[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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

Agree. Let those who are certain that the current system is not legal put their money where their mouths are. Place a giant bird in your front yard. Report the violation. Hire a lawyer when you get 'the dreaded knock on the door'. Report on here how things go.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

The paradox is it also seems impossible to independently prove a pre-owned home is in compliance before purchase.

If a home has a non-compliance in place 5+ yrs, l don't understand why the statute of limitations doesn't apply?

[Altavia]

///

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Altavia

The paradox, especially when purchasing a pre-owned home, is it also seems impossible to independently prove a pre-owned home is in compliance before purchase.

If a home has a non-compliance in place 5+ yrs, l don't understand why the statute of limitations doesn't apply?

There probably is no statute of limitations but I agree, there ought to be some kind of relief for an unsuspecting buyer.

Of course it's easy to see the lawn ornaments - it is also easy to remove them. But how would a person know that the shingles that were replaced four years ago? And even if they knew that, why would they expect and how would they reasonably know that the shingles were the wrong color?

Maybe the trim paint on the house looks a little out of place but is that enough to follow through with Community Standards and provide enough information that they could tell you if there was a painting violation?

If every home on the street has stone in front, why would you expect that stone wasn't allowed? How could you know or why would you even think to ask if the home you are about to buy is the only one that wasn't put in by the developer and therefore is not allowed?

Some driveways in the neighborhood are extra wide, others have a bump-out for turning around, yours has a loop with a small island in the middle. What would make you think yours was the one that was not allowed? What would you need to ask Community Standards in order to find out?

What if your home looked exactly like the neighbors in every way? Similar paint, similar shingles, similar shrub beds, similar borders around the tree, similar driveway design. Everything looks good, nothing to raise any questions at all. Then five years later you get a knock on the door informing you that your driveway is two inches too wide and will need to be replaced.

Many times over the past several years I, or others, have suggested some form of deed-compliance inspection for pre-owned homes. Some way to get assurance that there are no hidden issues about to be transferred with the sale. I honestly like the idea of grandfathering anything issue the house had when it was sold. If that is too much, then have an inspection service that can identify hidden issues and then grandfather anything that was not identified during the inpection.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

There probably is no statute of limitations but I agree, there ought to be some kind of relief for an unsuspecting buyer.

A search finds several cases such as this.

5-year-statute-limitations-enforce-covenant-violations


Section 95.11, Fla. Stat. sets out time limitations within with lawsuits must be filed. This is called a “statute of limitations.” A “legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument…” must be brought within five years of the time of the injury.

The CCD is probably a different animal legally, but Imagine how much time and frustration that could be avoided if a statue of limitations were adopted into the restrictions?

...

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Many times over the past several years I, or others, have suggested some form of deed-compliance inspection for pre-owned homes. Some way to get assurance that there are no hidden issues about to be transferred with the sale. I honestly like the idea of grandfathering anything issue the house had when it was sold. If that is too much, then have an inspection service that can identify hidden issues and then grandfather anything that was not identified during the inpection.

I think Don Wiley mentioned the Supervisors were trying to find a solution.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Altavia

I think Don Wiley mentioned the Supervisors were trying to find a solution.

don't hold your breath on the supervisors solving the problem anytime soon. .

part of Morse's original vision was total control of the development and rules, can be easily observed with his disdain of HOA/POA structures.

one of the problems with hoomans is that as groups get large, the groups get harder to manage. Likewise the world changes and what was good 30 years ago when small, might not be great today at scale. .. . .

everything that works, continues until it doesn't work.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

don't hold your breath on the supervisors solving the problem anytime soon. .

part of Morse's original vision was total control of the development and rules, can be easily observed with his disdain of HOA/POA structures.

one of the problems with hoomans is that as groups get large, the groups get harder to manage. Likewise the world changes and what was good 30 years ago when small, might not be great today at scale. .. . .

everything that works, continues until it doesn't work.

Probably.

Some Districts recently updated the standards to no longer investigate annomous complaints or complaints from people not residing in the District.

So there is a thread of hope...

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Altavia

Probably.

Some Districts recently updated the standards to no longer investigate annomous complaints or complaints from people not residing in the District.

So there is a thread of hope...

Sliver, just flow limiting, doesn't solve the resale issue, nor the statute of limitations,
nor the original sale by the villages of out of compliance new houses

sliver of hope strings along optimists.