[Floridakeyz]

won't the tittle company do that?

[darkim]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Not that I am aware of. There doesn't seem to be any service that will do an inspection looking for deed restriction violations. (if anyone knows of one, please post contact information)

You *can* work with the Community Standards Department to get some information. You can ask them if there have been any ARC approvals (and maybe disapprovals) for changes to the home. In particular, if there is a large amount of stone, a widened driveway, fancy shrub beds, or even a stone wall around the shrub beds then you would hope to find an ARC-approved application for those. Also, if you see something different about the home and those around it then you might ask Community Standards about that as well and hopefully they could tell you that it was either part of the original construction or added after an approval.

You might also be able to contact the county for any permits for work done on the home. I haven't tried this myself but it should be possible.

1. The Seller should make a note on the Disclosure Form. 2. On your offer to purchase...you can add a contingency that the house is. Compliant with The Villages ARC. 3. You should read the ARC rules online before purchasing. And makes notes on the offer to correct anything that is non-compliant. NOTE: just because the neighbors are not compliant doesn't mean the association won't come after you

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by darkim

1. The Seller should make a note on the Disclosure Form. 2. On your offer to purchase...you can add a contingency that the house is. Compliant with The Villages ARC. 3. You should read the ARC rules online before purchasing. And makes notes on the offer to correct anything that is non-compliant. NOTE: just because the neighbors are not compliant doesn't mean the association won't come after you

On a typical disclosure form, the seller includes everything that he/she is aware of regarding non-compliance (See Post No. 27). The buyer cannot add a contingency that would extend beyond the closing. When the closing is executed, the sale is complete. The only recourse the buyer has after the closing is if the seller lied on the disclosure form, which would be fraud.

[Rainger99]

I saw online that another real estate company is offering a $10,000 insurance policy to protect buyers.

The policy would pay for the cost of correcting out-of-compliance issues that were in place when the home was sold. The policy term would be ten years.

That might catch on!

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I saw online that another real estate company is offering a $10,000 insurance policy to protect buyers.

The policy would pay for the cost of correcting out-of-compliance issues that were in place when the home was sold. The policy term would be ten years.

That might catch on!

What is the premium? It sounds like another ripoff gimmick like the home warranty that benefits the real estate agent more than the homeowner. It will only catch on if the real estate agents promote it to the seller as a way to sell the house and to get kickbacks for themselves.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

What is the premium? It sounds like another ripoff gimmick like the home warranty that benefits the real estate agent more than the homeowner. It will only catch on if the real estate agents promote it to the seller as a way to sell the house and to get kickbacks for themselves.

The article was unclear but it appeared that the premium was paid by the real estate agent - not the buyer or seller. The article said that the real estate agent should "start advertising that they include a $10,000 insurance policy." Sort of a way to distinguish your agency from another agency.

Just google "Competing realtors can force The Villages into action on out-of-compliance home sales."

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by spinner1001

As you start your new business, be careful that you are not practicing law. (I am assuming you are not a Florida lawyer.) I suggest that you check it out.

You might start here:

Unlicensed Practice of Law and Accountants, Paralegals, and Out-of-State Lawyers

from the web page:
First, it must be determined whether the activity is the practice of law. Then, it must be determined whether the practice is authorized. If the activity is the practice of law but the activity is authorized, the activity is not the unlicensed practice of law and may be engaged in by a non-lawyer or non-Florida lawyer.

is this a lawyer word salad about determining the issue about which they are concerned?

What's the difference between the authorized practice and the unauthorized practice of law which an unlicensed lawyer can be authorized to practice?

if peter piper picked a peck

[Chellybean]

I read that a Remax company is now offer a insurance policy for 10k for the non compliance issues that will force the TV hand. Just a FYI

It isn’t easy to find a solution to the out-of-compliance home sales in The Villages that have already occurred.

The primary real estate firm is the developer-owned Properties of The Villages; it has not provided a solution, leaving homeowners with the cost of compliance.

