Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: home ownes association wording

The wording is not a model of clarity. Intent of the provision is apparently to limit use of common area facilities to those who actually reside in the park, whether they are owners or renters. While your mother is not technically paying you rent, she is at minimum a licensee, or gratuitous tenant. As such, if push comes to shove, I believe the HOA would prevail on efforts to exclude you from facilities as a non-resident owner.

[Please be advised that the statements and opinions provided above are an informational service to the general public. Since this reply is based upon an incomplete description of facts, this email should not used as a substitute for legal advice from a qualified and fully-informed attorney. Moreover, these communications are intended for use by the public. As such, this email does not constitute an confidential communication nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with Lynes & Associates or any of its members.]

Re: home ownes association wording

If I were the HOA, I'd argue that you are leasing to your mother, although she doesn't pay you rent.

It appears the intent is to prevent non-occupying owners and families to show up and use the facilities in addition to those living at the property.

Re: home ownes association wording

Reading the sentence literally, I would say that two conditions must be true in order for an owner to be "not permitted to use the recreational facilities." One of those conditions is not residing in the park. You meet that condition."

The other condition is that you "have rented or leased" your unit. Whether giving your mother free use of your unit is "renting or leasing" is an interesting legal question. Arguably this is not renting or leasing and she is your guest, because no money is changing hands, and maybe no consideration is being given at all. I think this is a tenable argument, although not perfect.

The flaws are that (1) the clear intent of the rule is to restrict the use of the facilities to owner/occupants, even though it doesn't say that; and (2) there is some case law to the effect that an occupant of a dwelling is a tenant, and not a guest, when that person has no other address and makes the dwelling her principal residence, even though she does not pay rent or own, but lives there gratuitously.