I find it stupid that, if a restriction is put in place by a current owner and then if the property changes hands, the new owner can't change whatever previous owner-imposed restrictions were put in place. Why we have a system that perpetuates other people retaining rights in land they sell and no longer own baffles me.
This is more for farmers and large land owners then suburbs. Say I do you a favor and sell you a farm next to mine for a cheap price. I may not want a pig confinement or housing development going on it next year screwing me out of the money i could have gotten or an undesirable operation that would lower my other land value or my ability to enjoy my land. Another example i want my farm to be farmed and not sold off. So in a will or trust will have conditions for what the land can be used for as a condition of accepting the land in the will.
In my experience, most CC&Rs come from a large land owner subdividing into a development and wants to restrict certain things, similar to how an HOA works. Things like home sizes, additional buildings, setbacks, etc. This makes it much more difficult (virtually impossible) to have the restrictions removed. The best chance you have at that point is to create an HOA for the neighborhood. The courts often side with the current homeowners if they pool their power vs restrictions imposed by prior ownership, but then you have a binding HOA which could create its own problems.
NO, they do NOT. Ever. I loive in Texas and the HOAs are running roughshod over home owners, eh perpetual renters. It is absolutely disgusting and a majority of people in HOAs think it's so wonderful for "property values", which, especially in ours, is a load of crap. CCRs rule everything and since most are installed by almighty developers, NO ONE has a chance against them. Nor change them. And the homeowner sheep in the HOA don't want to change their own subjugation.
@@nunyabidness3075😂 Or worse, they get on the board of their HOA. The biggest liability of an HOA, is not knowing what type of ‘leadership’ you will have in the future.
@@HarrisonCountyStudio Same for Democracy. Are you planning to leave the US for some autocracy? Just like our constitution is informative as to what kind of folks are likely to seek and gain office, so are covenants very predictive of who will inhabit and lead an HOA.
here is a CCR that SHOULD be needed, the property can NEVER belong to an HOA or be subject to HOA regulations or demands.... and this CCR can NEVER be removed from the property.... granted then we lose ALL the HOA horror stories, but that is NOT a bad thing either......
YEEEEES! But the cities/municipalities LOVE HOAs because they save money and and get to still tax the same amount on uti;ities and city services even though they don't provide the same level/frequency of services to HOA neighbourhoods. It is simply another level of cotrol over your property which you never own, paid off or not.
The CC&R's on my previous property had an expiration date. Before they expired Included in them was a restriction on building another separate living space so I built a 3 car garage. The only remaining original owner in the neighborhood kept a close watch but had to let it go. Soon half the homes in the development had separate 3 car garages LOL! No clue how many were later converted into living spaces.
The ONE thing I was absolutely adamant about when I was buying property was the absence of CCRs and HOAs. If you're stupid enough to buy something with these things, you deserve to have to live with them.
The only CCRs I would ever want on my property, are Creedence Clearwater Revival. The CC&Rs are one major thing I asked about when I purchased my house back in 2001 and thankfully, I have one of only five homes on our street that are not part of any subdivision. Nor did I find any attached to it when I did my own research (I'm a now-mostly-retired land surveyor). Thorough, often exhaustive research is essential IMO when purchasing real property.
Hmmm... I wonder if you can self impose a CCR on the property while you are still on it A current scam is copying the deed and signature from online and submitting a new one to get a loan with the "updated" deed.... so if you can CCR that the deed can only be updated in person that could maybe stop that?
Great video. CC&Rs can definitely be a complex topic. I'm curious about the potential legal implications of violating these rules. Could you elaborate on the types of penalties or legal actions that might result from non-compliance?
It is best to resolve these issues before you do anything contrary. Because you could spend a lot of money , lose in court , and then pay to have your work undone if you have constructed before a court change.
If it's CC&R's (contract between parties) for a PUD development, other owners bought into the restrictions. Some owners want those (contract) restrictions. If there's no clause for altering the contract between parties, then unless it violates some constitutional right or entitlement, the contract stands. But there must be 2 defined legal parties for a contract to be valid. *The contract could define "the public interest" as a legal party.
HOA's have CC&R's and all that purchase within an HOA must sign and agree to abide by these restrictions. In Florida, CC&R's must be refiled every 30 years. If they are not refiled they become unenforceable per Florida Statute 720. It isn't one size fits all, each state has their own laws that apply to CC&R's.
AWESOME Subject. I am currently looking for another piece a land.. MINUS, All restrictions. Any restriction is like giving up your rights. Its like giving control to the gov. Steer away.
Make your own EASEMENT totally giving you all power, just like you were a railroad or power line, etc. They can even take your deed and they still can't touch you or even trespass on the land. Power line companies don't own the land or pay taxes, but they have total power over it ny the easement.
you could, except you don't have the authority to do it. While you could put additional restrictions on the land, you can't affect someone else's previous restrictions.
In 1977 I bought a house in Detroit. The neighborhood was started in 1928 on what had been a small farm. The farmer kept their existing house but had one condition, on any lot that was sold and that was that the tree lawns on the lots had to be planted with maple trees. When Dutch elm disease killed most of Detroit's shade trees my neighborhood still had the green canopy that most streets lost. My question about the detached garage is who enforces the restriction.
Depends who’s named in the document. If the HOA has a president or board then they will likely file a lawsuit and have a pretty solid case against someone who violated the restrictions. Judge orders the removal of the structure and if ignored the CC&R could allow them to take ownership of the home. Look up what’s happened to people for not paying their HOA dues… forfeiture and sale of the home to pay off the debt is possible.
my Neiborhood had a covenant against allowing black and jewish people from being on your property after dusk. It took years and to get it removed, because it took 80% of the current property owners to physically sign for the removal at a meeting specifically called for to remove any term. (all of which was laid out in the restriction) Despite being illegal, It wasn't removed until the early 2,000's
Those restrictions are automatically void and unenforceable. Doesn't matter if the restrictions are still on the deeds, they are unenforceable and do not have to be removed. Now in your case I bet your neighborhood wanted to remove them because optically and morally the restrictions are repugnant but in order to remove them from the land records they had to follow the "process" that was set up to remove them. I'm not defending the process, just surmising as to the reason.
@@soundbwoikilla764 yes, they were unenforceable, but it also sent an "unwelcome" message. No different that having a term saying "all 16 year old girls are property of the HOA to do with as they please". Sure, it's unenforceable, but you also essentially agreed to give your daughter away knowing that it *probably* couldn't happen. It's a message. And yes, there were initiatives put forth for 10 years to remove the terms, and they never really went anywhere, with people hiding behind the "they're not enforceable" bush. I would say that if that is someone's defense, then they actually agree with it. After all, there's nothing in the constitution that says either term couldn't be valid at some point, with just a single court ruling to change it.
If you bought your property with CCRs using a trust or partnership can you sue the vehicle you created to own the property to remove the CCRs, reach a settlement removing the CCR and submit the settlement for court approval? In essence, creating a friendly adversary.
Government does this sort of thing all the time, but I don’t think your version would work. The covenants would not get voided. The defendant would have to pay damages. So you would just lose legal fees.
@@nunyabidness3075 the rules don’t do away because of the government. In federal article three courts you need a case or controversy which has been held by SCOTUS to mean you need an actual adversarial issue for courts to take something up. State courts have similar rules in every state.
@@tvviewer4500 Which in no way at all stops friendly lawsuits. 1. Legislature sets law 2. Friendly Non profit sues to overturn law 3. Friendly government attorney fails to adequately fight law (judge might or might not let outside counsel step in) or even offers settlement to overturn or modify law. This also can be used to simply rob the coffers in rare cases. The PA election case in 2020 is a famous example. Thomas’s dissent is worth reading.
HOA's, CCNR's it amazes me how Americans find every way they possibly can to not own the land they own. Never ever ever buy a house with HOA or CCNR. You deserve every problem that arises when you do.
