Through the affiliate site of LNO, AboutMyHOA.com ( About My Homeowners Association) has been a long term proponent of the importance of HOAs and their role in protecting homeowners property values.  In fact, the site has more than 400 HOA links through AboutMyHOA.com including a page entitled "Who Needs an HOA?".  The article starts off as follows: Have you ever wondered why you have a homeowners association? You may not realize it, but your association may be the only thing that protects the value of your home or the quality of your neighborhood.

While the benefits of HOAs can be a tremendous asset to any neighborhood, there are others that point out being in an HOA can be a nightmare. From the book by Joni Greenwalt.

HOAs operate in a quasi-governmental fashion.  It has been said that a good HOA can mean the difference between increased values of homeowners properties and a loss of investment.  However, it is also pointed out that HOAs have been known to attract some individuals that seek to live out their power fantasies via the HOA.  Apparently some personalities are attracted to the ease of seizing control of HOAs versus other sanctioned governmental bodies.  When misguided, power starved individuals use the HOA to replace their own inadequacies the trouble for homeowners can be a nightmare.

LNO examines a case in point. In the Colleyville Subdivsion of Saddlebrook.
Ed and JoAnn Cox purchased a home on Green Meadow East in September 2000.  The home was exactly what the couple and their daughter Brandy were looking for.  After living in Carrollton for 14 years, the move to Colleyville would put them closer to their work and school activities.  The home had not been kept in good repair and many neighbors considered the house an eyesore.  The previous owners had actually bred and raised Schnauzer dogs in a dog run at the rear of the home, kids called the residence the "Schnauzer House."  The Coxes replaced the roof, tore out old fencing and replaced it with new, completely re-landscaped the yard, repaired and repainted the entire home.  With $40,000 plus spent on improvements both inside and out, neighbors stopped by and complimented the Coxes on the new look.  No one would question the home was improved and the value increased.

The Exhibits referred in this article below are located in a PDF file that can be viewed in a separate window by Clicking Here.  Keep the window open as you read the article and you will be able to refer back to the Exhibit reference in this article.

However, on March 16, 2001 a long running nightmare began when the Coxes received a letter from the Saddlebrook Homeowners Association (SHOA) proclaiming the out-building shed, that was originally built in 1987 (see Exhibit A), by the original homeowners when they moved into the house, was now a violation of the association bylaws (see Exhibit B).

Ed & Jo Ann Cox were excited about moving to the quiet Saddlebrook Neighborhood in Colleyville. However soon after settling into their new home the Homeowners Association began to harass them with letters about a shed that had been built more than 14 years ago.

In a recent letter sent to all homeowners of Saddlebrook,  Ed Cox wrote, "Saddlebrook seemed to be a wonderful place to live, and the house needed some work, but it was just what we were looking for....Without a doubt, 4209 Green Meadow East now had a positive effect on our block."

The Coxes explained in their research, they discovered the shed was approved by Buddy Day, the original developer.  As is the case with most new developments the developer maintains total control of the homeowners association until turned over to the residents upon a pre-stated occupancy level.  Day placed rigid specifications such as the exterior finish must be the same as the main house, concrete slab, lighted and air conditioned and a similar roof were all required.  The structure met all  these requirements.  In fact, when the Coxes purchased the property they received a letter from a legal firm that confirmed the shed had been approved by the association before it was built.  The "association" actually consisted of Mr. Day and one other resident. The association, as it now operates, did not come into existence until over one year later, however, the bylaws were in effect and in the same format as currently exists.  Day had the ability to grant exemptions per and to the bylaws.

The Coxes contacted their own attorney to contact the SHOA attorney, David Casey.  However, according to Ed Cox, Casey did not return calls and on March 23, 2001 another letter arrived threatening immediate legal action.  Cox's attorney sent an overnight letter asking the SHOA to consider a meeting to attempt a resolution.  Once again, Cox says the appeals were ignored.  The first week of April a sheriff's deputy shows up at the office of Mr. Cox and serves him with papers.  The SHOA has brought a lawsuit against their new neighbor.  The SHOA,  the same "entity" that had actually approved the structure 14 years earlier, was now spending homeowner dues funds to initiate a costly lawsuit, without the effort of ever having even one face to face with their neighbor.

