151–160 of 574 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
B doesn't have standing because they are indirectly harmed? So if I sell a home in an HOA without the HOA covenant on the deed, can the HOA sue? It seems they are also only indirectly harmed.
No because the HOA represents the other members of the community who were also subject to the same CCRs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me how I can just strip deed restrictions simply because I don't like them and/or they're inconvenient for me. Deed restrictions are the mechanism that basically all HOAs are built upon so if you can just skirt around them because $reasons there are millions of people who would like to know.
> Please tell me how I can just strip deed restrictions simply because I don't like them and/or they're inconvenient for me. Easy - be a municipality. There's a reason the phrase "can't fight city hall" exists, and is for the most part universally true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please tell me how I can just strip deed restrictions simply because I don't like them and/or they're inconvenient for me. Easy - be a municipality. There's a reason the phrase "can't fight city hall" exists, and is for the most part universally true.
Yeah, city law can easily override deed laws. But further, eminent domain allows the city to strip away deed restrictions through a "one weird trick". The city can eminent domain the land from themselves removing the restriction and then sell it privately. The same way the city can eminent domain your home and put a road through it. The HOA can't stop the city from putting in a new road.
But we're all guessing at Lawyer Facts(tm).
Wow they had the condition that the land be used as a park baked into the deed when they sold it to the city for $10, the city sold it, and when the family went to court their suit was dismissed. Now their home is worthless because nobody wants to live next to a data center. When are we going to hold local government officials accountable for bullshit like this? Send them to prison.
It was unclear from this summary but there are a few parties here: the original farmer A, the neighbouring family B, the city C, and the datacenter builder D. A sold to C with the deed restriction C sold to D without the restriction B tried to sue to stop D from building the datacenter, but B has no standing. Okay, that makes sense. It seems to me that A or C has standing, but not B. And depending on the way it's wri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law addressed this centuries ago. The general rule is that you can enforce such rules for a generation plus twenty years. That may seem like a long time, but the rule prevents the "cold hand from the grave" dictating how living people should act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities In this case, the farmer should have talked to a lawyer first. There are ways to set thing up to prevent misuse.
Apparently not in South Dakota.
But governments have eminant domain powers. They can always force a purchase if they really want to.
Wow they had the condition that the land be used as a park baked into the deed when they sold it to the city for $10, the city sold it, and when the family went to court their suit was dismissed. Now their home is worthless because nobody wants to live next to a data center. When are we going to hold local government officials accountable for bullshit like this? Send them to prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is a park, does it mean anyone living in the city has standing because their entire city lost the park?
Hopefully just being a resident of a city doesn’t give you standing to sue over any decision that has a tenuous adverse effect on you. I mean if that holds why shouldn’t visitors who might one day hope to visit the given park have standing to sue?
Why not? If you are impacted, why not? When do you have a standing then?
Visitors out of town have less standing than the people paying taxes to the town, that is fair, but the city IS the people, each and every person, not an abstract third party that herds them like cattle.
Notwithstanding the merits of this case, I'm against the concept of unlimited time deed restrictions on property. Dead people should not be able to decide what living people can do with land or any other property indefinitely. That's why we have things like the rule against perpetuities, and requirements that charitable foundations spend a certain percentage of their assets every year. Some of these ideas strongly ca…
Since this seems to be a misapprehension by a couple of commentators I'll put this as a top-level comment. The family bringing the lawsuit is not the family that donated the land.
(Sorry, I don't have access to read the full article) Is the family suing a member of the city? If so they still seem like valid complainants in the case since its publicly owned land.
Good thing he's not donating his body to science... they'd carve him up and sell him to plastic surgeons for parts.
https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/2026/5/13/the-takehow-us-...
https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2025/10/01/usc-sold-dead-b...