The thing about restrictions on private land its not governed by the county you live in nobody's going to be coming to look to verify that you're following all the deeded restrictions unless you live in a planned neighborhood that has an HOA. The original owner that placed the deed restrictions(cc&rs) would have to file a complaint against you in order for it to be a problem, or one of your neighbors would have to take the time to go down to the county clerks office research your deed to find out that you're violating one of the restrictions, which is highly unlikely unless you have some major beef with one of your neighbors. Most people put restrictions on rural land because it's family land that's been divided and they don't want someone moving next to them building things that they don't like, but if the family has long passed or no longer lives in the area, no one can really enforce these deed restrictions on the land. So in other words in order for it to be a problem, the person that originally placed the deed restrictions would have to complain that you're doing something on the land that they don't agree with if they're no longer living or don't live in the area I really wouldn't worry about it. It's a completely different story if you live in a more urban area or are in a HOA. The easiest way to handle this if the people that originally wrote the CC&Rs are still living to reach out to them. Explain to them what you're going to do with the land and come to some agreement and they sign off on it. Many times they could care less because they no longer live in the area or they've passed and have no heirs. People that have subsequently purchased land around you cannot do anything because they're not the original creators of the restrictions unless you're in a HOA.
We looked at a single 1.7 acres building lot in the country and the owner had added 26 ccr including first right of refusal. We need states to limit these crazy restrictions.
Are covenants/ governments allowed to violate your 5th and 14th Amendment rights, though? You COULD sue in federal court if the restrictions deprive you of the basic ability to enjoy your property. My question would be in some states where water is more restricted. Can they deprive you of the ability to have a well, water being piped, or collecting rain water? This is becoming a serious issue in states like Colorado, California, Nevada, and Arizona. Where the government is essentially zoning your property a certain way but put restrictions on it from you being able to actually use it (e.g., you aren't allowed water).
you could sue, but you would lose. You signed a contract and now you want to back out of parts of it because you don't like them. I guess signing a contract is meaningless to you.
First Amendment protects the freedom to associate. It’s in the words “Home Owners Association”, meaning you opted into it when you decided to buy the house. No one held a gun to your head and made you buy a home in that neighborhood.
I live in Bardstown ky, the New administration says your not allowed to put a tent up and camp in your own yard, I have 6 acres in outside city limits, if I do that they fine me and continued , can be loss of property. Is this government going beyond laws, so to me I own nothing but paid 26 years to own nothing, city of Bardstown Kentucky owns everything, and home owners has no rights
if your land is outside the city limits i'm failing to understand how the city can tell you what to do with your land when you're outside of their jurisdiction. It's like people in Denver telling Chicago what to do.
Many years ago I looked at a garden/town house that had crazy CCRs. They were pretty much expired and void. Context the homes were built in the early 1960s, some of the CCRs were you couldn’t have a home office, couldn’t not have a Black American house keeper living in the house or on the property after a certain time. Not kidding about the last one. The listing Agent had said by the late 1960s 70s and 80s that city county and state courts would not enforce the CCRs because of the hardship and discriminatory nature it had.
A couple of things on this one. Some places See that a detached garage could eventually be remodeled and become an additional dwelling and or subdivided and create an additional lot or multi family occupancy on single family land. Another issue is possible that if in forest service lan 99 year lease you may be bound to the 99 year contingency.
This gave me an Idea for a covenant. "No house built upon this land will be subject to the authority of an HOA." Here is another covenant idea. "Ownership of this land and the rights of the land are non-devisable."
Farmer 'A' sold a section of land with a CC&R to un-related party. That party, person "B", built a home. 30 years later (now 2024) person "B" passed. We have purchase the property from the heir, person "C", of person "B". We are trying to locate ANY family member of Farmer 'A' or are we able to ask person "C" to clear some items in the CC&R - thank you for this video!
Wish I had found this woman when we were battling unfair easement case We ultimately had to sell our beloved property Completely crooked system in Marshall, AR
@ there isn’t really an easement One mistake after another with idiot judges The original owners sold lots of land in the area and a lot of them they wrote in 60’ easement for all roads crossing property They meant public roads Not private drives Common sense did not prevail it was ludicrous to think we owed the neighbor access thru our property simply because he didn’t want his visitors bothering him by driving by his door He had full access to all of his property and did not need to be on ours I figured the judge could see that when she walked the property and saw he bull dozed all of his new roads all over and did not cross our property to do so She is crooked at a cork screw and the neighbor was an attorney We couldn’t win
Of course it carries a lot of risk that someone may contest what you are doing but it seems like you could do something similar to adverse possession ... ... openly violate a restriction for X number of years and if no one contests it, such restriction is no longer enforceable.
Detached garages were originally barns for the horse . Then cars with that dangerous gasoline that caused fires and people did not want to burn the house down! Then cars were safe and detached garages were only in older houses and associated with being poor . Now we have electric cars burning up once again and it Is associated with being Rich and cool … So tell your client to get a Tesla and the fire dept will help you get a detached garage !!
Interested if you can expand upon the recent NC Supreme Court decision (C Invs. 2, LLC v. Auger) if CCRs have NOT been referenced in the chain of title for 30 years, and what you think will make title companies start insuring over the CCRs which that decision implies are 'extinguished' (save for residential usage). I am aware of the case 'Steve Sypher Designs, Inc. Vs Mickey C. D'Loughy' which appears to be relying on the court decision (July 2024) and I'm wondering at what point such lawsuits will not be required (if ever).
Getting 3 surveys and all coming up with something different is a very good indication there is some fraud going on when they dont add up with the deed
Most all CCNRs I see where I am have a time limit of 25 years. I have seen a 50 and they can be good and bad depending on what you want to do. Thing is, you should know on the front end and decide if this is something you want to abide by for the chain of title. One I currently live under expire in less than 7 years. Most everything around here ends up getting broke into plots and CCNRs enacted. Most are pretty basic, but there are some that are just a bit overreach IMO.
Cool. So I’ll buy a house next to you. Demolish it. Build a workshop and hire people to run it 24/7 with loud machines and shipping trucks all day/night. The point being just because you buy land doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want on it. Restrictions protect you from someone drastically lowering your property value by their actions. Be that the County zoning laws, City ordinances, or HOA CC&Rs. It’s about being part of a society and agreeing that I won’t do something that causes you harm (in this case financially).
CC&Rs imposed on property after its sale have absolutely no place in any civilized society and should be outlawed. There are local and state zoning boards to address the sorts of issues that those who impose CC&Rs puport to address. Some CC&Rs are human rights violations as well. When you sell something, it is no longer yours, and you have no right to impose CC&Rs on it to squeeze further profits or restrict how the new owners can use their property. If you don't like what might become of your beloved house, land, or other real estate after it is sold, don't sell it.
A legal mechanism by which a buyer could condition the purchase on having CC&Rs be not binding on them could be a place to start. But the likelihood that any sales would happen under those conditions in any sort of competitive market would be essentially zero. In my mind, this whole issue represents an unjust imbalance between two competing things: 1) the rights of a property owner 2) the interests of property owners in neighboring parcels In my opinion, #1 ought to trump #2 because #1 is a higher, "first principals" value. It's related to "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." HOAs today have gotten off the rails, with rights to impose fines and fees without having to prove anything remotely close to a material, realized tort.
why? I own the property, and If I don't want it ever to be used as a landfill, and am willing to accept make it a condition of sale (after all, you are eliminating a potential big money buyer) then why not? It's your property, you can do with it as you please. Of course, if your restriction is illegal( such as the one that was in my neiborhood about no jewish people after dusk) then it's unenforceable. You know all of this when you buy the property, if you don't like it don't buy the property, you have that choice.
@@mrl22222 , The real conundrum here is not weather a buyer is willing to accept a restriction on their use of a property they purchase from you, but rather if you have the right to impose CC&Rs on a property that "run with the land" forever, and are binding on future buyers who were not signatories to your agreement with that one buyer. CC&Rs that "run with the land" run counter to the rights of the new owner's and future owners' complete control over their use of their property. The rights belong to the present owner, not some past owner who wanted to rule from the grave or to behave as an owner after they relinquished ownership. Two or more private parties never have the right to make and enforce their own law or use the government to enforce their private law over other people. We have elected legislatures for that purpose. That includes land use as handled by federal, state, and local legislature, bureaus, and zoning boards.
@@mrl22222 You're not an island unto yourself, you have to consider how it will affect the next "owner"....It's people like you who turned me into a misanthropist
Why should the rights of a seller be less than the rights of a buyer? You don't buy the land, you buy rights to the land. The seller has a bundle of rights and may sell some of those rights and retain others. A common example is retaining mineral rights below 500 feet. If the bundle you of rights you purchase does not include the right to subdivide or build a landfill (as an example) because the seller severed and retained that right, that is something that will carry forward in time because you and every subsequent buyer never possessed that right to begin with. It isn't so much a seller-imposed limitation as it is an absence of the right to do something, though practically they amount to the same thing. Illegal CC&Rs, such as race discrimination, are not enforceable in any case. Bottom line, know what rights you are, or are not, buying. If you do not agree then buy something else. If the seller did not sell a right to you, you do not posses that right.
44 years in Home Design and never heard of an individual place CC & R’S on their personal property but only tract sub-division homes projects with HOA and created by tract developer.
Yeah and HOA is not the only issue. Texas has what they call an ETJ. Cities have a buffer zone that extends a few miles outside the actual city limits it’s called the ETJ. So you still need approvals to build in the ETJ and the city has to approve it just like if you lived in the city. So better make sure the rules where you lived. “ETJ stands for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, which is the legal authority of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries. In Texas, ETJ refers to a designated area outside of a city's limits that allows the city to regulate certain activities.” Some Counties have rules also. You don’t need a building permit but have to have a septic permit to install septic. So that automatically tells them to look at your property cause septic means you’re going to build on it and they don’t like things build without gettin their tax dollars.
The people selling the property are letting it go. Therefore no covenants should ever stand put in place by them. I passed up on a few properties because of this. One guy wanted to be able to come in and hunt whenever and wherever on the property despite selling it. People are nuts in the head anymore.
only if you want power. *technically* if it's on your house, it's the NFPA who sets those rules, If it's regarding a pole or lines, they have an easement on your property and the rights to use it per the easement.
Absolutely. Every power company has very strict restrictions on what you can do with the power they provide you with. Just because everything you own complies with what they require doesn't mean they have no control - it means they have so much control every manufacturer complies with them. If you fail to comply they can cut you off, they can sue for damages, others can sue for damages, or you may be criminally charged.
If there is a road that was developed in 3 different sections, with 3 sets of CCRs, and a few of the homes were not included in any of the CCRS, and there is no organization, can those be killed?
1) The Courts. 2) The Judge/Magistrate. You will be issued fines and found in Contempt for not following the Judge's Order(s). At that point, it becomes Criminal and standard Law Enforcement gets involved.
@ SgtSnausages Would someone have to formally complain in some way for the courts to get involved or would you have to be sued by someone else that the same CCRs applied to?
@kylelaw7210 Anyone who can demonstrate "standing". Basically anyone who the Courts would believe has been wronged or suffered damages. Piss off a next door neighbor? Karen down the street? The city/county/state? It could be literally anybody ... for any reason. The Courts will rule on whether they have a valid Cause Of Action or not. And the don't "file a complaint". They file a lawsuit.
Another property owner can sue you in a court of law to enforce them if they want to create a problem for you. They can claim the violation brings their property value down. They are usually control freaks. They usually overlook their best friends and their own violations.
I believe restrictions come from contractors builders, who buy large lots of land and they’re wanting to create a certain type of living style in that area. That’s where that comes from in my opinion.
Got two questions for you 1 ) what if the the restrictions violate another law - saw one that said only people of race X can live there. 2 ) who can enforce the restriction if it’s not a part of an HOA and the municipality has not adopted them into the zoning code?
I talked to a HUD, person ,years ago, believe it or not , those are "LEGAL", & still in effect, I bet, lawyers, "Quietly" settle them out of court for $$ , or price reductions.
Answers: (1) Restrictions which violate another law like race restrictions are automatically void as a matter of law and cannot be enforced. Many of these restrictions are still on the land records but they are unenforceable. (2) There has to be a party who benefits from the restriction, otherwise it won't be enforceable. For example, say you wanted to put a restriction on your property that future owners cannot cut down the trees. There has to be a specific party that benefits (not just your neighbors who like the buffer) otherwise there is nobody who can enforce it. Conservation easements are an example. Under these, you put the tree restriction on your property which explicitly favors a conservation organization and the restriction is now enforceable. Both of these answers are simplified and depend on specific facts.
Any old restrictions that violate current laws are invalid. Zoning and deed restrictions are two completely different things. The restrictions are not enforced by county agencies they are enforced by the entity that placed the restrictions like an HOA or the original creators of the CC&Rs listed in the deed. Zoning is different. That's actually enforced by your county. The zoning on the land will tell you whether it can be residential commercial etc and when you apply for a building permit it will be approved or denied on those basis, depending on what you're wanting to do with the land. Depending on where you live, the restrictions are very hard to enforce especially if the people that originally put those in the deed are no longer living or do not live in the area anymore. They're the only ones that can actually come back and file a lawsuit against you for violatingtheir restrictions. In most cases there's "committee" named on the deed usually it's several family members that originally owned the land if none of those people are living there's really no one to enforce those original restrictions.
With the development example how does a group of home owners get an idea through to the board so there can be a vote or process to remove a restriction? Also what about a developer coming in and buying an abandoned development that had restrictions so bad everyone moved out? The later is an extreme situation but thought the topic could be addressed.
well, in your "abandoned" situation, if the land is still owned by the first developer, negotiate with them to remove it. if it's now owned by 20 people, get your checkbook out...
The CCRs include how to modify them. If you satisfy the modification requirement you just need to register the modifications and justification (signatures, affidavits, and such) with the county. It may be governed by an HOA but the county records folks are the ones who see it gets carried with the deed. So it doesn't need a Board to process it and it may have nothing to do with an HOA.
But the city can take over for an HOA after the HOA is done. The development was an agreement with the city. No HOA, no Architectural Review Committee but the city employees make the judgement and notify hundreds of neighbors. Actually ANYONE can comment to the city and say what you should do, and you wait months and pay for the whole thing.
If an individual purchases land, a lot or anything, they can do whatever they choose. The previous owner or owners have no legal right to enforce their own rules. Does this apply to all sold and purchased items? That is saying a person selling a home can set restrictions on the buyer and can make all the decisions on what the buyer can do to the home. Does this apply to vehicles? Can a seller tell the buyer what type of gas, tires, oil, etc.... they can use on or in said vehicle. This is totally illegal. Also, mineral rights are another illegal issue! If land is sold to anyone, the new owner controls what is on and under said property within the property boundary lines, no questions asked! That is saying a previous owner can come on your property and take anything underneath your property. That is BULLSHIT and illegal!
@@dodsonarmsco you're probably right, but since almost every property they buy starts at 5 acres, there are far fewer covenants to worry about once you get into larger scale properties which are not in fully developed areas. They are also smart enough to negotiate the covenants with whomever the binding party is before they bothered purchasing. They have choice.
People should always read all the HOA requirements and restrictions before buying property in a neighborhood controlled by HOA's. This goes for any other restrictions, easements or anything else that puts dictates on your property. Do your research and due diligence.
Why not convey the property to the private and stand on your 4th amendment rights? Get the property un-registered with the govt and send the HOA a letter that they no longer hold contract with the new owner (private individual) and then you have effectively broken the contracts with the old owner (PERSON). Yes it can be done, I see it happening.
I have seen a situation where there was a deed restriction that the current owner ignored, and there was no grantor heir living in the area and none of the neighbors objected. Maybe somewhere down the line a title search will unearth the restriction, but for the present owner ignorance is bliss. ;-)
These things ought to be limited ... similar to how The Rule Of Purpetuities doctrine works. For the same reasons. How we have one and not the other is ideologically inconsistent.
Going to the heirs is not true. Heirs will likely not have any claim to that original document. It's like asking a man's son to borrow his dead father's car. Just because the father is dead does not mean the son has any claim to the car. You'd need an attorney and a judge to sign off. You hire an attorney, and he will petition the court for this business. This is more common than you think.
I just bought a brand new home in San Antonio and I simply cannot get a permit to put DIY solar on my house. I have to spend $18K to have a contractor do it. I am pissed. I need an attorney!
I have a Mobile Home in a very small Neighborhood. There are other Mobile Home's also. Wasn't city zoned. After 10ys the city zoned it. My Trailer is very old and need lots of work. I want to buy a new smaller one but I was told I can't cause trailer s are not allowed. Im just replacing something that was already on the property with the same thing, before the zoneing. That to me is like telling me if i took down my old wooden garage I can't build a new one. Or I would have to build a new garage only out of Blocks. How can I get around this.
In a similar situation in some places they tear down an entire building except for a single wall and then rebuild. Crazy, I know, but it is a loophole in the law. In your case you can't remove old mobile home and replace. But you may be able to get permits that allow you to remodel mobile home. I live in a county that borders the Atlantic ocean. Many decades ago a law was put in place regarding building on the shore line. The law said that am owner couldn't build or rebuild anything past a certain point toward the ocean. Anything existing could stay and be repaid. During Hurricane Hugo tons of swimming pools were severely damaged beyond the point of repair. A lot of them were in that area of restrictions. Only thing the owners could do was demolish pools and replace with greenery.
