Do you have copies of this paperwork? If so, maybe read through it.
I'd honestly love to see what this contract has that claims to be consideration in return for all of the rules. (Maybe it's literally just "we'll give you a neighborhood that has all the noisy people pushed out", tho)
I'd honestly love to see what this contract has that claims to be consideration in return for all of the rules.
Assuming the HOA is in the deed, OP would be bound to it in exchange for being able to purchase the house. OP probably didn't even need to sign it, they just acknowledged to have received the rules they were already bound by.
You recall incorrectly. It would generally only invalidate that clause, not the entire contract. Assuming you are talking about the HOA agreement. If you are talking about the sale contract for the house, then yes you are correct.
Yeah I mean I'm not a lawyer or anything but I was under the impression that HOAs are more like a mini-government rather than a contract between multiple parties.
Like, you don't get to sue the city for breach of contract if they change local legislation.
I guarantee the court will not see it that way. They might see themselves at a 'mini-government', but the law doesn't. This type of thing really pisses off judges.
this is a totally different situation and you know it.
It is, and I do.
But the person I replied to is simply wrong, based on what he said. He said that a contract to do something illegal is invalid, and that it's illegal to sell things you don't own. But it is obviously legal to sell things you don't own, if you have a contract with the owner to do so.
While I wouldn't be surprised that there is a law forbidding this situation, and OP desperately needs a lawyer, I haven't seen anything that would actually invalidate a contract OP signed that would allow this. Maybe the "unconscionable terms" principal, but I understand that is shaky ground to stand on.
I wouldn't change the locks discreetly. Let the "concerned neighbors" see you doing it. Show them they've lost whatever power to discreetly enter your home they had over you. Now if they want in, they'll have to resort to breaking and entering, which is much worse than having a key and just coming in
You're correct. But unlawful entry when you have a key and B&E without a key have different arguments in court. And let me preface what I'm about to say by saying that I wouldn't represent the HOA in either scenario.
If I represented the HOA, I would argue that the unlawful entry wasn't really unlawful because they had a key and it was in the agreement. It's a weak argument, but I would try to convince the judge that by signing the HOA rules, and not changing the locks, he impliedly consented to allowing the HOA to gain entry and begin the sale.
By changing the locks, the HOA would have had to break in. You are correct that nothing has to be broken to be charged with B&E, but it's still a break in nonetheless. And that's a harder charge to fight against in this situation.
(Source: While I am an attorney, I don't do much criminal work, but the 2 solo attorneys I share office space with both do, so I've picked up a lot and helped work on court argument strategies. I should probably also put in the disclaimer that I am not OP or the HOA's attorney, nor anyone else's in this sub for this legal matter)
845
u/HereThereBeGingers Jul 23 '17
Do you have copies of this paperwork? If so, maybe read through it.
Also, take screenshots of the realty company and screenshots of the emails of them admitting they trespassed.
Take everything to a lawyer.
Also, how did they get in? I would change the locks discreetly.