[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Yet you are presumably here and the Villages continues to sell homes as fast as they can build them. Go figure?

Yes, life tends to have its contradictions.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by skippy05

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

Can the typical Villager continue to afford increases in everything? Next thing you know, we will pay more for fire too.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Can the typical Villager continue to afford increases in everything? Next thing you know, we will pay more for fire too.

🤦🤦 🤦🤦

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Yes, life tends to have its contradictions.

Guess so... Considering you're still living in TV Hellhole...

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. I have addressed this in previous posts - go back and look.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. I have addressed this in previous posts - go back and look.

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

Sounds good

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. I have addressed this in previous posts - go back and look.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Sounds good

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

Sometimes corrections just don't take. Remember that old "joke ink" that used to be around when we were kids? You could "erase it" and 5 minutes later, it was back again. Like a 3 Stooges skit.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.

I thought that the developer had an ARMY of lawyers.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I thought that the developer had an ARMY of lawyers.

No, only tax cheats do…

[Maker]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them.

If it says the DEVELOPER and not the CDD, then this is a non issue.

If the developer decides to hire the CDD to do that, not sure if the CDD can engage in that due to how their organization exists under Florida law. Certainly not on the shoulders of resident's and their wallets.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I thought that the developer had an ARMY of lawyers.

And they work for free?????

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.

Originally Posted by Maker

If it says the DEVELOPER and not the CDD, then this is a non issue.

If the developer decides to hire the CDD to do that, not sure if the CDD can engage in that due to how their organization exists under Florida law. Certainly not on the shoulders of resident's and their wallets.

The Developer owns those rights. They are part of the "Bundle of Rights" that are included (or not included) when you purchase land. That part of the "bundle", the Developer retained and he can most likely assign those rights to anyone he wishes. He can certainly contract out, enforcement of those rights.

Sooner or later, there's going to be lawsuit over the restrictions & covenants and I suspect who ever gets sued (Developer, CDD, whoever) is going to spend a small fortune, defending.