Rule Enforcement (or not)

We have somewhat of a strange dilemma in our 86 unit, over 55, Condo.
Our Rules are explicit that only (1) dog is allowed in each Unit.
One owner decided to challenge the rule and got (2) dogs.
After much bickering back and forth between the Board, the Owners and the
Attorney, the owner was informed that (1) dog would have to go.
After a hearing before the Board, the Owner was still not allowed
to keep both dogs.
Now the Issue at hand: This owner gave (1) dog to a neighbor to keep
but that owner is only here part time. That owner has left and
gave the dog back to the original owner (to keep as a visiting dog)
until the part time owner returns. (in about 6 months).
Most of Owners feel that once it was determined illegal to keep
(2) dogs that this owner is in serious violation of our documents.

Your thoughts please.

OK, but what do the actual Covenants and Restrictions state?

Can a 'rule' govern the interior of an owner's unit re: pets?

Or merely the presence of said pets on a common area ?

If an actual Covenant restriction .... VIOLATION

If a BOD resolution (rule) .... potential court action

I agree that the covenants are likely being willfully disregarded. That is what loopholes allow.

You do not have an owner with 2 pets anymore.

Per your own posting, You now have an owner with 1 pet who is also pet sitting for another owner.

In fact, there may not be anything preventing an owner from pet sitting for multiple owners.

Per your posting, your rules specify that "an owner may have 1 dog of gentle disposition and 1 cat.
That is what has occurred, the owner has one dog.

Had your rules been written that said no more than one dog and one cat may be housed within a residence at anyone time, the member would be unable to pet sit in his own unit. Looks like you may need to amend the rules to eliminate the loophole.

BTW - you said that the rules specify one dog and one cat. It's possible that an argument could be made that the rule is in conflict with the Covenants (if the covenants don't mention anything about pets). If the CC&Rs are silent, then it could be argued that there was an intent to exclude any pet limitations. Just pointing out a possible argument that has been used on other issues in the courts and those cases were won with that argument.

It is John. Sorry about that. I was on a train of thought when I was writing my response and failed to realize that you had already made that point.

While it is true that he may have found a loophole, I would contact whoever licenses dogs in NC and find out if both dogs are licensed to one residence or even if they are licensed at all. Whenever possible, let the bureaucrats do your dirty work.

I too would be interested in reading the exact wording from your doc's like Ellie mentioned. (If you feel comfortable sharing them here.)

In response to a couple of request, here is the critical part of our pet rule. Other parts of this rule state leash laws,
cleanup after pets and where pets may be maintained, etc.

"No animals, birds, or reptiles of any kind shall be raised, bred or brought onto the Common Elements except a dog of
gentle disposition, one housecat, or other household pet approved and licensed by the Executive Board or the Association Manager
as to compatability with the Condominium Community."

My intent in my original post was to get viewpoints from members of this blog that have a lot of experience with this type
of issue. With the exception of GlenL and JonD, all I'm getting is questions.

TimB post:
Now, as we all know, members are typically identified by ownership. Hence, if the deed shows 2 individuals own the property - both are members. Based on that, per Richards rule, each member may have a dog - which means 2 dogs may be on the property.
I would like to voice my opinion on the above post by TimB: That is pure hogwash. My wife and I are both owners of a Unit. Does that give us
2 Votes? The answer would be no. Could we each own a dog, I don't think so, as it would be in violation of our rules.

Also I would disagree with Tim and say that a lot of condo cases pertaining to rules are resolved in favor of the "intent" and not so much the rule itself.

I have been president of this association for 3+ years and my wife has spent 2 years on the board, so maybe we're still rookies
But we're pretty well versed our documents. And I'm sorry EllieD if I misled you about Covenants and rules. They all point
in the same direction.

O ~ M ~ G

ability to read AND comprehend required !

what will they require next ?

? actual thought ?

? an actual understanding of one's covenants ?



The above could be interpreted as: only 1 animal at a time may be brought onto the common elements, w/o a limit on actual ownership.

Food for thought:

Written words have actual meaning. Different words have different meaning. The Judge will rule on the commonly accepted meaning of the words in a contract (covenant) unless SPECIFICALLY defined otherwise WITHIN said contract. If the words are vague and readily subject to 'interpretation' the contract probably will be ruled unenforceable.

I agree with JohnB and Kerry. The wording says only one pet at a time in the common areas. It does specify a pet maximum per unit.

....then one would not be allowed to raise a puppy in one's own home as one would have no way of knowing until AFTER it was raised what its' adult disposition would be

your take, Amanda, not mine

words actually do have meanings

apparently Richard's documents were authored by Lewis Carol

I believe that everyone, by there postings, have demonstrated that it's open to interpretation.
Because of the wording used, an argument can be made either way.


Which is clearly one interpretation and the interpretation the Association hopes a Court will go with if the issue is challenged in the courts.


That is very true, regardless of the issue.


Perhaps proof that the language is open for interpretation.
I believe that the intent of the rule is clear. However, the language doesn't exactly follow the intent which is likely why there are so many varied responses.


As you said, your membership (through their assessments) will ultimately end up spending more money simply to see if that interpretation will hold up in a legal challenge.

Keep in mind that attorneys advise, Courts rule.

Yes Kerry the BOD could amend our pet rule, and I agree it could probably stand a rewrite.
In our association a "notice and comment" is required to be sent to all unit owners prior
to making a change in order to ascertain the general feeling of all unit owners about
the proposed change. I am no longer on the Board so all I can do is make a suggestion.

Many rules are open to interpretation. And written words can be twisted to suit ones agenda.
We do not allow residents or owners to interpret rules to their liking.

And I agree one dog per owner refers to one dog per unit. If not how many dogs would be allowed should a corporation or group hold ownership? Unlimited?

For me this is a simple matter we would send out a violation under the rules and regulations and if not remedied then fines would follow.

We don't ask what the rules might mean we tell you what they mean.

The dog goes or the fines begin. How long are you willing to let this owner jerk your chain.
And I would have a private conversation with the accomplice who now claims the second dog is their animal.
I would explain their participation might prove problematic for them down the road.

Case closed let's move along......

Confronted is a powerful word.

Rather I suggest someone have a private "come to Jesus" exchange explaining their role is not appreciated or wise on their part.

Assisting another owner to skirt the established rules of the community is bad policy.

I hope your board decides to take action rather than debate this matter to death.

I believe they are actually beating the corpse.

either:

drop the issue

or

grow some testosterone producing devices and issue violation letter followed by non-compliance fines and liens

The time for talk is long long past.