A few weeks ago, C-Ville wrote about the resistance to the surprise residents expressed about the sudden application of the neighborhood’s HOA.
Residents of the Willoughby subdivision were invoiced in August for dues to a homeowners association that many did not know existed. The letter began the transfer of control of the Willoughby Property Owners Association (WPOA) from R.D. Wade Builder, Inc., to residents. Yet instead of pro-democracy plaudits, the shift has stoked resistance and even fears of criminal activity among residents.
I’m wondering what, if any, impact this case could have:
A Chesterfield County Circuit Court judge has found in favor of Romito, who sued his neighborhood’s homeowners association claiming he shouldn’t be forced to pay membership dues because he never wanted to be a member.
In his ruling, Judge Herbert C. Gill Jr. affirmed that, noting that the dues were not in place 20 years ago when Romito purchased his home in Bexley — an upscale Chesterfield community of 407 homes built in the 1970s.
“To say a taxpaying citizen could buy a home and then be forced to incur financial obligations without prior notice is simply unjust,” Gill wrote in the ruling.
Is there a difference between “not in place” and “not active”?
There are a few houses on the market in Willoughby now. (Can you figure out which one is seemingly mis-labeled in the MLS?) I sold a house in Willoughby last year. Thank goodness we gave the HOA package to the buyers.