Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy
If the term used "is allowed by law", then that deed restriction is valid, but not enforceable due to the override by state law, ie there are no places where the deed restriction is applicable or enforceable.
Basically, the deed restriction is trying to take advantage of residents not being a FL attorney, and copied from before the internet took over the world.
. . .
|
Correct. I did not want to hijack this thread so only gave the link about misslesding, illegal, and ridiculousic dead restrictions. Below is my full statement on
BOGUS dead restrictions from a different thread. Pay attention to 2.19 & 2.23
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeVillages
I agree.
Some Dead Restrictions are BOGUS !!!
I understand the need for deed restrictions and most are common sense. However a few are misleading, ridiculous, or a violation of the law.
2.15
"Aerials, satellite reception dishes, and antennas of ony kind are prohibited within the Subdivision to the extent allowed by law. The location of any approved device will be previously approved by the Developer in writing."
Both missleading & false: Federal law prohibit deed restrictions from prohibiting nor requiring pre-approval for antennas receiving OTA television singles.
2.19
"All Owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their propeny for more than a 7-day pcriod and shall simultaneously advise the Developer as to their intended return dale."
Does anyone actually follow this restrictions? Let us know if you do this.
2.23
"Birds, fish, dogs and cats shall be permitted, with a maximum of two (2) pets per Lot."
Does this mean if we have two goldfish, we cannot have a dog or cat?
2.26
"The hanging of clothes or clothes lines or poles is prohibi!cd to the extent allowed by law."
Misleading. This restriction is a violation of Florida law
3.3
"No Lot may be used as ingress and egress to any other property or tum inlo a road by anyone other than the Developer."
An excellent, common sense restriction.
|