Enforcing pet CC&R

We own a condo in a 10-unit townhouse association in California. We are trying to sell and for part 2 of the mediation, we have non-monetary requests. Most of which are very simple things like: tell us when the meetings are, send us an agenda and allow our realtor to put up signs. All things supposedly guaranteed by the Davis-Stirling Act and our CC&R.

We are worried about California disclosure laws. We know that our neighbor who is the treasurer and the dominant board member owns rabbits. These animals are not allowed by our CC&R (only dogs, cats, fish and birds). Last we were able to verify, these people had eight rabbits (all altered) in their three bedroom home as well as two cats.

California state laws guarantees you can have one such pet in your condo. Our CC&R allow only two. Yes, two. No way around that. No grandfathering in. Just two pets. Although with fish, I'm guessing no one would really care unless you have three sharks or piranhas.

California state disclosure laws would require us to disclose habitual nuisance barking to a prospective buyer. The rabbits are actually far worse. When we lived there, we could hear them gnawing on the base boards--over my TV and typing. Granted my hearing is very good, but this is a very obvious problem once you are living there. And the HOA is responsible for the shared walls.

The number of rabbits is not above the city requirements so it is really a matter of enforcement of the CC&R. The board has refused to address this problem (except to threaten us with fines for things there are no rules against but backing down when I ask them for the exact violation).

So my question is: How do other HOAs go about enforcing pet CC&R?

As I stated more than once, California disclosure laws. We don't live there. But we are trying to sell.

I don't think you read carefully, but just for extra measure, here's what Nolo wrote about California full disclosure laws:

California sellers must fill out and give the buyers a disclosure form listing a broad range of defects -- such as a leaky roof, deaths that occurred within three years on the property, neighborhood nuisances such as a dog that barks every night, and more. In addition, California sellers must disclose potential hazards from floods, earthquakes, fires, environmental hazards, and other problems, in a Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement. California sellers must also alert buyers to the availability of a database maintained by law enforcement authorities on the location of registered sex offenders.

If you fail to do so, you can be sued (i.e. you have legal liability).

Law

No...no...I think JM likes being the martyr.

I think in life she has won every battle she has ever fought...amd lost every war she ever fought in.

I could be wrong...LOL

JM10,

Since you don't live there you can not honestly say if that noise is still a problem or not.

Therefore, when you disclose specify that you have not lived on the property for x years and you have not been informed by any tenants of noise issues (unless you have been informed of noise issues of course).

You, as a member, also have the authority to enforce the CC&Rs. Therefore, just as the board has the option* of enforcing the CC&Rs or not, so do you. If the Board has chosen not to enforce you may seek a court order to enforce the pet policy on that one individual. The choice is yours to make.

* I say option because most CC&Rs give the authority to the Board to enforce covenants but, just as the document doesn't require members to enforce the covenants, the documents typically does not require the Board to enforce the documents. You need to check the language within your own governing documents to determine if this is the case or not.

Tim

Because we are still in mediation, we asked that because the board failed to act on the complaints that they be responsible for any legal liability resulting from breaking of the pet regulations.

TimB4, you probably aren't aware of the extent of the board problem we faced. We filed to complaint notifications, and by law these need to be acted upon within 60 days. The board refused to put them on the agenda. The board refused to give us notification of meetings and threatened to fine us every time we brought the matter up. They threatened to fine us for even asking about the meetings. They threatened to fine us for our dogs barking because they had numerous complaints, but could not produce those complaints when asked. The board refused to give us documents. We have been to small claims court three times and in all cases won. The board refused to include when they distributed newsletters.

So this is hardly a matter of passing the buck. We have done everything that is reasonable and been threatened with fines as a results.

The board has also committed fraud and theft. The police got involved on the latter.

The question of the pets (10 at last count) is a matter of public nuisance which is how animal hoarding situations are usually controlled. There are several problems. In the case of legal liability, we know that the rabbits are destroying the shared wall. We can hear them. We have seen evidence. This might lead to termite damage and the person in question is a director and the board has refused our request for a termite inspection, something that I had done annually when I lived in a house.

We cannot drop the issue because in California there is strict full disclosure laws upon sale. We could be brought to court for damage resulting from this known problem by the person who buys the property.

The high road would be not to lie to the potential buyers. Our legal action is an enforcement action, however, we have chosen not to ask for enforcement of all the civil code violations. We will be adding this to our non-monetary requests in mediation to protect ourselves from future liability.

We've added it to the mediation, however, the HOA board has already broken the first part of the mediation as well as making false statements (that can be proven false with public information documents) for the second part of mediation.

Mediation is part of the small claims court judgment in our favor. If we chose to go to a higher court for the enforcement issues, we would also have to go into mediation/arbitration according to California court procedure. So essentially what you're advising is what we are doing. Thanks for the validation.

The board was already in contempt of court from the small claims court judgment since we went to court in October and it's already June.