This little girl needs her grandparents, but they can't stay in this community.

55+ was picked for reasons other than excluding children.

She needs grandparents who follow the rules. They chose to linger and not try to sell their home for years knowing they were in violation of the HA contract they signed. Their own fault. It's wonderful they are caring for their granddaughter, but they need to do that in a regular neighborhood, not an adult-only community. Break the rule for one, then how do you enforce other rules? Doesn't work that way.

It's fine that they cant stay in the community, but they should let her stay until their house sells. It's not fair to send a child into the system when it could be prevented so easily. And if the neighbors have such a problem with it then they should be out there helping sell the house!

I agree... the little girl needs her grandparents. those old people need to just mind there business. at least the little girl has a loving family. just leave it at that and let her stay

No hotels anywhere? Not a single buyer for this property? No other family members that can help?

There are many, many options!

I am thinking of buying into a 55+ retirement community, cause frankly even though I love children, my neighbors kids and visiting kids are a noise-nuisance.

I am commenting on A.L.S 's comment.... thats right but the little girl is a minor and has no where else to go, I could understand if the girl was 18 living with her grandparents but she's six and there probably hasnt been any complaints about the little girl disturbing anyone's property or ect. so why complain about a child????? thats petty and heartless and the other people who live in the community with them should think of the situation as if it were them and stop being selfish.....

First of all, this is not discrimination. There are condos or coops in NY city that CHOOSE who can move in.

I used to frequent a pool in Saratoga Springs that did not allow children because I do not want to hear them screaming like ninnies.

I do not have children and do not want them around.

If you want to have children - all power to you - just live somewhere else.

Kids are loud and rambunctious PERIOD.

My Grandmother lives in a 55 and over. The folks accross from my Granny were allowed to move in their 14 year old grand daughter 20 years ago because Mon and Dad were drugs. Jump forward to today and she still lives in her Grandmother's house and her Grandmother is in a rest home in another part of town.

1.The now grown (44 yrs old) grand daughter has never worked.

2. She hangs around and sits on the porch all day and smokes.

3. She moved in LOOSER boyfriend, but the seniors fought and got him out. So now he is there all day and supposedly leaves in the evening.

4. No cats are allowed, but she has cats in her home and feed stray cats.

5. She and her boyfriend were seen by the seniors having sex in the jacuzzzi. My Granny refuses to get in the jacuzzi because they still get in it. They gross her out.

6. If she is not on her porch she is at the community pool.

My Granny moved there to get away from this element. This is what happens when you bend the rules a little bit. It comes back to bite you.

Kimberly is just 6 but what will happen at 16 when the boyfriends and friends began to visit. Should her and her friends be allowed to party around the pool and jacuzzi?

My Granny purchaed her home with a clear understanding of the rules and with those rules in place she felt this was the right community for her. She get so upset at the HOA for accomidationg the neighbor 20 years ago. It was a concern then and it's a problem now. Lets respect the rules. Rules are rules.

I feel sad for the little girl. I'm glad her Grandparents are able to step up.

The residents who buy homes in a 55+ area do so for various reasons, peace and quiet usually being one.

This battle must make the little one feel badly. The should move into a neighborhood with other kids for the little one to play with.

shawn-1424799 wrote:

My Grandmother lives in a 55 and over. The folks accross from my Granny were allowed to move in their 14 year old grand daughter 20 years ago because Mon and Dad were drugs. Jump forward to today and she still lives in her Grandmother's house and her Grandmother is in a rest home in another part of town.

...

My Granny purchaed her home with a clear understanding of the rules and with those rules in place she felt this was the right community for her. She get so upset at the HOA for accomidationg the neighbor 20 years ago. It was a concern then and it's a problem now.

Perhaps so, but for a different reason now compared to then. As soon as the granddaughter of your grandmother's neighbor turned 18, the issue changed significantly compared to the one in question here; she was no longer a minor, no longer a dependent, and generally considered to be able to fend for herself. This is not so for the six-year-old under current review.

Karen in Los Angeles wrote:

this is not discrimination. There are condos or coops in NY city that CHOOSE who can move in.

If any of them "choose" based on who isn't black, Jewish, hadicapped, or elderly, you can rest assured that some will eventually get the idea to sue them for discriminatory housing practices, despite *your* personal protestations.

By a similar token, if it is discriminatory to deny housing to those *over* 55, why is it not discriminatory to deny housing to those *under* 55?

Greg-281912 wrote:

No hotels anywhere? Not a single buyer for this property? No other family members that can help?

There are many, many options!

Perhaps fewer for them than for you, with the ones remaining not being cheap (thus, the house is on the market), and one usually opts for them *after* one has been evicted, not before, which has not happened yet; that's what the whole issue is about.

mjb80 - Nobody is saying that she can't have her grandparents. She just can't stay in that 55+ community with them. They've had 4+ years to move. I would have initiated eviction proceedings after 90 days of non-compliance. That community has been more than fair and understanding.

All of you people need to stop vilifying the residents for paying to live in a seniors only community.

If you were 25 yrs old and purchased a ticket for a 2 week singles cruise where ages are 21-35 only and there were old married wrinkly people taking up space then I think you would have a problem with that. These residents are not getting what they paid for.

Fortunately none of the 60% "she should stay" voters will have any say in whether or not she stays. It will go to court, if the sheriffs office doesn't carry out the eviction, and they will face a court ordered eviction for being in violation of the HOA contract. Shame on the grandparents for flagrantly violating their HOA contract for so many years.

This happens in Arizona - In Youngstown grandparents who temporarily housed a grandchild while the parents were fightimng had similar problems - the big issue is often that there is no school for the child and the people do not want to pay school taxes.

That has to be the most selfish, argument I have ever heard. And this whining about "seniors only" has to be the most pediiophobic craziness ever imagined; if children being around do not enrich your life you have made some seriously bad choices in life

Ron B-781152 wrote:

I would have initiated eviction proceedings after 90 days of non-compliance.

...

All of you people need to stop vilifying the residents for paying to live in a seniors only community.

Better keep your lawn in tip-top shape, then, chief, lest your neighbors evict you for being an eyesore. I wonder who *then* would be villifying whom.

If you were 25 yrs old and purchased a ticket for a 2 week singles cruise where ages are 21-35 only and there were old married wrinkly people taking up space then I think you would have a problem with that.

If you honestly compare a child's custody with a singles' cruise, you have a screw loose somewhere.

Fortunately none of the 60% "she should stay" voters will have any say in whether or not she stays. It will go to court, if the sheriffs office doesn't carry out the eviction, and they will face a court ordered eviction for being in violation of the HOA contract.

... except if a different court (such as a family court) issues a separate order to bar eviction. Such an order would likely be temporary, of course, but it would demonstrate the principle against which you argue: Some leniency should be given, considering the circumstances.

You're right, though; I have no say in it. Neither do you, for that matter, so I don't see your point in bringing it up, except if you're just trying to state the obvious.

Soup, you twit. They have had more than FOUR YEARS of leniency! What's ten more years though, right? Idiot.

The eviction will go through. This case will not go to family court because it dos not fall in that domain. Again, it is not about the custody of a child. It is a civil case about an HOA contract violation. Get a clue.

Again, Soup. You keep arguing for leniency. How was more than four years not enough leniency? Answer that one question. Don't give me lame housing market crap. FOUR YEARS!

20 years ago she was 14 and now she's 44? Is your grandmother's complex in some alternate universe where people age at an accelerated rate?

I'm sure that's an exception. Short term, there should be some exceptions, but if it is going to be a long term situation, then yes, they should move. They need to consider the rights of others in their complex.

I moved into my parent's house (in a 55+ complex) when I first moved back to town until I could find a decent place to live (with my then 6 year old). We were there for a couple of months and hardly any of the neighbours knew we were even staying there. Kids are at school all day, so unless they are really young, noise during the day isn't an issue. I just took my daughter out during the daytime on weekends (sports, activities), so that wasn't an issue either. If you are going to have a child (short-term) in a 55+ complex, you need to have consideration for others and control your child. They aren't all loud all the time).

Ron B-781152 wrote:

Soup, you twit.... This case will not go to family court because it dos not fall in that domain. Again, it is not about the custody of a child. It is a civil case about an HOA contract violation. Get a clue.

The eviction notice is to remove a single minor. How does one do that without removing her from her guardians? How does one remove her from her guardians without a custody hearing? Custody hearings *necessarily* fall in the domain of family court.

The fact that you can't wrap your head around any of that doesn't affect reality in the slightest, and neither does your decline into personal insults. You say *I'm* the twit; don't make me laugh, sir.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

You keep arguing for leniency. How was more than four years not enough leniency? Answer that one question. Don't give me lame housing market crap.

I haven't argued for leniency on this particular thread, sir; was this comment meant for a different one? You should really pay more attention.

Soup,

Some leniency should be given, considering the circumstances.

Your post. #1.14

You should really pay attention. I understand that it is dufficult, with all of the communist garbage you regurgitate, but try a little harder.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

Soup,

'Some leniency should be given, considering the circumstances.'
Your post. #1.14

Out of context. Context:

'Fortunately none of the 60% "she should stay" voters will have any say in whether or not she stays. It will go to court, if the sheriffs office doesn't carry out the eviction, and they will face a court ordered eviction for being in violation of the HOA contract.'

... except if a different court (such as a family court) issues a separate order to bar eviction. Such an order would likely be temporary, of course, but it would demonstrate the principle against which you argue: Some leniency should be given, considering the circumstances.

The cherry-picked statement is part of an analysis of what may happen, not necessarily an endorsement of it. If such a situation were to occur, then the sentiment would be the court's, not mine, whether I agree with it or not.

You wouldn't twist my words, would you?

Ok. I'm just saying.....do you feel she should be able to live in a nursing home as well, or a special needs home. no. A retirment community is just that. retirment. they are all tired and OLD. how boring is that for a 6 year old.

So, as grandparents, they should have with out hesitation. just moved her out of the community, with playgrounds, school, other children. This should have never made the news and the grandparents "parenting" skills should be reviewed.

canadianmom35--

I'm pretty sure she would rather be BORED than in FOSTER CARE. They are trying to get out, they openly admitted that they don't want to stay there. Since they're retired, it's a safe guess that they are living off of Social Security and any retirement benefts they have...not exactly enough money to just up and move. The money from selling the house is probably the only way they can move.

canadianmom35 wrote:

do you feel she should be able to live in a nursing home as well, or a special needs home. no. A retirment community is just that. retirment. they are all tired and OLD. how boring is that for a 6 year old.