Bought rural land in VA, then found out the county won’t let you build anything until you have a house on the property. I wanted a barn first, they would not allow it. I sold the property.
Who enforces the restrictions? I realize it’s enforceable through the courts, but who brings the violators to court? What happens if you violate a CCR and it goes unenforced for years? Is it like adverse possession and deed can be changed?
They should all have expiration dates, or a natural expiration of 25 years. Same with hoa’s. They should have to be renewed. The things I would do if I were a legislator.
This is the most crazy thing. If the owner is dead then the CCR should be dissolved unless the ownership is passed on to the new generation. This how crazy the world is.
I'm in the boonies and ever project I do on my property. I build where I can tear it down if need to. I never search or obtain a building permit. I just do, no one here is going to say anything. If one day, someone say you can't do that. Simple solution just remove it. I always start with, I'm still making payments on it. As someone else build it there or place it there and I'm making monthly payments on it. Because they think, well if I don't finish making payments. It can be simply be repossess. I just remove it if there is any problems with it. None of my structures are permanent to the property. All can be easy disassemble.
talk to the entity that owns those rights. See how much they would like for them. your property boundary only goes up and down so far (you own a cube essentially)
If you don't own the mineral rights then you don't own the mineral rights. So you cannot claim ownership of a thing you don't own. You can ask the owner to gift it to you if they think it is worthless.
What really sucks is, you can't buy a brand new house in a brand new neighborhood without there being an HOA with restriction already in place. There are no options for having an HOA or not. You have to have it. That's like racketeering. The only way to get a house with no HOA is buy an old house in a dilapidated neighborhood. Not everyone want's an old house.
no. you bought the lot with those restrictions. It was a term of the sale, just like the price paid. So you just signed a contract and your first thought is to violate that contract because you never had any intent of following the contract, It almost sounds fraudulent.
@@mrl22222interesting. So one should really read the entire contract or have someone read the contract to fully understand the agreement. This sounds obvious but, sometimes we take the short cut and not read to understand things.
@@TheRealEstateLawyer Bury a dead relative or family pet on the property , get property declared a cemetery , do what you want afterwards as you are now free of CCR's and HOA rules.
The proliferation of HOAs has proved one thing to me: Americans have embraced authoritarianism with all their nasty, petty little hearts. HOAs are something akin to the Stasi, except people participate voluntarily.
They are just barely better than and HOA it sounds like, a bunch of busybodies think they know best how you should use your land. For context and HOA is like living in North Korea. While these are quite bad, just not the absolute worst possibility. What's wrong with people. The most fundamental right is the right to your property. Doing anything to interfere with another persons right to use their property, is pure evil. The only thing worse would be to interfere with their right to live. I bet the serfs of the middle ages had more privileges in how they used their land, than some people that "own" property today.
Most covenants expire after 20 years or can be voided by the HOA residents. Problems can arise when a corporate developer grants itself a majority of the "weighted" votes and block every change to the covenants.
I just wouldn't buy with any CC&R attached to the contract. Cross them out and initial, see what happens. If they don't want to sell, that's their right; but if I don't want to agree to limitations on my personal use of my person property, that's MY right.
I'm guessing crossing it out will stop the sale, but in essence the rest is that simple. Just don't buy it if you don't want to live with those restrictions.
I'll never understand why such a thing is legal why can one person create a law just because they own the property and then when they sell it the new owner undo it for the same reason because they own the property...
But you can not go to court state court anyvway.or administraightive courts because city council police and judges oensions are tied to real estate you have to go to federal court even tax sake judges pensions are tied to it conflict of intrest judicial cannons.also abuse of easment by citys who dig under ur property for niebors lines ect whole road to put them under instead
Why would somebody prohibit a future owner building a detached garage? They wouldn’t. It must be a PUD or have an HOA. I can see a property owner by a lake subdivide their lot and restrict the ability of one lot to build in such a way as to block the view of the lake of the other lot. That makes sense and increases the value of the lot that has the protected view for subsequent owners. Some types of restrictions get voided by state or federal law, such as prohibitions on buyers by race, or garage conversions, adding an accessory dwelling unit.
@@RyanWebber I can't think of any bad reason why, either. Suggest one. People do this to protect their memory of a place, or because they still own the neighboring property, or have a political statement to make about the land use.
99% of the time the reason why people placed these kind of restrictions on the land is because it's family land that's been subdivided up and some family members are still living on the adjacent land and they do not want these parcels to be sold and their new neighbors doing things they don't like like having multiple homes on the land or a trailer park etc. But if none of those people are still living, there's actually no one to enforce the restrictions. The problem is if you still have family members of the people who wrote the original restrictions living around you they are the ones who can potentially bring a complaint against you and legally have the structure removed. It sounds petty, but you never know what people are gonna do with land that they buy and if there's not an HOA, you could potentially end up with a crazy neighbor who wants to have a pig farm or a garbage dump.
@@revilsdr But, my point is: why would anyone care if your garage was "detached"? ("Detached" is something that was attached and became detached--but that's a separate ha-ha issue.) What's wrong with a stand-alone garage? It isn't a pig farm or garbage dump! It's a garage for keeping things out of sight! Oh, well. Glad it's not my problem!
Private property the rights to ownership and control over said property is a god given right. Fk any “law or statute” that says otherwise because it is null and void in the eyes of our founding documents. If I buy land it’s mine and no one else’s also taxes on land is beyond wrong.
Simple on face answer: NEVER JOIN an HOA! Specifically exclude them at time of sale. NO ONE can make you join an HOA and they cannot make joining one a condition of sale. That make breaking HOA membership easy. Expensive but easy. Simply sell the property to someone like me and then buy it back under the same conditions. ... HOA, GONE! Easy Peasy!
It’s called private property you do what you want on ur own property fk everyone else it’s yours you bought it no one else should ever get a say in it til you sell it.
I find it stupid that, if a restriction is put in place by a current owner and then if the property changes hands, the new owner can't change whatever previous owner-imposed restrictions were put in place. Why we have a system that perpetuates other people retaining rights in land they sell and no longer own baffles me.
This is more for farmers and large land owners then suburbs. Say I do you a favor and sell you a farm next to mine for a cheap price. I may not want a pig confinement or housing development going on it next year screwing me out of the money i could have gotten or an undesirable operation that would lower my other land value or my ability to enjoy my land. Another example i want my farm to be farmed and not sold off. So in a will or trust will have conditions for what the land can be used for as a condition of accepting the land in the will.
It’s called communism.
Because your restriction is somebody else's favour. For example your house size restriction garants an unobstructed view to another house owner.
the restriction was agreed to as a part of the 'price' of the purchase of the land.
It should At Least expire with the creator of the restrictions too. Ridiculous.
In my experience, most CC&Rs come from a large land owner subdividing into a development and wants to restrict certain things, similar to how an HOA works. Things like home sizes, additional buildings, setbacks, etc. This makes it much more difficult (virtually impossible) to have the restrictions removed. The best chance you have at that point is to create an HOA for the neighborhood. The courts often side with the current homeowners if they pool their power vs restrictions imposed by prior ownership, but then you have a binding HOA which could create its own problems.
NO, they do NOT. Ever. I loive in Texas and the HOAs are running roughshod over home owners, eh perpetual renters. It is absolutely disgusting and a majority of people in HOAs think it's so wonderful for "property values", which, especially in ours, is a load of crap. CCRs rule everything and since most are installed by almighty developers, NO ONE has a chance against them. Nor change them. And the homeowner sheep in the HOA don't want to change their own subjugation.
Your solution is something way worse then deed restrictions???
Bottom line: DO NOT BUY PROPERTY IN AN HOA!
Houses not in an HOA can still have restrictions
Yes. If you are the type of person who shouts their opinions at people on the internet by using all caps, definitely do not buy in an HOA.
@@nunyabidness3075😂 Or worse, they get on the board of their HOA. The biggest liability of an HOA, is not knowing what type of ‘leadership’ you will have in the future.
@@HarrisonCountyStudio Same for Democracy. Are you planning to leave the US for some autocracy? Just like our constitution is informative as to what kind of folks are likely to seek and gain office, so are covenants very predictive of who will inhabit and lead an HOA.
@ and that sums up the struggles today. Some people believe in “mob rule “democracy. And others believe in individual liberty/the Republic.
here is a CCR that SHOULD be needed, the property can NEVER belong to an HOA or be subject to HOA regulations or demands.... and this CCR can NEVER be removed from the property.... granted then we lose ALL the HOA horror stories, but that is NOT a bad thing either......
