.06 has said sounds reasonable and from everything I've read from that he has posted on the forums he knows his stuff pretty good.

...

K80 said:

Are y’all sure about this? I can't find anything in the Fair Housing Act to support y’alls statements. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm

I'm under the impression that any portion of the bundle of rights of a property can be sold or restricted including the right to rent or lease.

What 25.06 has said sounds reasonable and from everything I've read from that he has posted on the forums he knows his stuff pretty good.

Click to expand...

My statement was based on more on court precedent given that the courts have historically held in the favor of property owner rights regarding such issues as these. I will see if I can find info.

At this time

it might be better to not have an association. Lots of them are seeing that foreclosures are putting a serious dent in their association collections.

I don't see how imediate family members ALLOWED to claim residency prohibits renting. Is there additional verbiage in regards to investment properties? There are covenants and underwriting guidelines that PROHIBIT renting properties. These are enforceable. Just like "active adult" communities that discriminate based upon age, they all have their loopholes. In this market, however, most lenders, agents and builder/developers are willing to look the other way when someone wants to purchase a home as a rental property, eventhough the community may have already exceeded it's "cap".

...

One point for consideration...a restrictive covenant can be written so as to prohibut anything under the sun; however, enforceability is a crap-shoot on borderline issues that may be deemed as violating the property owner's rights. I would check with an attorney but a simple Internet search yielded many case in which the trial court found that a covenant prohibiting one from renting out their home was in violation of the FHA...additionally the appellate court upheld the decisions as well. Certain covenants are stricken down all the time as unenforceable.

Things get real gray concerning enforcement of a convenant and associations have to take care because they can and often do find themselves on the receiving endo of a law suit that they loose. It could go either way in the courts but property owner rights are a very tough opponent...

Yup, the covenants can say anything they want..........like saying you can not have a rooftop TV antenna to receive over the air TV signals.......almost every HOA has that in their covenants, but it is not enforceable in most instances.

The dog situation can and should be handled through the local authorities. The renting I doubt you would have no standing on legally, especially when everything is based on their outward appearances.

The AmBASSaDEER said:

Atleast he waived....

Click to expand...

I actually waived 1st. I was on the lawn mower cutting grass right there at the street when 'the neighbors' (all 8 of them) decided to walk around the block....I thought it'd be the 'neighborly' thing to do.

We don't have a home owner's association. We tried to put one together, but there's a few in the subdivision that weren't going for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging these people as 'low class'. I've recently found out that they are paying $800 per month for rent. That's more than my total mortgage including escrow per month. I had to dig out the list of convenants to see how it was quoted exactly.

"No lot or parcel of land shall be rented, leased, or otherwise established as residency for persons other than immediate family members of the landowner."

Now I'm not sure how many ways this could be interpreted, but it looks pretty straight forward to me. I absolutely for keeping the peace around here. I don't want to get the SO out here as the presence may cause tensions between us as well. I'm still waiting for a good time to catch the guy outside so we can chat. But every time anyone is out in their yard, so are the dogs. I'm not about to breach the property line and get attacked by his dogs. It'd be a bad day for the canines at his address. I want to avoid this measure at all cost. As far as I know, Oglethorpe county has no 'leash law' or ordinance that forbids loose running dogs.

Let's say the covenant is valid, we get back to the question of how to enforce it.

The only way it could be enforced in the circumstances you have outlined is to file an action in Superior Court, seeking to enjoin the owner from violating the covenants. You could not recover any money. So it becomes an question of whether you are willing to spend $3000-5000 (or more) to prove a point.

Now his lender and homeowners insurance company might be interested that it is no longer owner occupied. Especially the insurance company.