Irrelevant. I don't know what it's like in Canada, ma'am, but in the vast majority of the United States, a family court (which is where this situation would go if the matter came down to placing this girl in foster care) is concerned with the welfare of a child first and foremost; all other matters become secondary, *including* residential bylaws.

as grandparents, they should have with out hesitation. just moved her out of the community, with playgrounds, school, other children. This should have never made the news and the grandparents "parenting" skills should be reviewed.

As the report has already mentioned, by the time the girl's grandparents had put their home up for sale, the housing market had shrunk to the point where no one was willing to buy it, and it remains that way now. In essense, they're doing exactly as you chastise them for *failing* to do; the fact that it has not yet worked is not their fault. In the meantime, the girl is not served by placing her in foster care when the *only* thing that would accomplish is the restoration of an arbitrary community age restriction.

I realize people in retirement homes are old and tired, however, this little girl needs her grandparents. She has no one else to provide care for her. She is going through so much already and it is about her, not what the parents want. On another note; I guess these large money makers aren't tired of being idiots yet! Big banks and others get stimulis packages but the Homeowner's Association can't give a 6 year old a break?Where is the humanity our forefathers envisioned?

Prime Soup, this is not an "arbitrary community age restriction". The community was created and the contracts drawn up with the SOLE purpose being not to have persons younger than 55 living there. The grandparents should be allowed to ignore the contract? The child should be allowed to stay there in violation of the contract for as long as it takes to sell the home? What if it doesn't sell for 30 years? Yes, I have sympathy for the child but I also have sympathy for the many other residents who bought their homes, like these grandparents, with the full understanding that those younger than 55 would not be allowed to be full time residents.

RON B>

They are going to put the little girl in "foster care" if she can't stay there. I am so sure you will be very happy to pay for her foster care with your taxes for as many years as it takes for that house to sell ! It's nothing they planned - nothing they could really control - life happens- they ARE BEING RESPONSIBLE ADULTS TAKING IN THE KID so she does not end up in the system....I am sure one 6 year old is raising hell and just ruining life for all the other residents - they can wait till the house sells or they can BUY IT so they can leave!

No, Brandy this is a situation where the rules are in place for a reason and the grandparents knew it. That was the whole reason they moved to an over 55 community. They can not expect their neighbors to let it slide. It is great that they have stepped up to take care of this child but they need to set a responsible example for her by moving elsewhere. It has nothing to do with hurting innocent people as you say. Those rules apply for the grandparents and everyone else who CHOSE to invest in such a community.

Prime Soup

You are absolutely WRONG when you say that a court would disregard the retirement community rules. PERIOD.

In fact, if anything, the Court would uphold the retirement community rules.

They may allow the 6 year old TEMPORARY accomodation with a FIRM END DATE in sight.

I do not understand why a lay person would be making such comments. You are not a lawyer for certain.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

this is not an "arbitrary community age restriction". The community was created and the contracts drawn up with the SOLE purpose being not to have persons younger than 55 living there.

Would you like a dictionary? By placing a "cut-off" point at a distinct age level, what the community has created is *precisely* arbitrary. Sure, the community developer might be within his rights to do just that, but *don't* try to claim that it's not arbitrary... unless you're willing to explain to me why someone, for example, of *54*years of age would be restricted from the community for reasons *other than* the number stenciled onto a birth certificate simply being out of conformity with the by-laws.

Don't get me wrong; the vast majority of laws around the world are written around arbitrary limits. A speed limit of 55 miles per hour is arbitrary (what makes 56 miles per hour so much more dangerous than 55?); a drinking age limit of 21 is arbitrary (what makes getting drunk at 21 different from getting drunk at 20?); an age requirement of 16 for a driving liscence is arbitrary (what makes a 15-year-old worse at driving?); a voting age requirement of 18 is arbitrary (why should a 17-year-old have less say than someone just a few months older who is voting for the first time?). The question I ask isn't about why the age limit is there; I'm well aware that the whole point of an arbitrary limit is that any such line has to be drawn *somewhere* that's convenient. The question I'm asking is on why such an arbitrary limit should be placed in such higher regard than a minor's ability to live with her guardians.

The grandparents should be allowed to ignore the contract?

I never said that, but it's not like the child's grandparents moved into the community while planning to thumb their noses at its restrictions, either. Eviction simply seems like a harsh reaction, given what its consequences will be.

The child should be allowed to stay there in violation of the contract for as long as it takes to sell the home? What if it doesn't sell for 30 years?

I didn't say that either, although your hypothetical possibility of a failure to sell for 30 years is hardly relevant - by that time, the couple's granddaughter would be 36, and the question would have long since been moot.

I don't know what to say regarding the possibility of the home failing to sell for an *otherwise* lengthy period of time, however. At some point, the precedent that is set regarding the community by-laws becomes significant, and the age restriction becomes unenforcable, which is something that I doubt anyone wants.

For now, however, the girl is six years old, and, as I said before, I don't see what is accomplished through foster care other than the restoration of an *ARBITRARY* (look it up!) community age restriction, and that has to be weighed against *something* resembling the welfare of a minor who happens to be currently among caring members of the family.

Karen in Los Angeles wrote:

You are absolutely WRONG when you say that a court would disregard the retirement community rules.

Wow. What is it with trying to put words in my mouth today? Are people getting paid for it or something?

I would agree with your contradiction, ma'am... had I actually said what you claim I said. What I *actually* said, however, is that community bylaws become *secondary* to a family court compared with the welfare of a minor - *not* that they become disregarded.

if anything, the Court would uphold the retirement community rules.

As I already implied, that would depend on the court. If the matter regarded an adult (say, a community member's granddaughter who was not six, but *twenty-*six) and was brought before a civil court, you'd probably be right. A family court, however, is often a very different animal from civil courts. The welfare of a minor is usually paramount there, and any contractual agreements (even prenuptial agreements, in such cases as the custody arrangements of a divorcing couple), which is, essentially, what the community bylaws amount to, are bent or even broken if they conflict too much with this overriding consideration.

They may allow the 6 year old TEMPORARY accomodation with a FIRM END DATE in sight.

Indeed, but that would hardly constitute a strict interpretation of the contract, would it? Rather, it would demonstrate what I just said above about such contracts being *bent* to accomodate the welfare of a minor, since a "temporary" accomodation requires a "temporary" violation of the bylaws.

I do not understand why a lay person would be making such comments.

It might be because I've dealt with such issues as a bystander, and because I *do* write from what limited experience that has afforded me - just as I'm sure that you write from what limited experience you have been afforded.

You are not a lawyer for certain.

You may be certain of it, but I'm saying nothing on it, and it's hardly a certainty you could have concluded deductively when you weren't even able to read what I actually said. If anything, what you have done is reached your conclusion on faulty evidence.

This same fact, on the other hand, leads me to make the same charge about you with more certainty than you ever had about me, for a lawyer would not have read my comments with such gross inaccuracy as what you have demonstrated - particularly not when there was a record of what I wrote nearby the whole time to contradict your account.

Okay, Soup... There are several definitions for arbitrary. The definition that I was saying did not apply here is : capricious; unreasonable; unsupported. The standards for age requirement are reasonable. As I said before, the restriction was the sole purpose for creating the community. The rule was not made on a whim but with a distinct purpose. Do YOU need a dictionary?

Well, mnsue. Let's just ignore all contract clauses we don't agree with. Let's ignore rules and laws that don't suit one individual. This is not about the girl! This is about an entire communities' legal rights to enforce their HOA contract. A contract the grandparents signed with the express knowledge that there can be no residents under the age of 55. Fortunately, you aren't a judge. Your bias is obvious. You would rather trample on the legal rights of an entire community than enforce a contract for one family. That's not tyrannical; not too much.

And, as a matter of fact, I do think the girl would be better served to be living with a foster family than in a retirement community. Perhaps, if the girl were in foster care, the grandparents might have been, or might be, properly motivated to sell their home and move to a suitable location for the girl to live. I'm sure there are ways they could raise the money to pay for an apartment while the retirement community home sells.

Ron B-781132 wrote:

There are several definitions for arbitrary. The definition that I was saying did not apply here is : capricious; unreasonable; unsupported. The standards for age requirement are reasonable.

You may have *meant* to say that the age restriction was not unreasonable, but it is *not* what you said. I can tell; your words are still listed above for all to see. What you *said* was that I was simply wrong in my characterization of the age restriction as arbitrary.

If you still believe that to be true, if you honestly believe that an age restriction at 55 is *not* arbitrary (under either your definition or mine; it doesn't much matter, since I suspect that my meaning of the term has been much closer to yours than you realize), then answer the query that I put to you previously: Why 55? Why not 54 or 56? Why not 55 and 3 months, or 54 and 8 months? If the age restriction is not arbitrary, as you claim, if it is not whimsical, if it is "reasonable," what is the *reason* for isolating 55 years as the limitation, and not any other age?

If there is no objective, logical, demonstrable reason for preferring "55 and 1 day" over "54 and 364 days" - that is, if there is no inherent *change* that occurs when one reaches his 55th birthday that is *independent* of the retirement community's guideline - then the restriction, sir, is the very *definition* of "arbitrary," no matter how badly you may want to deny it. I can't help it if you place such a negative connotation to the term that you can't abide it applying to a policy with which you happen to agree. Such connotations are yours, not mine; I simply maintain my claim that my use of the term "arbitrary" is blatantly accurate. If you genuinely disagree, feel free to explain why I am wrong, but please stop attributing to me sentiments that I haven't expressed.

The rule was not made on a whim but with a distinct purpose.

So you keep saying, but you have yet to express what this "distinct purpose" happens to be. What purpose do you claim exists for barring a 54 year old from a community simply because he is 54 years old?

Ron B-781132 wrote:

Let's just ignore all contract clauses we don't agree with. Let's ignore rules and laws that don't suit one individual.

But, sir, that happens all the time. Different contracts are not always equally enforcable. Contract killing, for example, is invalid, illegal, and *ignored* even when doing so takes place after the contract has already been carried out. When appellate courts hear cases charging that a law is unfair (sometimes, even unconstitutional), it's often precisely *because* it was brought to the court's attention by *one individual.*
Contracts and laws are regularly set aside when honoring them would violate the rights of another. This is nothing new; it's been a practice of US juris prudence since the ratification of the constitution. As I've explained in another comment below this one (3.12), I believe that the violation of rights is at the heart of this particular matter.

This is not about the girl!

That's a strange thing to say; apparently, the homeowner's association seems to think that it *is* about the girl. Maybe you can set them straight, eh?

This is about an entire communities' legal rights to enforce their HOA contract. A contract the grandparents signed with the express knowledge that there can be no residents under the age of 55.

The *grandparents* aren't in violation of that; the only resident under the age of 55 is their granddaughter.

You would rather trample on the legal rights of an entire community than enforce a contract for one family.

