Restricting a property owner to his own property

This is an interesting one....In our sub there is a property owner who would spend many hours at the pavilion area using the the WiFi for his laptop. There have been issues with him supposedly saying inappropriate things to females on the beach, and pavilion areas, such as asking them if they would like to come visit him for drinks, or if they would like to be his friend, etc....well there have been numerous complaints about him, the local police have been called on him but no charges pressed.

Well Anyway, the president of the BOD as well as the head of security proceeded to send this property owner a letter informing him that he is no longer allowed in any of the public areas,(Beach, Pavilion, Boat Launch, Etc)NOR is he allowed to attend any events held by the POA. They stated that he is only allowed to be on his property, or at the dump site to dispose of his trash....IS the BOD able to do this legally? OR are they setting themselves up for a lawsuit?

In the past there have been property owners who behaved much worse in public and when it was suggested that they be banned from the beach or wherever, we were told that they could not legally do that, but now, they are doing it....any input?

Thanks for the input ~

So the HOA is instituting special rules for one individual, depriving him of his legal rights of access to common areas despite him not breaking any rules and with no charges pressed against him? If the bylaws don't allow for restricting access like that, I hope the HOA has a good lawyer and discrimination insurance.

A HOA is ALWAYS setting itself for a lawsuit. That's just the nature of the beast and world today. Is the HOA justified in requesting their restrictions? Maybe. They can restrict useage for access if one doesn't pay their dues. This should be written up somewhere in your documents if your HOA ever wants to enforce that kind of rule. A fining schedule or restriction need to be documented and recognized by ALL members.

This still is a police situation and NOT a HOA's. I think the HOA should consider getting rid of their Wi-Fi access in these areas or get a tech head in to restrict his IP address from connecting. That would deter him from using these areas if he's unable to connect there. He'll have to move somewhere else.

The laws on this kind of behavior don't exist or so convaluted that police can't do anything. Until there are more laws put into place for this type of behavior, then there are no laws he is breaking. It's just the "Creep" law that most women should have installed in their brains already. Until actually does a lewd act in public or other type laws on the books, he can do what he wants.

I had a guy who exposed himself to a woman at our pool. He routinely walked in front of his windows naked. A few occassions he tried to hit on me and touch me inappropriately. The lady he exposed himself to did call the police to make a report. However, as far as the HOA was concerned we couldn't do a thing about it. I just passed the word along on the "downlow" to members to keep an eye out on this guy and NOT let women be alone with him. Just letting people know to be careful seemed to help a bit. If he had done anything beyond this then the police would have to be called by the victim NOT the HOA.

It is a hard situation and I can relate to it. Until more laws are put into place guarding against this behavior, your HOA has to abide by the rules of the land. That means having the police handle it and the HOA enforcing their own rules they have in place.

MelissaP..........I agree...but the WiFi is offered for the benefit of the campers and the weekend residents for a 1.99 a day usage charge....He paid his money, and most of the time sat in his car using it. The truly sad thing is now, the head of security has a CCW permit and is now using this incident as an excuse to carry his pistol with him now. I and many others see a MAJOR mess coming down the road......

Nope, being Creepy is not.......we really have few rules if any due to the fact that this place was built as a "Weekend Getaway" destination....no noise ordinances either

I agree...the "Head of Security" is an ex cop and just a wee bit TOO gung ho on issues.....Our "Security" has No Authority whatsoever, yet between him and the President of the board they act like they are the real police....They will get upset if a property owner calls the police for an issue, versus calling the rent-a-cops on site...The head of security teaches all these firearm safety and hunting safety courses and he does have a CCW permit...but still no need to carry a weapon, not here.......

1. This is a law enforcement matter so reports should be made to police to keep a record if nothing else.

2. There is no legal right to supply wi-fi service on "public property." Cutting it off could save the headache with no worry
of lawsuit.

3. One bad apple can ruin an entire barrel.

4. Sending dues payers nasty letters often doesn't correct the situation. You can show people better than you can tell them. See #1.

5. Temporary wi-fi access is usually priced higher than $1.99/day, which puts it, on a monthly basis, about equal in price to subscribing from home. Convenience carries higher price, hence you pay for it. Otherwise, it's a deal to pay as you go at this facility for internet. It's as cheap as paying a regular subscription. Vacationers will pay. Permanent residents will see a better deal in signing up with the local internet provider.

6. The definition of "Creepy at the Pavillion" is too subjective to even consider determining. But, if women since threat, the HOA should consider the threat as legitimate.

The board of directors owes it to the dues payers to protect the property, even shutting off wi-fi, until a new and more protective policy can be instituted and the very nice service re-instituted.

I would not take this character too lightly. Years ago there was a night security guard where I worked who was creepy. The women who worked second shift felt uneasy and at least one kept him locked out of her work area. He was a middle-aged, short, fat, balding man and his car had bumper stickers with things like "No Riders - Except Women." He was there for a long time before he got fired for installing a two-way mirror in the women's restroom. Creepy people do creepier and creepier things.

The problem here is that the association has accused this guy of being a creep, found him guilty, and imposed a penalty upon him without giving him an opportunity to respond. The association should have sought an injunction as this would provide a legal forum to accuse him, give him a fair trial, and act against him under the authority of the court. As things stand now, you have a member who has been deprived of the benefits of his property without any lawful authority.

At this point, not only has the association set itself up for a lawsuit but it may have also violated the clean hands doctrine that says you cannot seek legal relief after you have tried to achieve it through unlawful means.