|
Article Courtesy of The St.
Petersburg Times
By Drew Harwell
Published August 29, 2009
DUNEDIN — In a lawsuit that has stretched over two
years, two courts and three judges, the condo association of a 55-and-over
complex is trying to get rid of a Tampa couple, both of whom are 44.
The rules are clear, says the board of directors of
the Royal Stewart Arms condo association. The age restriction is on the
application. Section 14.8 of the Declaration of Condominium Ownership
states their complex is an "adult community." No 44-year-olds,
like Natalie and William Trudelle, allowed.
| The lawsuit demands the
Trudelles not enter the condo without an approved of-age
resident over 55 and pay the association's legal fees.
They wouldn't be forced to sell the condo as long as they
continued to pay the association dues and insurance.
If the over-55 rule is not enforced,
wrote attorney Joe Cianfrone in a 2007 court complaint,
the complex would "sustain irreparable damage."
The Trudelles, who work in real
estate, say the suit is a sham. Natalie Trudelle said she
bought the condo 15 years ago for her mother and
grandmother, both of whom died within two years and left
her the unit.
The
Trudelles lived there for less than a year, and in the
decade since, they have rented to seasonal tenants older
than 55. Other underage people have lived in the complex,
they said, and it was never an issue. Then came the
lawsuit.
|
|
The board of directors of the Royal Stewart Arms condo association say that rules forbid Natalie and William Trudelle from entering their condo without an approved of-age resident over 55. The Tampa couple has owned the condo for 15 years.
|
"A
third (of our neighbors) say it's ludicrous, a third don't give a rat's
patootie and a third are on the board's side and say the rules must be
followed," William Trudelle said. "Everyone out there says
Honeymoon Island is paradise. We say they're trying to evict us from
paradise."
The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended two
decades later, allows communities intended for those over 55 to discriminate
against young potential renters and families with children. At least 80
percent of units must be occupied, it states, by a person older than 55.
So why can't their unit be in the other 20 percent,
the Trudelles ask? They pay their taxes, their insurance, their $441 a month
in association dues. Besides, they say, they're only ever there to decorate
for potential renters.
The condo association won't budge.
"It is of no consequence that she claims to be
there only to decorate," Cianfrone wrote in a 2007 letter to the
association's board. "Any reason Ms. Trudelle provides for residing in
the unit is irrelevant."
In the same letter, Cianfrone wrote the association
could grant the Trudelles a "hardship exemption," allowing
leniency because of Natalie Trudelle's former family connection. Department
of Housing and Urban Development documents say the flexible protection is
allowed but not required.
The board argues Trudelle never inherited the unit —
it was hers all along. The sale application from 1994 shows Natalie as the
applicant, with her mother and grandmother listed as additional occupants.
The Trudelles say they feel singled out by the
association. They've compiled affidavits from former residents who would
have been under 55. That includes board president John Hutchinson, who, they
point to in records, was the sole owner of a unit there while underage.
Hutchinson disagrees, saying his unit was
grandfathered in after the complex became age-restricted in 1988. He, like
other board members, would not comment on the litigation. Four messages left
for Cianfrone this week went unanswered.
Hutchinson did say any story on the 2-year-old legal
complaint would be "premature," adding that "these kinds of
cases happen all the time."
The case, moved from county to circuit court last
month because county courts do not have jurisdiction over title disputes,
continues, even as the Trudelles say they've given the board "every
opportunity to drop the lawsuit."
They said they're sure they'll win. The board seems to
disagree. The courts chug on.
"I would hope that you would try to get this
matter mediated, or resolved somehow, instead of tilting (at) windmills like
this," said Circuit Court Judge Radford Smith, according to a court
transcript. "I mean, it just goes on and on and on."
|
