[Altavia]

In Florida, the statute of limitations for breach of contract (such as violating HOA covenants) is five years. I have no idea why this does not apply to The Villages.

Statute of limitations, waiver and covenant enforcement


"There are a number of problems with the situation you describe, and your homeowners’ association is going to have a very hard time enforcing the patio-size covenant against you and the other owners.

For one thing, if in fact these patios were built seven years ago, the “statute of limitations” has expired.

A statute of limitations is a time period within which any legal action must be brought. This makes sense, because the more time that passes before a legal action is filed, the less likely that evidence will be available to prove or disprove the dispute, and also because it is not considered “fair” to bring an action after so much time has passed, as the delayed notice of the dispute would be unreasonable to the defendant.

In Florida, the statute of limitations for breach of contract (such as violating your HOA covenants) is five years.

The time period within which the HOA could enforce the covenant has expired, at least as it pertains to those patios that were built more than five years ago."

[Rainger99]

Why can’t the county enact a law, that once a house is sold, the CCD, ARC, or any other person or entity is barred from raising any compliance issues after the sale.

That way, someone doesn’t have to worry about a violation that occurred years ago being raised years later.

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

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.

Thank you for this. I’ve been worried that I will buy from a seller that changed/added/deleted something without ARC approval and it would too much expense to put it right.

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

Originally Posted by Villager1234

The whole system seems to be unfair. If the Villages can issue summonses they should have some way of checking to see if a house is in compliance. Is a copy of compliance requirements available?

ARC may not be aware that a change has taken place.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

ARC may not be aware that a change has taken place.

First, ask the owner of the home if he has records of his improvements and ARC approval. Many homeowners save this paperwork.

If not, go to ARC/Community Standards, give the address of the home, ask if any improvements have been approved. If you see structural or landscaping changes that are not listed as approved, do not buy the home.

[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.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by JustSomeGuy

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.

This appears to be the decision.

Chattel Ship. & Inv. v. Brickell Place Condo., 481 So. 2d 29 – CourtListener.com

[Wayne Mudge]

Originally Posted by Villager1234

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

I think if the Community Standards Dept. is going to enforce and fine new unsuspecting buyers here, then they should start a system where the home listed for sale must be inspected by them for compliance. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth of a new happy resident to be punished for something they had no idea of. Or they need to stop penalizing our new neighbors for something they knew nothing about.

[Bob04090]

Originally Posted by Villager1234

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

Contact the Villages Community Standards and have them verify. 352-751-3912

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Why can’t the county enact a law, that once a house is sold, the CCD, ARC, or any other person or entity is barred from raising any compliance issues after the sale.

That way, someone doesn’t have to worry about a violation that occurred years ago being raised years later.

We don't want that. Violations would remain in place by law. No thanks.

[Bill14564]

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.

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.

[jimdecastro]

Originally Posted by Villager1234

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

The VHA had this question come up in their quarterly Town Hall this week. The District has a "buyer beware" policy. If you see an upgrade to the exterior of the house the seller must provide their ARC paperwork. You can ask the ARC for all applications for the house if you have the lot number - NOT the address - of the property. BTW, the seller's ID has the lot number on it. Once you buy the house, you accept responsibility for any infractions that came with it.

[Nell57]

Even if you DID hire an attorney, and he DID have the seller sign an affidavit accepting responsibility, and you later DID find an issue… two things would have to happen.
First you’d have to locate the seller. Probably some old dude living in another state . He’s dealing with dementia, cancer …loss of a spouse.
Next you must hire an attorney in that state to recover your expenses.
He may or may not have the necessary funds for paying his attorney or reimburse you.
So why go down that road?
The best advice I’ve seen is to just check out the most obvious issues before you buy.
Then enjoy your new home in the finest community in Florida.

[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by Altavia

In Florida, the statute of limitations for breach of contract (such as violating HOA covenants) is five years. I have no idea why this does not apply to The Villages.

Statute of limitations, waiver and covenant enforcement


"There are a number of problems with the situation you describe, and your homeowners’ association is going to have a very hard time enforcing the patio-size covenant against you and the other owners.

For one thing, if in fact these patios were built seven years ago, the “statute of limitations” has expired.

A statute of limitations is a time period within which any legal action must be brought. This makes sense, because the more time that passes before a legal action is filed, the less likely that evidence will be available to prove or disprove the dispute, and also because it is not considered “fair” to bring an action after so much time has passed, as the delayed notice of the dispute would be unreasonable to the defendant.

In Florida, the statute of limitations for breach of contract (such as violating your HOA covenants) is five years.

The time period within which the HOA could enforce the covenant has expired, at least as it pertains to those patios that were built more than five years ago."

Wow! I do so agree. There was a case last year I think, where a house north of 446 had a small path on the side of the house, for over 20 years, & I think the owner bought the house (over 20 years ago) with the path already there, I don't recall all of the details. But someone complained that it was out of compliance. In my opinion this was a classic case of something that should have been grandfathered in. The fact that it wasn't, to me, means we need to change the rules to put in some kind of time limitation, after which, the 'improvement' gets to stay.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

We don't want that. Violations would remain in place by law. No thanks.

Violations do now - unless someone complains. If a violation has been in existence for a year and no one complains, the time to file a complaint should expire.

I and many others would be upset if someone found an old deed that found that the Seminoles own Sumter County and I had to move.

I live near Sawgrass and I really don’t care if someone in the historical section has made an alteration without ARC approval.

The Villages is enormous and I doubt if I will see 90% of the homes. If you aren’t on the main roads or the roads to the rec centers or golf courses, I am probably not going to see a house.

A truly friendly town would not tell a newcomer that they owe thousands of dollars to fix their pre-owned house.