As I mentioned above, no one has a legal right to enforce a contract that *itself* violates the rights of another. Whether this homeowner's association endorses such a contract isn't for me to decide any more than it is for *you* to decide, but this obsession you seem to have about the inviolability of a contract is simply misplaced, because it's not always true.

as a matter of fact, I do think the girl would be better served to be living with a foster family than in a retirement community.

Put your money where your fingers go, then; have the state's CPS send the tax bill for her foster home's stipend directly to you.

Soup, you need a job in politics or the media. You take a phrase and twist it to come out any way you want and not the way it was intended. You take sentences out of context, just like any good politician or 'news' pundit. Put my sentences back together the way I wrote them and read them slowly so that you can understand them.

Would you say that a 15mph school zone speed is arbitrary? Why not 55mph? Why not 1 mph? Because a group of people came together and, based on available data, decided what would be a prudent cutoff point. That is exactly what these retirement communities have done.

Can you not read? The 'distinct purpose' is to have a community where all residents are age 55 and older. Why? Because it is unlikely that someone 55 and older will want to have more children. They will likely be mature enough to respect other people's rights. They will be in a more settled stage of life. That is why those grandparents moved there. To avoid living near young people and all of the distractions and dangers that young people bring. Yes a 6 year old girl can be a danger. Perhaps she will start learning to ride a bike soon, lose control and knock over an old lady and break her hip. Maybe at 14 she will have friends over who will see all of these old people walking around as targets for robbery and burglary. These residents paid and continue to pay to avoid these things.

The grandparents are in violation of the HOA, and have been for more than four years, by having a resident in their home under the age of 55. They ARE in violation because they are required to notify the HOA and gain approval for guests under the age of 55. Guests are only allowed to stay for a short specified duration. My grandparents live in a 55+ community and I have visited with them. I know the procedures and the rules. This IS about them violating their lawfully signed contract.

And you are wrong.

As I mentioned above, no one has a legal right to enforce a contract that *itself* violates the rights of another. Whether this homeowner's association endorses such a contract isn't for me to decide any more than it is for *you* to decide, but this obsession you seem to have about the inviolability of a contract is simply misplaced, because it's not always true.

You could not be more wrong.

A person can waive their otherwise legal protections by signing a contract like the ones in the 55+ HOA communities. Ever look at a contract lately? Have a cell phone service contract? Then you have most certainly given up your right to take that service provider to court because it undoubtedly has a clause requiring binding arbitration to settle disputes. A person can waive their rights to an attorney when questioned by police. I waived my government protected worker's rights to overtime premium pay by accepting employment as a salaried exempt employee. Yes, a person can waive their protections and it is legally binding. I'm guessing that you are the type of person who would sign an apartment lease with a no pets clause and then break that clause, with no concern for the needs of other building tenants nor the building owner, because a homeless cat was breaking your heart. No, I did not compare a cat to a child, before you start twisting things again. I compared forms of breach of contract.

I thank God you are not a judge who would hear eviction cases. I would hate to be in front of you when I had to evict people for non-payment of rent. You would break down in tears at their sad story of joblessness and likely order me to house them for as many years as it takes for them to get back on their feet. "How can you evict these poor helpless people," you would admonish me.

You should strive to change our country into a communist state where everyone is equal and nobody has property rights. I'm sure that would make you happy.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

You take a phrase and twist it to come out any way you want and not the way it was intended.

I've done no such thing, sir; on the contrary, it was *you* who took *my* terminology and applied *your own* meaning to it; you admitted as much yourself afterward:

There are several definitions for arbitrary. The definition that I was saying did not apply here is : capricious; unreasonable; unsupported.

Instead of asking me what I meant by the term, you supplied your own meaning and attacked. The fact that I stuck to *my own* terms the way *I* meant them has no bearing on that.

Would you say that a 15mph school zone speed is arbitrary?

I would. I would like it as it is, but I would still recognize it as arbitrary. I *can* think that a law is arbitrary while still being satisfied with it, can't I, or would you deny me that?

Why not 55mph? Why not 1 mph?

Indeed, why not? If the goal is to allow speedy travel, why *not* 55 miles per hour? Hell, why a speed limit at all? If the goal, however, is to protect the "zone" around the school, why *not* 1 mile per hour? No one is likely to get hurt at that level. Hell, why not restrict *all* vehicle travel, regardless of the speed? That would keep the children *very* safe.

More to the point, however, why not 14.9, or 15.1? Why 15 specifically?

Because a group of people came together and, based on available data, decided what would be a prudent cutoff point.

Hmm. Sounds awfully similar to what I already said:

... I'm well aware that the whole point of an arbitrary limit is that any such line has to be drawn *somewhere* that's convenient.

The fact that such a "cutoff point" is convenient - or "prudent," to use your term - does not, however, negate the fact that it is *also* arbitrary. If you want to claim that such a traffic law is *not* arbitrary, then you must explain why 15 miles per hour is *special* in a way that is *independent* of the legislation that names it as a target. Your vague reference to "available data" does not explain that.

That is exactly what these retirement communities have done.

That may very well be true, but you *STILL* have not explained why it isn't arbitrary.

The 'distinct purpose' is to have a community where all residents are age 55 and older. Why? Because it is unlikely that someone 55 and older will want to have more children. They will likely be mature enough to respect other people's rights. They will be in a more settled stage of life.

Is a 54-year-old not capable of sharing these qualities? I ask again: What makes 55 special in these regards?

That is why those grandparents moved there. To avoid living near young people and all of the distractions and dangers that young people bring. Yes a 6 year old girl can be a danger. Perhaps she will start learning to ride a bike soon, lose control and knock over an old lady and break her hip.

*Perhaps* it'll be a 70 year old on the bike. *Perhaps she* will be the one to lose control, and break the hip of one of her neighbors. *Perhaps* she will break her own hip. All of these scearios are equally speculative.

Maybe at 14 she will have friends over who will see all of these old people walking around as targets for robbery and burglary. These residents paid and continue to pay to avoid these things.

Maybe she won't have such friends. This all seems pretty irrelevant, considering that (1) in the US, people are generally considered innocent until proven guilty, and (2) living away from youth won't remove danger from those who *are* guilty. What is to stop a complete stranger to the community from committing the same acts of robbery, girl or no girl?

Your arguments sound pretty similar for reasons that were used to bar blacks from housing communities - that is, arguments that they bring violence and crime wherever they go. The fact that residents were willing to pay extra to indulge their prejudices doesn't negate the fact that the practice was discriminatory, and, to bring the subject back to my point, *arbitrarily* so. Barring a black resident from a housing community wouldn't stop a house from being burglarized by a stranger to the community, whether black *or* white, and age restrictions are no more protective than such misguided attempts of the past.

Yes, a person can waive their protections and it is legally binding.

I didn't say otherwise. What I *said* was this:

Different contracts are not always equally enforcable.

That statement is very much true. A contract is *unenforcable* if it details a violation of the law; by that, I was *not* claiming that one can't waive his own rights.

Still think that *I'm* the one who twists another's words? From where I stand, between the two of us, you're the only one that seems to perpetrate that.

I'm guessing that you are the type of person who would sign an apartment lease with a no pets clause and then break that clause, with no concern for the needs of other building tenants nor the building owner, because a homeless cat was breaking your heart.

Really? I strike you that much as a cat person? OK. I'll let you have whatever fantasies you like about me, whether they involve contracts or not. If they ever involve leather, though, just keep in mind that I don't like you in that way.

I would hate to be in front of you when I had to evict people for non-payment of rent. You would break down in tears at their sad story of joblessness and likely order me to house them for as many years as it takes for them to get back on their feet. "How can you evict these poor helpless people," you would admonish me.

You should strive to change our country into a communist state where everyone is equal and nobody has property rights. I'm sure that would make you happy.

Once again, you attribute words and sentiments to me that I have never expressed. Oh, but wouldn't that be word-twisting? You wouldn't *dream* of doing that, would you?

Is a 54-year-old not capable of sharing these qualities? I ask again: What makes 55 special in these regards?

Let me say this slow, you've said it yourself so I'll throw your words back at you.

I'm well aware that the whole point of an arbitrary limit is that any such line has to be drawn *somewhere* that's convenient.

An age had to be chosen or there would not BE an age limit and that community would be just like any other. What can't you understand about that? You do understand but you think that the contract should be ignored to accomodate this family.

The fact that such a "cutoff point" is convenient - or "prudent," to use your term - does not, however, negate the fact that it is *also* arbitrary. If you want to claim that such a traffic law is *not* arbitrary, then you must explain why 15 miles per hour is *special* in a way that is *independent* of the legislation that names it as a target. Your vague reference to "available data" does not explain that.

Hmm... increase reaction time and shorten barking distance to avoid accidents? Speed studies? Try this: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/speedbrochure.html#regulatory

There are smarter people than you or I who examine all "available data" and decide on a "prudent" speed limit.

Really? I strike you that much as a cat person?

More twisting on your part or lack of reading comprehension. I stated that "I'm guessing you are the TYPE of person..." Making a reference to your general views on property rights. I never called you a cat person. Come on. Twist it again twisty.

Once again, you attribute words and sentiments to me that I have never expressed.

Your sentiments are very clear. People's property rights and contract clauses are meaningless to you when her grandparents are faced with living up to their contractual obligations no matter how inconvenient it may be. The hypothetical situation I described concerning renters was used to illustrate how your lack of regard for property rights would be viewed in not too dissimilar situations. This entire situation is about property rights and your belief that the residents have none or that they are inconsequential because the grandparents don't wan't to abide by the contract they freely signed.

Now, pay attention class.

Arbitrary: -adjective: 1.

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

2.

decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

3.

having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.

4.

capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

5.

Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

The age restriction decision for the community was not based (definition 1)"subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion", it was a collective decision that all parties agreed to.

Definition 2 does not apply because the age restriction was not decided by an arbiter or judge.

Definition 3 does not apply because the HOA does not have unlimited power. The HOA contract was drawn up according to the letter of the law and operates within the boundaries of the law. (That's why the article asked if it was "fair" to evict and not if it was "legal".)

Definition 4 does not apply because the age restriction was not unreasonable nor put in place capriciously (on a whim).

Definition 5 does not apply for obvious reasons.

Speed limits are not arbitrary either, based on the same definitions.

Thus ends this block of vocabulary instruction.

Is a 54-year-old not capable of sharing these qualities? I ask again: What makes 55 special in these regards?

Let me say this slow, you've said it yourself so I'll throw your words back at you.

I'm well aware that the whole point of an arbitrary limit is that any such line has to be drawn *somewhere* that's convenient.

An age had to be chosen or there would not BE an age limit and that community would be just like any other. What can't you understand about that? You do understand but you think that the contract should be ignored to accomodate this family.