I love that one. 👍🏼
YEEEEES! But the cities/municipalities LOVE HOAs because they save money and and get to still tax the same amount on uti;ities and city services even though they don't provide the same level/frequency of services to HOA neighbourhoods. It is simply another level of cotrol over your property which you never own, paid off or not.
The CC&R's on my previous property had an expiration date. Before they expired Included in them was a restriction on building another separate living space so I built a 3 car garage. The only remaining original owner in the neighborhood kept a close watch but had to let it go. Soon half the homes in the development had separate 3 car garages LOL! No clue how many were later converted into living spaces.
Time to pass a law time limits to ALL CC&R s . Once the property is sold the previous owners shouldn’t have ANY CONTROLS PERIOD .
Step one, never buy on land with an HOA
My CCR favorite is "I Put A Spell On You", or maybe "Ninety Nine And A Half Just Won't Do", well any Creedence song is good!
Bottom line is not your property if you can't do what you want with your property, even goes against the definitions of property!
The ONE thing I was absolutely adamant about when I was buying property was the absence of CCRs and HOAs. If you're stupid enough to buy something with these things, you deserve to have to live with them.
YES.... I looked at a lot of places checked the HOA and CC&r and moved on. Finally found a home/land without this stupid sh*t and bought.
The only CCRs I would ever want on my property, are Creedence Clearwater Revival. The CC&Rs are one major thing I asked about when I purchased my house back in 2001 and thankfully, I have one of only five homes on our street that are not part of any subdivision. Nor did I find any attached to it when I did my own research (I'm a now-mostly-retired land surveyor). Thorough, often exhaustive research is essential IMO when purchasing real property.
Hmmm... I wonder if you can self impose a CCR on the property while you are still on it
A current scam is copying the deed and signature from online and submitting a new one to get a loan with the "updated" deed.... so if you can CCR that the deed can only be updated in person that could maybe stop that?
Great video. CC&Rs can definitely be a complex topic. I'm curious about the potential legal implications of violating these rules. Could you elaborate on the types of penalties or legal actions that might result from non-compliance?
It is best to resolve these issues before you do anything contrary.
Because you could spend a lot of money , lose in court , and then pay to have your work undone if you have constructed before a court change.
It sounds like you might run into a issue with title insurance.
If it's CC&R's (contract between parties) for a PUD development, other owners bought into the restrictions. Some owners want those (contract) restrictions. If there's no clause for altering the contract between parties, then unless it violates some constitutional right or entitlement, the contract stands. But there must be 2 defined legal parties for a contract to be valid. *The contract could define "the public interest" as a legal party.
HOA's have CC&R's and all that purchase within an HOA must sign and agree to abide by these restrictions. In Florida, CC&R's must be refiled every 30 years. If they are not refiled they become unenforceable per Florida Statute 720. It isn't one size fits all, each state has their own laws that apply to CC&R's.
AWESOME Subject. I am currently looking for another piece a land.. MINUS, All restrictions. Any restriction is like giving up your rights. Its like giving control to the gov. Steer away.
Make your own EASEMENT totally giving you all power, just like you were a railroad or power line, etc.
They can even take your deed and they still can't touch you or even trespass on the land.
Power line companies don't own the land or pay taxes, but they have total power over it ny the easement.
I guess that's a form of imminent domain. Seems like it to me.
you could, except you don't have the authority to do it. While you could put additional restrictions on the land, you can't affect someone else's previous restrictions.
Thanks for sharing your experience
In 1977 I bought a house in Detroit. The neighborhood was started in 1928 on what had been a small farm. The farmer kept their existing house but had one condition, on any lot that was sold and that was that the tree lawns on the lots had to be planted with maple trees. When Dutch elm disease killed most of Detroit's shade trees my neighborhood still had the green canopy that most streets lost. My question about the detached garage is who enforces the restriction.
Depends who’s named in the document. If the HOA has a president or board then they will likely file a lawsuit and have a pretty solid case against someone who violated the restrictions. Judge orders the removal of the structure and if ignored the CC&R could allow them to take ownership of the home. Look up what’s happened to people for not paying their HOA dues… forfeiture and sale of the home to pay off the debt is possible.
my Neiborhood had a covenant against allowing black and jewish people from being on your property after dusk. It took years and to get it removed, because it took 80% of the current property owners to physically sign for the removal at a meeting specifically called for to remove any term. (all of which was laid out in the restriction) Despite being illegal, It wasn't removed until the early 2,000's
Someone was a Karen with to much time on their hands.
Wow. That's pretty messed up.
Those restrictions are automatically void and unenforceable. Doesn't matter if the restrictions are still on the deeds, they are unenforceable and do not have to be removed. Now in your case I bet your neighborhood wanted to remove them because optically and morally the restrictions are repugnant but in order to remove them from the land records they had to follow the "process" that was set up to remove them. I'm not defending the process, just surmising as to the reason.
@@soundbwoikilla764 yes, they were unenforceable, but it also sent an "unwelcome" message. No different that having a term saying "all 16 year old girls are property of the HOA to do with as they please". Sure, it's unenforceable, but you also essentially agreed to give your daughter away knowing that it *probably* couldn't happen. It's a message. And yes, there were initiatives put forth for 10 years to remove the terms, and they never really went anywhere, with people hiding behind the "they're not enforceable" bush. I would say that if that is someone's defense, then they actually agree with it. After all, there's nothing in the constitution that says either term couldn't be valid at some point, with just a single court ruling to change it.
@@Richard-ob5zn so were the karens the ones calling for the removal, or the ones trying to keep it?
If you bought your property with CCRs using a trust or partnership can you sue the vehicle you created to own the property to remove the CCRs, reach a settlement removing the CCR and submit the settlement for court approval? In essence, creating a friendly adversary.
Government does this sort of thing all the time, but I don’t think your version would work. The covenants would not get voided. The defendant would have to pay damages. So you would just lose legal fees.
Courts and state procedures have rules against friendly adversaries. So no.
@@tvviewer4500 Apparently those rules don’t apply to government cases because this is becoming a bigger and bigger problem.
@@nunyabidness3075 the rules don’t do away because of the government. In federal article three courts you need a case or controversy which has been held by SCOTUS to mean you need an actual adversarial issue for courts to take something up. State courts have similar rules in every state.
@@tvviewer4500 Which in no way at all stops friendly lawsuits.
1. Legislature sets law
2. Friendly Non profit sues to overturn law
3. Friendly government attorney fails to adequately fight law (judge might or might not let outside counsel step in) or even offers settlement to overturn or modify law.
This also can be used to simply rob the coffers in rare cases.
The PA election case in 2020 is a famous example. Thomas’s dissent is worth reading.
HOA's, CCNR's it amazes me how Americans find every way they possibly can to not own the land they own. Never ever ever buy a house with HOA or CCNR. You deserve every problem that arises when you do.
The thing about restrictions on private land its not governed by the county you live in nobody's going to be coming to look to verify that you're following all the deeded restrictions unless you live in a planned neighborhood that has an HOA. The original owner that placed the deed restrictions(cc&rs) would have to file a complaint against you in order for it to be a problem, or one of your neighbors would have to take the time to go down to the county clerks office research your deed to find out that you're violating one of the restrictions, which is highly unlikely unless you have some major beef with one of your neighbors. Most people put restrictions on rural land because it's family land that's been divided and they don't want someone moving next to them building things that they don't like, but if the family has long passed or no longer lives in the area, no one can really enforce these deed restrictions on the land. So in other words in order for it to be a problem, the person that originally placed the deed restrictions would have to complain that you're doing something on the land that they don't agree with if they're no longer living or don't live in the area I really wouldn't worry about it. It's a completely different story if you live in a more urban area or are in a HOA. The easiest way to handle this if the people that originally wrote the CC&Rs are still living to reach out to them. Explain to them what you're going to do with the land and come to some agreement and they sign off on it. Many times they could care less because they no longer live in the area or they've passed and have no heirs. People that have subsequently purchased land around you cannot do anything because they're not the original creators of the restrictions unless you're in a HOA.
We looked at a single 1.7 acres building lot in the country and the owner had added 26 ccr including first right of refusal. We need states to limit these crazy restrictions.
Are covenants/ governments allowed to violate your 5th and 14th Amendment rights, though? You COULD sue in federal court if the restrictions deprive you of the basic ability to enjoy your property.
