Senior community/kids situation (possible trigger!)

[SKL]

14 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

The minimum age is 19. 

In this case, and if it's true that the board has a right to make exceptions, and if the boy is not disturbing the neighborhood's peace, then they should let them stay IMO.  If the boy was 15 when his parents died, then this is roughly 3 more years we're talking about; maybe less if he goes away to college.

I don't see renting or selling/buying as a reasonable option to bridge a few years.  The cost of paying a real estate agent twice is one thing.  And as for renting, is there much of a market for temporary housing in that kind of community?  Are they even allowed to rent?

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

We don't know the whole story here.  Is it possible that this boy has caused problems in the neighborhood?  It would be understandable if he is acting out, considering the terrible losses he's experienced.  The HOA may want to be quiet about that because they don't want to disparage him or his grandparents.  (Someone upthread pointed out what a thankless job it can be to sit on an HOA board.)

 

There are no reports of such, only comments from neighbors about his having helped with Christmas lights and yard work.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, HeighHo said:

 

If the child is in residence and his tuition isn't being paid to the school district, there is a large problem that will be litigated.  The grandparents shouldn't be pushing that cost onto the community, as people with fixed incomes won't be able to absorb the surprise increase when the school tax and the litigation cost is added.

 

That's a lot of speculation given that school districts cover all children in a geographic area regardless of whether the homes within it are occupied by seniors with tax exemptions or not.

[EmseB]

33 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

That would make total sense if we were talking about small kids. This is a high school student (that the immediate neighbors reportedly like and find helpful) who is four years removed from meeting the existing requirement. 

I totally get it. If it was just some random neighborhood, I'd say that they need to be more community minded.

But the whole premise of this place is excluding people under a certain age because they don't want them there. I don't think this is an attitude anyone should have towards other humans, especially other humans in tragedy. But, to me, they moved to this place specifically so that they could have that attitude and not bother anyone else that disagrees with them. The fact that these grandparents now disagree with them because of their circumstances, to me, means they should move out of the neighborhood that is founded in order to facilitate that attitude. And I feel like the HOA has given them time to make that transition.

[DoraBora]

25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

There are no reports of such, only comments from neighbors about his having helped with Christmas lights and yard work.

Which is very nice.  Of course, those supporting him may be close friends of his grandparents.

My point was that outsiders like us don't get the full picture because the other side is remaining quiet (for whatever reason).

It isn't terribly unusual for a minor child to "lose" both parents, even in quick succession (addiction, abuse, or jail, etc.).  Lots of grandparents have to take custody of their grandchildren without much notice, and the whole family suffers.  It's tragic. 

I wonder how this boy's grandparents might have reacted if someone else in their community, particularly someone they didn't know, was in the same boat.  By moving into a 55+ neighborhood, they stated their preferences clearly.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I totally get it. If it was just some random neighborhood, I'd say that they need to be more community minded.

But the whole premise of this place is excluding people under a certain age because they don't want them there. I don't think this is an attitude anyone should have towards other humans, especially other humans in tragedy. But, to me, they moved to this place specifically so that they could have that attitude and not bother anyone else that disagrees with them. The fact that these grandparents now disagree with them because of their circumstances, to me, means they should move out of the neighborhood that is founded in order to facilitate that attitude. And I feel like the HOA has given them time to make that transition.

The objectors also moved to a community, I presume they also read the covenants, that allows for exceptions. Did they not believe those exceptions would ever apply?

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

Which is very nice.  Of course, those supporting him may be close friends of his grandparents.

My point was that outsiders like us don't get the full picture because the other side is remaining quiet (for whatever reason).

It isn't terribly unusual for a minor child to "lose" both parents, even in quick succession (addiction, abuse, or jail, etc.).  Lots of grandparents have to take custody of their grandchildren without much notice, and the whole family suffers.  It's tragic. 

I wonder how this boy's grandparents might have reacted if someone else in their community, particularly someone they didn't know, was in the same boat.  By moving into a 55+ neighborhood, they stated their preferences clearly.

