Condo bans renting, can I have a roommate?

[fa...@squashclub.org]

The condo by-laws says every unit must be owner-occupied
and can not be leased. Can I have a roommate who pays me
rent? I don't see how they can have a law against that
since it is your space. Whether they pay you rent or not
should be irrelevant to the board.

[Mark A]

Generally, you should be OK with a roommate, so long as
you occupy the unit. However, make sure there are no other
rules concerning non-relatives living together in a unit.
Sometimes there are numerical limits on non-relatives
living in the same unit (in the Condo bylaws or even city
zoning), but rarely a complete ban.

[Dave M.]

Faraz,

We do not have a copy of the by-laws and therefore can't advise you on
what they say. Take your question to the condo board. Get an answer in
writing. If you are unhappy with the answer take a set of the by-laws to a
lawyer who specializes in condo and HOA law.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Mike]

I can't see them being able to enforce a complete ban

Ex. I have a "room-mate" (i.e. "lover") who splits the rent out of her
paycheck. Who's to say if we're "live-in lovers" or just regular
platonic roommates in the sense that faraz is probably speaking of? In
fact, she lives there with her 3 kids (and I have 5 myself) but the
condo is in my name. In fact, I could be involved in a 4-way
relationship with 2 other guys and a girl who all live there (and maybe
have their kids there) and would naturally share expenses. I can't see
how they'd be able to enforce any ban against me having my lovers living
with me even if we're not married (and thus not related) so how can they
say "those aren't lovers, they're only roommates in the totally platonic
sense of the word"?

I don't even think the city can restrict the number of non-related
people living there (unless it's obvious you're running some sort of a
boarding house) but I'm sure they CAN restrict the total # living in a
single dwelling based on size/number of bedrooms (i.e. if you have 2
bedrooms and there's a male and female child as well as male and female
adults, they might be able to restrict that based on either the two
children would have to share one room or would be sharing a room with an
adult of the opposite sex. The only other option would be "male adult
with male child" and "female adult with female child" and that would
definitely show the adults really are just roommates and not lovers.)

[A Michigan Attorney]

This is an issue of contract, not really one of "law". There may be
laws in your state that regulate condo bylaws, though.

Your question cannot be competently answered without a review
of both the entire condo bylaws document(s) and the applicable
laws of your state. Your interpretation of the bylaws may be
incorrect or incomplete. A "roommate" who pays you rent could
be considered your tenant, which would make your relationship
a lease for some (if not all) legal purposes. That, of course, would
be a breach of the bylaws as you've interpreted them -- unless
your state's law says otherwise.

Also, if you take on this roommate you may be assuming a whole
host of obligations under your state's landlord-tenant laws. Some
of the obligations may conflict with your obligations to the condo
association. The result could be exposure to financial liability to
both the condo association and the roommate. Before you do this,
I recommend you contact a landlord-tenant lawyer in your area
for reliable advice.

[A Michigan Attorney]

Mike wrote:
> Ex. I have a "room-mate" (i.e. "lover") who splits the rent out of her
> paycheck. Who's to say if we're "live-in lovers" or just regular
> platonic roommates in the sense that faraz is probably speaking of?

You seem to be alluding to an inability to PROVE a breach of the bylaws,
rather than whether a breach IN FACT occurred. If a dispute came down
to a trier of fact deciding whether the owner was IN FACT renting out
the premises, the decision would probably turn on whether the
relationship was IN FACT one of bona fide domestic intimacy (as
opposed to a sham relationship concocted to evade the restriction).

> I don't even think the city can restrict the number of non-related
> people living there (unless it's obvious you're running some sort of
> a boarding house)

Possibly true, but probably irrelevant. For example, municipalities
are bound by constitutional limitations that don't apply to private
contractual obligations.

[Dave M.]

A nearby "college town" (in North Carolina) does restrict the number of
unrelated room mates living in a home. This law has been challenged and
upheld. The law was passed to prevent both parking and noise issues.

I doubt that the OP can successfully challenge the by-laws if they
actually forbid room mates. If the Board wishes to interpret the "no
leasing" rule as preventing a room mate type sub-lease, then the OP
may have an expensive and possibly unsuccessfull challenge of this.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Robert Bonomi]

Mike <prabb...@phx1-ss-2-lb.cnet.com> wrote:

> I don't even think the city can restrict the number of non-related
> people living there

It is -long- established that a municipality _can_ make such restrictions.
_Most_ "college towns" have such a restriction on the books -- to limit
the number of students that would cram into an apartment to 'save money'.

I know of one such municipality that has had a restriction of 'no more
than three unrelated people' on the books for over 30 years, to my personal
knowledge. Given the contentious nature of the relationship between
'gown and town' there, it is a safe bet that if there was -any- basis for
a challenge, it *would* have been challenged, and voided. I do _not_
know of the actual case history -- whether the continued existence is
because of 'lack of challenge' or a 'failed challenge' -- but the ordinance
-is- still on the books.