|
|
| |
This article is obsolete, homeowners got nothing of value.
Do we understand now that we have to start at the federal level--perhaps with the U.S. Attorney and work from the basis of the US Constituton. It can be done.
We will accomplish nothing through the California legislature. You need an update to this article explaining that we won nothing.
NOTE FROM AHRC
Re: You need an update to this article explaining that we won nothing.
We have add the link to the most currect article on SB 137 (Ducheny) a homeoewner wrote at the end of the article.
Thanks for the suggestion.
A PALE HUSK OF A BILL - Lobbyists decimate Homeowner protection bill
Posted Sep 10 2005 9:46AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I'm confused regarding the second item of the bill that would limit foreclosures
in HOA's. If you will need to be $1,500 in arrears, before the HOA can put a lean on your property, what difference does the two years in the second item make. "For amounts under $1,500 if they are less than 2 years," it says.
Does that mean that if you owe money to the association, for at least two years, even if the amount is less than $1,500, then the HOA can put a lean on your property? Could someone please clarify that point for me?
Posted Aug 28 2005 9:47AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Long Beach, California |
| |
|
|
| |
How is it that homeowner associations in many States do not have foreclosure options? You sure don't hear about many homeowner associations going bankrupt do you?
The best bill is one that is about six words. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It doesn't take a bevy of lawyers to write or "anal-yze". It doesn't take a gaggle of lobbyists prostituting their way to get it passed. It's as simple as saying - Repeal foreclosure power of homeowner associations.
Duh! These damn politicians just never cease to amaze me with how good they are at making themselves look busy and important in order to live off taxpayers.
Posted Aug 24 2005 6:25AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
| |
I live in a California HOA with many of the same problems reported on AHRC. I've read this post a couple of times but I have a question whose answer I think is important, if anyone reading can reply.
Once this bill is enacted, what is the loophole danger to Homeowner Associations homeowners? In other words, what ISN'T in the bill?
I'm confused by the numbers game where amounts became one of the battle lines as to whether the bill might or might not pass.
With the numbers now added into the bill, which homeowners under which circumstances remain unprotected by the bill.
Therefore, could someone please create a theorectical scenario so that I could understand the bill in action, and
then understand those who the bill has let slip through the cracks.
I'd also like to know if the bill is going to be retroactive, or is only helpful for Homeowner Associations misdeeds done after the bill is signed?
Posted Aug 23 2005 11:10AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
One Voice
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
If I understand you interpretation of SB 137 correctly, then this is GREAT news for 90 million citizens in California.
This legislation will help curb the fleecing of the California homeowners' equity in their home through non-judicial foreclosure.
This legislation will open a path so that duties, responsibilities, and laws pertaining to members as well as board members of Common Interest Developments will now be more clearly defined by The Department of Consumer Affairs and the Department of Real Estate.
Bad Board Members, take warning; "we're come'n and we're gon'na smoke ya out."
Posted Aug 23 2005 5:24AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
MICHAEL DOYLE
SAN CLEMENTE, California |
| |
|
|
| |
This is a way cool compromise. I was concerned about the higher limit, as the process for Non Judicial Foreclosure takes a while and the unpaid dues keep rising.
I like the the two year time frame for lower amounts. I think that all come out as winners here, both the homeowners and the homeowner associations who have to provide the services even if there are a number of residents past due.
Posted Aug 22 2005 5:37AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Claudia Satori
, California |
| |