Again, the bylaws allow for exceptions. If folks wanted zero exceptions, they shouldn't have moved there. This logic cuts both ways.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, HeighHo said:

ah, no...the 55+ communities in some places actually vote themselves out of the existing school district.  Should a student then reside, the family or the municipality would be responsible for paying tuition to the public school the child attends if the municipality isn't going to follow state law and provide a school within its borders.  That's a lot of moola, especially for a student that requires counseling.  As always, there is more to the story that the press isn't reporting here.  I

 

The boy is attending school there, that’s not an issue in this instance.

[EmseB]

I think because exceptions can be granted doesn't mean that they will be granted. That's why they are exceptions and not just the rules. I don't think one should expect to get an exception.

If I were on the board I would vote for them to stay. I don't think, given the basis of the neighborhood, that it should be assumed he would be able to stay or that the board wouldn't have reason to vote for not granting an exception. I haven't read what the HOA is saying as to why they won't. I've only heard one side from the people who want to stay.

[Joker]

I know nothing of this particular situation but most 55+ communities I'm aware of are within regular communities. We have a 55+ older on our same street. We walk through it to go to our dentist, fave pizza place, and every time we go for a walk. It's so baffling to me why they pay to live there when the actual streets in front of their homes are usually full of kids riding their bikes around the neighborhood.

In this case, since exceptions are allowed, I don't understand why they won't ok it. It seems harsh.

[SereneHome]

13 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

Is it the group or the grandparents, though, who turned the kid's horror into a melodrama? (Again, not my question, taking from comments/arguments I'm following.) This was not known until the grandparents went to the media and had their grandson interviewed along with them. One guy used the word "exploit" for what the grandparents did...was he off base?

 

This suggestion has been made repeatedly but a few are saying that this might set a precedent and where does it stop? 3-year old twins next month whose parents are gone? A 9-year old girl? Could allowing the young man to stay create huge ethical/legal issues in the future?

OK, I am going to try VERY hard not to go on a rant here!!

This is why I DESPISE HATE CAN'T STAND those type of organizations like HOA.  They have no common sense, no reason, nothing except people who pretend to have some power and make others' life miserable. 

I am really not a rule breaker but life is not black and white and I think situations like this one should be dealt with accordingly - case by case basis.  3yr old twins would be a very different story than a 15 yr old boy.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think because exceptions can be granted doesn't mean that they will be granted. That's why they are exceptions and not just the rules. I don't think one should expect to get an exception.

If I were on the board I would vote for them to stay. I don't think, given the basis of the neighborhood, that it should be assumed he would be able to stay or that the board wouldn't have reason to vote for not granting an exception. I haven't read what the HOA is saying as to why they won't. I've only heard one side from the people who want to stay.

I don’t think it’s an expectation that it will be granted so much as an expectation that the bylaws granting a fair hearing of the issue should be honored. Whether that is done by membership or board vote matters not. It at least deserves a hearing.

[JustEm]

If they indeed have an exception clause than it should be left to the community to vote if an exception should be made. 

[DoraBora]

16 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Again, the bylaws allow for exceptions. If folks wanted zero exceptions, they shouldn't have moved there. This logic cuts both ways.

True, but exceptions aren't required, and I would imagine that the by-laws also state that the board has the final say.  Grandma wants to try this case in the court of public outrage.  Neighbors who may be sympathetic are staying quiet because they don't want teens hanging out in their neighborhood.

If the boy stays, can he have his friends from school come over and hang out, like any other teenager?  How many?  How often?  Can they spend the night?  I would HATE to have to make both sides happy on that issue.  Can of worms...

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

True, but exceptions aren't required, and I would imagine that the by-laws also state that the board has the final say.  Grandma wants to try this case in the court of public outrage.  Neighbors who may be sympathetic are staying quiet because they don't want teens hanging out in their neighborhood.

If the boy stays, can he have his friends from school come over and hang out, like any other teenager?  How many?  How often?  Can they spend the night?  I would HATE to have to make both sides happy on that issue.  Can of worms...