The photo on the left clearly demonstrates the "infamous" structure can not be viewed from the street.  In fact, even the garage door is well tucked behind the home being an estimated 80 ft from the front of the lot.  The second photo requires one to actually be standing next to the garage door.  Even in this case, the view reveals an out-building that can barely be seen from their own back yard tucked just over the fence and behind large trees.

 Ed Cox points out that although the attorneys were happy collecting funds from himself and the HOA's monies, the SHOA adamantly refused to meet or consider any compromise.  The Cox attorney made an attempt to (see Exhibit C) find a compromise resolution consider the circumstances.  When the SHOA refused to discuss an agreement, Cox's attorney filed for a summary judgment in Tarrant County courts.  According to Cox, the Judge was not particularly pleased with a lawsuit from the SHOA that seemed to ignore the Texas 4 year statute of limitations.  To counter the concern, according to the Cox letter, Casey told the Judge;
"SHOA had no knowledge of the shed until we did the pre-purchase inspection in September 2000 before the Cox's purchased the home.  If we would have had any prior knowledge of this violation, we would certainly have taken action against the previous homeowners.  We're not Nazis your honor, we don't burst into people's homes looking for violations, but we always take action whenever they are found.  It is obvious that the shed was built with the intention of hiding it.  If the SHOA would have had any prior knowledge of this violation we must certainly would have reacted to it."

Cox points out the attorney's statements are at best disingenuous and, in his observation, an outright lie. He points out that the documents clearly indicated the current Board of the SHOA had knowledge the structure had been on the property for 14 years and there had been no previous uproar of complaints.  Further, the claim by the SHOA attorney that the Board had no previous knowledge simply doesn't stand the evidence in the matter.  Click Here to see a listing of the 2001 and 2002 Officers, Board of Directors and Standing Committees.

Cox said that "without question the SHOA knew about the structure and had records that verified it had been approved."  However, according to Cox, even when it was evident the SHOA had no legal grounds to win a lawsuit, they continued to have an obsession with Cox and his property. For example, on September 20, 2002 the Cox attorney wrote SHOA attorney Casey with a copy of an sworn affidavit from an original member of the 1987 Architectural Control committee whereby the individual confirms the SHOA was well aware of the Cox out-building. (See Exhibit G).  Cox points out that even with this evidence the SHOA continued to pursue the matter. 
(See Exhibit H)

The "out-building shed" actually looks more like a small bungalow or guest house nestled amongst lush landscaping and fountains.

Cox said that he refused to sign any document admitting the out-building was a violation.  Finally, a settlement was reached whereby the Coxes would agree if they in the case they sale the home, that the out-building would be removed.  Cox points out that the SHOA Board Members could and should have discussed the issues on a one to one basis with the neighbor. Instead of the simple solution of addressing the  issue on a face to face basis, Cox said he was required to spend $9,779 in legal fees protecting his property from "demagogues riding roughshod over their own neighbors."

Cox points out that the money literally wasted by the SHOA and by himself could have been utilized for much better purposes.  

Cox said the incident escalated into ugly comments and numerous irritating details.  For example, he said that he redacted the name of the resident on the affidavit enclosed because the former architectural  control member and his wife had been verbally abused at a neighborhood gathering by a current board member.

Cox said he is certainly not impressed by the SHOA and that the Board grossly mismanaged his situation.  He expressed doubt that dues paying members or even some of the other board members where aware of all the details.

Cox said he is proud to be a Saddlebrook resident in spite of the Board's action.  He pointed out residents should ask tough questions to the Board about their actions.  Further, he said he is considering becoming more involved to keep this type of incident from happening to any other unsuspecting Saddlebrook resident.  "In the meantime, Cox said, all the residents are welcomed to take a tour of the infamous outbuilding at our residence."

We're Open
Come Visit

Buy/Sell/Browse
List Items