Can a Home-Owner Association&#39;s Manager place a lien on property? Scenario: HOA Property Management in Las Vegas, NV vs me over unpaid monthly dues. I wasn't aware that my HOA had changed its Payment P.O. Box a few months ago and hence, my automated monthly payments began being rejected albeit most have been received. I've been out-of-state for the past few months and hence, finally got a note from a law firm stating that I was delinquent. I contacted my HOA and they claim I owe them pass due + penalty fee + admin fee + collection fee. I told them that I want credit on all payments received within the past six months as noted via my bank's statement (as proof of payment) and I'll pay the difference plus the late fee. I refuse to pay the huge collection fee, being that I've been paying monthly in good standing; that the problem was a technical one syncing the bank with the HOA. I had left a few voice messages and have sent a few e-mails but I haven't received a response since our initial encounter. So I'm left with no acknowledgement that the collection agency is to be cancelled plus the collection charge void. Nor have I receive a response from my request to pay the difference due. Question: can the HOA still slap a lien against my property and if so, is it possible for my HOA to force the sale of my property to recover cost? My wife is freaking out on this. Meanwhile, I intend to file a Better Business Bureau complaint against my HOA. And if necessary, file a small-claims court suit. The aggregate requested (dues + fees) cost is about $1000.00: Assessments $570.69 Late Fees $60.00 Interest $5.71 Admin Fees $35.00 Collection Charges $331.53 Total: $1002.93
According to Nolo, which is usually a good source of legal information, yes, an HOA generally does have the power to place a lien on your property if you do not pay your HOA dues, and to foreclose the lien (force sale) if it is still not paid. They have a specific page for Nevada explaining procedures and restrictions. You'll also have to read your covenant (CC&amp;R) to see exactly what you agreed to when you bought the property, but Nolo seems to suggest that whatever's in there is likely to be enforceable. In particular, the covenant may state that the HOA's lien can include penalties and collection costs, and the law seems to allow that. There's a note on the Nolo Nevada page that an HOA may not foreclose a lien based only on a fine or penalty, so it's not clear what would happen if you paid only the outstanding dues but not the other charges. Personally, it seems to me excessive to sue over $400. Being on bad terms with your HOA seems likely to cause trouble down the road. Also, if it were me, I'd want to consult a lawyer to get a sense of the chances of winning. The fact that you were out of state and may have missed communications from the HOA or bank seems like it may weaken your case; they might argue that you had a responsibility to check your bank statements and have your mail forwarded. If you lose in court, you might be liable for the court costs in addition to what you currently owe.
This has very little legal effect. It means that someone forgot to update their annual registration and pay the fee and could be resolved in half an hour with a small late fee payment. It is a sign of slight sloppiness, but is only sometimes evidence of something more serious. For example, if a company moves to a new location without remembering to inform the Secretary of State, it might not get the annual report notice and thus fail to file. And, a company rarely has an occasion to double check that it is in good standing. Usually, the only legal consequence is that the company can't commence a lawsuit without bringing itself into good standing and that another company can steal its business name (if it can do so without violating a common law trademark arising from use of the name). It does not significantly change the rights of parties dealing with the company in terms of property ownership, contract rights, etc. This said, closer scrutiny than a company without that issue might be in order and the fact that you are checking at all means that there might have been other reasons apart from this fact to be concerned.
Do I have standing to sue a credit bureau or lender after being approved for a loan but being prevented from signing due to their error? Unfortunately, no. The email you got from the loan agency reflects that no contract was formed yet. The email merely is the loan agency's expression of interest to proceed toward the formation of that contract. Absent that formation of the contract, even if for reasons beyond your control, you are not entitled to the benefits or consideration(s) the contract would provide. Nor would the lender be entitled to your compliance with the terms of that contract, terms which might not even be informed --let alone known-- to you. There is no legal obligation from one party to the other. Lastly, the agency's or bureau's faulty process/questionnaire is not actionable either. Lender's reluctance to employ an alternative method is within his freedom of contract.
If three people inherited a house in equal shares, then a new deed should have been prepared and filed with the appropriate governmental authority (the county in most US states) before probate is closed. When that is done the authority of the executors over the house as executors has ended. However, if I understand you correctly, the two former executors are also two of the three heirs to the house. Thus they own a 2/3rds interest in the house. At least they can sell their interests without your consent, leaving you a minority owner with the purchaser owner a majority. In some jurisdictions they may be able to force a sale, paying you your share of the purchase price. But this would be because of their majority ownership, not because of their former status as executors. Addition: In some states co-owners who are joint tenants may not sell their interests without the consent of the other co-owners, but this is jnot true in North Carolina According to the site of the Hutchens Law office: ownership as tenants in common provides each party with the right to sell, gift, devise, or otherwise convey their interest in the property without the permission of the other owners. This means that the ownership interest is freely alienable or transferable. As a result, an owner may sell or give their interest in the property to anyone they want, or they may willingly or by judgment use their interest in the property to secure or satisfy a debt with a creditor. Therefore, parties entering into an agreement to purchase property as tenants in common should be aware that they may ultimately end up owning the property with a stranger. If this were to happen, there is a way out, but it may be costly. At any time, if the parties can't agree, any owner may petition the court for a partition of the property. The court could require one owner to buy another out or force the sale of the property. The court will decide the ultimate outcome based on equity. ... [I]f the intent of co-owners holding interest as joint tenants is to automatically transfer their interest at death to the survivor, the language must be on the conveying instrument as right of survivorship is not automatic with joint tenancy in North Carolina and if the language in not included, the decedent's interest will pass to his heirs. ... However, any owner has the right to convey their ownership interest during their life; and if they do, the survivorship agreement ends, and owners simply become joint tenants by operation of law. In North Carolina there seems to be little practical difference between co-owners who are tenants in common, and those who are joint tenants without a right of survivorship. But whichever form of co-ownership is chosen: tenants in common, joint tenants without a right of survivorship, or joint tenants with a right of survivorship, each of the co-owners has a right during his or her lifetime to sell, give away, or use as collateral on a loan his or her share of the property, without consulting the other co-owners. They cannot force the other co-owner(s) to sell, except by starting an action of partition in a court, when a judge would decide. An unrelated buyer might be unwilling to purchase only a 1/3 or 2/3rds interest, because the remaining co-owner(s) would still have full rights to use and occupy the house, can could sell to a different buyer. All co-owners are responsible for their proportionate shares of all expenses, including mortgage payments, repairs, and taxes.