The board, reportedly, hasn’t even put the matter to a vote. There are no restrictions on teen or child visitors anyway so after school visitors are a moot point. A senior who coaches little league can host a gathering every flipping weekend for that matter. Grandkid visits are also a-ok. The rule is against residents under 19, not guests.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sneezyone

[G5052]

There are communities like that in my area, and they are very strict about it. I'm aware of several similar situations, and there is a time limit on how long younger people can stay. The one I'm most familiar with says no more than six months for someone under 18, and is fine with anyone over 18 long-term as long as at least one resident is over 55. 

I've considered that sort of thing myself, not because of the children aspect, but because it's almost the only way to get a single-level house around here. 

[SereneHome]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But exceptions have been made - for over six months so that the grandchild can live there and finish out the school year. 

Ummm it hasn't been six months at all. Oct - Jan is only three months.  I won't pretend to know how people deal with grief but they just lost their child, and now having to completely re-do their future life as I am sure raising a 15 yr old was not in their plans. Giving them "until June" is not a compassionate thing to do, rules or no rules.  We are not talking here about fixing the wrong color on their fence or cleaning poop after their dog. This kid's life has already been turned upside down.  Giving them an eviction notice is just not right

 

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don’t think it’s an expectation that it will be granted so much as an expectation that the bylaws granting a fair hearing of the issue should be honored. Whether that is done by membership or board vote matters not. It at least deserves a hearing.

Are they not having a board meeting or hearing to decide the issue? Sorry, I'm not keeping up, I didn't know that part. Yes, the board should vote after hearing all the issues. I don't know how they would decide whether or not to grant an exemption if they haven't heard the case?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

20 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think because exceptions can be granted doesn't mean that they will be granted. That's why they are exceptions and not just the rules. I don't think one should expect to get an exception.

If I were on the board I would vote for them to stay. I don't think, given the basis of the neighborhood, that it should be assumed he would be able to stay or that the board wouldn't have reason to vote for not granting an exception. I haven't read what the HOA is saying as to why they won't. I've only heard one side from the people who want to stay.

The HOA stated in the letter that they "can't" let him stay, which is false.  They can, but they are choosing not to do so.  Therefore they are coming across as gaping ********.

Edited January 16, 2020 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

13 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

True, but exceptions aren't required, and I would imagine that the by-laws also state that the board has the final say.  Grandma wants to try this case in the court of public outrage.  Neighbors who may be sympathetic are staying quiet because they don't want teens hanging out in their neighborhood.

 

Which is the correct move in their situation.  If there is no appeals process taking it to the media is their best shot at forcing the board to review its decision.

[Jean in Newcastle]

10 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Ummm it hasn't been six months at all. Oct - Jan is only three months.  I won't pretend to know how people deal with grief but they just lost their child, and now having to completely re-do their future life as I am sure raising a 15 yr old was not in their plans. Giving them "until June" is not a compassionate thing to do, rules or no rules.  We are not talking here about fixing the wrong color on their fence or cleaning poop after their dog. This kid's life has already been turned upside down.  Giving them an eviction notice is just not right

 

I was counting from October or November to June which is what the OP had said was offered. Obviously it is still in the middle of that six months. 

[EmseB]

3 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Ummm it hasn't been six months at all. Oct - Jan is only three months.  I won't pretend to know how people deal with grief but they just lost their child, and now having to completely re-do their future life as I am sure raising a 15 yr old was not in their plans. Giving them "until June" is not a compassionate thing to do, rules or no rules.  We are not talking here about fixing the wrong color on their fence or cleaning poop after their dog. This kid's life has already been turned upside down.  Giving them an eviction notice is just not right

 

I don't understand why it would not be compassionate to let them stay until June? If my husband died tomorrow, I'd have six months to find a new housing situation because we live where he works. Half a year doesn't seem like an overly long time, but it seems doable for a move, especially if one is staying in the same town. Maybe that's part of the disconnect... if you live in a place where there are rules and you find yourself in a situation needing to live by different rules, you move to a different place. It seems hard and upsetting and tragic, I agree. Losing a parent or a child is all of those things because it forces huge life changes. I don't think allowing someone to stay for over six months while they figure stuff out is un-compassionate, though.

[DoraBora]

3 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Which is the correct move in their situation.  If there is no appeals process taking it to the media is their best shot at forcing the board to review its decision.