The fact that such a "cutoff point" is convenient - or "prudent," to use your term - does not, however, negate the fact that it is *also* arbitrary. If you want to claim that such a traffic law is *not* arbitrary, then you must explain why 15 miles per hour is *special* in a way that is *independent* of the legislation that names it as a target. Your vague reference to "available data" does not explain that.

Hmm... increase reaction time and shorten barking distance to avoid accidents? Speed studies? Try this: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/speedbrochure.html#regulatory

There are smarter people than you or I who examine all "available data" and decide on a "prudent" speed limit.

Really? I strike you that much as a cat person?

More twisting on your part or lack of reading comprehension. I stated that "I'm guessing you are the TYPE of person..." Making a reference to your general views on property rights. I never called you a cat person. Come on. Twist it again twisty.

Once again, you attribute words and sentiments to me that I have never expressed.

Your sentiments are very clear. People's property rights and contract clauses are meaningless to you when her grandparents are faced with living up to their contractual obligations no matter how inconvenient it may be. The hypothetical situation I described concerning renters was used to illustrate how your lack of regard for property rights would be viewed in not too dissimilar situations. This entire situation is about property rights and your belief that the residents have none or that they are inconsequential because the grandparents don't wan't to abide by the contract they freely signed.

Now, pay attention class.

Arbitrary: -adjective: 1.

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

2.

decided by a judge or arbi

Is a 54-year-old not capable of sharing these qualities? I ask again: What makes 55 special in these regards?

Let me say this slow, you've said it yourself so I'll throw your words back at you.

I'm well aware that the whole point of an arbitrary limit is that any such line has to be drawn *somewhere* that's convenient.

An age had to be chosen or there would not BE an age limit and that community would be just like any other. What can't you understand about that? You do understand but you think that the contract should be ignored to accomodate this family.

The fact that such a "cutoff point" is convenient - or "prudent," to use your term - does not, however, negate the fact that it is *also* arbitrary. If you want to claim that such a traffic law is *not* arbitrary, then you must explain why 15 miles per hour is *special* in a way that is *independent* of the legislation that names it as a target. Your vague reference to "available data" does not explain that.

Hmm... increase reaction time and shorten barking distance to avoid accidents? Speed studies? Try this: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/speedbrochure.html#regulatory

There are smarter people than you or I who examine all "available data" and decide on a "prudent" speed limit.

Really? I strike you that much as a cat person?

More twisting on your part or lack of reading comprehension. I stated that "I'm guessing you are the TYPE of person..." Making a reference to your general views on property rights. I never called you a cat person. Come on. Twist it again twisty.

Once again, you attribute words and sentiments to me that I have never expressed.

Your sentiments are very clear. People's property rights and contract clauses are meaningless to you when her grandparents are faced with living up to their contractual obligations no matter how inconvenient it may be. The hypothetical situation I described concerning renters was used to illustrate how your lack of regard for property rights would be viewed in not too dissimilar situations. This entire situation is about property rights and your belief that the residents have none or that they are inconsequential because the grandparents don't wan't to abide by the contract they freely signed.

Now, pay attention class.

Arbitrary: -adjective: 1.

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

2.

decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

3.

having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.

4.

capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

5.

Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

The age restriction decision for the community was not based (definition 1)"subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion", it was a collective decision that all parties agreed to.

Definition 2 does not apply because the age restriction was not decided by an arbiter or judge.

Definition 3 does not apply because the HOA does not have unlimited power. The HOA contract was drawn up according to the letter of the law and operates within the boundaries of the law. (That's why the article asked if it was "fair" to evict and not if it was "legal".)

Definition 4 does not apply because the age restriction was not unreasonable nor put in place capriciously (on a whim).

Definition 5 does not apply for obvious reasons.

Speed limits are not arbitrary either, based on the same definitions.

Thus ends this block of vocabulary instruction.

I apologize for multiple posts. Newsvine told me twice that there was an error but apparently the posts went through anyway. Anybody know how to remove your own posts?

Ron B-781152 wrote:

An age had to be chosen or there would not BE an age limit and that community would be just like any other. What can't you understand about that?

I understand it just fine; I've said several times already that I agree with this statement. If *you* can't understand *that,* then you aren't reading.

My agreement, however, doesn't resolve my question of why you think a limit *isn't* arbitrary just because you think it's convenient. Convenient and arbitrary are not mutually exclusive properties.

Hmm... increase reaction time and shorten barking distance to avoid accidents? Speed studies? Try this: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/speedbrochure.html#regulatory

There are smarter people than you or I who examine all "available data" and decide on a "prudent" speed limit.

You're still avoiding the question. What makes 15 special? If the goal is to lower reaction distance and increase braking speed, then make the speed limit 1 mile per hour; reaction distance is much lower than 15 and braking speed much higher. Why 15? Why not 1? Why not 14.9? Why not 3.1415926?

In other threads, you have called my comments "communist." Does that mean that I get to characterize yours as fascist just because you think that any and all speed limit studies are conducted by people smarter than you, and because you blindly accept their results as a consequence?

'Really? I strike you that much as a cat person?'

More twisting on your part or lack of reading comprehension.

Actually, it was neither; it was meant merely to be a joke to illustrate just how seriously (or not) I take you when you resort to gleaning from your crystal ball things I've never expressed.

Your sentiments are very clear. People's property rights and contract clauses are meaningless to you when her grandparents are faced with living up to their contractual obligations no matter how inconvenient it may be.

You've been accusing me of holding that sentiment from the beginning of this conversation, but I never expressed it, and it's not true, *certainly* not so broadly. You've imagined it, and you resort to this imagination at the end of your comments, when you've run out of legitimate statements to make. Just because you feel justified in saying it doesn't mean that you actually are.

Definition 4 does not apply because the age restriction was not unreasonable nor put in place capriciously (on a whim).

Once again, I disagree. If you can find a reason for barring someone who is aged 54 and 364 days that doesn't apply to some one who is aged 55 and 1 day, then give it. I've asked this of you several times now, and you have provided nothing but straw men and ad-hominems (not that I'm not willing to engage them as such).

You are just plain obstinate. You refuse to accept perfectly clear and valid explanations and continually state that I have provided none. Because a group of people came together and decided that age 55 is a reasonable cutoff point. The grandparents agreed that it was reasonable because they bought into the community. Nobody forced them to buy there. If they felt the restriction was unreasonable they should not have signed the contract. You obviously would not sign that contract because you find the age restriction unreasonable. I would not sign the contract because I refuse to live in any community with an HOA. Our personal beliefs and views don't matter. What matters is the contract they signed and accepted. That is why the eviction will take place.

You've been accusing me of holding that sentiment from the beginning of this conversation, but I never expressed it, and it's not true, *certainly* not so broadly. You've imagined it...

Do you believe the girl should be allowed to continue to stay there regardless of the contractual obligation to the HOA? Yes. You have made that abundantly clear. Therefore, you believe that the other residents' property rights are meaningless. If you believed that the other residents' property rights were more important than allowing that family to be in vioation you would support the eviction. I am not imagining anything there. As I said before, you should really be in politics. You can't support the other residents' property rights and at the same time agree that the child should be allowed to stay. Get off the fence. Take a stand. It can only be one or the other.

As for the speed limit. Apparently you did not go to the link I provided. It states in detail how a decision is arrived at in determing a speed limit. If you are too lazy to read or too slow to comprehend then I am not going to hold your hand again as I did in giving you the definition of arbitrary.

Your arguments lack substance. You focus on meaningless minutia. You might as well argue, "Why call Tuesday, Tuesday?". You are like a child:

"It's time for bed sweetie."

"Why?"

"Because it's night time."

"Why?"

"Because the sun went down and it's 8 o'clock."

"Why?"

And on, and on, and on you go...

Here's a switch, Soup. Why don't you give reasons why the girl should be allowed to stay and then I'll sit back, pick apart and copy and paste your comments with responses like, "But, why...?".

But, why should a six year old have more rights than a 60 year old?

But, why is a six year old not a bother?

But, why do you think the age restriction is arbitrary?

But, why is the age restriction unreasonable?

But, why should a 60 year old be forced to invalidate their contract and reduce their property values and increase their liabilities in order to accomodate the grandparents' violation of their contract by keeping their 6 year old grandchild in that age restricted community?

You do realize that it is actually you who is behaving in an arbitrary manner? You, "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion", believe that the decision a group of people came to, when deciding on a specific age restriction, is unreasonable.

Let's go, Twisty the Prime Soup Twister, Twist away.

After perusing all of your other posts, I realized that you have actually offered no personal insights into this entire discussion. All you have done is quoted others and told them how wrong they are or how some courts might tell them how wrong they are. I have provided very specific reasons as to why I support the other residents and the HOA's legal position on contract enforcement (even though I abhor HOA's in general). You have not really taken any firm position on your support of the child's "right" to stay there with her grandparents. Can you submit anything to the discussion? Is this what you do? Troll forums and argue other's points just for the sake of arguing?

In April 2005, Judie Stottler signed a mediation agreement saying her family would comply with the Lakes' rules by Oct. 1, 2006. - St Petersburg Post, April 1, 2007

And look where we are 3 years after the deadline passed that she agreed to. The deadline that gave her 18 months to move starting from April 2005. You people want how many more years of leniency to be given? These people have no real intention of ever moving unless there is a forced eviction.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

You are just plain obstinate.

Agreed, but that doesn't make me wrong.

You refuse to accept perfectly clear and valid explanations and continually state that I have provided none.

False. Whether your explanations are clear or valid is irrelevant to what I have *actually* stated "continually." What I have stated "continually" is that such explanations, even when clear and valid, do *not* indicate why such rules are *not* arbitrary. "Valid" and "arbitrary" are not mutually exclusive properties. I have not approached this discussion by assuming otherwise; you have.

In short, have you given reasons for why an age limit is "valid?" Sure, some may think so; even *I* may think so. That, however, is *not* - nor has it *ever been* - what I asked.

Do you believe the girl should be allowed to continue to stay there regardless of the contractual obligation to the HOA? Yes. You have made that abundantly clear.

Correction: That is what you have inferred. I have never made my support of that sentiment unequivocal. You, however, have repeatedly characterized it as such, then accuse me of disembling when I point out - correctly - that it isn't true. Stop blaming me for your errors.

Apparently you did not go to the link I provided. It states in detail how a decision is arrived at in determing a speed limit. If you are too lazy to read or too slow to comprehend then I am not going to hold your hand again as I did in giving you the definition of arbitrary.

