Post by High Priestess on Jun 22, 2016 3:37:29 GMT
This was posted on the Airbnb Community Center:
community.airbnb.com/t5/Hosts/Overreaching-HOA-Sued-for-Housing-Discrimination-Over-Use-of/m-p/116724#M33566
The Minnesota host WRote:
I am both a 22-year resident of Sherwood Court Townhouses, Inc. in Minnetonka, MN as well as a previous Board member. I have been forced to file a lawsuit as protection against arbitrary and discriminatory actions taken by my Homeowner’s Association as a result of my use of AirBNB. The claims against the HOA include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Board’s arbitrary and discriminatory actions are based on my sex, marital status, familial status as well as an alleged restriction on sharing my home for a mimimum of one year - a claim that conflicts with our governing documents. I have incurred over $30,000 in legal fees, on top of which the Association has levied over $8,000 in fines and Association legal fees for what they allege to be a violation of the governing documents.
While I have lived in my townhouse for over two decades and had roommates during much of this time, shortly after a new Board was elected in May 2014 I received a letter alleging that my lifestyle of 22 years was a violation. The Board’s initial actions against me made no mention of the one-year “lease” requirement that subsequently became the key issue in the legal case fueled by the Board’s behavior. In fact, it wasn’t until 14 months into the disagreement and thousands of dollars in legal fees on both sides that I learned of my alleged violation of the restriction on licensing a room.
The new Board has taken the position that by inviting roommates into my home I am both “operating a business,” and “leasing” my property. The term "lease" is defined by Minnesota law as conveying the exclusive right of possession to another person for a fixed and definite period of time. Since I am living on the property and not providing exclusive access to anyone, it is indisputable that I am not leasing my property. The law defines my actions as “licensing.” Regardless, the new board is alleging that I am bound to the one-year minimum “leasing” terms.
After numerous but unsuccessful attempts to seek a resolution with the Association Board and a written request for a hearing, I was erroneously fined by the Board without the benefit of a hearing. This is but one of many violations of the HOA governing documents the Board has perpetrated in the handling of this matter. In an attempt to mitigate the Board’s aggressive behavior, I chose not to retain an attorney until 10 months into the disagreement. During that time, the Board insisted it would only speak to me through their attorney. It wasn’t until they fined me without the benefit of a hearing that I was forced to retain counsel.
The Board’s initial actions against me appeared to be their objection to my use of AirBNB. However, neither “licensing” nor “AirBNB” are terms mentioned in the Association’s governing documents. That the Board immediately took such an adversarial and combative approach, with inferences of inappropriate behavior, while denying me the right to even have a conversation with them outside of legal channels, demonstrates the Board’s vindictive approach in exercising its power as well as its neglect in considering what is in the best interest of the homeowners.
In addition, I have a medically documented condition requiring there be someone on the premises when I am sleeping. Despite the Board being provided written documentation from my health care provider asking for an accommodation in accordance with the MN Human Rights Act, the Board refuses to comply or even acknowledge this issue. One of my objections to a one-year lease requirement is that it would preclude me from any flexibility in insuring that this medical matter be adequately addressed.
In his deposition, Board President Thomas Sackett argued that the leasing restrictions do not apply if visitors/guests are family members, unless they are paying rent. Not only can non-paying family members stay for as short or as long as a homeowner would like, but the restrictions also do not apply if the resident is a significant other or even someone that a homeowner “picks up in a bar.” He also stated in a Special Meeting of the homeowners that since nearly 50% of the Association’s homeowners are single women and that since he has four daughters, he “knows what goes on.” One can only surmise from this curious logic that if I were a man, this would not be an issue for him.
The Board’s actions against me are not only illegal, but also blatantly arbitrary and discriminatory toward me as a single female. This HOA overreach is nothing more than an abuse of power by a bully board that has caused me immeasurable stress, financial hardship, and a sense of being violated in my own home. Forcing me to rent my spare room for a minimum of one year imposes major restrictions on me, including the inability to host visits by family members or friends, or, should it become necessary, to provide housing for an aging parent until the ‘lease’ period ends. It also forces me to live with someone with whom I may discover I am not compatible. This imposition would also impact my ability to live with someone with whom I may choose to have a relationship, as I would have to work around an existing “lease.”
At a May 2015 Townhouse Special Meeting on the issue of compliance with HOA roommate/leasing regulations, I asked why I was being singled out on this matter. A Board member retorted, “Well, if it looks like a dog and smells like a dog, most people are going to assume it is a dog.” The degree of animosity and disrespect in this statement reflects the vindictive and personal nature of the actions being taken against me.
The Board’s case against me is undermined by the fact that according to Mr. Sackett’s own testimony, the Board has not attempted to validate the relationships between any of the other 47 property owners and their residents. And when asked if my activities have resulted in a depreciation of property values, Mr. Sacket replied, “I don’t know. I don’t get involved with property values or selling prices.” That the Board President isn’t concerned about property values but feels the Board has the right to monitor the personal lifestyle of one member of this community is not only a reflection of the bizarre and capricious nature of the actions against me, but is also a clear breach of the Board’s fiduciary duty.
In my legal complaint, I am seeking a Declaratory Judgment as well as legal fees and damages. The $30,000 cost in legal fees I have incurred over the past year are anticipated to double if the matter goes to trial. If the Board chooses to proceed and looses, the brunt of these financial obligations will fall on the homeowners, an unwitting accomplice in this scenario.
I am seeking financial assistance through a fundraising campaign at bit.ly/SCT-HOA. A copy of the complaint can be found at sherwood-court.org.
