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.

[QUOTE=jmaccallum;2355998]When 170,000 people have knowingly bought homes in a community that prohibits children and have acknowledged the restriction at closing, I don't think "standing" is a difficult obstacle.

Not allowing children in an age restricted community, is a far cry from requiring notification of an owner's absence. Minimizing or eliminating "children/students" from the population of age restricted housing, was one of the founding principals and motivation for the original legislation.

I'm not all that familiar with Florida CDD regulations, but it seems to me, that the towns of Lady Lake, Wildwood and the others, would also be 3rd party beneficiaries of restrictions that may effect them? At the very least, it would be a situation where a real estate development was approved under a given set of circumstances, which are no longer in place.

Also in my area.

Thank you. There are designated areas for children to live as mentioned before. Trying to integrate children into a retirement community is sort of like trying to integrate a teenager into kindergarten. It is not good for the kindergarten children and not for the teenager either. Abilities and interest differ. TV is designed around older folk.

My street? Attitude like what?

“… and at least one resident (owner) of the household must be 55 or older.”

Anyone over 18 can own a home. The over 55 resident does not need to be an owner.