The HOA realeased a statement about the "Passmore matter" in which they say they have offered to meet with the Passmores on several occasions to discuss this matter.  If this is true, it suggests that the Passmores haven't been willing to participate. 

[EmseB]

10 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

The HOA stated in the letter that they "can't" let him stay, which is false.  They can, but they are choosing not to do so.  Therefore they are coming across as gaping ********.

Maybe so. The article I just read said they would have legal issues if they let him stay. I don't know if that's true or not  But what does one expect when they move into a 55plus community that doesn't want young people there? The whole point is a strict HOA who don't like young people.

[EmseB]

7 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I was counting from October or November to June which is what the OP had said was offered. Obviously it is still in the middle of that six months. 

The article I just read said he moved in in late 2018 and the board gave them a year starting last June (2019). So I'm confused on all the dates. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-orphan-teen-parents-die-grandparents-retirement-community-20200115-g263tv5ctvaxncjo7vfnmzn44y-story.html%3foutputType=amp

[Farrar]

HOA's are evil and should be banned.

Seriously. I've come to believe that. I think they essentially ask you to sign away rights to an extent that I don't think should be legal.

I know I'm way off on lala land here, so y'all can just ignore me. I'm very glad I live where they're rare.

[SereneHome]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't understand why it would not be compassionate to let them stay until June? If my husband died tomorrow, I'd have six months to find a new housing situation because we live where he works. Half a year doesn't seem like an overly long time, but it seems doable for a move, especially if one is staying in the same town. Maybe that's part of the disconnect... if you live in a place where there are rules and you find yourself in a situation needing to live by different rules, you move to a different place. It seems hard and upsetting and tragic, I agree. Losing a parent or a child is all of those things because it forces huge life changes. I don't think allowing someone to stay for over six months while they figure stuff out is un-compassionate, though.

I am very much the person who views life as "sh*t happens, you deal with it" but when it comes to kids and loss....there is a whole other story.....

I can't imagine that grandparents are doing this just to be spiteful or be a pain in a**.  So, whatever their reasons are  - I just think that HOA and the entire community should be a bit more flexible and understanding.

As far as loosing someone - my SIL lost her husband last June. She can't even get his stuff out of their bedroom yet. Luckily for her, she is living with her parents so she can really take her time doing whatever it is she is going to do with her life. I think if she had to move, she would completely loose it. And she only has to take care of herself as they had no children. I can not imagine what would happen if there was a child involved.....

 

[EmseB]

22 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I am very much the person who views life as "sh*t happens, you deal with it" but when it comes to kids and loss....there is a whole other story.....

I can't imagine that grandparents are doing this just to be spiteful or be a pain in a**.  So, whatever their reasons are  - I just think that HOA and the entire community should be a bit more flexible and understanding.

As far as loosing someone - my SIL lost her husband last June. She can't even get his stuff out of their bedroom yet. Luckily for her, she is living with her parents so she can really take her time doing whatever it is she is going to do with her life. I think if she had to move, she would completely loose it. And she only has to take care of herself as they had no children. I can not imagine what would happen if there was a child involved.....

 

I don't think they are doing it to be spiteful. I think they are doing it because they don't want to move and think their circumstances should allow them to stay. It is a totally understandable position. I can also see  the position of a community literally founded based on keeping young people from living there and feeling like for whatever reasons they have to be strict. And I do feel like giving a grieving family more than a year to figure out what to do is being flexible in it's own sort of way.

Sometimes death forces hard choices that are particularly hard to make when someone is grieving. A lot of people have to move when their spouse or parent dies because of simple finances and making ends meet, or needing to be close to family or whatever. I agree that it sucks. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by EmseB

[DoraBora]

42 minutes ago, EmseB said:

The article I just read said he moved in in late 2018 and the board gave them a year starting last June (2019). So I'm confused on all the dates. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-orphan-teen-parents-die-grandparents-retirement-community-20200115-g263tv5ctvaxncjo7vfnmzn44y-story.html%3foutputType=amp

That changes the narrative a little bit.  

 

 

[Pen]

I doubt we have all the facts, and I don’t like HOAs, but sometimes they come along with an otherwise suitable home environment. 

