Not Desirable

Does anyone know of Case Law where the courts defined the term "Not Desirable". For example, parking RVs in the street is not desirable.

I have four or five dictionary definitions. What I'm looking for is Case Law where the judge tackled "not desirable" from a legal standpoint - trying to define it legally, not simply using command usage.

You might want to limit your search to Colorado case law. If you want to see the ultimate in what could not be deemed "undesirable" initially because of vagueness Google - Prince Mongo + Daytona Beach, FL.

Here is another FL case you might want to Google - A. J. Vizzi + Tampa, FL
Also read here..........http://voices.yahoo.com/tampa-bay-homeowners-association-runs-amok-over-a-6500248.html

It would depend on the context in which the phrase is used.

Example 1: Plastic flamingo yard ornaments are not desirable.

Example 2: Plastic flamingo yard ornaments are not desirable and therefore prohibited.

In example 1, there is no explicit prohibition or restriction, just a meaningless opinion that the author does not like the yard ornaments. There is such an explicit prohibition in example 2. The wording in example 1 would not create an enforceable covenant against the yard ornaments but example 2 would.

It would definitely help if you quoted the passage where the phrase "not desirable" is found.

What I get out of this is that fencing around outdoor patios, intended pet areas, pools, or playgrounds is okay to put up. It is fences that are installed around the entire perimeter of the lot are not a look the HOA wants. Let me put it visually to you. A privacy fence around your kid's playground set to hide it from the neighbors is okay. What the HOA does NOT want are those fences that wraps around your lot and adjoins with your neighbors lots. Pretty much wrapping your property up with fencing. It can make for unsightly gaps or non-matching effect of every neighbor being inconsistent with fencing materials.

You ever go through a neighborhood that each fence is different but adjoined? It kind of looks tacky and "undesirable". It lacks consistency and definition. What if a neighbor doesn't want to "share" their fence with another neighbor? So each neighbor has to square in their own lot and having multiple fences facing eachother? With gaps between that can't be reached.

I hope you can see the difference here. The "undesirable" part is the intent of consistency the HOA wants for their HOA's appearance. One could almost equate it with "Theme". Our HOA "Theme" was old New England shipping town with muted colors. Which means modifying the outside of your house to look like an old Victorian home was NOT desirable.

It's kind of hard to define legally and is based more on intent. One needs to prove intent of the documents that fencing extending the entire lot so that neighbors can eventually tie into it with their own is NOT a look/theme the HOA wants or desires. I would prove this by providing a copy of the layout of the HOA (Available at the courthouse) and showing what it COULD look like if each owner installed fencing on their own lots. Show the "look" or functionality of this would not flow with the intent of the HOA's rules.

Hope this helps...

Like I said. I would show what the effect would be on the HOA IF owners/members installed fences along their lot lines. Maybe find some examples in other neighborhoods to support your case. There's no reason you can't provide proof like this to the judge to consider for his/her decision. I would have the plat of the HOA with examples of lot fenced in and the desirable look of the intended rules. Put in a few small fences for playgrounds/pet walks as examples versus the look of double/unmatched fencing. Show the effect if you have lawncare that it could interfere with their work. Not all neighborhoods can support privacy fencing. The landscaping/shape of the HOA really can effect the look.

Having case law isn't your only way to prove your point. You just have to sway the judges opinion by like 1 percent in your favor. Showing pictures and providing the layout options would do it in my book if I were to go to court.

I think your still concentrating too much on finding a "Case law" for your court case. Let the lawyer do his job and find it. That's what you pay them for and that is why they are LICENSED to PRACTICE law. It's NOT your job to find case law. Your to supply information to help prove your case. Case laws are also created and not only referenced. Your case could indeed be a "case law" study after all is said and done.

I used to drive my lawyers crazy because I knew about the law and how things worked. Wasn't your typical client. However, I had to realize that I am paying them to do a job that I am NOT licensed or qualified to do. My job was to provide them the money and information they needed to do their job. It wasn't to look up old laws in law books because I wouldn't know the context of what that case was. The law has to work in context and that's what your lawyer and judge went to school for.

Would like to know more about the reason this is in court? Did the HOA request an owner to remove their fence? We can argue intent and case law all the time hear but not knowing any details of the case doesn't put things in the correct perspective to provide help. What exactly is the HOA doing here in court?

Yep, it just shows an HOA can make any rule they want, but when it comes to court, it may be impossible to enforce. Just goes to show, most rules an HOA have are voluntary, as they will not stand up in court.

In the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, homes without privacy fences or walls surrounding the backyards are scarce. They are so prevalent that a home without such a wall or fence would be undesirable, meaning that it would be difficult to sell. And the fences and walls are almost always built on the lot lines.