CC&R dated 1973 says no RVs, trailers, boats can be stored

[kmb1966]

I am looking to purchase a home and found one that has a nice driveway on the side of the home with gates. My original plan was to park my Newmar Dutchstar motorhome on the driveway behind the gates. It fits.
However, the neighbor across the street who has a 2-story house says she would be able to see the RV from her upstairs window. She hasn't mentioned the CC&Rs, but I have a copy. The CC&R does state that there are to be no RVs, trailers, boats or similar item stored on the property. That's all it says. These CC&R's are dated 1973, and there is no active HOA anymore, but the CC&R's apparently still apply because they auto renew somehow. My issue here is that the CC&R's are old, and provide no definition for 'storage' or how long is acceptable. I suppose I will consult an attorney on this issue. It seems unfair to enforce a 40+ rule without any ability to re-vote or modernize or clarify any of the rules since there is no active HOA. Furthermore there is no way to vote for the continuance of the auto renew of the CC&R. Without any HOA, there is no way to even vote to change or consider any changes to these 1970 CC&Rs. It would seem reasonable in these modern times with so many having RV's that if the property has a driveway where the RV can be stored behind the fence/gate and cannot be seen from the street, that it should be acceptable. The fact that the lady can see the RV if she goes upstairs and looks out the window seems silly. Thoughts?
ON EDIT: I have observed 5 other houses in the neighborhood with boats, RV's, and trailers in the driveway not even behind the privacy gate/fence.

[bsinmich]

I had that problem when I moved into my condo. I could not bring it home to load it. There is no place for storage so that is not a question I got on the board and then president. We had to redo our master deed ad by-laws and it got 3 days before and after a trip for loading ad unloading. Everyone approved when we voted on it. (182 8uits). I am still president 15 years later.

[wa8yxm]

I am inclined to agree with bird. RUN don't walk away unless they can pull that restriction...

Alternative if you really really really really love the property will they let you build a barn.. at least 5 feet wider. 4 foot higher and 10 feet LONGER than your RV (Store inside, door closed nobody sees it)

[Bird_Freak]

Tell your real estate agent to research it and if its not enforceable have it removed from the deed. Otherwise NO SALE! They will get on it pretty fast.

[Powertour]

I feel your pain.

HOA's = Tyranny. After over a decade of HOA living (including being on the board for a # of years) it took us 9months, looking at 75 or so homes & putting in 1/2 dozen offers on various homes before we were able to get out of the HOA life.

The problem from what I saw was the old the homeowners (who were heavily represented on the board) got more paranoid & less tolerant the older they got. Got so bad they would have to approve anyone parking an RV (or anything else) on their own RV parkings pads that were put in the same time the homes were build over 20 years ago. And every pad is behind gates to the RV pads. This is just tip of the iceberg. The once nice area to live in became an intolerant iron-fist situation ran by a bunch of non-RVers, boaters, off-roaders, or anything else that many active people like to do in the modern world.

We got out & it was like 10 tons of weight were lifted off our shoulders. We built a pool, RV parking area, a separate driveway and all kinds of other stuff at our new non-HOA place & did so without having to deal with any Nazi fellow homeowners whom think because they're filling a voluntary position they know better than you & thus control every aspect of your property rights.

I'd rather live in a van down by the river than EVER live in an HOA again.The narrative "but mah property values" is a false narrative. Home values are determined by price per sq ft via zip code, not whether or not a home is in an HOA. Matter of fact, every single ad for any home in non-HOA areas in my metro area always have a place in the ad where "NO HOA" is listed in all-caps. That is telling in & of itself.

[Walaby]

ryoung wrote:
I would think that since no HOA was established when the developer gave up his interest in the community, the covenants are no longer effective or enforceable.

There MUST be an organization in place that contains in its bylaws or articles of incorporation, the stated covenants in question. Consequently, no HOA in place, no enforceable restrictions.

ryoung

There you go thinking...

Before I dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house, I would talk to a lawyer like OP said he was going to do, or maybe has.

I can't imagine going up in front of a judge and saying "Judge, the guys on RV.NET said it would be okay and the covenants are not enforceable.

Something tells me that wouldn't go over very well (grin)

Mike

[ferndaleflyer]

I imagine about the time the complainer has to plop down some money to retain a lawyer to pursue something they could very well lose and still have to pay they rethink their complaint. Is it really worth it?