Maybe publicity will generate some other “outside the box” option like an over 55 yo couple who lives in a non age restrictive home nearby who would trade with them for 3-4 years.  

I personally don’t know people living in no children communities who are there because of disliking children.  Rather it seems to do with presence of flat walking paths, maybe a pool and workout room, maybe a small personal house to manage with a clubhouse for socializing, maybe book reading groups or similar.  

 

I think there is a wider problem of a need for good supportive communities for all ages. 

[Pen]

Or maybe by time the fight has played out, the boy will be an adult. 

[Farrar]

13 minutes ago, Pen said:

Or maybe by time the fight has played out, the boy will be an adult. 

From context, it seemed like that's what they're hoping for.

[Farrar]

32 minutes ago, Pen said:

I personally don’t know people living in no children communities who are there because of disliking children.  Rather it seems to do with presence of flat walking paths, maybe a pool and workout room, maybe a small personal house to manage with a clubhouse for socializing, maybe book reading groups or similar.  

I was thinking about this. I also don't. But... I have observed that as a group sometimes older people who live in communities have zero patience for normal non-elderly people and life. And I think living in these communities creates a weird bubble where normal intergenerational life begins to seem strange, where kids doing normal things start to seem like disruptive hooligans and younger adults enjoying newer aspects of culture or music or so forth begin to seem like radical aliens or something. I don't think the intention is there... I just think it's an unintended consequence.

I really agree that communities that are aging friendly need to expand in general. My mother is part of an aging in place group in her neighborhood and I think they make a big difference not just for the older folks, but for the young people to have a point group to call if they're concerned. Intergenerational communities can be elderly friendly too. I'd rather see that expand.

[Katy]

I thought that the supreme court struck down a lot of HOA rights recently?

Anyway my guess is that while they can send a paper warning they'd have to get a judge involved to evict anyone.  They have no rights whatsoever to evict the guardians.  My guess is at most they can levy fines against them which they will not be able to collect until both of the couple dies or the home is sold unless the fines get so massive they are able to foreclose on the home.  I'm pretty sure that would not be legal in the states I've lived, but I don't know about there.  And I don't think a judge in Arizona is likely to side with the HOA unless Arizona laws are much different than I think they are.  And because the judge would then have to get social services involved...  Maybe the HOA wants to have the precedent of declining but wants a judge to overrule them in this special circumstance.

Apparently Arizona law says only 20% of residents must comply with age restrictions:

https://www.azfamily.com/news/attorney-weighs-in-on-prescott-hoa-s-decision-to-force/article_f907fe00-380e-11ea-9632-6b8f788a9c55.html

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

I don't think they are doing it to be spiteful. I think they are doing it because they don't want to move and think their circumstances should allow them to stay. It is a totally understandable position. I can also see  the position of a community literally founded based on keeping young people from living there and feeling like for whatever reasons they have to be strict. And I do feel like giving a grieving family more than a year to figure out what to do is being flexible in it's own sort of way.

Sometimes death forces hard choices that are particularly hard to make when someone is grieving. A lot of people have to move when their spouse or parent dies because of simple finances and making ends meet, or needing to be close to family or whatever. I agree that it sucks. 

Yeah, I do agree with you.  I think the tragic of the situation combined with my HUGE disdain for HOAs just made me see red.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

27 minutes ago, Katy said:

I thought that the supreme court struck down a lot of HOA rights recently?

Anyway my guess is that while they can send a paper warning they'd have to get a judge involved to evict anyone.  They have no rights whatsoever to evict the guardians.  My guess is at most they can levy fines against them which they will not be able to collect until both of the couple dies or the home is sold unless the fines get so massive they are able to foreclose on the home.  I'm pretty sure that would not be legal in the states I've lived, but I don't know about there.  And I don't think a judge in Arizona is likely to side with the HOA unless Arizona laws are much different than I think they are.  And because the judge would then have to get social services involved...  Maybe the HOA wants to have the precedent of declining but wants a judge to overrule them in this special circumstance.

