Children
 

What is the restriction for children living in the Villages?

I believe they must be over 19 years old and at least one resident (owner) of the household must be 55 or older.

Children are permitted, in fact encouraged, in the Middleton section. While part of The Villages, they have their own amenities and no access to 55+ amenities (Except the public ones like town squares, stores, restaurants, guest golfing, etc.).

Under age restriction
 

Kids under 19 are not allowed to live here full-time. They can visit as often as you'd/they'd like but can't stay for more than 30 consecutive days. Whether this rule is actually enforced is a whole other can of worms.

One resident (owner) does not have to be 55+. See the 80/20 rule.

There may be some differences depending on where you live, check your deed restrictions for the specific information. I believe most of the info mentioned so far is accurate, but I do not know the details about the 'family' areas.

While this is indeed true that only 80% of the homes must be occupied by a person 55+ to be considered under the Federal legal 55+ community umbrella, (The Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA), your point is moot.

If they have a house here, they qualified for 80/20 through Villages Sales staff. Of course, the could have purchased via the MLS. I believe the 55+ occupant requirement was to ensure the house was not solely occupied by a 19, a 20, and a 25 year old. Regardless, the rules regarding people under 19 specifically state that SOMEone must be 55+ in the house. See below.

According to The Villages dot com (FAQs About The Villages(R): Your Questions Answered ):

"Can you live in The Villages if you are under 55?

- Yes, if at least one member of your household is 55 and you are not younger than 19 years old.

While The Villages is a 55+ active adult community, we absolutely do welcome children and grandchildren. In fact, The Villages hosts year-round, inter-generational activities as part of Camp Villages. This special program encourages grandparents and grandchildren to experience together all the lifestyle amenities The Villages has to offer.

Please note, there is a 30-day consecutive limit for visitors under the age of 18."

If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

Wow.

Our old neighborhood had 2 sisters that have been living in TV since they turned 19, to take care of their parents. Both parents passed when girls turned 22 & 24. Both now own the home, work in TV, are full time residents. Our first home sold to a couple age 24, and 27.

Guarantee? How is that?

Pitchforks, and lanterns:girlneener:

The rule is pretty clear. Hopefully, The Villages will enforce their own rule if they have a specific, verifiable complaint. I moved here to get away from living around children. Why can't people just follow the rules that they agreed to follow?

Internal restrictions are not enforced but any resident can initiate legal action.

At least 80 percent of occupied unites in a 55+ community must have at least one person living there who is over 55. This leaves the other 20 percent of the community's units available for people of any age, creating the “80/20 Rule.”

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.

NO

All homes in the Villages come with deed restrictions. While there are many version of these deed restrictions, every one that I have looked at limits the number of days a child under 19 can stay in the home.

To clarify, in my neighborhood, the deed restrictions state:

"... persons below the age of nineteen (19) may be permitted to visit and temporarily reside for periods not exceeding thirty (30) days in total in any calendar year."

Note that it doesn't say anything about consecutive days, but 30 days "in total".

We bought a new home in TV 3 months ago. Our deed says no one under 19 can live in the home permanently.
This is not the problem here. If you watch ship smith news in TV who shares the police arrest info, adult children living with mom and dad are the trouble makers. I would agree with him.
Secondly, anyone of any age can be a renter here. Now this I don’t understand.

Do you have a source for your last 2 sentences? As I understand it, the deed restrictions apply to the property owner, who must ensure compliance by any residents.

Has there ever been a case where a young adult was forced to move out of a home in The Villages?

Around 2010 in our first neighborhood a retired couple had a horrific life changing event. Their daughter and spouse in a deadly crash, pronounced at the scene. Their 2yo child was not in the car.
Temporary custody was given to grandparents, here in TV. They immediately started looking for a home in the area, outside of TV. Someone filed a complaint, and notice was given to remove child, or vacant home. They took temporary residence outside of TV until home sold, and new residence established outside of TV.

Many neighbors were upset within days of funeral that someone in the neighborhood didn’t even give them a week before filing complaint. Neighborhood raised money to help with their sudden temporary move. We were out of state at the time, but our website gave everyone updates.

I knew that they enforced the rule for children. I was wondering if someone in their 20's or older was required to move out of a home for being too young?

There in lies the key word, “HOPEFULLY”! Don’t hold your breath waiting for hopefully to happen. The precedent has already been set with not enforcing other internal deed restriction violations.

Mine says the same

My deed has no restrictions for people 19 and over. I could sell to a group of 19 year olds and it would be fully legal

That is what I thought. So due to the twenty eighty rule, there probably never will be a case where an adult is thrown out.

Ok
 

Yep, one of those.

if no kids under 19 years old may live here why do we have to pay county school taxes?

Because "here" is part of the county.