My question would be in some states where water is more restricted. Can they deprive you of the ability to have a well, water being piped, or collecting rain water? This is becoming a serious issue in states like Colorado, California, Nevada, and Arizona. Where the government is essentially zoning your property a certain way but put restrictions on it from you being able to actually use it (e.g., you aren't allowed water).
you could sue, but you would lose. You signed a contract and now you want to back out of parts of it because you don't like them. I guess signing a contract is meaningless to you.
First Amendment protects the freedom to associate.
It’s in the words “Home Owners Association”, meaning you opted into it when you decided to buy the house. No one held a gun to your head and made you buy a home in that neighborhood.
I live in Bardstown ky, the New administration says your not allowed to put a tent up and camp in your own yard, I have 6 acres in outside city limits, if I do that they fine me and continued , can be loss of property. Is this government going beyond laws, so to me I own nothing but paid 26 years to own nothing, city of Bardstown Kentucky owns everything, and home owners has no rights
Call the Institute for Justice. Maybe they can help you.
if your land is outside the city limits i'm failing to understand how the city can tell you what to do with your land when you're outside of their jurisdiction. It's like people in Denver telling Chicago what to do.
He is talking about an HOA, I believe.
Do a referendum to change the ordinance and collect the required number of signatures. Most reasonable people would be on your side.
Many years ago I looked at a garden/town house that had crazy CCRs. They were pretty much expired and void. Context the homes were built in the early 1960s, some of the CCRs were you couldn’t have a home office, couldn’t not have a Black American house keeper living in the house or on the property after a certain time. Not kidding about the last one. The listing Agent had said by the late 1960s 70s and 80s that city county and state courts would not enforce the CCRs because of the hardship and discriminatory nature it had.
what form do you need to show that all parties involved agree to have the covenants removed?
A couple of things on this one. Some places See that a detached garage could eventually be remodeled and become an additional dwelling and or subdivided and create an additional lot or multi family occupancy on single family land. Another issue is possible that if in forest service lan 99 year lease you may be bound to the 99 year contingency.
This gave me an Idea for a covenant. "No house built upon this land will be subject to the authority of an HOA."
Here is another covenant idea. "Ownership of this land and the rights of the land are non-devisable."
Farmer 'A' sold a section of land with a CC&R to un-related party. That party, person "B", built a home. 30 years later (now 2024) person "B" passed. We have purchase the property from the heir, person "C", of person "B". We are trying to locate ANY family member of Farmer 'A' or are we able to ask person "C" to clear some items in the CC&R - thank you for this video!
Wish I had found this woman when we were battling unfair easement case We ultimately had to sell our beloved property Completely crooked system in Marshall, AR
why did you buy the property with the "unfair easement" to begin with..
@ there isn’t really an easement One mistake after another with idiot judges
The original owners sold lots of land in the area and a lot of them they wrote in 60’ easement for all roads crossing property They meant public roads Not private drives Common sense did not prevail it was ludicrous to think we owed the neighbor access thru our property simply because he didn’t want his visitors bothering him by driving by his door He had full access to all of his property and did not need to be on ours I figured the judge could see that when she walked the property and saw he bull dozed all of his new roads all over and did not cross our property to do so She is crooked at a cork screw and the neighbor was an attorney We couldn’t win
Of course it carries a lot of risk that someone may contest what you are doing but it seems like you could do something similar to adverse possession ...
... openly violate a restriction for X number of years and if no one contests it, such restriction is no longer enforceable.
Is there limitations time on something like that?
@@JustMe-gx4xt Yes, THE TIME LIMIT varies by State for adverse possession, I know in Kansas it's 25 years, so no quick fix.
I don't get it, if the old property owner sold the property how can the old owners have any say?
Detached garages were originally barns for the horse .
Then cars with that dangerous gasoline that caused fires and people did not want to burn the house down!
Then cars were safe and detached garages were only in older houses and associated with being poor .
Now we have electric cars burning up once again and it Is associated with being Rich and cool …
So tell your client to get a Tesla and the fire dept will help you get a detached garage !!
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Video‼️💯
Interested if you can expand upon the recent NC Supreme Court decision (C Invs. 2, LLC v. Auger) if CCRs have NOT been referenced in the chain of title for 30 years, and what you think will make title companies start insuring over the CCRs which that decision implies are 'extinguished' (save for residential usage). I am aware of the case 'Steve Sypher Designs, Inc. Vs Mickey C. D'Loughy' which appears to be relying on the court decision (July 2024) and I'm wondering at what point such lawsuits will not be required (if ever).
Probably a long time.
Getting 3 surveys and all coming up with something different is a very good indication there is some fraud going on when they dont add up with the deed
Most all CCNRs I see where I am have a time limit of 25 years. I have seen a 50 and they can be good and bad depending on what you want to do. Thing is, you should know on the front end and decide if this is something you want to abide by for the chain of title. One I currently live under expire in less than 7 years. Most everything around here ends up getting broke into plots and CCNRs enacted. Most are pretty basic, but there are some that are just a bit overreach IMO.
This shouldn’t be ever be a thing. You buy something it’s yours and should do with it as you please.
Cool. So I’ll buy a house next to you. Demolish it. Build a workshop and hire people to run it 24/7 with loud machines and shipping trucks all day/night.
The point being just because you buy land doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want on it. Restrictions protect you from someone drastically lowering your property value by their actions. Be that the County zoning laws, City ordinances, or HOA CC&Rs.
It’s about being part of a society and agreeing that I won’t do something that causes you harm (in this case financially).
@MCSgt117 So you're never been to a city? Cause ya literally just described one.
CC&Rs imposed on property after its sale have absolutely no place in any civilized society and should be outlawed. There are local and state zoning boards to address the sorts of issues that those who impose CC&Rs puport to address. Some CC&Rs are human rights violations as well. When you sell something, it is no longer yours, and you have no right to impose CC&Rs on it to squeeze further profits or restrict how the new owners can use their property. If you don't like what might become of your beloved house, land, or other real estate after it is sold, don't sell it.
A legal mechanism by which a buyer could condition the purchase on having CC&Rs be not binding on them could be a place to start. But the likelihood that any sales would happen under those conditions in any sort of competitive market would be essentially zero.
In my mind, this whole issue represents an unjust imbalance between two competing things:
1) the rights of a property owner
2) the interests of property owners in neighboring parcels
In my opinion, #1 ought to trump #2 because #1 is a higher, "first principals" value. It's related to "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." HOAs today have gotten off the rails, with rights to impose fines and fees without having to prove anything remotely close to a material, realized tort.
why? I own the property, and If I don't want it ever to be used as a landfill, and am willing to accept make it a condition of sale (after all, you are eliminating a potential big money buyer) then why not? It's your property, you can do with it as you please. Of course, if your restriction is illegal( such as the one that was in my neiborhood about no jewish people after dusk) then it's unenforceable. You know all of this when you buy the property, if you don't like it don't buy the property, you have that choice.
@@mrl22222 ,
The real conundrum here is not weather a buyer is willing to accept a restriction on their use of a property they purchase from you, but rather if you have the right to impose CC&Rs on a property that "run with the land" forever, and are binding on future buyers who were not signatories to your agreement with that one buyer. CC&Rs that "run with the land" run counter to the rights of the new owner's and future owners' complete control over their use of their property. The rights belong to the present owner, not some past owner who wanted to rule from the grave or to behave as an owner after they relinquished ownership. Two or more private parties never have the right to make and enforce their own law or use the government to enforce their private law over other people. We have elected legislatures for that purpose. That includes land use as handled by federal, state, and local legislature, bureaus, and zoning boards.
@@mrl22222 You're not an island unto yourself, you have to consider how it will affect the next "owner"....It's people like you who turned me into a misanthropist
Why should the rights of a seller be less than the rights of a buyer?
You don't buy the land, you buy rights to the land. The seller has a bundle of rights and may sell some of those rights and retain others. A common example is retaining mineral rights below 500 feet. If the bundle you of rights you purchase does not include the right to subdivide or build a landfill (as an example) because the seller severed and retained that right, that is something that will carry forward in time because you and every subsequent buyer never possessed that right to begin with. It isn't so much a seller-imposed limitation as it is an absence of the right to do something, though practically they amount to the same thing.
Illegal CC&Rs, such as race discrimination, are not enforceable in any case.
Bottom line, know what rights you are, or are not, buying. If you do not agree then buy something else. If the seller did not sell a right to you, you do not posses that right.
