Speaking of stories that tug at the emotions and then make you say, “Wait…”, there’s another one in today’s Statesman.
We previously noted the fire at a downtown condominium. That was January of last year, and the management is still working on restoring the eighth floor (where the fire was). The process is a little complicated, due to building code and insurance issues.
So there’s this older couple who owns a condo on the eighth floor, and who haven’t been able to occupy it yet. The Statesman notes that they’re somewhat upset because they still have to pay the maintenance fee for the condo’s common areas. (That fee, in their case, amounts to $561 a month.)
At first blush, that sounds unfair. After all, they can’t live in their property; why are they being charged a fee? But wait a minute…
- Those fees, as noted, are for maintenance of the common areas in the building; the lobby, the pool, hallways, parking areas, etc. The couple isn’t being denied use of any of those areas. Indeed, the manager notes that they’re still fully entitled to all the benefits of property ownership in the complex.
- The Statesman quotes their son as stating “It’s been a hardship for my elderly parents, who are on a fixed income. My parents have paid $9,000 in fees that we dispute.” But hang on; they would still be paying the fee if they were living in the condo, so how is their fixed income relevant?
- I understand the couple and their son dispute the fees. However, as the Statesman notes, those fees are set in the condo association’s governing documents, and the association has no power to waive them. (That is, unless 2/3rds of the property owners and their mortgage lenders agree to amend the rules.) The lesson here is: make sure you understand the documents you signed. (Second possible lesson: make sure your insurance coverage deals with situations like this.)
- Their fixed income might be relevant if they were coming out of pocket for alternative housing while they were displaced. But as I understand it, the condo association (or, at least, the insurance companies involved) are paying for alternative housing while owners are displaced. (If I’m wrong about that, someone correct me in the comments.) If the condo association isn’t paying, it would seem like homeowner’s insurance would cover that as well (depending on how the policy is written). And, the capper…”He and his wife have been living rent-free in a house owned by [their] daughter”.
So they’re not coming out of pocket for any rent. The only thing in dispute is the fees for the common area, which they would be paying no matter what, and which covers things they can still make use of while they’re temporarily displaced.
This is news?
Edited to add: I didn’t think of this until now. $561 * 14 (January 2011 – March 2012) = $7,854. So where does the “$9,000 in fees that we dispute” figure come from?