Grumpy old guys goys rights too! Just ask Archie Bunker!

Maybe. I won't complain about lawn ornaments and most other things. But, I will complain about children moving in.

Don’t want to live on your street with an attitude like that, can guarantee you that!

Apparently TV isn’t close to the 20% rule. We know several work from home residents that own homes in TV not in family areas, that are in their mid 20’s, and 30’s. The downside for them is older neighbors look for their help more than they should because they are young, and don’t get the concept of work from home, is a job.

Orlando is their home base, and require once a week in person meetings. TV is much cheaper than Orlando living, with a small apartment near parks starting at $3,000 a month.

Actually, there is No Precedent in Law. Both the HUD and Florida HOPA speak only to the 80% requirement for a 55+ community. There is no stipulation by either to the other 20% occupancy. The tradition has been to establish allowed occupancy of the 20% with Recorded Deed Restrictions and sometimes only Community Rules. Deed Restrictions can at most times be legally enforced but usually only with some type of Lien against the property. Community Rules however are typically viewed as weak. There is also the Fair Housing Act which is very strong in legal precedent. In summary, it is a hard and expensive issue to litigate.

Nice backpedal.

I believe you meant to say "ages 19-54".

INCORRECT. The 80/20 Rule and the prohibition against "children under 19" are unrelated. The "children under 19" is a Deed Restriction/Covenant that prohibits that occupancy. It cannot be enforced by government, only by a beneficiary of the covenant.


That is incorrect. Neither HUD nor the State of Florida have a horse in the race when enforcement of the "no under 19 year old" provisions are involved. It is up to a beneficiary of the restriction/covenant to bring an enforcement action.


Incorrect. They "qualified" by being consistent with the 80/20 maintenance plans and verification process. They could have bought through MLS and had nothing to do with The Villages sales staff.[/QUOTE]

That may or may not be what that text says (I disagree with your interpretation), but the 80/20 is unrelated in any way, to the "under 19" restriction. That's like saying an orange should be "red", because apples are.


The Villages and/or the CDD's have to certify to HUD that they are in compliance with the 80/20 rule. There is also a plan in place, to insure that the community maintains conformance.

The Villages took a very smart approach. When they started selling new homes, they essentially maintained a 100% "age restricted" business model. They knew the ratio would change as the community matured, but they had such a head-start on the "over 55" side, it would be a long time before the ratio became questionable. (I don't know if VLS will sell to someone now, if one of owners is not 55+)

Just speculation, but at least north of 466A, i would estimate the mix at over 90% 55+.

This one of the simplest explanations of how it all works in the "age restricted housing" world. Protecting the Age Restricted Status of Your Community

Good point. The Turnpike is better than having to commute in on I4(for now). Also TV is a great place if you have business in Tampa or Gainesville.

They may be legal to buy/own the home, but "buying" and "living in" are 2 separate and distinct positions.

& be careful, somewhere on your deed it says something like "subject to matters of record, previously recorded". That's all the stuff your subject to, but might not know about, if you didn't use an Attorney when you purchased your home.

Not exactly.

The restriction discriminating against families is only allowed in a 55+ community that meets certain standards such as 80% of homes with at least one resident over 55.

(See HUD Fair Housing Act:Housing for Older Persons)

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2355977]INCORRECT. The 80/20 Rule and the prohibition against "children under 19" are unrelated. The "children under 19" is a Deed Restriction/Covenant that prohibits that occupancy. It cannot be enforced by government, only by a beneficiary of the covenant.




That is incorrect. Neither HUD nor the State of Florida have a horse in the race when enforcement of the "no under 19 year old" provisions are involved. It is up to a beneficiary of the restriction/covenant to bring an enforcement action.

Actually it is correct. We are saying the same thing. The Federal Government nor the State of Florida has any law that speaks to the other 20% occupancy. If stated in the Deed Reservations and Restrictions, it is up to the Declarant or Declarant Designee to bring action upon the violation. Yes, a beneficiary or group of such may also bring action, however that beneficiary status must be established beforehand. All that I’m saying is that it is a long and drawn out expensive proposition. That’s why Dan Newlan and Morgan & Morgan chase ambulances. You also have to argue the relevant and practical aspect of the Reservation & Restrictions. For example, in most of the early CDD’s the R&R’s state that a homeowner must notify the Developer if they are leaving their house for more than 7 days and then tell them the date they will be returning. How many people do this now? Does the Declarant or Declarant Designee take action in such instances? Most of those same R&R’s say a homeowner can have only 1 dog. I don’t know how many times I see people walking more than 1 dog. Again, does the Declarant or Declarant Designee take action on that issue? Enforcing R&R’s is a difficult endeavor at best. I wouldn’t take the case, but then again, I’m retired so it’s a moot point.