Dog Weight Limitation & Enforcement

LOL ... That is a question many of us have asked others who have come here wanting to implement this type provision. Essentially you cannot really enforce.

You can have them get their vet to submit a letter ... but is the vet fudging for their client? How often are you going to request that information? What happens when someone has a pet under the weight and then later in life ends up a pound over? Do you think that the owner will be willing to give up their pet or do you think a Court of Law would make them later give up their pet?

There are too many issues having this type of regulation which would be difficult to enforce and can lead to expensive potential litigation.

I found this info for CA:

http://findhoalaw.com/civil-code-section-4715-pet-restrictions/

Linda, since you're certain that the dog well exceeds your HOA's weight limit, treat the violation like any other. Not sure why you think you must justify enforcing the limit. in any particular way??? Or seek why you feel you need your attorney's opinion ?

Linda,

I did an internet search on hoa enforcing animal weight limits and dog weight restrictions in condos and a fair amount of links showed up.

None that really answered your question though.

I agree with those who said to treat it like any other violation.
Send a warning and have them prove the pet isn't over the weight limit (perhaps suggesting recent vet paperwork).

The following are some of the more interesting links I found:

Absurd Animal Cases in Homeowners Associations from a legal firm

Can HOA put a weight restriction on a dog? from a legal forum.

Condo owner's dog outgrows HOA restrictions, could be banned Las Vegas Newspaper article

If I recall correctly, Linda is in a high rise condominium.

A 50 lb. animal playing fetch in the condo will sound different to the downstairs neighbor then a 10-30 lb. animal.

Keep in mind this is a Tenant's dog NOT the owner's dog. So the HOA would have to approach the owner to enforce the rule on the tenant...

Dog feces and nuisance sounds are equally likely regardless of weight. That's my point.

Regarding feces: Poop is poop whether big or small and it needs to be picked up. Not picking up after your pet is the violation that needs to be enforced.

Regarding sounds: Large and small dogs alike can bark, jump, scratch the floor, knock things down, and result in nuisance sounds that disturb the quiet enjoyment of neighbors. Creating a nuisance is the violation.

"How much trouble can be caused by a single goldfish in a bowl ?”

- In 2015 a dog-owning condo owner in my jurisdiction was hit for $45 K in legal costs after losing a court battle against enforcement of a mere Dog Weight RULE not expressly platformed within the Declaration of a seniors oriented two storey community.

"Peaches" - now out the door - showed no aggressive tendencies whatever, nor were there elevators to bring residents into close contact with such an animal. But hips can be broken if jostled on staircases ( there was no accident ).

This judgment & several other cases can be accessed at http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=2&id=18254#18254

-2 Two other questions :

Bearing onus of proof how can management force a defiant dog owner to submit Fido for a weigh in without a court order ? Will photos persuasively establish an infraction from afar ? Or establish a breed with predictable weight ranges ?

Who was Diane Whipple ? ( Yes, small dogs can be firecrackers like mine in her youth but size indirectly addresses severity of injury.) The answer: A resident killed merely stepping into a San Francisco hallway in 2001 by 2 large under-controlled Presa Canario dogs being warehoused by 2 lawyers . . .

Linda,

Again, I ask why the weight of a dog is such an important issue that your board is willing to squander all its resources in a legal battle? By your own admission, you have not consulted an attorney and cannot even state with any precision just how much the dog in question weighs. Your stated justifications (outside all day on patio, number of dogs, noise, poop, dogs off leash) have nothing to do with weight.

You describe the limitation on dog weights as a "rule." Under what theory of law does the association control how an individual's property is used? You say your homeowners wanted this rule but apparently there was not enough support to amend the declaration, which would provide a lawful basis for limiting animals.

Just how much do you expect the legal battle to cost your association? From previous posts your association sounds like a troubled one lacking a pot to pee in or a window to throw it out of. I suspect that the reason you have not consulted with an attorney is a lack of money. If you cannot afford to consult an attorney before taking the plunge, just how do you think you can pay for a protracted legal battle where you start with one foot on a roller skate and the other on a banana peel? Unless the owner rolls over and plays dead, this is one battle you are doomed to lose.

What if someone wishes to buy one of your townhomes through FHA? You will have to disclose the fight you started. Even if FHA approves the loan, the potential buyer may go elsewhere or he may make a lower offer. Neither situation benefits your owners.

I strongly suspect that this battle over the weight of the dog has little to do with the dog and a lot to do with some sort of ongoing clash with the owner and/or tenant of the town home. In other words, members of your board have some sort of personal vendetta against one or both of those parties. If this is the case, using the association's resources to settle a personal score is a breach of your fiduciary duties. Perhaps the reason for avoiding your own attorney that you know he will advise against taking the course your board has plotted.

LarryB13 - not sure where you're coming up with this squandering of resources in a legal battle accusation. Perhaps you could clarify. And, as I stated, I KNOW the number of dogs, noise, poop, etc. have nothing to do with weight - it was just a statement regarding other ongoing issues with dogs. The limitation on dog weight is in our Declaration which was amended years ago using an attorney and with appropriate homeowner input and vote. The Board sees no reason to consult an attorney on this issue at this time as it is in the Declaration and this homeowner purchased after it was amended and we have a signed statement that the homeowner and tenant have both read/reviewed governing docs, rules, policies, etc. The pot to piss in accusation is really uncalled for - no, the Association is not "troubled" as you state, but in some areas more like "challenged". We're actually doing quite well financially with a 94% reserve (which is way beyond average in California), plus additional operating capital. No issue with money at this time, so that has nothing to do with not getting an attorney involved in this. This battle is more certainly NOT a personal vendetta. I take that remark very personally for the Association. Speaking for the Board, that is something we never do.

