HOA - Owner allergic to neighbor's dog

Hello everyone.

I have a dilemma as HOA President in Los Angeles. We have new owners that have a dog. The neighbor is claiming to have severe allergic reaction to the dog hair/dander. Despite the dog owner's agreeing to wash the dog, and vacuum the allergic owner's doormat DAILY, the allergic owner is claiming it is now the Board's responsibility to make the new owners get rid of their dog. The allergic owner claims it is a 'nuisance', and 'inconvenience.'

Our CC&Rs allow for pets so long as "a pet does not annoy, molest, or inconvenience any other Unit owners." Our bylaws go on to read, "Any inconvenience, damage or injury caused by such household pet or pets shall be the sole responsibility of the respective owners thereof and said owner does hereby indemnify the Association..."

As President I told the allergic owner that it is an issue between owners and not the Board. However, the Board sat as mediator for the two Owners in hopes they could work something out. That made matters worse when the dog owners refused to keep the dog indoors using a litter box.

My question is what responsibility does the Board really have in this situation? The allergic owner already said, "things will get ugly" when I said the Board will not force an owner to get rid of an animal based on allergic reactions.

What can we do as Board members to calm this situation down before lawyers are brought in?

Thanks for any advice!

HOA President in Dog Town.

FYI, there has been another dog in the building for 10 years and the allergic owner never had a reaction. The alleric owner also lived across the hallway from two cats for seven years and never had a problem.

Frank,

Most declarations have a provision that allows owners to enforce the restrictions through civil action. If yours has that provision then the board has no duty to do anything. The neighbor's threat to sue the board is nonsense; you cannot force one person to sue another when you have the power to sue him yourself. The fact that the allergic owner was making threats of a lawsuit without an attorney suggests that he/she had not sought legal advice.

When the complaining neighbor purchased their unit they did so knowing that pets were permitted in the complex. That is a risk of living in a condo. (From your description I assume this is some sort of condo or attached homes.) That is, they assumed a certain amount of risk by choosing to reside in your community. If they choose to go to court the burden will be on them to prove that the dog-owners are violating the restrictions.

Assuming that your declaration allows the neighbor to enforce the restrictions directly through court action, your board has no duty to do anything. I suggest informing both parties that the board will take no further action and that they are free to seek whatever relief they wish through the courts.

Unfortunately, I just found out today that one of the Board members (the Treasurer) sent an email to the dog owners saying, "The Board believes that the Owner's symptoms definitely constitute a nuisance.”

Obviously, as the President, this upset me a great deal since I told the Board to set-up the meeting between owners and that was it. Not to get involved further.

Now that the email has been sent out, do you guys think it affects the issue going forward?

Nicole, Larry & JohnC46 make sense, Frank.

Since your Treasurer has no authority whatsoever to make decisions for the board, I (not being an attorney) don't think the email can help the allergic owner.

Your board might want to censor the treasurer -- in an executive session -- for improper conduct. See davis-stirling.com, Main Index, Censure, if you want to learn more.

JohnC's idea for the Board to demand that the treasurer retract his/her email with a disclaimer that s/he does not represent the Board is much better than my reply. A censure would be the slap upside the head.

What does he say about this disclosure? Sounds like he has a big mouth. It still doesn"t change that it is a personal conflict, not one for the BOD, even if everyone sided with the allergy sufferer. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

Hey all, quick update.

The treasurer retracted her statement regarding the dog being a nuisance.

The allergic owner responded with this:

"Thank you for the clarification. I just wanted to be very clear that the board of directors has thoroughly read the very clear language in that section and as I see it the board of directors of Wellesley Manor has chosen not to uphold very clearly stated rules and regulations of our building. Any of you are welcome to answer."

We are just giving the owner 1. time to cool off and 2. time to seek sound advice rather than bully us into doing her dirty work.

Any thoughts?

Frank, can you show us the rule(s) that the allergic owner--in the most recent correspondence you quoted--is referring to if NOT the dog rule(s) that you cited above? In other words, is the allergic owner referring to some type of a "nuisance" rule in your governing documents? We have such a rule in our CC&Rs.

Do not, in any case, take the bait of any of you directors answering individually. But is the Board going to seek "sound advice," or will the allergic owner--I'm not following your #2, Frank.

I'm trying to visualize the situation better. Do the dog owner & allergic owner share a hallway? It sounds like with one or more other residents?

It isn't the concern of the Board and everyone who has pointed this out already is correct. If this person was allergic to peanut butter, would they demand that all other occupants not be allowed to have peanut butter? Substitute "dog" for "peanut butter" and you have your answer--- it isn't your concern.

What I find strange is that the "allergic" owner has never had a problem with the other dog and the two cats, unless all three are hairless. Makes me question why this person is only allergic to the one dog.