You've never held my hand; my use of "arbitrary" has been consistent. I *did* use the link you provided; it was just not relevant, for the same reason that your other explanations have been irrelevant: The explanation of how a rule is reached IS NOT automatically an explanation of why a rule isn't arbitrary. You have confused "reasonable" with "reasoned" just as readily as you have confused "non-arbitrary" with "valid."

Instead, let *me* hold *your* hand through the rebuttal as I have *already* given it *several times:* If a speed limit regulation is to be non-arbitrary, then it must reference something other than a discrete value. In practice, this is what is actually done; in most states, one is ignored unless his speed varies significantly from the posted limit. Even your link, with its rather sparse language, makes relatively vague references to statistical speed studies, which, by their very nature, must generate standard deviations in their data.

In writing, however, speed limits are discrete, and one is in *technical* violation the moment his speed passes above it, or passes below the minimum speed, should one be posted as well. As such, they are arbitrary. 56 miles per hour is a violation of the speed limit on a road with a posted limit of 55 miles per hour, despite the probability that it is within one standard deviation of the 85th percentile of the observed data for the given road. These discrete values make speed limits arbitrary. Are they reasoned? Sure. Are they safe? Probably, unless there is a change in gross driving habits along the roads in question. Are they *also* arbitrary? Yes.

Your arguments lack substance. You focus on meaningless minutia.

Actually, *you* were the one to make this discussion about the "meaningless minutia" of whether a particular value is arbitrary or not. Before your interjection, it was just a passing reference. As usual, though, you blame me for keeping the discussion on the actual subject that *you* brought up. You've wanted to steer it onto ethical matters of whether the age restriction should be upheld, which has *nothing* to do with whether it is arbitrary or not (just because a limit is arbitrary doesn't mean it won't be upheld; in fact, it's often quite the opposite), but it's provided you a convenient straw man against which you can vent your frustration with my persistence.

You might as well argue, "Why call Tuesday, Tuesday?". You are like a child

Indeed, "Tuesday" is also arbitrary as a name (Germans call it Dienstag), but that, like the speed limits, has nothing to do with the age restriction of a retirement community. Keep venting against those straw men; maybe you'll take one of them down one day.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

Here's a switch, Soup. Why don't you give reasons why the girl should be allowed to stay and then I'll sit back, pick apart and copy and paste your comments with responses like, "But, why...?"

Actually, I've already been addressing just that - in another thread. You know that, though, since you've been replying to me there, too. Our discussion *here* is on the arbitrariness (or lack of it, whichever is ultimately determined to be the case) of the age restriction.

But, why do you think the age restriction is arbitrary?

I've already answered that question several times. I think that the age restriction is arbitrary because the value it references is discrete.

You do realize that it is actually you who is behaving in an arbitrary manner? You, "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion", believe that the decision a group of people came to, when deciding on a specific age restriction, is unreasonable.

If you say so. The issue I would raise with such a characterization is that the discussion here is whether a value is "arbitrary" or "not arbitrary," which is an "either-or" property, much like the boolean values of 0 and 1 to represent "true" and "false." *If* I am to reject the conclusion (which I have) that the age restriction in question is "not arbitrary," then that implies that I accept the conclusion that the age restriction is "arbitrary."

Ron B-781152 wrote:

After perusing all of your other posts, I realized that you have actually offered no personal insights into this entire discussion.

Yes, I have; I've simply offered more on some threads than on others. *This* thread in particular has been hijacked by *your* objection to my use of a single word, and I'm not sure to what extent you expect me to provide "personal insights" regarding whether a number is arbitrary or not.

All you have done is quoted others and told them how wrong they are or how some courts might tell them how wrong they are.

This is not in conflict with offering "personal insights," as you might have noticed had you *actually* read some of the comments I have made in some of the other threads here.

I have provided very specific reasons as to why I support the other residents and the HOA's legal position on contract enforcement (even though I abhor HOA's in general).

... which, as I have said already, is irrelevant to the objection you have raised on *this* thread about my use of the word "arbitrary."

You have not really taken any firm position on your support of the child's "right" to stay there with her grandparents.

I have referenced no such "right" in this thread, although I might have in another; I don't feel like checking them all. By expecting me to offer a "firm position" on such support, however, I infer that you want me to provide legal precedent. I might be able to, or I might not, but even if so, I don't feel inclined to do so. *If* (and I mean that in as much a speculative sense as I can convey) I were to provide legal defense in a court of law for the grandparents in this case in response to an eviction notice, I *might* use some of the reasoning I have outlined in some of the other threads - and I might lose. Fortunately, I'm not being held to that standard on this board (and good luck to you if you're trying to do so; we'll see how that works out for ya), nor am I claiming that I'm necessarily right and everyone else is wrong; I'm simply offering my perspective, so take it for what it's worth: not much, on the grand scale.

Can you submit anything to the discussion? Is this what you do? Troll forums and argue other's points just for the sake of arguing?

I don't "troll" anything; I thought that I had made a relevant comment with the first one I posted on this particular thread. It is only since then, after your haphazard objection to my use of the single word "arbitrary," that our discussion on this thread has deviated from that. In fact, I'd consider that particular nitpick to be more trollish than anything I've said.

Despite the confrontational and baiting nature of this comment, though, *one* of your points is well taken: I've discussed other issues on other boards with other people, and often (though not always), the stances I have taken have been at least firmer than my reactions here. I don't necessarily see it as a flaw that such is not as much the case here, though (and I'm not entirely sure why you would), but just a reflection on how I consider the issue raised by this particular poll. Why is it wrong to think that there is more than one element to consider in this case?

Your use of the word arbitrary may be consistent but it is consistently incorrect. As you read, definition by definition, it clearly shows that the age restriction is NOT arbitrary according to the definitions of the word. The only claim you make to say that the word arbitrary is valid is the very subjective definition of "unreasonable". It may seem unreasonable to you, which would be an arbitrary view, but it was not unreasonable, collectively, to the HOA, the other residents, the Stottlers, when signed the contract, nor when they signed the mediated agreement to leave.

Let's go back to your first post on this thread.

As the report has already mentioned, by the time the girl's grandparents had put their home up for sale, the housing market had shrunk to the point where no one was willing to buy it, and it remains that way now. In essense, they're doing exactly as you chastise them for *failing* to do; the fact that it has not yet worked is not their fault.

When the grandparents first put the home up for sale it was more than two years prior to the financial crisis and the economic meltdown. They first listed the home for $229,000. A home they received after Mrs. Stottler's mother passed. They could have priced the home to sell and walked away with a lot of money. Instead, they chose to put the home up for sale on the highest end of the market. Their greed and lack of respect for their contractual obligations, for the last 5+ years, are what put them in this position and continues to keep them there; that is their fault.

put yourself in the 6 year olds place.

From the 6 year old's place, how mean is it to force a 6 year old to live in a retirement community? I wonder how far she has to go to play with friends? Not to mention, living in a community where she's not wanted (that must feel good). To me, it seems cruel not to move.

I am 64 and I think it is absured to throw out the family for the comfort of a few old cranky fools. Even though my heart is old and my mind is old I still have both and they work.

To Johnnysays...this child needs the love and nurturing from her family more than having friends her age in the neighborhood. There is such a thing as play dates.

It does not matter about age. This is about family and the caring of a child. She needs a loving home with her family not with foster care. I am a senior and find this action or even considering this action outlandish! What is wrong with the people in this community? Are they so old that they have no heart, no soul, and no compassion? I am ashamed for them! The homeowner association should throw out this rule. There are times when the grandparents have to help. What if one of the homeowner's children die and they have to take care of their grandchildren or they would become a part of the system? Would they like this to happen to their grandchildren. The homeowner's that want this child evicted are idiots and don't deserve to be living in the human race at all. Send them to a desserted island without the love or help of their family to have to fend for themselves and to possibly be swallowed up by the eco-system. It is the same thing they are trying to do to this child!

How is a retirement community different from a singles-only apartment complex?

Johnnysays wrote:

From the 6 year old's place, how mean is it to force a 6 year old to live in a retirement community? I wonder how far she has to go to play with friends? Not to mention, living in a community where she's not wanted (that must feel good). To me, it seems cruel not to move.

That might be why her grandparents are trying to do just that. In the meantime, do you honestly feel that it is *less* cruel to evict them all, and thereby remove even the one roof they have, *regardless* of how close by the child's playmates happen to be? I think she'd rather live further away from some friends in order to keep having a bed to sleep in - and I think you would too, if you were *actually* in her place.

The housing market has tanked, they are trying to sell. Perhaps the association could be patient and wait until they sell. Poor little girl against all those old geezers.

They had the property offered at 200K+, now they have reduced it to 120K. They seem to be chasing the "high" end of a down mmarket. The question is, why would a Senior be willing to move into a Seniors Only community that apparently tolerated a rule breaker for 5 years?

If they aren't serious about enforcing the bylaws, regulations before you or I bought/moved in, how could I expect them to do so if/when I registered a legal complaint?

These senior communities have been pushed and prodded to the edges of society for quite a while. There are many cases where Seniors moved into these communities for the express reason that they wanted to be sure they would not have Adult Children, grandchildren or other relatives dropped off for them to care for. living in a Seniors only community gave them ammunition with which to realistically tell "free loading" grandchildren, who were unmanageable in their parents homes, from guiltingthe Grand parents into taking them in. I think its great what they did for the little girl, but forcing their generosity on the community at large is no favor to them. A community does have a say in who to include ... is this case, its legal and it was posted and agreed to by all - even the Grandparents in question - want to bet that one of the reasons they moved there in the first place was to prevent the child's mother, their daughter, from sponging off them whne she was destitue and on drugs? The took in the grandchild, they could just as easily helped the mother provide a good home for the girl.

Any Seniors that do not have a problem taking in relatives, probably live in less restrictive communities. To force elders to tolerate other peoples kids when they expressly moved into a Seniors only community is wrong on so many levels. If I'm 70, 80 or 90 years old - I may be more than happy to see Jr and his kids on my own terms, but that doesn't mean I'm up to dealing with them on a daily basis.

Remember, these people grew up during a time when older persons were respected and cherished. Most kids today have never been exposed to the concept - let alone adhere to it.

Well put Beoweolf.

Beoweolf wrote:

living in a Seniors only community gave them ammunition with which to realistically tell "free loading" grandchildren, who were unmanageable in their parents homes, from guiltingthe Grand parents into taking them in.

There's something wrong with this statement. If I could decipher it better, I might be able to be more specific, but for now, I'm thinking that it revolves around the idea that a six-year-old, legal dependent would be considered a free-loader.

want to bet that one of the reasons they moved there in the first place was to prevent the child's mother, their daughter, from sponging off them whne she was destitue and on drugs? The took in the grandchild, they could just as easily helped the mother provide a good home for the girl.