44 years in Home Design and never heard of an individual place CC & R’S on their personal property but only tract sub-division homes projects with HOA and created by tract developer.
Yeah and HOA is not the only issue.
Texas has what they call an ETJ. Cities have a buffer zone that extends a few miles outside the actual city limits it’s called the ETJ. So you still need approvals to build in the ETJ and the city has to approve it just like if you lived in the city. So better make sure the rules where you lived.
“ETJ stands for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, which is the legal authority of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries. In Texas, ETJ refers to a designated area outside of a city's limits that allows the city to regulate certain activities.”
Some Counties have rules also. You don’t need a building permit but have to have a septic permit to install septic. So that automatically tells them to look at your property cause septic means you’re going to build on it and they don’t like things build without gettin their tax dollars.
The people selling the property are letting it go. Therefore no covenants should ever stand put in place by them. I passed up on a few properties because of this. One guy wanted to be able to come in and hunt whenever and wherever on the property despite selling it. People are nuts in the head anymore.
Yeah, that's pretty insane.
Can the power company tell you to use on your side of the power disconnect?
Sentence words missing confuse lol
only if you want power. *technically* if it's on your house, it's the NFPA who sets those rules, If it's regarding a pole or lines, they have an easement on your property and the rights to use it per the easement.
Absolutely. Every power company has very strict restrictions on what you can do with the power they provide you with. Just because everything you own complies with what they require doesn't mean they have no control - it means they have so much control every manufacturer complies with them. If you fail to comply they can cut you off, they can sue for damages, others can sue for damages, or you may be criminally charged.
If there is a road that was developed in 3 different sections, with 3 sets of CCRs, and a few of the homes were not included in any of the CCRS, and there is no organization, can those be killed?
How can CCR be enforced and who can enforce them?
1) The Courts.
2) The Judge/Magistrate.
You will be issued fines and found in Contempt for not following the Judge's Order(s). At that point, it becomes Criminal and standard Law Enforcement gets involved.
@ SgtSnausages Would someone have to formally complain in some way for the courts to get involved or would you have to be sued by someone else that the same CCRs applied to?
@kylelaw7210
Anyone who can demonstrate "standing".
Basically anyone who the Courts would believe has been wronged or suffered damages.
Piss off a next door neighbor?
Karen down the street?
The city/county/state?
It could be literally anybody ... for any reason. The Courts will rule on whether they have a valid Cause Of Action or not.
And the don't "file a complaint".
They file a lawsuit.
Another property owner can sue you in a court of law to enforce them if they want to create a problem for you. They can claim the violation brings their property value down. They are usually control freaks. They usually overlook their best friends and their own violations.
I believe restrictions come from contractors builders, who buy large lots of land and they’re wanting to create a certain type of living style in that area. That’s where that comes from in my opinion.
Got two questions for you
1 ) what if the the restrictions violate another law - saw one that said only people of race X can live there.
2 ) who can enforce the restriction if it’s not a part of an HOA and the municipality has not adopted them into the zoning code?
Racial deed restrictions are not enforceable. They violate the law.
I talked to a HUD, person ,years ago, believe it or not , those are "LEGAL", & still in effect, I bet, lawyers, "Quietly" settle them out of court for $$ , or price reductions.
Answers: (1) Restrictions which violate another law like race restrictions are automatically void as a matter of law and cannot be enforced. Many of these restrictions are still on the land records but they are unenforceable. (2) There has to be a party who benefits from the restriction, otherwise it won't be enforceable. For example, say you wanted to put a restriction on your property that future owners cannot cut down the trees. There has to be a specific party that benefits (not just your neighbors who like the buffer) otherwise there is nobody who can enforce it. Conservation easements are an example. Under these, you put the tree restriction on your property which explicitly favors a conservation organization and the restriction is now enforceable. Both of these answers are simplified and depend on specific facts.
Any old restrictions that violate current laws are invalid.
Zoning and deed restrictions are two completely different things. The restrictions are not enforced by county agencies they are enforced by the entity that placed the restrictions like an HOA or the original creators of the CC&Rs listed in the deed. Zoning is different. That's actually enforced by your county. The zoning on the land will tell you whether it can be residential commercial etc and when you apply for a building permit it will be approved or denied on those basis, depending on what you're wanting to do with the land. Depending on where you live, the restrictions are very hard to enforce especially if the people that originally put those in the deed are no longer living or do not live in the area anymore. They're the only ones that can actually come back and file a lawsuit against you for violatingtheir restrictions. In most cases there's "committee" named on the deed usually it's several family members that originally owned the land if none of those people are living there's really no one to enforce those original restrictions.
With the development example how does a group of home owners get an idea through to the board so there can be a vote or process to remove a restriction?
Also what about a developer coming in and buying an abandoned development that had restrictions so bad everyone moved out?
The later is an extreme situation but thought the topic could be addressed.
well, in your "abandoned" situation, if the land is still owned by the first developer, negotiate with them to remove it. if it's now owned by 20 people, get your checkbook out...
The CCRs include how to modify them. If you satisfy the modification requirement you just need to register the modifications and justification (signatures, affidavits, and such) with the county. It may be governed by an HOA but the county records folks are the ones who see it gets carried with the deed. So it doesn't need a Board to process it and it may have nothing to do with an HOA.
But the city can take over for an HOA after the HOA is done. The development was an agreement with the city. No HOA, no Architectural Review Committee but the city employees make the judgement and notify hundreds of neighbors. Actually ANYONE can comment to the city and say what you should do, and you wait months and pay for the whole thing.
If an individual purchases land, a lot or anything, they can do whatever they choose. The previous owner or owners have no legal right to enforce their own rules. Does this apply to all sold and purchased items? That is saying a person selling a home can set restrictions on the buyer and can make all the decisions on what the buyer can do to the home. Does this apply to vehicles? Can a seller tell the buyer what type of gas, tires, oil, etc.... they can use on or in said vehicle. This is totally illegal. Also, mineral rights are another illegal issue! If land is sold to anyone, the new owner controls what is on and under said property within the property boundary lines, no questions asked! That is saying a previous owner can come on your property and take anything underneath your property. That is BULLSHIT and illegal!
I noticed when a developer or corporation like walmart buys land all these restrictions just go away.
I'm betting that walmart never bought properties with a covenant...
@mrl22222 we both know that is not factual.
@@dodsonarmsco you're probably right, but since almost every property they buy starts at 5 acres, there are far fewer covenants to worry about once you get into larger scale properties which are not in fully developed areas. They are also smart enough to negotiate the covenants with whomever the binding party is before they bothered purchasing. They have choice.
People should always read all the HOA requirements and restrictions before buying property in a neighborhood controlled by HOA's. This goes for any other restrictions, easements or anything else that puts dictates on your property. Do your research and due diligence.
Can you sell a property with the condition that it never becomes part of a HOA ?
Why not convey the property to the private and stand on your 4th amendment rights? Get the property un-registered with the govt and send the HOA a letter that they no longer hold contract with the new owner (private individual) and then you have effectively broken the contracts with the old owner (PERSON). Yes it can be done, I see it happening.
In our county it is well known that the country does not enforce CCRs
I have seen a situation where there was a deed restriction that the current owner ignored, and there was no grantor heir living in the area and none of the neighbors objected. Maybe somewhere down the line a title search will unearth the restriction, but for the present owner ignorance is bliss. ;-)
These things ought to be limited ... similar to how The Rule Of Purpetuities doctrine works.
For the same reasons.
How we have one and not the other is ideologically inconsistent.
Can 9 small parcels of land be combined to make one parcel or piece of property? Combined the property might be just shy of an acre.
Are you saying an HOA can be desolved?
YUP, if majority or all votes for it
What if I "own" land as the Trustee / Beneficiary of a Trust?
But who would be the agency responsible for enforcing a violation?
Whoever set the restrictions
Going to the heirs is not true. Heirs will likely not have any claim to that original document. It's like asking a man's son to borrow his dead father's car. Just because the father is dead does not mean the son has any claim to the car. You'd need an attorney and a judge to sign off. You hire an attorney, and he will petition the court for this business. This is more common than you think.
It seems like, if the people who imposed the restriction aren't around to care, then you just do it whether there is a restriction written or not.
I just bought a brand new home in San Antonio and I simply cannot get a permit to put DIY solar on my house. I have to spend $18K to have a contractor do it. I am pissed. I need an attorney!