However, here is a potential solution covering all future sales: Realty Executives and Re-Max appear to be major competitors to the Developer-owned company. he proposed solution is for Realty Executives or Re-Max to start advertising that they include a $10,000 (limit) insurance policy to pay for the cost of correcting out-of-compliance issues that were in place when the home was sold; the policy term would be ten years. These insurance policies will pressure the sales agents to look for out-of-compliance issues before they place homes on the market.

Obviously, the pressure would then be on the Developer-owned company to do the same. It might also encourage our District Government to provide a for-fee compliance inspection service.

[bsloan1960]

Originally Posted by Villager1234

Is there any way to find out if a house is in compliance before you buy it

https://i.imgur.com/UrNoePc.png There's a meme for that

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

I read that a Remax company is now offer a insurance policy for 10k for the non compliance issues that will force the TV hand. Just a FYI

It isn’t easy to find a solution to the out-of-compliance home sales in The Villages that have already occurred.

The primary real estate firm is the developer-owned Properties of The Villages; it has not provided a solution, leaving homeowners with the cost of compliance.

However, here is a potential solution covering all future sales: Realty Executives and Re-Max appear to be major competitors to the Developer-owned company. he proposed solution is for Realty Executives or Re-Max to start advertising that they include a $10,000 (limit) insurance policy to pay for the cost of correcting out-of-compliance issues that were in place when the home was sold; the policy term would be ten years. These insurance policies will pressure the sales agents to look for out-of-compliance issues before they place homes on the market.

Obviously, the pressure would then be on the Developer-owned company to do the same. It might also encourage our District Government to provide a for-fee compliance inspection service.

I believe that was an idea from another poster on what another company *should* do and not what is actually being done. It would be interesting to see it tried but I'm skeptical. There would be a cost to provide that $10K policy that would have to be paid for somehow. Would Re-Max take it out of their cut or would they add it onto their fee? Would a buyer want to pay a higher fee to Re-Max for yet another extended warranty?

[JustSomeGuy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

This case was ruled in favor of the association and against the enclosed balcony. The HOA rules against enclosed balconies constructed after 1981 were allowed to stand.

The CDDs do not appear to be practicing selective enforcement. I am not aware of any case of a valid complaint being ignored or a deed restriction violation being allowed to continue. In every case I am aware of, the CDDs have taken action to require deed restrictions to be obeyed.

Now, the argument might be different for an internal deed restriction. While the CDDs must operate "in the sunshine," the Developer does not. There is a standing belief/accusation that the Developer has ignored internal deed restriction violations which were brought to their attention. If this is true, if the Developer has chosen to not enforce the restrictions, then future enforcement might be challenged as being selective.

I think you misunderstand what selective enforcement means. Legally it means if the CDD or one of it's agents/enforcers knows of or sees a violation and ignores it due to no complaints they are selectively enforcing the deed restriction. The CDD can say anything they want or put a policy of requiring a complaint be filed. That has no legal standing and in fact shows selective enforcement. Judge looks at facts... does the CDD allow say, signs or not. Yes or no question. You either have a deed restriction or you do not. They are not voluntary, we sign our rights away at closing. CDD's, if challenged (key point. You can say anything and if people comply so be it.) would not be able to show that they enforce deed restrictions uniformly and they have a duty, for the protection of all who signed the deed restrictions, to do so. Current policy would allow this situation - two houses have contractor signs in front yard. One gets a complaint and visit from CDD rep telling them to remove sign. CDD rep sees sign across street and does nothing due to no complaint. Rep allows sign to stay and drive off. Deed restriction is being enforced selectively, which is not part of the documents we signed.

[Topspinmo]

After I buying my house and looking through paperwork I noticed it didn’t list hot tub. Then, I found out hot tubs in my county require permit. No permit was ever submitted. The agent specifically point out hot tub as selling. Long story short I think they knew about the requirements of beings I was fresh fish failed to mention it. Wasn’t problem cause it broke 6 months later and I got rid of it. IMO the far more houses out of some compliance than we think. It just don’t rear its ugly here till some vindictive neighbor reports it.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

I think you misunderstand what selective enforcement means. Legally it means if the CDD or one of it's agents/enforcers knows of or sees a violation and ignores it due to no complaints they are selectively enforcing the deed restriction. The CDD can say anything they want or put a policy of requiring a complaint be filed. That has no legal standing and in fact shows selective enforcement. Judge looks at facts... does the CDD allow say, signs or not. Yes or no question. You either have a deed restriction or you do not. They are not voluntary, we sign our rights away at closing. CDD's, if challenged (key point. You can say anything and if people comply so be it.) would not be able to show that they enforce deed restrictions uniformly and they have a duty, for the protection of all who signed the deed restrictions, to do so. Current policy would allow this situation - two houses have contractor signs in front yard. One gets a complaint and visit from CDD rep telling them to remove sign. CDD rep sees sign across street and does nothing due to no complaint. Rep allows sign to stay and drive off. Deed restriction is being enforced selectively, which is not part of the documents we signed.

I would take issue with your last sentence. My deed restriction document contains a paragraph entitled "Enforcement". In that paragraph, it states that the Declarant (The Villages/CDD) has the "right" to enforce the deed restrictions, but they do not have the "duty" to enforce them. To me, that allows for selective enforcement.

Also, The Villages website, "districtgov.org" clearly states that the deed enforcement process is "entirely complaint driven".

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

I think you misunderstand what selective enforcement means. Legally it means if the CDD or one of it's agents/enforcers knows of or sees a violation and ignores it due to no complaints they are selectively enforcing the deed restriction. The CDD can say anything they want or put a policy of requiring a complaint be filed. That has no legal standing and in fact shows selective enforcement. Judge looks at facts... does the CDD allow say, signs or not. Yes or no question. You either have a deed restriction or you do not. They are not voluntary, we sign our rights away at closing. CDD's, if challenged (key point. You can say anything and if people comply so be it.) would not be able to show that they enforce deed restrictions uniformly and they have a duty, for the protection of all who signed the deed restrictions, to do so. Current policy would allow this situation - two houses have contractor signs in front yard. One gets a complaint and visit from CDD rep telling them to remove sign. CDD rep sees sign across street and does nothing due to no complaint. Rep allows sign to stay and drive off. Deed restriction is being enforced selectively, which is not part of the documents we signed.

You should read the deed restrictions and go to one of the sessions explaining the structure of our local government. That session would be an excellent place to get accurate, authoritative information about this.

- The CDD does not know of a violation before it is presented to them at a CDD meeting. The CDD has no eyes, it has no investigative powers, it has no agents, it has no representatives. The CDD has five commissioners who have monthly meetings that cover many topics, one of which are notifications of deed compliance violations.

- I have not heard of a single case where a complaint was brought before the CDD that they did not vote to enforce compliance. No selectivity, just overall enforcement. At times CDDs have expressed regret that they were not able to disregard a violation but in the end, they voted for enforcement.

- No, the CDD does not allow signs. When the CDD is made aware of a sign, they take appropriate action to have the sign removed.

We can argue all day about who is correct in their personal interpretation but that will get us nowhere. I cannot prove a negative, I cannot prove that there was never a case that claimed selective enforcement that was denied. I can assert that I am not aware of any such cases but there is no way to prove that.

You, on the other hand, have a much simpler task. Show one case where a deed restriction violation has been allowed to continue on the basis of selective enforcement. Show just one and it will prove your case and make some Villagers quite hopeful about their particular situation.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

Poor selection of words on my part. Not in the legal decision. Selective enforcement is the term I should have used. Article is on the Florida Community Association Professional site. Search "Enforcing a Previously Unenforced Covenant, Restriction, or Rule and Regulation". Any individual can voluntarily give up any legal right they are entitled to. CDD would likely propose a confidential settlement prior to a final legal decision to avoid having the deed restriction that is being challenged determined to be invalid for the entire CDD.

