Originally Posted by Jerseygirl

I thought they were given a certain timeframe to evacuate. Shortly after we bought out condo in Toronto, the fire alarm went off. I put a dog under each arm, picked up my handbag and legged it down the fire escape staircase.

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl

I would hope people took their pets with them.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Did I hear that the govt. has declared a disaster area? If so, there may be some financial remedy there.

I was looking at a condo in California a few years ago and the HOA was excluding responsibility for things like decks, even though they are 'outside'. Decks in California (and presumably in Florida!) are key sources of trouble due to wood rot. Obviously this does not apply to a high-rise, which would presumably employ concrete/steel patio / decks, but in low-rise (2-3 story) condos, the decks are typically wooden and very often rot out, and have been a huge source of expense for HOAs so they try to avoid responsibility. Another issue I pursued on a potential purchase was 'consequential damage' (I think that's the term). So - roof leaks, which is the responsibility of the HOA, but if that leak causes damage to your flooring, who's responsible for that? In my view, since it was the roof leak that was the root cause, subsequent consequential damage to the interior flooring should also lie with the HOA but I was told this was not the case. Sounded like a lawsuit to me!

The trouble is, when you buy a place, you are so tempted to overlook all these exclusions because you fall in love with the place.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

Some may simply not been at home when it occurred and unable to get to their pets. Same thing happens with wildfires, fires start when people are at work, then the authorities close off the area as its not safe and people simply cannot get back to their homes to get their pets.




Here in BC stratas (our version of HOA) love to always remind people the balconies are exclusive use common areas, when they get mad that you have one too many plants or the chair color is the wrong color, or you have a bike on it, insert whatever petty thing they come up with.

The law could also force stratas to accept liability and responsibility for balconies, which is fair considering the owner of a unit can't just about fixing and doing whatever to the patios/balconies, some new buildings they completely leave out a balcony, I assume to cut cost on both building and maintaining. .

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

When half or more of your condo building has collapsed, I somehow doubt you hang around even for a nanosecond.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

Exclusive use common areas are a maintenance headache for HOAs by virtue of the fact that they're not easily accessible to the HOA in the manner that shared space such as garages, vestibules, roadways etc. are. So you get people doing stuff that directly affects maintenance, like having planters that continually seep water onto balcony floors. If you expect that HOA to fix problems to such areas, it's perfectly reasonable for the HOA to impose reasonable rules about their usage. That was always a contentious issue in the first condo building I lived in.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I'd bet good money that you could find dozens of residents of that building who were chomping at the bit to get back inside; some for pets, others for personal belongings.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

Exclusive use common areas are a maintenance headache for HOAs by virtue of the fact that they're not easily accessible to the HOA in the manner that shared space such as garages, vestibules, roadways etc. are. So you get people doing stuff that directly affects maintenance, like having planters that continually seep water onto balcony floors. If you expect that HOA to fix problems to such areas, it's perfectly reasonable for the HOA to impose sensible rules about their usage. That was always a contentious issue in the first condo building I lived in.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

One of the first things I noticed on pictures was marking that has been made on outside walls both to red tag each unit and to mark them as searched.

Originally Posted by BristolUK

I was a bit bemused by that report - dunno where it was or how many - of people who had been located somewhere else who hadn't been in the building at the time.

Maybe I misread or misheard it but I had the impression they had been found whereas I'd have expected them to have come forward themselves to say they were not there.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

This kind of thing seems to happen after every disaster of this and similar natures. I suspect this one is more complex because some of the "missing" don't live permanently in the US.