LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
I am posting this because the issue of whether a particular type of animal is permitted or prohibited arises on this forum from time to time. My purpose is to create a thread where we can easily find references to that topic.
In the case of Steiner v. Windrow Estates Home Owners Association Inc, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina found that two male Nigerian Dwarf Goats, Fred and Barney, were household pets and not livestock.
Restrictive Covenant 9 states: “No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot except that horses, dogs, cats or other pets may be kept provided they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes, unless allowed by Windrow Estates Property Owners' Association, and provided that such household pets do not attack horses or horsemen.”
The court found that the goats were not being kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes and were permitted under the "other pets" clause.
The HOA also argued that the goats were barred by Restrictive Covenant 6, which states: “No offensive or noxious activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon tending to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance, or nuisance to the neighborhood. There shall not be maintained any plants or animals, or device or thing of any sort whose normal activity or existence is in any way noxious, unsightly, unpleasant or of a nature as may diminish or destroy the enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood by the owners thereof; except horses and stables may be maintained, but every effort must be made to reduce the stable odors.”
The court found the standards impermissibly vague and, therefore, unenforceable. The court held that matters of embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance, nuisance, noxious, unsightly, and unpleasant are matters of personal taste. What offends one may not offend another.
Steiner v. Windrow Estates Home Owners Association Inc, may be read at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1574910.html
In the case of Steiner v. Windrow Estates Home Owners Association Inc, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina found that two male Nigerian Dwarf Goats, Fred and Barney, were household pets and not livestock.
Restrictive Covenant 9 states: “No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot except that horses, dogs, cats or other pets may be kept provided they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes, unless allowed by Windrow Estates Property Owners' Association, and provided that such household pets do not attack horses or horsemen.”
The court found that the goats were not being kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes and were permitted under the "other pets" clause.
The HOA also argued that the goats were barred by Restrictive Covenant 6, which states: “No offensive or noxious activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon tending to cause embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance, or nuisance to the neighborhood. There shall not be maintained any plants or animals, or device or thing of any sort whose normal activity or existence is in any way noxious, unsightly, unpleasant or of a nature as may diminish or destroy the enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood by the owners thereof; except horses and stables may be maintained, but every effort must be made to reduce the stable odors.”
The court found the standards impermissibly vague and, therefore, unenforceable. The court held that matters of embarrassment, discomfort, annoyance, nuisance, noxious, unsightly, and unpleasant are matters of personal taste. What offends one may not offend another.
Steiner v. Windrow Estates Home Owners Association Inc, may be read at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1574910.html