site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   895 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 16, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Monumentally stupid lawsuit:

  • November 2022: A homeowner in a homeowners' association seeks to build a four-foot fence in his backyard, four inches from the property line. He receives approval from both the municipal government and the HOA. Accordingly, the fence is constructed.

  • February 2023: The HOA claims that the fence is in violation of the HOA's rules. The homeowner replies that the fence was built in perfect accordance with the plans that were approved three months ago.

  • March 2023: The HOA seeks to amend its rules in order to impose a minimum setback of ten feet on fences. The amendment fails to garner the required two-thirds vote of all members.

  • September 2023: The HOA sues the homeowner under the theory that the minimum setback of thirty feet prescribed in its rules applies, not just to buildings, but also to fences, overriding the minimum of four inches that is prescribed for fences in the municipal zoning code. The trial judge rejects this argument as utterly ridiculous in April 2024, and the appeals panel affirms in May 2025.

Bonus: Trial transcript

I don't know the size of the lots over there, but, unless you've got a couple of acres, 30 feet back off your property line is a pretty significant distance. Frankly, it wouldn't be very aesthetically pleasing if you look at it that way, which is what these HOA rules are meant to provide. They want to keep the community a certain way, and a 30-foot setback requirement for a fence is just unheard of. I've never seen it anywhere. I've never heard of any association's having a 30-foot setback requirement from a property line for a fence. Drive around South Jersey. A lot of the fences, they're often at the property line, but you've got to get them off your neighbor's line unless you get his permission.

So I don't find that there is any material fact here. I think fences are specifically addressed under 8.1(c). If they wanted a setback requirement to be required, 8.1(c) should have had a setback requirement contained within that area. Otherwise, it should have been all under 8.1(dd), and it should have mentioned fences as well, but it did not. They separated them and there's a reason for that. Fences in one and the structures in another, the accessory buildings and shacks. I think it's pretty clear. And, if there is any ambiguity, you resolve that against the drafter. I think the defendants in this matter, they followed exactly what they were supposed to do under 8.1(c). The fence can stay.

Serious question; how are HOAs legal / constitutional?

The way I understand them, they are, generally, private non-profits. Yet, moving into an area "governed" by compels you to join them. There is no option not to.

How could such a thing be legal? The whole point of local-state-federal government is that they are the only "organization" one is compelled to be subject to. I can't square the existence of HOAs with the necessity of a government (even at the local level) maintaining full sovereign over its geographic jurisdiction

From a legal perspective, requirements to join HOAs are usually set up as contractual requirements on the land, as well as a requirement to pass that onto any further sales of the land. Some created themselves in extant neighborhoods by getting the then-current homeowners to buy in, but these days most are set up by the original land developer and transmit from the first sale on. Courts have invalidated this type of thing in very specific circumstances, but outside of that one context they generally don't like to break real property contract requirements.

That process is, imo, one of the stronger arguments that they can be whitewashed state action: in addition to the dependency on mode of enforcement that Shelley highlighted, land developers can get anything from nod-and-wink permitting favoritism to outright direct grants for setting up HOAs with policies that match whatever the local government wants done.

I'm Not A Fan of them -- there are some reasonable HOAs and some reasonable cause for them like shared facilities maintenance or setting explicit standards of behavior, and there are a tiny portion of actually-voluntary HOAs that don't have such contract requirements. But even the good ones can be pretty easily corrupted by a single neurotic, and a lot were never good to start with. In theory, frustrated homeowners could take over an HOA (or even dissolve it), but in practice the bylaws are set up to make this an incredibly difficult and ponderous thing.

but these days most are set up by the original land developer and transmit from the first sale on.

Aren't they limited by the rule against perpetuities?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats