A Hate Blast from the Past Returns-Thanks S-bag FACEBOOK!

Judge said Covenants & Restrictions are a contract and made no reference to Rules/Regs adopted by the Association after the contract is made. Rules and Regs are not part of the contract between owners and HOA unless the CCR’s expressly incorporate future rules---and they do not. In other words, the rationale the judge used to rule against Sodheads ie that the rules and regulations the Association adopts subsequent to the making of the contract are not part of the "contract" lot owners obligate themselves to when buying in S-bag. In a future dispute, SLohA will be pushing uphill in any legal actions against owners who purchased their property and agreed to the CCR’s-- but not to any future rules adopted the members.

Sodheads v Grnt: Case No. 2015CA-000165
Background:

In Jan 2016, Sodheads, my adjacent neighbor, attempted to assert ownership of my tree which they mistakenly thought was on their property. According to Sodheads, the tree partially obstructed the view when exiting the driveway. When I heard about their complaint to the board requesting permission to remove the tree, I immediately contacted the Sodheads by email and informed them it was my tree. I immediately trimmed my tree.

However, Sodheads insisted the tree belonged to him and paid for a survey in an attempt to prove me wrong. The survey showed that the tree was, indeed, on my property.

Incidentally, the survey revealed an aerial encroachment of my porch’s roof eave by 3” over Sodheads’ property line. Rather than talk to me about a resolution to the minor aerial encroachment and, despite no objection by Polk County, Sodheads decided to S u e me for everything I own or will ever own including my retirement pension, relocation of my home and all that I have worked for all my life.

Sodheads hired a lawyer. The course of the lawsuit was at a standstill during revitalization because the Covenants and Rules, upon which Sodheads’ based their complaint, were non-existent.

Upon DEO approval of the Covenants (only), the Sodheads’ renewed their pursuit of me.

There was nothing I could do about my roof eave because it preceeded my arrival in S-bag, as well as their arrival. To alter it would be unsightly and possibly result in consequential damage to the structure. The porch and roof was never county-permitted by the previous owner and the Sodheads had lived with it for almost 7 years before suddenly deciding that they should S u e me over it.

In addition to suing me to move house/porch, the Sodheads’ also sued for return of their legal costs based upon the following covenant:

3. The specific language in the Covenants and Restrictions of the community on which Plaintiffs rely for such an award can be found in paragraphs 14 and 16 of those Covenants and Restrictions…

6. The particular regulation which the Association adopted which Plaintiffs assert Defendants have violated and which forms the basis for their claim for attorney’s fees states in pertinent part the following; SITE USAGE (3-2).




The Sodheads’ lost. S-bag lost its “dream” of getting its legal costs back in lawsuits involving rules now and in the future.
The Judge awarded $1300 in costs of bringing the documentation into court such as the court cost, sheriff’s service fee and the survey.

However, the Sodheads’ DID NOT recover their lawyer’s fees of $7500 to which they claimed entitled under the Covenants.
Sodheads’ spent $8800 to get a judicial declaration that my porch roofline is 3” over their property line. I do not need to move my home or alter my porch roof. Sodheads’ has the right to put a lien on my house which cannot be executed while it is homesteaded.I have no plans to sell my house or relinquish my homestead status.