On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:33:16 EDT, John Davis
wrote:

But unless the HOA or CC*R are made clear at time of purchase.. I mean
when I bought my house they gave me a pile of papers.. I'm not a
lwayer,, How do I ,now of there were any "restrictions" beyond city
ordinances and state law? (Actually... I did read them rather closely,
no restrictions)

It's called "due diligence" - determine what you are looking for and
see if it is (or is not) there or anywhere else.

With all due respect, if someone cannot do it for themself, they need
to have a professional such as your real estate agent or attorney do
it for them just as they have a professional do a title search.
-- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On 10/13/2011 5:29 PM, Jeffrey Angus wrote:
I see this month's edition of QST has yet another series of
articles on how to violate the terms of the contracts people
sign when they move into a housing development.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi


Personally.. I'm very much against those "Covenants" as they are
called.. I mean.. If I buy a plot of land.. Short of laws, it's MY
property. My Castle as it were. and the neighbors should not be able to
"outlaw" that which the city, county and state allow.

--
Nothing adds Excitement like something that is none of your business.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4569 - Release Date: 10/23/11

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:32:39 EDT, John Davis
wrote:

If I buy a plot of land.. Short of laws, it's MY
property.

Subject to any provisions or terms of the sale agreement. That's what
deed restrictions (CC&Rs) are all about.

I don't like deed restrictions that limit ham antennas, and I devote
my professional skills to assisting buyers to understand that they are
there and how they apply or don't apply to a ham antenna installation
before they finalize the purchase, but short of state or Federal
intervention, they are there.

In California we tried to have the courts invalidate them just as
racial restrictions are invalid, but the Court of Appeal said "no
way". Ditto for stretching PRB-1 to cover them. We tried...we
tried..... (the case was Hotz v Rich, 1992)
-- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net