[smegger001]

yet they sold it, why should someone who no longer has ownership be allowed control of something they sold? their wants to and desires should cease to be of concern once they agree to accept the money of the buyer. can you imagine Say ford telling someone "hey that car i sold you your not allowed to paint it green." no that would be ridiculous. why are homes any different?

[shados]

They don't, but the property is burdened. A car is probably a bad analogy here. Think of it more like buying a company. If you start your own company, then sign a contract with your suppliers, then sell it to me. I now am bound by the contract because it came with the company.

[unishark]

A contract is supposed to benefit both sides though. So maybe it's like an HOA that pays for a pool, as a benefit that comes with owning the house. But when it comes to things like you neighbors' ability to dictate your use of the property, it's more like a company that you only partly own because you bought most of it but there's others with part ownership and voting rights against your operating decisions. Point is, ownership is a set of rights, and the less rights you have, the less you own it.

[shados]

The HOA is benefiting both people. It's basically a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" agreement. The issue here is that you don't care about back scratches, so you feel like it's a one way contract.

[chasd00]

Side note, I thought when you buy a company all contracts are voided and new ones must be made.

[shados]

Contracts follow the company unless they have an assignment clause or a condition that says otherwise.

[pixl97]

> why should someone who no longer has ownership be allowed control of something they sold?

Because the law gives them that right, and you are not going to find any kind of majority that is going to change that.