Why does every board have it's crazy member. Being on the board is difficult enough with out these owners who constantly complain and threaten legal action.

"DOGS AND CATS ALLOWED
Although there is some disagreement on this issue, it appears that associations can no longer prohibit owners from having a pet. As provided for in Civil Code §4715, associations are allowed at least one "pet," which is defined to mean any domesticated bird, cat, dog, or aquatic animal kept within an aquarium."

Read more: Dogs & Cats Allowed http://www.davis-stirling.com/tabid/2677/Default.aspx#ixzz2z3wdAe2U
from Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC.

Because, Frank, our state forbids HOAs from banning dogs, I think you have the law on your side. Your dog owner has rights granted by the state and this is one of them.

If Ms. Allergic wants to guarantee herself a dog-free environment, she should move to a detached home or some sort of development without hallways. Otherwise she can never know whether a dog owner will move in on her "path" that she'll be allergic to.

I live in Los Angeles and am not a lawyer, but California state law allows for at least one pet (dog, cat, bird or fish).

I know other people have already said this, but I think what hasn't been said is that the HOA is responsible if one member is harassing another. The dog owner went above and beyond what is required of a responsible dog owner--vacuuming the allergic owner's doormat daily is not something that is reasonable nor being asked to have your dogs defecate inside.

So I can see why the mediation didn't go anywhere. The board made unreasonable requests and allowed unreasonable requests be made of the dog owner.

When the board does mediate, it should come well-prepared, meaning you should have looked into statutes beforehand.

One thing all board members need to be clear on is what legally constitutes a nuisance ("That class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person of his own property, either real or personal,
") or inconvenience ("serious hardship or injustice"). From my perspective, what the dog owner was asked to do was unreasonable.

I think the other respondents included why. The dog owner was only using common areas in a manner that was reasonable and as other people were able to do so. The dog was not in anyway misusing the property. However, in mediation, the dog owner was asked to accept unreasonable terms. ("That made matters worse when the dog owners refused to keep the dog indoors using a litter box.") Vacuuming the allergic owner's doormat daily was unreasonable. Being told to bath his dog was unreasonable.

If someone was allergic to peanut butter, you'd have a hard time restricting usage since that would also mean you'd need to restrict the use of peanut oil. You couldn't or shouldn't ask someone who does eat it to take unreasonable precautions either (changing clothes and bathing before leaving his/her unit after consumption or before returning to his/her unit after consumption or use away from the unit). The same goes for smoking. The allergic owner should have been willing to wash his/her own welcome mat.

As someone with allergies, I understand that the problems could be potentially life-threatening, however, I also understand that my rights do not go beyond my door or property. While it could be that the allergic member has allergies, since there is another dog before, it might also be something else. Allergies to cats do not necessarily mean allergies to dogs. In the case that there might be other dynamics related to protected classes, further harassment might open up the HOA to legal action from Fair Housing, particularly since the dog owner was asked to accept unreasonable restrictions not put upon the other dog owner or cat owners.

fact: the dog is permitted

fact: an owner is allergic

solution: mooooove

OR

everyone involved can actually read the covenants to which they are signatory

AND

get a life beyond the HOA

OR

everyone involved can actually read the covenants to which they are signatory

AND

get a life beyond the HOA

I agree with Dolores and after reading what other people wrote, I think one can't emphasize enough that the dog owners should be told they do NOT need to clean off the doormat of the complaining HOA member.

The sooner the board does this the better and I would encourage an apology for requesting unreasonable requirements of the dog owner. Unless the board officially recognizes that it was unreasonable and officially discharges actions that the dog owner was encouraged and required to do that was not required of anyone else, the HOA and the board is open to charges of discrimination.

Like someone else, commented above, it makes the dog owner(s) seem like a servant to the complaining owner.

What Dolores suggested is reasonable. I have dealt with allergies and at least the complaining member knows what she/he is allergic to. I did not and that was a long and pretty ugly lost period in my life.

Dang nab it. I didn't realize that the post is about a month old before I replied.

Frank,

Out of curiosity, what did the Board finally decide to do?

Frank,

I know that when my dog started having mobility and bladder control issues it was an indication of problems. We lived with those issues for over three months before we made the very difficult decision to put the dog down. I can honestly say, it was one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make. I suspect that the owner is going through the same anguish I did in dealing with those issues of their pet.

You may want to suggest that the owner uses a sling to help support the hind end of the dog, as this was suggested by our vet. Basically an old towel could be used but the idea is to slip a wide piece of fabric (we actually cut up an old towel to around 2-3 inches wide) and slip it under the hind legs. The owner then holds the ends of the fabric to help support the hind end. We were even able to take short walks outside by using this solution. It also seemed that our dog was better able to do her business with this support.

You certainly should make sure that they are cleaning up after the pet. A small spray bottle of disinfectant and rag should be an easy thing for the owner to carry with them.