These statements lead me to question how often you've dealt with a drug-addict at all, whether a child *or* a parent. Sometimes all the help one tries to give just goes up the nose.

No matter what the answer to that is, however, it's irrelevant. The child's grandparents are her legal guardians, so *they* are the ones now responsible for providing "a good home." It seems to me that this accomplishes the goal of marginalizing a drug-addicted mother from their lives *without* abandoning their granddaughter to her care - or lack of it, as the case may be. If you think your decisions would be better, though, no one's stopping you from trying them with your own family. Personally, though, I have no problem with what this couple has done for their granddaughter. The girl is lucky to have them.

these people grew up during a time when older persons were respected and cherished. Most kids today have never been exposed to the concept - let alone adhere to it.

Such respect is not always deserved, and sometimes that's precisely because it's so often *expected* as a matter of course, without proper reason.

The child in this story has grandparents who are willing to risk eviction to give her a home. That says a lot about them. When *I* had to live with *my* grandmother as a child of a similar age, she beat the hell out of me nearly every day for the years that I was there. That says a lot about her. Would you honestly tell me that she deserves the same amount of affection from me as the other two might receive from *their* grandchild? Was I a "free-loading," "unmanageable" *five-year-old* who should have "cherished" the moments I had getting knocked around by the wise elder?

This is not about the needs of one 6 year old girl. (sorry, bleeding heart liberal media) This is about the legal rights of an entire community to enforce their HOA contract. This girl's age is irrelevent. 6, 16, 26, 36, it does not matter. Hopefully, the community is able to have them properly evicted. It is the proper course of action in this situation, since the grandparents have been in violation of their contract for years. The HOA has given them ample opportunity to comply and now the HOA has to take legal action to enforce the contract. My, aren't they monsters...

As for the child, if the grandparents are currently unable to provide a suitable home for her, there are many loving and caring foster families who could provide the girl an environment in which she can thrive. A retirement community, where she can't find playmates and develop interpersonal skills, is not such an environment.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

This girl's age is irrelevent. 6, 16, 26, 36, it does not matter.

Actually, it does; just because you can't appreciate *why* it matters doesn't mean that it doesn't actually matter.

The girl's age matters because she is a minor. That she is a minor matters because her grandparents are her legal guardians. To evict her means one of two things: Either you must *also* evict her grandparents in order to keep the legal family unit together, which would mean throwing people out that *are not* restricted from the community based on their age (which, *according to your own sentiments,* is a no-no), or the family unit must be broken; the grandparents must *lose* the custody of their granddaughter so that the state has the authority to move *her* without moving her grandparents.

If you happen to have even half a brain in your head, you can see that this entails a problem that goes beyond considerations of who has a "bleeding heart" and who doesn't, as the claim made by the homeowner's association is not that the grandparents are in violation of the by-laws, but that the *girl* is. The grandparents aren't "underage" for the community; the *girl* is. The grandparents still have the right to live there; it's the *girl* that doesn't. Do you get the picture yet? To enforce this contract that you hold as so absolutely paramount, the rights of the girl's grandparents must be violated in one way or another. Their custodial rights - previously granted by a court of law - must be removed in order to remove the child only, or their right to live in a retirement community under the very same contract you keep swinging around must be violated in order to remove the whole family.

It's a legal quagmire. Which error would *you* choose to commit?

if the grandparents are currently unable to provide a suitable home for her, there are many loving and caring foster families who could provide the girl an environment in which she can thrive. A retirement community, where she can't find playmates and develop interpersonal skills, is not such an environment.

Says you. Find me a family court that will remove a child from a home simply because her *neighbors* aren't her age and I'll swich my attention from *your* ridiculous sentiment to the judge's.

To enforce this contract that you hold as so absolutely paramount, the rights of the girl's grandparents must be violated in one way or another. Their custodial rights - previously granted by a court of law - must be removed in order to remove the child only, or their right to live in a retirement community under the very same contract you keep swinging around must be violated in order to remove the whole family.

Obviously, their custodial rights can not be taken away by an HOA dispute. That was just inflammatory nonsense. They do not, however, have the 'right' to live in a retirement community and violate the contract they signed simply because their family dynamic has changed. Their 'rights' are not being violated. The contract they signed is being violated.

This child is not getting the best that can be offered by her Grandparents. For them to allow this situation to escalate is just wrong. They have had 4 years to find an alternate solution to this problem and now are stuck with an economic downturn. The 55 or older community doesn't have to accommodate them in any way. Have they tried to lease their home and find another place to live? Not that I can see, and it would have been logical for them to do this. If leasing wasn't an option, what about rent to own or taking out their own contract for selling the home. As far as I can see these people just thought they could get away with letting the child stay and hoping the community would not raise a stink. The community has every right to raise a stink as far as I'm concerned. These people are playing victim because their daughter is a druggy and they have to raise her child. I don't have a lot of compassion for this play. The child needs to live where other children play. She needs a normal childhood and living with old people isn't going to cut it no matter how you perceive the situation.

Not if they are living in a community such as this. We can have a guest for ONE week, and you can damn well know that we can be evicted if we go around that one. We can have pets up to 25 pounds max. The ONLY exception to that is a guide dog or a certified working dog and that one is clearly spelled out. Does that give me the right to break the rules and bring in an English Mastiff? I would be tossed in nothing flat and rightly so. Rules are rules for a reason, and like it or not a lot of us have the integrity and good sense to obey them.

This child IS getting a chance...what are you talking about? She is not on the street for cryin out loud. The issue is that her grandparents need to get out of the community they are living in because they are blatantly violating the rules that they signed their names to when they moved in.

Well, the Foster Care system is too often a broken mess. Children placed in Foster Care can be at very high risk for abuse and exploitation. Now, this is not always the case, but this can be the start of multiple placements. New school, new friends, grief for the mother who can not be, and the grandparents who want to be...and here we go. I am hoping for the very best outcome. Maybe someone will feel a great affinity for the residence, and the grand-child and grand-parents can find the exact place meant for them!

Some states have lost children, literally and figuratively, and some kids have turned out to be dead. Some are just out there-somewhere!

I know we are talking about the by laws of the Retirement community. This is a case in which strict law and mercy collide. I believe the law will be on the side of the Retirement Contract.

I wonder what an Attorney who deals in Child advocacy issues, exclusively or almost, could add to the comments.

Some residents might enjoy the 6 year old so much. Others may be infuriated by kids-let alone teens. This is a good way to assure that multi-generational families do NOT move in. I am sure there are rules about that.

I agree with you Jan. The grandparents seem to be at fault here; they should have put up the house for sale a while ago. What was their thought process? Did they not expect to get custody? Why? They should be able to stay with Kimberley though until the house sells at this point. Evicting a 6 yr old is callous.

It states in the video clip that when they put their house up for sale the first time is when the market initially slumped. They've already taken over $100,000 off the sale price! They are trying to leave, they need a chance to do it without people making their lives harder. Plus, the impression given in the clip was that they lived there before they got custody but chose to take in their granddaughter knowing they shouldn't. What would you do in the same situation? Turn your granddaughter away and hope she fairs well in foster care?

Thank you motherofone, you hit the nail on the head!

motherofone- yeah.. the housing market didnt slump until a year ago... maybe 2 years ago at best.... That means that that little girl was living there for over 2 years before they even started to sell the house...

People, both young and old, are in general selfish and stupid..

I am glad they took her in, and if this was an issue when the girl was still new to the home, it would be differnt, but that isnt the case.

The little girl should be evicted. Hopefully her grandparents arent too selfish to just go rent an apartment for a while until the house sells or they get the house rented out also.

The OLD FOGIES of the HOA should gather any resources they can and buy the grandparents house. Case closed. How would members of the HOA feel if they were in the same situation?

Good point Jan. THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT THE HOUSE UP FOUR YEARS AGO and they would not be in this predicament now would they?

I am so tired of everyone wanting to be treated special for NO GOOD REASON.

I agree with you also. The grandparents didnt know the rules?? Didnt care?? Thought that they wouldnt get custody?? Regardless, it is their fault- if they knew the rules- and I think that they should move when their house sells. It would be better for the girl to be around other children in another neighborhood anyway.

Actually the housing market started sliding 3 years ago.

And what if the Grandparents didn't know if their custody of her was going to be permanent? The state will sometimes give a kid back, even after the Grandparents already are prepared to keep the child. Why do you think so many kids die from abuse? Because they are returned to unfit parents.

So they should give the kid a break.

The EVIL HOA should buy the house and resell it. It would be a win win situation. Leeland Wheeler just wants to throw his weight around is all.................

Bravo to Motherofone!!!! A point well taken!!!

No one should be forced to sell their house at a great loss just so an archane rule can be followed. I say put it to a vote by all the residents of the community and do it in an auditorium with live news coverage so that everyone can see who the heartless residents are that live among them and in their city, NO secret ballots here!!!

And once the nay sayers have been singled out have them all pitch in and buy the property at the asking price if they still insist on giving the child the boot.

Tam aka Mom! wrote:

I think that they should move when their house sells.

As opposed to what? That *is* their plan. The question is whether the community association should *evict* them (or evict only the child; both seem possible) *before* that can happen.

Yeah, once you get past 55 you usually begin to lose brain cells which guide common sense reasoning. Then you get Alzeimers which makes you oblivious to those around you. Then you die allowing those children left behind to correct the wrongs your ignorant misguided regulations permitted. We are ALL part of the human family. We are supposed to have reasoning and common decency in our genes. But heck "rules are rules"!
Sibi S. (A 70+ year old 'thinking' human)

It is sad but people like this give fodder to those wanting to pull the plug on grandma and grandpa.

Well 70+ Sibi, you've probably been trying to get around all the rules for all of your life. When these people moved in, they knew the rules, and shouldn't have moved into this community if they didn't agree with them. As someone else mentioned, odds are they would be thinking differently if it were someone else in the community who brought in a child. Many older people can't deal with children or just don't want to, so they move into senior communities, as these people did. Yes, they should be given time to sell and move because of the circumstances, but they have had 4 years already and clearly have been ignoring the rules. It's horrible that the girl's mother wasn't fit and wonderful that her grandparents are there for her, but, they should have begun selling and moving when they got custody of her. Now Sibi, your rude and ignorant comments show that you have lost quite a few brain cells yourself. My mother just died from Alzhimers and "oblivious" is a term that doesn't even scratch the surface of what she and all around her dealt with. Remember dear, what goes around comes around, God be with you.

Grandparents can offer the young a lot of things. Maybe some of the old timey values: take care of family, honesty, loyalty. It's what our children need. She's not getting any of that from her mom. Yeah, it is a retirement village, but give her and her grandparents a break until they figure out what they are to do!! One day all of you will reach the age of 55 (hopefully).

lamp58- Great Response!