[Mike134]

ryoung wrote:
I would think that since no HOA was established when the developer gave up his interest in the community, the covenants are no longer effective or enforceable.

There MUST be an organization in place that contains in its bylaws or articles of incorporation, the stated covenants in question. Consequently, no HOA in place, no enforceable restrictions.

ryoung

Nope. If the covenants are attached to the deed than anyone having legal "standing" like the woman across the street can hire a lawyer, file the proper documents and have a hearing in front of a judge. It all costs money however. Happened in my subdivision which has no HOA, the neighbor complaining about an outbuilding dropped the suite when the guy he sued started having his lawyer run up the $$$ for both of them.

[ryoung]

I would think that since no HOA was established when the developer gave up his interest in the community, the covenants are no longer effective or enforceable.

There MUST be an organization in place that contains in its bylaws or articles of incorporation, the stated covenants in question. Consequently, no HOA in place, no enforceable restrictions.

ryoung

[Lantley]

Bumpyroad wrote:

ferndaleflyer wrote:
My question is this. Since there is no evidence of anyone doing anything with this in over 50 years and there is no HOA, who is tasked with enforcing it as it appears the city (county)have no jurisdiction or desire?

I think it has been made clear that the enforcement would be if a property owner would file a law suit against somebody breaking the rules.
bumpy

I agree with bumpy someone could sue using the covenant as their reason for wanting the RV removed.
While this may not be likely, there is always a chance you have a anti RV neighbor lurking across the street.
If the anti RV neighbor decided to pursue the issue via a suit. The OP would be forced to defend himself or remove the RV.
A suit would be a PIA for the OP vs. buying a house with NO RV restrictions expired, unenforced or otherwise.

[Grit_dog]

Good plan. Then “introduce” your RV to the house increasingly longer and see how it goes.
Have you looked up around Edgewood? Love it up there. Lived there twice over the years. Generally can park your stuff on your property too.
Quieter, not as hot in the summer. Gets a little more snow in the winter. Great area.

[Bumpyroad]

ferndaleflyer wrote:
My question is this. Since there is no evidence of anyone doing anything with this in over 50 years and there is no HOA, who is tasked with enforcing it as it appears the city (county)have no jurisdiction or desire?

I think it has been made clear that the enforcement would be if a property owner would file a law suit against somebody breaking the rules.
bumpy

[ferndaleflyer]

My question is this. Since there is no evidence of anyone doing anything with this in over 50 years and there is no HOA, who is tasked with enforcing it as it appears the city (county)have no jurisdiction or desire?

[kmb1966]

Mike134 wrote:

kmb1966 wrote:
Hello, I am the original poster: I have an appointment to speak with a local attorney regarding this subject, so I will try to report back.

Did you go? Curious what he/she said.
This keyboard lawyering is tough, need to move my keyboard expertise on to something new. Last year it was Constitutional law, then later Infectious disease expert, not sure what 2021 holds.

Cheers

I have not yet been able to get in to speak with the attorney. But my overall plan is to continue to try to find a home that I know allows me to park the RV on the property. The housing market here is very very tight and not many to choose from for sale. If I end up purchasing this particular property, my plan is to store the RV in a covered storage facility for at least a year. I don't want to newly move into the neighborhood openly violating the CC&R rules even though many others are doing so. After we move in, there will be times we go get the motorhome out of storage to load up. Usually this takes a few days to load and unload. During that time, the motorhome will be inside the gate and not violating any city codes. I will see over that first year of having the RV there for loading and unloading if someone complains about those short time periods of the motorhome being there. Perhaps after getting to know the neighbors around me, they will become more accepting of the idea and I will be able to keep it on site longer. I guess I am going to take a wait and see approach while having a storage facility for the motorhome.

[Bumpyroad]

If you sue to be able to park it, and you lose, it is probable that this restriction will be raised against all of your neighbors with "illegal" stuff parked on their property. you will have some mighty mad neighbors who won't be inviting you to the christmas/ec. party.
bumpy

[PA12DRVR]

Be interesting to see if the OP gets advice from the NM attorney, but Itsy and Arctic Gabe both posted the substance of how it could play out. Been to that particular rodeo more than once and the best advice was posted

"Basically, fighting against this by a blatant violation and "seeing what happens" is risky. I'd think you'd be better off getting the required number of signatures to change or dissolve the CC&Rs. Or go move elsewhere."

Tough thing about keyboard lawyering is making sure to not actually offer any advice. 🙂