This is both an H&G and M&I topic.

Background Cliffs:
- Trying to rent out my wife's condo
- Have a contract with a management company
- Management company found a tennant that wants to move in this weekend
- Condo HOA says they need to approve tennants (It's in the rules) and impose a $1,000 fine for violating the rule
- Management Co says they don't think they have a legal right to give tennant info to HOA

I see both sides of the issue, I just don't want either issue to keep me from missiong out on a qualified tennant - especially when they are willing to pay the asking rent.

Honestly, I don't think this is legal, since its not like they have any authority to approve property buyers, so why would they have any authority regarding renters? I just need tome legal references.

So, does anyone know, or know where I can find out, if what the HOA is asking is legal? This is in Cali, so it might be different in other states.

 

Great...now I'm going to have to look this up in our HoA and see if this will be the case when the time comes to rent ours...though I dont think it is.

And its bullshit by the way. Tell the HoA to go fuck itself....If its a Co-Op...thats another story.

 

Reasonable restrictions, YMMV: http://www.hoa-law.com/publications/...trictions.html

There are a number of reasons to restrict renters in HOAs- some of which have to do with financing of buyers and owners.

The management company is the HOA's agent, so I think it's obligated to give sufficient information regarding the potential tenants for approval or disapproval- i.e. issues with credit or criminal records, for example. IDK if the HOA board has any right to review the actual rental applications unless the potential tenants consent to it in writing (such as if permission is part of the management company's info release form.)

 

In addition to what Will Y. said: Read your HOA agreement. What they can and can't do is spelled out in there. Your wife had to agree to it when she bought the unit. Those dull meetings that they have is the place to get things changed.

If the HOA is smart, a lawyer initially wrote the agreement and you may be screwed for this transaction. I ran into the same with a condo I own. Your rental application will have to gain authorization to share their credit and background info with the HOA.

It hurts somewhat but who do you want living in your development in shared close quarters? I ran into some associations when I was looking to buy that would not let any units be non-owner occupied (rentals). Good luck.

 

Thanks for the input. One clarification is that the property manager I was referring to is OUR property manager for the rental, not the HOA property manager, which they don't really have.

As for the HOA agreement, it looks like there was a clause in there, but the specific penalties were added after that time. Also, just because something is in the rules, doesn't automatically make it legal.

Regardless, I'm planning on having our property manager ask the tennant if she is willing to submit the information to the HOA board and see what she says.

 

Glad you are still up, I found this info at this site-

http://www.californiacondoguru.com/h...les/lease.html

Some people question the legality of the lease and rental limitations in California. Some attorneys will not write them. Some attorneys will tell clients that they are not legal, without having any background information as to what the courts in California or any other state have done with such provisions. Legal advice without the educated backup information or knowledge is worth little.

The courts of California have spoken on the issue by approving a 100% limitation on a project that was built to provide low income housing in a case called City of Oceanside vs. McKenna. (Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, No. D008264, Nov. 22, 1989. Review Denied Feb. 14, 1990.) The court said:


"Courts have recognized the unique problems of condominium living and the resulting need for more control over--and limitations upon--the rights of the individual owner than in more traditional forms of property ownership. " '[I]nherent in the condominium concept is the principle that to promote the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of the unit owners since they are living in such close proximity and using facilities in common, each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property.' " (Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 681-682, 174 Cal.Rptr. 136, quoting Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman (Fla.App.1975) 309 So.2d 180, 181-182.) "Thus, it is essential to successful condominium living and the maintenance of the value of these increasingly significant property interests that the owners as a group have the authority to regulate reasonably the use and alienation of the condominiums." (Laguna Royale, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at p. 682, 174 Cal.Rptr. 136.)"
The validity of a lease limitation provision in other types of CIDs (meaning other than affordable housing condominiums) has not yet been tested in on the appellate level in California but lease limitation restrictions have been upheld in other states' courts and at least one California Superior Court that I know of. In the Oceanside case, what was at risk was protecting the availability of affordable housing, and shutting out investors.

 

After reading that info more slowly it does not seem to directly address your specific issue. It does kind of express generally how the state feels about a related issue. Time permitting, you can go to the DRE info site on condos to get correct information.

I am fairly certain that my first post was correct but I'm to lazy to find the correct citation right now.

 

It may be that when your wife signed the agreement containing that clause she entered into a contract with the HOA, and therefore has to abide by it.

If this is really a big deal for you I'd spend a few bucks and get an Attorney to look at it and tell you what you are obligated to.

 

Thanks. I'll do some more searching.
I agree that she has to abide by the rules of the complex - uless they are illegal. Like even if the rules say no pets allowed, there is legal precidence (sp) and the Davis-Sterling Act that overrides the HOA rules - we just recently went through that at my complex.

We're still looking into it, but if worse comes to worse, I might just bite the bullet on the $1k fine.