Apparently Arizona law says only 20% of residents must comply with age restrictions:

https://www.azfamily.com/news/attorney-weighs-in-on-prescott-hoa-s-decision-to-force/article_f907fe00-380e-11ea-9632-6b8f788a9c55.html

I am not aware of a SCOTUS decision that severely impacted the rights of HOAs. 

There is a lot wrong in the rest of your post, but in general the HOA will have a process to enforce their regulations, usually via fines/liens and eventual foreclosure.  In AZ the foreclosure process can begin once the debt reaches $1200.  A judge would not grounds to get social services involved any more than in any other foreclosure case.

[Pen]

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

I don't understand why it would not be compassionate to let them stay until June? If my husband died tomorrow, I'd have six months to find a new housing situation because we live where he works. Half a year doesn't seem like an overly long time, but it seems doable for a move, especially if one is staying in the same town. Maybe that's part of the disconnect... if you live in a place where there are rules and you find yourself in a situation needing to live by different rules, you move to a different place. It seems hard and upsetting and tragic, I agree. Losing a parent or a child is all of those things because it forces huge life changes. I don't think allowing someone to stay for over six months while they figure stuff out is un-compassionate, though.

 

Your family owns a home that you can be required to move out of if your husband dies? 

 

[freesia]

15 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Your family owns a home that you can be required to move out of if your husband dies? 

 

We live in a house provided my dh's job and we'd have to move if he died.  I would assume I'd have 6 months, but there's nothing written that says that. 

[Farrar]

59 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

It’s not fair to judge the residents as hateful, cranky old people who hate children.

Children and teens are often noisy both inside and outside. Many are rude, disrespectful of others and property, and also taunting and harassing bullies. I don’t blame people for wanting to live in communities which are quieter, especially when they are feeling vulnerable. Many live in these communities because they can’t afford assisted living so this is the next best thing. 

 

 

 

It’s not fair to judge the older people, but young people are noisy, rude, disrespectful, taunting bullies?

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, Joker said:

I know nothing of this particular situation but most 55+ communities I'm aware of are within regular communities. We have a 55+ older on our same street. We walk through it to go to our dentist, fave pizza place, and every time we go for a walk. It's so baffling to me why they pay to live there when the actual streets in front of their homes are usually full of kids riding their bikes around the neighborhood.

In this case, since exceptions are allowed, I don't understand why they won't ok it. It seems harsh.

there are areas where the 55+ communities cover the geographic area that is as big as some of the school districts around here - not the attendance area" for a high school - but the district.  An area that large doesn't need public schools.

4 hours ago, SereneHome said:

Ummm it hasn't been six months at all. Oct - Jan is only three months.  I won't pretend to know how people deal with grief but they just lost their child, and now having to completely re-do their future life as I am sure raising a 15 yr old was not in their plans. Giving them "until June" is not a compassionate thing to do, rules or no rules.  We are not talking here about fixing the wrong color on their fence or cleaning poop after their dog. This kid's life has already been turned upside down.  Giving them an eviction notice is just not right

 

as was brought up - they were given until june.  January is in the middle of that.  someone posted a link that this letter was sent to them in June of 2019 - giving them a year.  That he moved in novemberish of 2018 (more than a year ago - with everything that's happened - I think this is more likely timing.) - so they've actually had a year and a half, and have chosen to fight it rather than find a workable solution.

I've been around a number of elderly - they get frail, they have poor balance - even well meaning kids who aren't paying attention, can knock them down just by walking past them at too fast a pace and too close.

I'm sorry the HOA can't be more upfront in what they'd have to deal with if they stayed.  could be hoopla - it could be losing legal status and advantages of various kinds for their residents in various areas.  (e.g. they could get tax breaks as a senior community - they'd lose with minors living there.)

[Pen]

17 minutes ago, freesia said:

We live in a house provided my dh's job and we'd have to move if he died.  I would assume I'd have 6 months, but there's nothing written that says that. 

 

House is Owned by whom?  

I think part of issue is the different feeling involved regarding a situation that is understood to be temporary like a lease, or home owned by an employer versus one that was thought to be potentially permanent. Or permanent until time to need nursing home perhaps. 

