1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HOA Restricting Dish

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by LilGator, Apr 21, 2010.

  1. Apr 26, 2010 #61 of 163
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC

    Read that again - as the landlord - you can prohibit your leaseholder from "damaging" your property - such as screwing the dish into the walls / roof, or drilling holes for the cable to go through - however - if the leaseholder can "mount the dish and get the cable to the receiver" without damaging the property - your hands are essentially tied as much as the HOA's.
     
  2. Apr 26, 2010 #62 of 163
    Justin23

    Justin23 Hall Of Fame

    1,218
    1
    Jan 10, 2008
    Read it again...

    "Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.

    The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes"

    Nothing in OTARD states that just because you rent the property from a landlord that you lose any rights....
     
  3. Apr 26, 2010 #63 of 163
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,750
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The point is the battle is between the person who wants the antenna and whomever they have the contract with. He's got to deal with the landlord.

    The landlord has standing with the HOA ... not the satellite customer here.

    Yes, the customer has rights - but only with the person they have an agreement with.

    And in real life, when someone starts asserting their "rights" and forces a conclusion it doesn't always lead to a pleasant future. If the person you have a problem with can be convinced it works out better than via lawyers and threats.
     
  4. Apr 26, 2010 #64 of 163
    Justin23

    Justin23 Hall Of Fame

    1,218
    1
    Jan 10, 2008
    Where in OTARD does it state that? It says "renter"...
     
  5. Apr 26, 2010 #65 of 163
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,750
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    So who did it apply to from October 1996 until January 1999 when the word renter was added?

    "Renters" is just part of the law ... not the entirety of the law.

    I'm not saying the OP doesn't have rights, but he needs to deal with his landlord ... not the HOA directly.
     
  6. Apr 26, 2010 #66 of 163
    Justin23

    Justin23 Hall Of Fame

    1,218
    1
    Jan 10, 2008
    It doesn't matter WHO it applied to before...just matters who it covers NOW. And now it protects renters. Nowhere in OTARD does it state, "hey you are protected as a renter, but have to get your landlord's permission first". :nono:
     
  7. Apr 26, 2010 #67 of 163
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC

    Then by your logic - the satellite customer can do whatever he wants - since he has no standing with the HOA - they would also have no standing over him.

    Just because he is a renter, he DOES have standing here, whether the thugs on the HOA board want to acknowledge or not.

    Besides - the landlord is NOT the problem here -
     
  8. Apr 26, 2010 #68 of 163
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,750
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    He is if he does not allow the OP to keep his legally installed dish.

    At the end of this issue the HOA is going to go after the owner of the property ... the person who agreed to the HOA rules when they signed the deed. He will have to make the fight or flight decision.

    And if the landlord chooses flight and tells our OP renter to remove the dish
    then the renter can fight him.

    I don't know why people in this thread are refusing to READ what I have written ... perhaps if I say it AGAIN in bold print it will sink in:
    The OP has rights under OTARD to have a satellite dish on the exclusive use portion of the property he is renting from his landlord.

    Also ... The landlord (property owner) has rights under OTARD to have a satellite dish on the exclusive use portion of the property he owns, above any unreasonable rule that would prevent that.

    From the description offered it sounds like this dish is on an exclusive use patio. If the area is shared with other residents it isn't exclusive use and is not protected by OTARD.

    OTARD is a good rule, but it is not a free pass to do whatever you want to have a dish installed. You can be prevented from drilling holes (find some other way to get the coax in). You can be prevented from mounting to outside walls. "OTARD" isn't a magic word that allows anything. Restrictions may apply.

    From the information supplied it sounds like the OP's installation is protected ... but only someone who knows what is exclusive and what is not at that specific property would know for sure.

    Hopefully a conversation with the landlord with OTARD in hand can clear up the issue and he can fight the "blue hairs".
     
  9. Apr 27, 2010 #69 of 163
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth... but I *think* we all agree here that the OP has rights, and that it sounds like his particular installation of the satellite dish is in compliance with what the FCC grants as his rights.

    The problem here is it is a 3-way scenario.

    Renter - Landlord - HOA

    The HOA issues a complaint.

    In this scenario the renter does have rights, but he has to secure those rights between him and his landlord. The landlord has to secure his rights as the owner with the HOA.