I feel for this little girl but her grandparents have knowingly and intentionally been in violation of the rules for at least four years. They have no respect for the community that they chose to become part of and they need to leave.

Please go back and watch the clip. They got custody of her shortly after moving there. The issue is that they TOOK HER IN after moving there, they didn't move there WITH her. Could you look YOUR grandchild in the face and say, "Hope foster care treats you well, the rules say you can't live here?"

Also, the video clip CLEARLY STATES that they have gotten NO OFFERS on the sale of their house and they have already reduced the price by OVER $100,000. They are trying to leave, they openly stated they are trying to leave. All of you living off of retirement and SS, how easy would it be for you to up and move?? Got that kind of money? I think not, especially if they are taking care of the child as well.

lamp58...Perfect response! 

They probably figure they were so special the rules could not possibly apply.  It`s ridiculous how people think parts of a contract shouldn`t be enforced or applied to them.  Hey!  You signed the thing.  Along with everyone else in the community.  Remember, you are also protected by that which you now hold in comtempt.  I can bet every grandparent feels 'special'.  Well, all the rest of the 'special`s' have called the hand of one who holds the contract in disdain. 

I hope I never become like you when I reach the age of 55. I would rather live in a sea of noisy children, rather than know my grandchildren are in custody of the state.

Saves you the trouble of having to yell at kids to get off your lawn..Right Ellen?

Keep paying for that priviledge Ellen because those of us in the Human race would rather have those with actual Humanity living in our neighborhoods.

And that is your right and your choice Gary. That's the whole point. If seniors want to live in a place where they do not have the disturbance of children, that is their right too. No one is going to make you move there when you're 55 if you are not already. The grandparents chose to live there, and now they are breaking the rules.

I'm a proud 65+ grandparent. My wife and I have been raising my grandaughters (2) since shortly after birth. My wife and I love our grandchildren and don't think twice about having them with us. I think the people calling for eviction, either never had children, or have nothing to do with their children and/or granchildren. EllenBabers, which category do you, and others, calling for outright eviction,fall under?

You are absolutely right, lamp!!! What goes around comes around. And if this 6 year old CHILD gets evicted and put in FOSTER CARE because of a discriminating 'rule' then I think that that should be YOUR karma. They are trying to move. If you, and others like you, have such a problem with it, then YOU should buy their house and allow them to get away from old grumpy folks like you, that are more concerned with the rules, than allowing the child to stay with her grandparents. Either that, or you can pay for her through your taxes while she makes her way through the system surrounded by strangers, all so that YOU can have a piece of mind in your senior community. Personally, the HOA buying the home will be cheaper and less devastating for everyone. I can't believe you people. It really does take a "special" kind of person to dump a child into the welfare system. Just not the good kind...May God be with YOU!!!

gopher625 wrote:

It`s ridiculous how people think parts of a contract shouldn`t be enforced or applied to them. Hey! You signed the thing. Along with everyone else in the community. Remember, you are also protected by that which you now hold in comtempt.

One word comes to mind above all others as I read this, sir: Horse@!$%#.

When I imagine myself as one of the neighbors of this couple and their grandchild, I can't imagine throwing a homeowner's contract in their faces and telling them to get out before I press to have them evicted, because, frankly, I'd appreciate it if some courtesy were shown to me, given that the roles were reversed. I wouldn't want to have something I had signed without anticipating such a situation thrown in *my* face when all I want is some space to get *out* from under such a contract in good faith *without* giving up my grandchild to state care!

*None* of this is about demanding special treatment, but rather just asking for such space. Apparently, abiding by an HOA contract doesn't automatically make you a good neighbor, but I certainly didn't need to be convinced of that.

They have had 4 years of "space" in which to sell their home. They have not done so. They have not been acting in good faith. They have flagrantly violated their contract and used this girl as a tool by parading her in front of the media to demand an exception. This community has had far too much patience in my opinion. They have waited four years for them to sell before starting evicton proceedings.

And what exactly was the horse$#!% in his statement? Was it how some people feel certain parts of a contract shouldn't apply to them? That they signed the contract? That the contract was designed to also protect them from other residents breaking the contract? I think he hit the mark.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

And what exactly was the horse$#!% in his statement? ... That the contract was designed to also protect them from other residents breaking the contract?

Bingo.

Firstly, the idea that a contract is formed so that people won't break the contract is circular logic. Without the contract, there wouldn't *be* a contract to break. Duh.

Secondly, though, my commentary here is less about the contract itself and more about the community that, it is claimed, the contract protects. There's a lot of disagreement on this board about which consequences should and which consequences should not be tolerated concerning the eviction of a 6 year old residing in a seniors' community. The idea that I've tried to express here is that even if one is to stipulate that the homeowners' contract is fully enforcable by eviction in this case and that it has been violated by these particular homeowners, I can't imagine being a neighbor in that community and wanting an eviction held over them. At some point, I might find *myself* in a situation that is more trivial but even less workable than theirs, and the last thing *I* would need is a threat of eviction over it. What if the community standard for grass simply won't grow on my lawn? Evicted?

For me, if I was a neighbor, there would be a social contract at work in addition to the one I'd signed, one under which I weigh the consequences against the circumstances. 20-year-old drug dealer? Yeah, that's a problem. 6-year-old first-grader? Not so much. After all, you can always evict later if the latter *becomes* the former, which is not a foregone conclusion at this point.

Some "enemies" just aren't worth the firepower.

You are still disregarding all others in the community. The reason that homes sell for as much as they do in these communities is because there is an age restriction. If those under the age restriction are allowed to reside there then that age restriction is no longer a selling point and the property values for all residents drops. There were mobile homes selling for $200,000+ in my grandparent's 55 and over community. If people of any age were allowed to live there do you really think a mobile home on a tiny piece of land would sell for that much? No.

Ron B-781152 wrote:

You are still disregarding all others in the community. The reason that homes sell for as much as they do in these communities is because there is an age restriction.

Granted, on both counts. No one in that community, though, is thinking excessively of others in that community when they think of property value; they consider their own first and foremost. Everyone does; it's human nature, including my own. I never claimed that my argument covered hypothetical community-interest; on the contrary, it is limited inherently to hypothetical self-interest.

That my hypothetical self-intrest would extend beyond the consideration of *just* property value is anecdotal, of course. It's possible that every one of my neighbors would disagree; that's their right as they look out for their properties as they see fit. Personally, though, my argument is that if I were *one* of those in the community, I would have to weigh the effect on *my* property value with the effect of siding with the administration of a homeowners' association, which could use a precedent of "zero tolerance" to just as easily turn on me for something trivial that I can't control and never anticipated. It seems to me that there is as much of a precedent with disallowing the exception as with allowing it that would affect "all others in the community," including me, as I implied with my example of the lawn. After all, in such an example, the homeowners' association would undoubtedly claim - perhaps correctly - that the fact that the community standard of grass isn't growing on my lawn is affecting the property values in the neighborhood.

Furthermore, enforcing the contract takes effort; none of that comes for free any more than the properties themselves. How much damage does a six-year-old do, and is it worth the restoration to enforce?

On a matter of property values that is unrelated to the argument I make here, though, it's not true that every development bylaw is valid just because it's meant to protect property value. A housing development can't restrict purchase or rent on account of race, for example, even when doing so would raise property values considerably (and, in many areas of the country, it would do just that). Property values do not necessarily trump all, regardless of what anyone thinks of the position I've outlined above.

MamaMia-426281 What insite into your concern and feelings for others. You should move into that community you would fit right in. As far as the grandparents not meeting the needs of the child i am sure you having her thrown into the street and for them to loose the equity in their home would be much better for her. No wonder this nation is going to hell in a handbasket.

I think too many people are missing the major point. Rules are Rules and they are presented before purchasing the property. If you have no intention of following the rules, do the right thing and leave or purchase a home elsewhere.

My HOA is very reasonable, but we still have a**holes and rednecks that think they have the rights to do whatever they want.

I think most of those that are missing the point about the rules are people who have not lived in states like Florida. They must be from large cities where they have no clue what it is to own a home or have never heard of HOA. The situation for Kimberley is sad; her rule breaking grandparents did not plan accordingly and have left her at the mercy of the court. They neglected to intervene/negotiate with the community to stay there with Kimberley until the house sold. Isn't that what most of us would have done if we knew we owned a home in a 55+ community? How could they have not had the foresight to see this coming? Either they expected not to get custody or they expected to have the rules bent; we can only speculate at this point. People are not forced to buy into these communities; it's an option for those who prefer that kind of lifestyle. Most of them have nice amenities for seniors and they get to keep a social life with other seniors. Discrimination? Please. They signed on the dotted line to their rules and are bound to it just like any other contract. Why should the other 100+ rule abidding seniors have to accept this? For the childs sake, who is the innocent party here, they should be allowed to stay until the house sells.

What if the home doesn't sell, as it hasn't for the past four years, Princess? Their intention is not to sell the home. Their intention is to live there as long as they can in open violation of their contract. Let them stay until the home sells? She could be there until she's in her 30's, or until grandma and grandpa are dead, with that kind of open ended exception.

Ron B, I have just now read a recent article where it states that they just started selling the house 2 years ago!!! I had a suspicion that they were trying to stay there whichever way they could but gave them the benefit of the doubt. You are right. My thought was stipulate how long they should have to sell the house going forth but they had already done that by agreement with the judge through mediation two years ago when they were given 18 months to sell and move. Apparently, they purposely set the price well above the market price to not sell and gain time to try and have the rules changed in the community {from views of the house in the clip it is not worth the $229,000 they were asking no way no how}. Now, I just hope they don't lose custody of the child, for her sake.

If you check your facts, the girl was taken away from her mother by the court. It wasn't a discretionary choice by the grandparents to have their granddaughter move in with them. Apparently, there is no one else to take her. So your 'next person' scenario is invalid and a little absurd. I would not allow someone in a 55+ community to 'choose' to have their grandchildren to move in with them either. But if the parents died, let's say an only child like myself (my wife had a brother, but he died young in a construction accident), in a car crash or something, and there were no other family members who could take them, I would come down on the side of the child staying with the grandparents (my parents or my wife's). As far as other circumstances that put them 'in this situation now', like buying into this community before all this happened, or selling before the economy went down the tubes, it's kind of like telling a person facing a huge medical bill at a really bad time, 'well, it's your own fault for getting sick when you did'.

I think you should complain about people fighting heartless bureaucracy just to grandstand instead of out of necessity. Or maybe you should think about it as if she were YOUR little girl and she was taken away from YOU. I have to wonder if you're even capable of doing that.

You draw the line at Humanity.. Guess your moral compass doesn't know where that is Jan....