Not just feelings, but logistics too can be more complicated if moving requires buying and selling.  And seniors on fixed incomes may not be able to manage a transitional rental at same time as paying on the owned home.  

Or other problems can happen. Like a friend of mine sold a home thinking to move temporarily to a rental while finding new home to buy— couldn’t find new one before funds from sold one had been spent on rental...

 

I did know one pastor who owned his family home that functioned as a parsonage immediately next door to his church, and where a complicated sale to new incoming pastor was arranged when he retired.   It took longer than 6 months iirc. 

[BakersDozen]

I do apologize - I didn't realize the 15yob had been in the community w/his grandparents for much longer than I initially posted.

[EmseB]

3 hours ago, Pen said:

 

Your family owns a home that you can be required to move out of if your husband dies? 

 

We do not own a home. My larger point was that there are circumstances that often arise after a death in the family that require moving.

[Pen]

42 minutes ago, EmseB said:

We do not own a home. My larger point was that there are circumstances that often arise after a death in the family that require moving.

 

Death and illness both often result in major losses, beyond the death and illnesses themselves.  That is true.  

 

And sometimes it starts off the dominoes dropping till there’s bankruptcy, destitution, homelessness 

Perhaps in future HOA rules will very specifically address what the rules will be if adult children die or otherwise leave grandchildren in care of grandparent residents of 55+ housing.   

 

[linders]

21 hours ago, moonflower said:

Presumably the grandparents bought a house in this community because they didn't want to live around kids.  Now that they do want to live around kids (that is, their own grandkid), they shoul move to a community that allows kids.

 

I wouldn't presume this. My mom bought a home in Sun City, AZ, same rules. She bought there because there were many duplexes (she feels safer with a neighbor "across the wall"), there are lots of senior-oriented activities (rec centers,clubs), the streets are wide and drivable with low speed limits for the older crowd, etc. Other neighborhoods in the Phoenix area didn't have these things. The one thing she doesn't like - no kids. She misses seeing kids playing outside or coming to the door to sell stuff.

[SKL]

Somewhere it said the folks are in their 70s and it would be too hard to move.  I think people are underestimating the difficulty that a move would be in this case.  While people are focusing on other residents deserving the kid-free experience they bought into, at the same time, these 70+yo seniors invested in a home to meet their physical needs as long as they can live outside an institution.  Can they realistically find another home that will meet those needs within their housing budget?  Is it really worth it to force them into this over an almost-grown teen living in their home?

I do realize there could be much more to the story.

[gardenmom5]

47 minutes ago, SKL said:

Somewhere it said the folks are in their 70s and it 

my husband is 71. so that doesn't feel "old" to me.

[SKL]

6 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

my husband is 71. so that doesn't feel "old" to me.

OK my folks are in their 70s and moving would be a mega huge deal for them.  I'm not sure they could do it actually.

I'm sure there is some reason these people are living in a retirement community - not likely because of their great physical condition.

It isn't clear whether or not this couple has any surviving children around, but IMO that could be a factor also.

[Valley Girl]

It's such a sad situation all around.  It would be interesting to know how much actual face-to-face communication, if any, has gone on between the grandparents and the HOA board. Or has everybody just dug into their corners and made assumptions about what can or can't be done? It would also be interesting to know if there had been any other cases in the neighborhood where grandparents have had custody of grandkids. What was done then? I didn't realilze some communities allowed people over 18 to live there. I seem to recall hearing about someone I grew up with being in a community that required people to be 55+ (or married to someone 55+) to live there. From what I was told, she was relieved when she hit the age limit because, if I recall correctly, SHE would have been asked to move if widowed because she was younger than her husband. I'll have to look into that.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Valley Girl
Punctuation

[Scarlett]

On 1/16/2020 at 12:33 AM, Jean in Newcastle said:

If the grandson has been there since October or November and they have until June, then they have been given over six months to find a new place. That seems like the HOA is  being flexible right there. 

This.  Although I agree it is a horrible situation for the boy and his grandparents, they really should have anticipated this.  And he probably gets some amount of money since both of his parents are deceased, so they should be able to afford something where they can have their grandson.  Then when he leaves home they can go back to an elder community.