    The renter really has no standing directly with the HOA, as he does not own the property. The renter has to complain to the landlord who then has to take it to the HOA. It doesn't sound like the landlord wants to do this.

    So... the renter can fight his landlord and win... eventually... but in the meantime, if his landlord has decided not to fight the HOA... the likely scenario is that the renter will be evicted OR will have to go to court to prevent himself from being evicted until the dispute is resolved.

    For as wrong as the HOA is... I'd say the landlord is not a good landlord either because he is not following through and taking care of this issue on behalf of his renter.

    That being the case... this could get nasty before it gets better.
     
  10. Apr 27, 2010 #70 of 163
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,500
    98
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    This is an awesome idea. Who knows how many people in that development have wanted to get satellite but did not know their rights under OTARD.

    Lilgator,

    You keep mentioning something about your landlord losing his right to lease. Could you clarify this a little more. Also, while the fight is technically between the owner and the HOA, you have rights as a renter. So as long as you are compliant with your lease, he can't kick you out until the end of the lease.

    And while this may turn into a PITA for him, if you are paying rent on time and otherwise being a good tenant, he is not going to send you packing at renewal time. Finding a new tenant is a bigger PITA.

    Plus, if you lose your place to live over this, you now have real damages against the HOA and if it comes to this, I would make sure everyone that is a member (ie all the residents, not just the board) become aware that they may have to foot the bill for their board's completely inappropriate actions.
     
  11. Apr 27, 2010 #71 of 163
    SaltiDawg

    SaltiDawg Active Member

    2,384
    0
    Aug 30, 2004
    If the tenant puts an antenna in a bucket of sand and runs the coax along the ground to the receiver, just why does he need the land lord's permission?

    Does he need permission to put a chair on the patio?
     
  12. Apr 27, 2010 #72 of 163
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,012
    307
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    To me, the approach is to out-bully the bully. As I said:
    Also by filing with the FCC and including that with the letter, it makes it believable. But both should be signed by the landlord and tenant to be really effective.

    And as I said:
    Take it from someone who has done it, fighting with people just because you know you are right sometimes is not worth it. Sometimes it is. I can't know what's important in LilGator's life.
     
  13. Apr 27, 2010 #73 of 163
    ffemtreed

    ffemtreed Icon

    968
    1
    Jan 30, 2008
    When I filed my courtcase against my HOA I had to include my landlord as a defendant in the case even though he was on my side.

    As a renter you are bound by the HOA rules (Its usually part of your lease with the landlord).

    Honestly, the best thing for you is if they do start an eviction process against you. (they just can't show up one day and throw you out). You will own that condo if they evict you for illegal reasons.

    What I would do right now is submit an application to have your dish approved. If you already done this and it was denied then make sure you save any evidence of this as this is your golden ticket.

    as others have said document and save everything. After any verbal communications immediately write notes to your best recollection.
     
  14. Apr 27, 2010 #74 of 163
    LilGator

    LilGator Cool Member

    21
    0
    Dec 17, 2009
    This is a pretty good summary of my point of view, and thus my dilemma. I'm really not wanting to lay down here, but getting evicted or having to go to court and defend myself is not a friendly option.

    It's frustrating that even though the HOA is violating federal law, I am treated guilty until proven innocent if I stand up to their abuse.

    The first thing is something I will definitely be doing, at least for all south-facing residents (but probably for all, since it's an awareness issue).

    The full section about the HOA being able to have my lease terminated by not being in "compliance" with the master deed is here:

    I'm not entirely sure about the owner getting his permit (?) to lease revoked by the board by not being in "compliance" with the master deed. This is what he told me over the phone. I don't have sufficient reason to doubt it, based on what I have found in the master deed, but I'm still looking it over for those specifics.

    Here's a link to the master deed: http://nhenterprises.com/assets/pdf/The_Brio/Brio Master Deed Part 1.pdf

    Your other point is what I'd call my last resort if I chose to be a dick. If I tell the owner that come renewal time I won't be renewing my lease because of this, it will then become a more significant problem for him to choose to deal with.

    As far as having "real damages" should I get evicted- it still leaves me evicted, having to move and find a place to live temporarily, hire an attorney...

    No matter what angle I take on this, it seems my only realistic option is to cancel Dish, switch back to cable and from there do everything I can to fight this. Only at this point they've realized their scare tactics have already worked, as I've already caved.