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

The current policy of requiring a complaint to investigate a violation of the community standards puts the CDD at risk of losing that deed restriction completely or being forced to notify all residents that the specific restriction is now being enforced. Legal case out of Miami sets precedent. Dealt with enclosed balconies. They were prohibited. Most condos enclosed their balconies. County made an issue and the HOA (same entity as cdd when it comes to the law and enforcing deed restrictions) announced that it was again enforcing the restriction against enclosing balconies. New resident enclosed balcony. Even though over half the condos had enclosed balconies they had to remove enclosure but the other non-compliant enclosed balconies did not have to remove their enclosure since inaction by the HOA and residents seeing other residents enclose their balconies with no enforcement caused the deed restriction to become invalid.... until it was formally reinstated on future occurrences. If a CDD knowingly allows violations then the restriction becomes invalid. The CDD is the enforcer of the deed restrictions, not a complainant. The CDD has a duty to enforce the deed restrictions evenly and fairly for all residents and on all residents. It fails this duty by allowing one neighbor to violate the same restriction because no complaints were received but enforce it on another. Of course it takes a resident with the ability to sue the CDD and stick with it to prevail. Law is clear on this and all CDD and HOA's are warned of this or should be by their counsel. If challenged a CDD can negotiate and approve the "violation" but require a confidential settlement agreement, which shields the CDD and avoids a legal case that voids their deed restrictions for all residents. They settle out of court before trial so only one resident knows (but can't tell anyone) the deed restriction is likely no longer valid. The other residents, who read the deed restrictions, assume it is still valid and comply. Case is Chattel Shipping and Inv., Inc. v. Brickell Place Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 481 So.2d 29, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2719 (Fla. App., 1985). Went to Florida Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

I think you misunderstand what selective enforcement means. Legally it means if the CDD or one of it's agents/enforcers knows of or sees a violation and ignores it due to no complaints they are selectively enforcing the deed restriction. The CDD can say anything they want or put a policy of requiring a complaint be filed. That has no legal standing and in fact shows selective enforcement. Judge looks at facts... does the CDD allow say, signs or not. Yes or no question. You either have a deed restriction or you do not. They are not voluntary, we sign our rights away at closing. CDD's, if challenged (key point. You can say anything and if people comply so be it.) would not be able to show that they enforce deed restrictions uniformly and they have a duty, for the protection of all who signed the deed restrictions, to do so. Current policy would allow this situation - two houses have contractor signs in front yard. One gets a complaint and visit from CDD rep telling them to remove sign. CDD rep sees sign across street and does nothing due to no complaint. Rep allows sign to stay and drive off. Deed restriction is being enforced selectively, which is not part of the documents we signed.

You keep posting all this convoluted legal reasoning, that doesn't hold water.

A CDD and an HOA, are completely separate and distinct entities, with different purposes and authority. Lumping them together and saying the same rules that apply to a CDD also apply to an HOA, is s giant leap. A CDD is a unit of government in Florida. Perhaps you've noticed that government can sometimes do things differently than private enterprise can do them?

Generally, Statute of Limitations do not apply to government actions (or inactions), nor does Estoppel. When governments get caught behind the curve on such things, inevitably the legislature steps in and takes control of the situation. The Morse family invests more money in electing legislators in Florida, than most anyone else. They practically own the Governor, as evidenced by the Owen Miller situation.

With TV Deed Restrictions, we're dealing with a particularly odd scenario. There are numerous beneficiaries to the restrictions and covenants, many of whom have relied on them when buying property in TV. It's ridiculous to say that someone who bought in a Deed Restricted community, doesn't get the benefit of those restrictions, because someone didn't enforce something 12 years ago.

Not only does TV have confusing and sometimes contradictory covenants and restrictions, most of the restrictions include a "may enforce, but not a duty to enforce" provision (which is "selective enforcement" by design). That's an unusual situation and how a court may rule on such a provision, is a complete mystery.

One thing you can be sure of, the Developer of TV used the best attorneys available, to draft their deed restrictions and in fact, had a hand in drafting the legislation that created CDD's in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, no one is going beat TV at their game of controlling TV, as they have. They effectively control all the CDD's and that will continue as long as they want it to. They're not going to allow anyone to upset their apple cart, without a huge fight. The resources necessary to fight the Morse family, are formidable.