“Home wasn’t built in a day.” (Jane Ace, radio comedian)
You find the perfect plot on which to build your dream home in a security estate. Your offer is accepted and transfer proceeds – happy days!
So, imagine your distress when, having proudly taken ownership, you are suddenly told by the HOA (Homeowners’ Association) that you are liable for penalty levies because the previous owner didn’t build on the plot within the deadline period set out in the HOA’s constitution.
You ask the HOA for an extension – after all, it was the seller who was in default, not you. And besides, no one said anything to you about the problem until now. Most importantly, even with the best will in the world (and the best architect and builder!) it will take you many months to get plans approved and start laying foundations. The last thing you need now is the crippling financial burden of unforeseen penalty levies.
The HOA is unsympathetic. “You should have checked before buying,” they say. “The seller and the agent should have told you all about it – take it up with them.”
Can that really be correct?
A recent High Court decision addresses exactly that situation. All HOAs, owners and buyers need to understand the ramifications of the Court’s findings.
“You owe R190k in penalty levies and interest. Pay up!”
The scene is an upmarket security estate in Midrand, managed by a HOA.
In terms of the HOA’s constitution, construction of a house has to start within 18 months of the land first being sold, and be completed within 30 months. Fail to meet this deadline and the landowner is liable for penalty levies of twice the normal levy plus the normal levy. That’s triple levies – payable until completion. Critically, the constitution also specifies that “successors in title” (i.e. buyers of vacant plots from existing owners) fall squarely into this net.
Our buyer, as soon as she became aware of these hefty penalty rates, challenged them with the HOA on the basis that – as she had just bought the property and was awaiting approval of building plans – it was physically impossible to expect her to start building immediately after taking transfer. Therefore, she said, it would have been reasonable to give her the same time periods as the previous owners before charging penalties. In any case she could not be held liable for the previous owner’s failure to build.
The HOA declined to offer her any relief, and the dispute went before the CSOS (Community Schemes Ombud Service), with the buyer asking for an order that “the unreasonable and therefore incorrect imposed fines/penalties be rescinded”. The CSOS ruled the penalties to be invalid because the HOA had not followed fair procedure in imposing them, and the High Court confirmed this decision on appeal.
The details of the dispute are highly technical and will be of little practical import to anyone but lawyers. But what are highly relevant to all HOAs, owners and buyers are the Court’s findings that:
- When you buy into a complex, you agree to its rules: When you buy property and automatically become a member of an HOA, you agree to its rules and are contractually bound to comply with them.
- Late building penalties are justified: As our courts have previously pointed out, penalty clauses like this one are often found in residential complexes as an incentive to owners to “start and complete building works as soon as possible.” This is because “building works inherently cause prejudice to the homeowners’ association and the owners of the Estate … as a result of the nuisance (such as noise and dust) caused by such works, the security risk it presents and the potential for damage to common property…. It also affects the attractiveness and hence the market value of properties in the estate.”
- Subsequent owners can also be bound: HOAs can bind not only original buyers, but also subsequent buyers, to building deadlines. And they can attribute the previous owner’s non-compliance to the new buyer.
- Wording is critical: HOAs must ensure that the wording of their building penalty provisions is wide-ranging enough to include subsequent buyers. Otherwise, as shown in previous High Court decisions, they will struggle to enforce the penalties against anyone other than the original owner.
- Fair procedures are essential: In this particular case, the Court set aside the imposition of penalty levies as “unreasonably and unfairly imposed” and therefore invalid. This after finding that the HOA’s outright refusal to allow the buyer a chance to remedy the default, and its refusal to consider her application for an extension of the building deadline, “was unreasonable and contrary to the spirit of the constitutional provision in question.”
While the HOA’s constitution did unequivocally bind subsequent buyers to the penalties, this was not enough to satisfy the Court to rule in its favour. This is because the HOA did not act fairly in its treatment of the buyer. HOAs take note!
Buyers: Do your homework!
Although the buyer in this case is off the hook (for now, at least), things could have gone completely pear-shaped for her if the HOA had acted more reasonably in imposing the penalty levies.
The lesson for buyers therefore is this: Before you put an offer in for any property in a complex, make sure you understand exactly what you are letting yourself in for, and what you are agreeing to. Ask us for help if you’re unsure about anything.
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.
© LawDotNews