    I did fill out the complaint form for SBCA- hopefully something comes of that. (Thanks for the suggestion, Justin23)
     
  15. Apr 27, 2010 #75 of 163
    Justin23

    Justin23 Hall Of Fame

    1,218
    1
    Jan 10, 2008

    Sigh....:beatdeadhorse:
     
  16. Apr 27, 2010 #76 of 163
    ffemtreed

    ffemtreed Icon

    968
    1
    Jan 30, 2008
    You are looking at all that stuff too literally. Even IF the can take away your landlords right to lease the property they would still have to go through a proper eviction suit with you. With a solid case such as yours there is almost no way you'll be evicted over a satellite dish that you are legally allowed to have. A little hint here, once they file the civil suit file a motion to have it moved to federal civil court due to the nature of the federal laws. You will have to take a couple hours of time to read and understand the rules of federal civil procedure, but they are not that hard. I doubt you will ever actually make it to court anyways as soon as the HOA lawyers pick up the case. They get real nervous in federal court for some reason.

    Do you really think your landlord is just going to up and give up his right to lease/rent the property?? No way, too much money at risk for him. He is going to fight this till the bitter end. Right now you taking down your dish is the EASY way out for him/her, so that's the resolution he wants.

    If you just sit there and take this because of the threats you are doing everyone in America a disservice.
     
  17. Apr 27, 2010 #77 of 163
    LilGator

    LilGator Cool Member

    21
    0
    Dec 17, 2009
    Part of it is me not fully understanding the eviction process that you describe, and the other part is not wanting to screw the owner over- especially considering we have a very good relationship right now.

    Maybe this is where I should start: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c040.htm

    If I understand correctly, a landlord would have to contact the magistrate court in order to evict the tenant (in this case, the landlord wouldn't be doing this). As I'm understanding, the board would have to present the section of the master deed that I am in violation of to the magistrate court. At what point am I served with this and given the opportunity to present OTARD to the magistrate court and tell the HOA board to "suck one"?

    How does this process work when the master deed gives the board authority to evict as attorney-in-fact on behalf of the owner?

    Legally what happens when the board determines that my lease is in violation and terminated? Is this meaningless without an eviction process?
     
  18. Apr 27, 2010 #78 of 163
    ffemtreed

    ffemtreed Icon

    968
    1
    Jan 30, 2008
    Eviction process in PA (i am sure most states are similar)

    Steps a land lord must take
    #1 give notice of eviction suit usually 14 days to remedy situation. (this can be waived in some leases)
    #2 File a landlord tenant/civil complaint with local courts
    #3 Get a court date (usually at least 2 weeks away)
    #4 go to court and tell Judge why the eviction is taking place
    #5 If won in court, you must wait 10 days for an appeal process
    #6 Get a writ of possession from the courts to take physical possession of the property
    #7 Constable or Sheriff posts the property saying he/she will be back in 14 days to physically remove anyone still living there.


    I have evicted 5 people in my life and the soonest I was able to get someone out was 5 weeks. Its a real pain in the behind.


    Yes the lease be invalidated doesn't mean anything to you, they still have to go through the eviction process. The HOA acting as attorney in fact is bound by the same eviction rules as your landlord.
     
  19. Apr 27, 2010 #79 of 163
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    No... This is really tangential to the OP's real situation... but I was basically just pointing out that a renter doesn't have the same rights as the owner.

    The owner can drill all the holes he wants, but can restrict the renter from doing so.

    The dish on the patio not attached to anything, and in an exclusive use area, is a right that is the same for both renter and owner in this specific case.
     
  20. Apr 27, 2010 #80 of 163
    tpbrady

    tpbrady Mentor

    31
    0
    Sep 1, 2004
    I have been involved in a couple of petitions, and the key here is to file the petition. Until the petition is ruled on by the FCC, I am pretty sure all legal activities are suspended. In the petition, I would name both the landlord and the HOA. The FCC is a reasonable group and if in the petition you clearly explain that the landlord is being held hostage by the HOA, then the Commission will identify the guilty party. The key here is file the petition. It has to start somewhere. If the Commission rules the way everyone expects them to, then the HOA is powerless to penalize the landlord without opening a really big can of worms for themselves. If you want to remove the dish, file the petition any way to prove you took it down because you wanted to and not because you had to.
     

Share This Page