Ridiculous comment. The grandparents knew the moment they took their granddaughter into their home that they were in violation of a contract they signed when they purchased their home. They should have contacted the HA, explained the circumstance, and let them know they were putting their home up for sale immediately. Then they should have done that, moved, and provided their granddaughter with an appropriate home, which is not one in an adult-only community. A Homeowners Association doesn't have a heart - they make rules, and people who purchase homes in that community sign a legally binding contract agreeing to adhere to those rules. END OF STORY.

OH MY GOSH HOW MANY OF YOU PEOPLE DID NOT WATCH THE CLIP?!?!?!?

A.L.S.

They DID put their home up for sale immediately, RIGHT AS THE HOUSING MARKET CRASHED. They have taken OVER $100,000 off the sale price and have had NO OFFERS. It says on the clip PLAIN AS DAY that they have received NO OFFERS. They are trying to sell, they are trying to get out, they should be given time to do so.

When all you are living off of is retirement and SS, I hope no one demands that you up and leave without selling the one asset you most likely have.

And it is apparent that you have no kids and/or heart.

They DID put their home up for sale immediately, RIGHT AS THE HOUSING MARKET CRASHED.

Umm... try again.. That statement is clearly false. The houseing market in florida didnt crash until about a year ago, two years ago tops.

That girl moved in FOUR years ago. Two years before the crash.

The grandparents were either super greedy if they couldnt get an offer in 4 years now, or most likely, they tried to think the rules didnt apply to them and refused to try and sell until less then 2 years ago.

Motherofone, what clip did you watch? In the clip it states that this has been going on for 5 years "... but by the time the grandparents accepted it would be best to move the housing market had crashed". People saying "put yourself in the childs shoes" are insane. A six year old is an innocent child who can not make decisions for herself. She needs the adults to make them. But put yourself in the grandparents shoes is a whole different story. You nor I would have allowed this to happen. Most of the people posting here would not have allowed it either if it were their grandchild. We would have put the house up for sale as soon as we went to court for custody. But Kimberley's grandparents didn't. Why did they wait to sell? What were they expecting? They had five years to sell in Florida where most houses sell in one year; two is stretching it. People need to divest themselves of entitlement and learn once and for all that you need to earn things in life by respecting others and following the rules.

Your right, if I were in the grandparents shoes, I would have NEVER bought this house living around a bunch of shallow, heartless, pricks whose only concern is the rules. If I were the grandparents, I would RUN as fast as I could and tell everyone I know NOT to buy in that community. Unless, of course, you feel the need to be governed by a demeaning set of rules that want to tell you when to eat, where to park, and how loud you can fart!! No wonder it has taken so long to sell the house. I wouldn't want to live there either. However, for their sakes, I hope this family can sell fast and get that little girl away from the more uptight parts of society.

Hydi {?}, they had the chance to sell the house when the grandmother inherited it before this ever happened; they didn't. They wanted to live in a 55+ community by choice. Nobody forced them to live there. For you to make the kind of statement you made without having the facts is just venting, to put it mildly. We all have rules to follow whether we are children or adults, rules that are governed by the law and society otherwise we would have mayhem and chaos. People who deviate from the law or break the law need to face the consequences of their actions in a court of law. They already are in contempt of the court for not following the court order imposed on them 2 yrs ago. I feel sorry for the child for having the kind of grandparents she has. How on earth are their rules demeaning? Do you know what 'demeaning' means? I don't think anybody would want to have you as a neighbor either if you think that it is okay to break the law and bend the rules just because its 'you' we are talking about. That is childish, nonsensical. HOA I'll give you that much, can be somewhat annoying in some cases, but on the whole, they have clear sets of rules of what is allowed and what isn't {no dangerous breeds of dogs, exotic animals, loud music, trucks/RV's, etc}; YOU agree to them if want to purchase the home or live there by signing on the dotted line. This community of 55+ is governed and permitted by federal law as a community of strictly people 55+ that are retired with visits from children for 30 days each calendar year so they are in clear violation. The child is the one paying for their stubborness to stay in the community. The community has been flexible enough but it comes to a point where they have to proceed legally because these people just don't want to leave; not an issue of not selling the house if they had put it up at reasonable market price to begin with.

"I hope I never get to be a grizzly old jerk like the homeowners association president and others in the development. I suspect that their community is a real depressing place to live if they are all like that."

Amen. Someone above, trying to make their case against the girl living there, said to think of how bad it is for the little girl. Who's she going to play with? S/he's somewhat correct, but only in the context of 'who would want to live amongst heartless jerks like the ones in this community?'

As far as inconvenience to the residents, yeah, I'm sure that this one six-year-old little girl is just terrorizing the community, keeping them all awake at night with her wild parties, scaring them with her screeching wheelies on her motorcycle by day, making them all uncomfortable when all her thug friends come and hang out there, etc. Of course I'm exaggerating here to make the point of how bad can it actually be to have one little six-year-old living in the neighborhood? But seriously, I do wonder how long it took to find that one dried up old bag who actually complained about the girl on camera? Had to be a childless, heartless spinster, or the wife of the homeowners' association president..

thats a great answer re: the association buying property, I hope something good comes for bothsides there must be a way to make everyone happy.

If, and it won't happen, she were allowed to stay then the retirement community would become just another trailer park and the property values of all the other residents would drop becuase the premium on the property (55 age requirement) would no longer be a selling point. The community and the contracts were created to have a place where those 55 and over could go to live away from the distractions that accompany younger people. Infringe upon the property rights of hundreds instead of enforcing a contract for one family. Good call.

And, how ungrateful are these grandparents? They were given four years to sell, and they instead chose to fight their contract obligation, before eviction proceedings were initiated. Shameful role models for that girl.

Another name I give homeowner association presidents is baby Hitlers. It fits too.

I agree, that's why California allows personal lawsuits directly against HOA members; due to the history of frivolous, nonsensical, and/or unlawful application of rules & inappropriate conduct/reasoning of authoritarian HOA officials.

Ralph maybe you can pair up with Moma Mia above you would get along well with her.

I guess you did not listen to the whole report. The house was on the market for $250,000 originally. It is now down to $129,000. That sounds like a loss to me.

Also, yes the girl has been with them for 4 years now. They did not get custody immediately. The courts move slow. I am sure it was originally only a temporary arrangement which then became permanent.

Although they knew the rules, give them time to sell the home. Do not force this little girl into foster care!! The grandparents are actively trying to sell.

Seems you can't read.. One, They want to move and two, They are selling at a substantial loss..

Can't read or find your moral compass while also lacking in human decency.. You must be another Homeowner association president..Right?

Ralph396

Apparently your parents didn't do a very good job with you, either. But I'll bet you consider yourself a "Christian." Anyone who thinks children are "a bother" should jump off the planet. They are our future, you moron.

And what do you know of their daughter or their parenting abilities? They aren't responsible for the actions of their adult daughter. Drugs were her choice. You have no right to put down their parenting skills. What an idiot...

Well said. When people won't bend maybe someone should bend them.

Paul - you stupid - no clue moron. Ever own property in an exclusive community??? Didn't think so. We just had a homeowner trying to do something contrary to the HOA rules and we all got it squelsched - Rules are rules and are legally written and filed legally. You break - we break you.

Rules, smules Jan. Are you really so uptight that you would have a child evicted. Here's a clue: Get a life!! Or better yet, start with working on your self worth so that you don't feel the need to hide behind the rules of an HOA...oh wait, you are probably the president, right. Just something about the "you break..we break you" comment that leads me to believe you are on the board. Must make you feel important to know that at the end of the day, you have helped evict a child and her family into the street all so that you can take over their home and sleep sound at night. Congratulations, you are officially an idiot!!

Some people just don't care about anyone but themselves and their own personal well being and comfort. It's a sad thing.

You're so right Ray, you see it more and more these days. What happened to the Golden Rule??

Gerri, you sound like the golden rule only applies to one party here...the grandparents. The other tenants have rights also, and if they have to respect the rules, every one shoud do the same. I would fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make the HOA enforce the rules as they were written to begin with, and not changing them for one person, no matter how old or young. My rights count also.

Phuggy wrote:

Gerri, you sound like the golden rule only applies to one party here.... The other tenants have rights also, and if they have to respect the rules, every one shoud do the same.

For some reason, I question whether this couple's neighbors would be singing the same tune if the shoe was on the other foot, and I do believe that that's what Gerri-1423970 meant.

I would fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make the HOA enforce the rules as they were written to begin with, and not changing them for one person, no matter how old or young. My rights count also.

As I've said before, no one has the right to enforce a contract that itself violates the rights of another that have been granted to them by law. In this case, the child's grandparents are her guardians; they have the legal responsibility and *right* to care for her. They also have as much right to their home under their homeowner's contract as their neighbors do, as they're *all* over 55; it's only the couple's granddaughter that isn't, and it's the granddaughter that the homeowner's association is trying to evict. So, what would you do? Would you violate the rights of the few in the name of the many? That's not how it works in the US, sir.

As I've said before, no one has the right to enforce a contract that itself violates the rights of another that have been granted to them by law.

Precisely! By the grandparents breaking that rule, they are violating MY rights that were granted to me by the signing of this contract, which IS within the law.

It's quite simple.   A law, rule, mandate, etc is only as good as its ability to be enforced.  If it can't be enforced or is not what the majority wants there are avenues of procession to change it. 

Most things in life are quite simple and clear, at least clear until your own "ox is being gored", so to speak, then all of the sudden...!  They're also crystal clear until a lawyer becomes involved then the gray areas magically appear.  (Just read any legal document.)

As I read the responses to this issue it is clear, to me anyway, that most people think with their feelings which is pretty much they way they vote on election days. 

So follow the rules, change the rules, or get out of the way. 

You have stated the obvious. People think with their emotions. And we tend to vote those feelings.

I live in a planned community and everyone agrees with the covenants until they are affected personally.

Flybuoy wrote:

Most things in life are quite simple and clear, at least clear until your own "ox is being gored", so to speak, then all of the sudden...! They're also crystal clear until a lawyer becomes involved then the gray areas magically appear.

Oh, yes, *crystal* clear, like how plainly everything was stated in the fourteenth amendment until that *pesky* supreme court had to come in and mess it up with magical "gray areas," such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka or Loving v. Virginia.

If the sarcasm wasn't obvious, it seems to me, sir, that when laywers get involved, many times things become clearer *afterward* that really *weren't* so "crystal clear" before (such as whether the fourteenth amendment actually protects segregation and miscegenation, to continue with my above examples). That's what the whole concept of "precedent" means.

If you're really so mistrustful of the legal profession, you're free to go live under a rock somewhere and ignore matters such as your own constitutional rights. Your retainer will be missed, though, I'm sure.

lower the price to $89,900