As is often the case, the answer is "it depends." In this case, it depends on: 1) When the condo was organized. Washington law says that all condo associations organized after July 1, 1990, "shall be organized as a profit or nonprofit corporation." Since incorporation is a legal requirement for these condos, the Board must file for incorporation, regardless of whether members approve. NOTE: Washington law does not impose any penalty on condo associations that do not incorporate. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=64.34.300 2) What your By-laws say. As I recall, before July 1, 1990, Washington law did not require condo associations to incorporate. If I am right, the Association does not have to file for incorporation. Whether the Board has to get approval from the members before filing for incorporation depends on your Association's By-laws. The By-laws tell who has the power to make which decisions. 3) It may be worth it for you to talk to an attorney who specializes in condo law about your condo association. Washington law imposes many requirements on HOAs, and many HOAs ignore these requirements. An attorney can give you practical advice about bringing your condo into compliance with these requirements.
Party A has breached the contract Party A had an obligation that it did not fulfil, providing the section-by-section overview of the costs. To the extent that Party B suffered damage from each breach, for example, because Party A owes a refund, Party B can recover that plus interest subject to any statute of limitations on actions for contract breach. To the extent that Party A suffered damage, tough - they don’t get to benefit from their own breach. Party A might wish to argue that Party B has waived their right to adjust the payment but this would be difficult to prove. It doesn’t appear that there is an explicit waiver but neither is their an implied waiver: Party A would need to show that Party B was aware of and condoned the breach in some way. You are right that a contract can be altered after it is entered into and that such a change can be implicit rather than explicit. But that would require showing some action rather than inaction by the parties to effect a different arrangement. In practice, where one party affirms the written contract, without clear and compelling evidence that the contract has subsequently been changed, the written contract will prevail. For an example, Yale University periodically collects the interest due on a perpetual bond originally issued by the Dutch water board Lekdijk Bovendams on 15 May 1624. Originally issued with a principal of &quot;1000 silver Carolus gulders of 20 Stuivers a piece&quot;, as of 2004 the yearly interest payment to the bondholder is set at €11.35 (15€ as of 2018 = 16$). According to its original terms, the bond would pay 5% interest in perpetuity, although the interest rate was reduced to 3.5% and then 2.5% during the 18th century. Providing it is physically presented to the successors of the board (the Dutch Water Authority) interest must be paid even if it has been many decades since the last payment. Of course, practically, crossing the Atlantic to collect 15€ every year is not commercially viable so they do it every decade or so when someone from Yale is going there anyway and then, only for the historical value. So long as the Netherlands continues to exist as a legal entity, this obligation will continue.
Possibly In most contracts, the parties sign in their capacity as people (or agents for other people). However, some contracts are signed in the capacity as the owner of a piece of land and the contract transfers with the land. The liability rests with the current owner and, if unpaid, creates a lien over the property. These are particularly common in contracts with utilities or where the contract involves the a structure on the land. Surprise, surprise, the situation you describe involves both. You need to refer back to your contract for the land as these types of contracts are usually disclosed (unless they are a function of local law because everyone just knows - I don't know anything about Pa. law on this) and the original contract with the gas company. Your settlement may have also involved you paying a figure to purchase the gas in the tank as at the date of settlement. For example, in new-south-wales, council rates and water rates attach to the land as a matter of law and the vendor pays the purchaser for any amount they have paid in advance (or vice-versa if they are in arrears). Electricity and piped gas don't; the vendor ends their account on or before settlement and the buyer opens a new account on or after settlement and each pays for their own use. Propane for portable bottles doesn't but for fixed installations does as a matter of contract with the gas company.
Review the terms of the lease, and determine (a) what deductions can be made from the security deposit, and (b) what charges can be made for lease changes or tenant changes. If the amount and type of deduction for &quot;lawyer fee&quot; is included in either of those areas, then it sounds like the landlord did what the lease allowed. But if not, then the deduction could be improper. If you're in the U.S., you could see a lawyer specializing in landlord-tenant law; or there might be a &quot;tenants' union&quot; in your area, which is usually a nonprofit organization that provides information for tenants to exercise their rights.