I have a Mobile Home in a very small Neighborhood. There are other Mobile Home's also. Wasn't city zoned. After 10ys the city zoned it. My Trailer is very old and need lots of work. I want to buy a new smaller one but I was told I can't cause trailer s are not allowed. Im just replacing something that was already on the property with the same thing, before the zoneing. That to me is like telling me if i took down my old wooden garage I can't build a new one. Or I would have to build a new garage only out of Blocks. How can I get around this.
In a similar situation in some places they tear down an entire building except for a single wall and then rebuild. Crazy, I know, but it is a loophole in the law. In your case you can't remove old mobile home and replace. But you may be able to get permits that allow you to remodel mobile home. I live in a county that borders the Atlantic ocean. Many decades ago a law was put in place regarding building on the shore line. The law said that am owner couldn't build or rebuild anything past a certain point toward the ocean. Anything existing could stay and be repaid. During Hurricane Hugo tons of swimming pools were severely damaged beyond the point of repair. A lot of them were in that area of restrictions. Only thing the owners could do was demolish pools and replace with greenery.
Bought rural land in VA, then found out the county won’t let you build anything until you have a house on the property. I wanted a barn first, they would not allow it. I sold the property.
Who enforces the restrictions? I realize it’s enforceable through the courts, but who brings the violators to court? What happens if you violate a CCR and it goes unenforced for years? Is it like adverse possession and deed can be changed?
They should all have expiration dates, or a natural expiration of 25 years.
Same with hoa’s. They should have to be renewed.
The things I would do if I were a legislator.
This is the most crazy thing. If the owner is dead then the CCR should be dissolved unless the ownership is passed on to the new generation. This how crazy the world is.
I'm in the boonies and ever project I do on my property. I build where I can tear it down if need to. I never search or obtain a building permit. I just do, no one here is going to say anything. If one day, someone say you can't do that. Simple solution just remove it. I always start with, I'm still making payments on it. As someone else build it there or place it there and I'm making monthly payments on it. Because they think, well if I don't finish making payments. It can be simply be repossess. I just remove it if there is any problems with it. None of my structures are permanent to the property. All can be easy disassemble.
Ok.
and yet you still want insurance, electricity, and police and fire protection. Maybe there should be a way for you to opt out of all those things.
How do you reclaim the mineral rights to a property you own?
talk to the entity that owns those rights. See how much they would like for them. your property boundary only goes up and down so far (you own a cube essentially)
If you don't own the mineral rights then you don't own the mineral rights. So you cannot claim ownership of a thing you don't own. You can ask the owner to gift it to you if they think it is worthless.
What really sucks is, you can't buy a brand new house in a brand new neighborhood without there being an HOA with restriction already in place. There are no options for having an HOA or not. You have to have it. That's like racketeering. The only way to get a house with no HOA is buy an old house in a dilapidated neighborhood. Not everyone want's an old house.
yea, the developer doesn't want you messing up their "look" and the new neighbors don't want you messing up their home value.
Record a hand written deed. If it doesn't mention restrictions, then there are none.
If a land owner puts a ccr on his lot, then you buy the lot. Aren't you the new owner, and can you just change the ccr to your needs?
no. you bought the lot with those restrictions. It was a term of the sale, just like the price paid. So you just signed a contract and your first thought is to violate that contract because you never had any intent of following the contract, It almost sounds fraudulent.
@@mrl22222interesting. So one should really read the entire contract or have someone read the contract to fully understand the agreement. This sounds obvious but, sometimes we take the short cut and not read to understand things.
@@patmclean1951 yep, especially then there's like 75 pages of stuff they want you to get through in 20 minutes.
If you have to "ask for permission" it's NOT "your property". You are just a renter.
Exactly, but also you're just a renter if your deed says tenancy or you "pay" property tax, or someone can evict you.
Can CCR’s be removed from a property in a subdivision?
@@YepTriedToTellYou highly doubtful
@@TheRealEstateLawyer Bury a dead relative or family pet on the property , get property declared a cemetery , do what you want afterwards as you are now free of CCR's and HOA rules.
Don't you have to get a witch. To remove a HOA you need VooDoo and a live Goat named Robert.
Please assist Ironland!
One never buying in an HOA, two F it, I’m doing whatever I want. Step on my land and find out.
The proliferation of HOAs has proved one thing to me: Americans have embraced authoritarianism with all their nasty, petty little hearts. HOAs are something akin to the Stasi, except people participate voluntarily.
Easy solution. Sell the house in a nosy and overreaching neighborhood, and buy a house without restrictions or HOA.
They are just barely better than and HOA it sounds like, a bunch of busybodies think they know best how you should use your land. For context and HOA is like living in North Korea. While these are quite bad, just not the absolute worst possibility.
What's wrong with people. The most fundamental right is the right to your property. Doing anything to interfere with another persons right to use their property, is pure evil. The only thing worse would be to interfere with their right to live. I bet the serfs of the middle ages had more privileges in how they used their land, than some people that "own" property today.
CCRs should only be granted for a maximum of a lifetime otherwise they should have to get government zoning restrictions.
Most covenants expire after 20 years or can be voided by the HOA residents.
Problems can arise when a corporate developer grants itself a majority of the "weighted" votes and block every change to the covenants.
I just wouldn't buy with any CC&R attached to the contract. Cross them out and initial, see what happens. If they don't want to sell, that's their right; but if I don't want to agree to limitations on my personal use of my person property, that's MY right.
I'm guessing crossing it out will stop the sale, but in essence the rest is that simple. Just don't buy it if you don't want to live with those restrictions.
I'll never understand why such a thing is legal why can one person create a law just because they own the property and then when they sell it the new owner undo it for the same reason because they own the property...
But you can not go to court state court anyvway.or administraightive courts because city council police and judges oensions are tied to real estate you have to go to federal court even tax sake judges pensions are tied to it conflict of intrest judicial cannons.also abuse of easment by citys who dig under ur property for niebors lines ect whole road to put them under instead
5:29 to get to the point
Why would somebody prohibit a future owner building a detached garage? They wouldn’t. It must be a PUD or have an HOA. I can see a property owner by a lake subdivide their lot and restrict the ability of one lot to build in such a way as to block the view of the lake of the other lot. That makes sense and increases the value of the lot that has the protected view for subsequent owners.
Some types of restrictions get voided by state or federal law, such as prohibitions on buyers by race, or garage conversions, adding an accessory dwelling unit.
There's plenty of reasons why. You might not think its a good reason, but its still a reason.
@@RyanWebber I can't think of any bad reason why, either. Suggest one. People do this to protect their memory of a place, or because they still own the neighboring property, or have a political statement to make about the land use.
99% of the time the reason why people placed these kind of restrictions on the land is because it's family land that's been subdivided up and some family members are still living on the adjacent land and they do not want these parcels to be sold and their new neighbors doing things they don't like like having multiple homes on the land or a trailer park etc. But if none of those people are still living, there's actually no one to enforce the restrictions. The problem is if you still have family members of the people who wrote the original restrictions living around you they are the ones who can potentially bring a complaint against you and legally have the structure removed. It sounds petty, but you never know what people are gonna do with land that they buy and if there's not an HOA, you could potentially end up with a crazy neighbor who wants to have a pig farm or a garbage dump.
@@revilsdr But, my point is: why would anyone care if your garage was "detached"? ("Detached" is something that was attached and became detached--but that's a separate ha-ha issue.) What's wrong with a stand-alone garage? It isn't a pig farm or garbage dump! It's a garage for keeping things out of sight! Oh, well. Glad it's not my problem!
covenants and restrictions are terrible and should be illegal.
NEVER BUY A SCHITT-BUILT BREEDER BOX IN AN HOA
Hoa tried to stop me from installing solar... I no longer have and hoa and solar... Win win
Private property the rights to ownership and control over said property is a god given right. Fk any “law or statute” that says otherwise because it is null and void in the eyes of our founding documents. If I buy land it’s mine and no one else’s also taxes on land is beyond wrong.
Is this a US thing?
HAS ANYBODY ever heard of the Land Patent?
Simple on face answer: NEVER JOIN an HOA! Specifically exclude them at time of sale. NO ONE can make you join an HOA and they cannot make joining one a condition of sale. That make breaking HOA membership easy. Expensive but easy. Simply sell the property to someone like me and then buy it back under the same conditions. ... HOA, GONE! Easy Peasy!
Please assist ironland
Note to self: _NEVER_ buy land with a CCR!
It’s called private property you do what you want on ur own property fk everyone else it’s yours you bought it no one else should ever get a say in it til you sell it.