I will gladly refund all contributions (less the Fundrazr processing fees). Thank you for your consideration.
community.airbnb.com/t5/Hosts/Overreaching-HOA-Sued-for-Housing-Discrimination-Over-Use-of/m-p/116724#M33566
The Minnesota host WRote:
I am both a 22-year resident of Sherwood Court Townhouses, Inc. in Minnetonka, MN as well as a previous Board member. I have been forced to file a lawsuit as protection against arbitrary and discriminatory actions taken by my Homeowner’s Association as a result of my use of AirBNB. The claims against the HOA include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Board’s arbitrary and discriminatory actions are based on my sex, marital status, familial status as well as an alleged restriction on sharing my home for a mimimum of one year - a claim that conflicts with our governing documents. I have incurred over $30,000 in legal fees, on top of which the Association has levied over $8,000 in fines and Association legal fees for what they allege to be a violation of the governing documents.
While I have lived in my townhouse for over two decades and had roommates during much of this time, shortly after a new Board was elected in May 2014 I received a letter alleging that my lifestyle of 22 years was a violation. The Board’s initial actions against me made no mention of the one-year “lease” requirement that subsequently became the key issue in the legal case fueled by the Board’s behavior. In fact, it wasn’t until 14 months into the disagreement and thousands of dollars in legal fees on both sides that I learned of my alleged violation of the restriction on licensing a room.
The new Board has taken the position that by inviting roommates into my home I am both “operating a business,” and “leasing” my property. The term "lease" is defined by Minnesota law as conveying the exclusive right of possession to another person for a fixed and definite period of time. Since I am living on the property and not providing exclusive access to anyone, it is indisputable that I am not leasing my property. The law defines my actions as “licensing.” Regardless, the new board is alleging that I am bound to the one-year minimum “leasing” terms.
After numerous but unsuccessful attempts to seek a resolution with the Association Board and a written request for a hearing, I was erroneously fined by the Board without the benefit of a hearing. This is but one of many violations of the HOA governing documents the Board has perpetrated in the handling of this matter. In an attempt to mitigate the Board’s aggressive behavior, I chose not to retain an attorney until 10 months into the disagreement. During that time, the Board insisted it would only speak to me through their attorney. It wasn’t until they fined me without the benefit of a hearing that I was forced to retain counsel.
The Board’s initial actions against me appeared to be their objection to my use of AirBNB. However, neither “licensing” nor “AirBNB” are terms mentioned in the Association’s governing documents. That the Board immediately took such an adversarial and combative approach, with inferences of inappropriate behavior, while denying me the right to even have a conversation with them outside of legal channels, demonstrates the Board’s vindictive approach in exercising its power as well as its neglect in considering what is in the best interest of the homeowners.
In addition, I have a medically documented condition requiring there be someone on the premises when I am sleeping. Despite the Board being provided written documentation from my health care provider asking for an accommodation in accordance with the MN Human Rights Act, the Board refuses to comply or even acknowledge this issue. One of my objections to a one-year lease requirement is that it would preclude me from any flexibility in insuring that this medical matter be adequately addressed.
In his deposition, Board President Thomas Sackett argued that the leasing restrictions do not apply if visitors/guests are family members, unless they are paying rent. Not only can non-paying family members stay for as short or as long as a homeowner would like, but the restrictions also do not apply if the resident is a significant other or even someone that a homeowner “picks up in a bar.” He also stated in a Special Meeting of the homeowners that since nearly 50% of the Association’s homeowners are single women and that since he has four daughters, he “knows what goes on.” One can only surmise from this curious logic that if I were a man, this would not be an issue for him.
The Board’s actions against me are not only illegal, but also blatantly arbitrary and discriminatory toward me as a single female. This HOA overreach is nothing more than an abuse of power by a bully board that has caused me immeasurable stress, financial hardship, and a sense of being violated in my own home. Forcing me to rent my spare room for a minimum of one year imposes major restrictions on me, including the inability to host visits by family members or friends, or, should it become necessary, to provide housing for an aging parent until the ‘lease’ period ends. It also forces me to live with someone with whom I may discover I am not compatible. This imposition would also impact my ability to live with someone with whom I may choose to have a relationship, as I would have to work around an existing “lease.”
At a May 2015 Townhouse Special Meeting on the issue of compliance with HOA roommate/leasing regulations, I asked why I was being singled out on this matter. A Board member retorted, “Well, if it looks like a dog and smells like a dog, most people are going to assume it is a dog.” The degree of animosity and disrespect in this statement reflects the vindictive and personal nature of the actions being taken against me.
The Board’s case against me is undermined by the fact that according to Mr. Sackett’s own testimony, the Board has not attempted to validate the relationships between any of the other 47 property owners and their residents. And when asked if my activities have resulted in a depreciation of property values, Mr. Sacket replied, “I don’t know. I don’t get involved with property values or selling prices.” That the Board President isn’t concerned about property values but feels the Board has the right to monitor the personal lifestyle of one member of this community is not only a reflection of the bizarre and capricious nature of the actions against me, but is also a clear breach of the Board’s fiduciary duty.
In my legal complaint, I am seeking a Declaratory Judgment as well as legal fees and damages. The $30,000 cost in legal fees I have incurred over the past year are anticipated to double if the matter goes to trial. If the Board chooses to proceed and looses, the brunt of these financial obligations will fall on the homeowners, an unwitting accomplice in this scenario.
I am seeking financial assistance through a fundraising campaign at bit.ly/SCT-HOA. A copy of the complaint can be found at sherwood-court.org.
I will gladly refund all contributions (less the Fundrazr processing fees). Thank you for your consideration.