TimB4 - This issue has nothing to do with the tenant I was posing questions about in other posts. Different homeowner/tenant. The overwhelming majority of the community voted on this weight limit. Why? We have a community of dog lovers - maybe even extreme. These folks don't believe in having large dogs in small spaces (which these townhomes are). The community spoke and the Board listened. Hasn't been a problem in years and years. We have documents that homeowners and tenants sign prior to moving in so they are aware of the weight limitation. Never been an issue with that either. Perhaps it's because the majority of the community are seniors and they prefer smaller dogs? I have no idea. This was before my time. I'm not arguing here one way or another, just trying to get some advice on enforcement.

Sorry, Linda, I didn't go back to your earlier posts on this thread and didn't recall you writing that you guessed you needed to go to the D-S.com site. (not go to an attorney )

But I did ask why not treat this violation like any other? Letter, call to hearing, fine, etc.? Do the same if there are noisy dogs using your nuisance clause, etc. If you have rules against dogs off leash, treat like any other violation. So....why not? Did I miss something else?

As I (and others) posted earlier in the thread, enforcement is simple.
Treat it like any other violation.

Send your warning letter to the Owner (copy to tenant) that the Board considers the animal to be above weight and the animal must be removed from the premises or provide proof (report from vet/shot record that shows weight) that the animal is within weight limits outlined in Article X, Section Y of the CC&Rs. Failure to do either by mm/dd/yyyy may result in fines (charges) until the issue is resolved.

Good point, Janet.

LindaK5(Cal) 1- Respectfully unless either the (tenant) dog harbourers are stupid enough to admit their Fidos exceed the weight limit weight & by how much, the onus of proof should be on management to prove it.

Whether its dog weight limits or making annoying vibrations or witchcraft or whatever, exactly how should an adjudicator handle mere allegations ? Do you have as evidence for example photos juxtaposing a particular dog to a widely familiar comparable ? eg shown by reference to yardstick or mailbox array or baby carriage or wheelchair . . .

( On the docket today your honour : # 1 business failure -no food on table ; #2 tragic accident - spouse & kids hungry ; #3 Happy Days Condo Corp wants you to use your law degree & years on the bench to order Fido weighed & possibly evicted . . . )

2 - You may ? find that even total dog prohibitions in highrise Declarations are more predictable to get enforcement than townhouses/non stratified if only because of risks of elevator /staircase sharing accidents.

A broken hip for a senior could actually be life-threatening after an interaction in a confined space.

3 - If most of the Bigger Picture is actually about substantial nuisance disturbances or substantial interference with enjoyment, your problem with specific weights may make it just as feasible to target such for (minor) Rule violations.

Courts in my jurisdiction have refused to evict many Declaration-defying indoor cats, but actually ordered out two nuisance causing outdoor cats & then hit the townhouse occupant with over $ 20 K in legal costs.

4- At least the weight limit - before any injury or actual nuisance occurs - may help evict particular breeds or pseudo breeds substantially heavier than 35 pounds . eg so called pitbull mixes, Cana Presario, etc

Respectfully, if a dog attack occurs a competent attorneys opinion would retroactively look to have been worth hiring at least as to costs and likelihood of success in your jurisdiction.

Always enjoy BobD's posts, and want o point out that in some states, or at least in one state, CA, one dog must be allowed in all common Interest Developments (includes condos).

Bob ... So sad that happened, but glad was not an HOA being sued.

Regarding the last sentence in your post - the side with the better attorney (regardless of the argument.)

This is specifically addressed in the VA Condominium Act. Not sure about other states/counties but the number of dogs and land do play a role in how many etc. dogs can be on that property. Here is some general info to consider. The bigger issue is failure to pick up and yes, noise.

It is estimated that the average dog (1) discards approximately ¾ lbs. of waste every day and 274 lbs. every year.
Consider that this community has 10 resident dogs, which adds up to approximately 7.5 lbs. of waste per day; 52 lbs. per week; 225lbs per month; and 2,750 lbs. per year.

Consider the community has closer to 100, the numbers are considerably larger: 75 lbs. deposited daily; 525 lbs. weekly; 2,250 lbs. monthly; and 27,375 lbs. annually. That’s a lot of poop!
For rats and other rodents, dog waste is the breakfast of champions. In developed areas, doggie deposits left on the ground often serve as a steady, abundant food source for rats and their cousins.
An unwanted neighbor in any community, the presence of rodents can decrease the property values of all nearby homes and presents a host of additional health concerns to residents and their pets. Rats, for instance, as well as their urine or feces, have been linked to a number of diseases that can easily be passed to humans, including leptospirosis, typhus, rat-bite fever and salmonellosis.

Once these rodents have taken up residence, they can be remarkably difficult to evict. This is because rats have an uncanny ability to survive (and even thrive) in inhospitable environments. Rats will eat nearly any type of food; they can climb brick or stucco; swim as far as half a mile; gnaw through wood, metal, plastic and cinderblock; and they can squeeze themselves through holes as small as a quarter. Rats are also successful colonists, reproducing four to seven times per year, with the average litter containing eight to twelve offspring that can reach maturity in as little as eight weeks.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deemed dog waste a "non-point source of pollution" in 1991, which puts dog waste in the same category as oil and toxic chemicals. A single gram of dog waste can contain 23 million fecal coliform bacteria, which are known to cause cramps, diarrhea, intestinal illness, and serious kidney disorders in humans. The EPA estimates that two or three days' worth of waste from just 100 dogs would contribute enough bacteria to temporarily close a bay, and all watershed areas within 20 miles of it, to swimming and shell fishing.

Hi Joyce ... Do you have a link to that information source? I have a friend who is President of her HOA and they are fixing to tamp down big time on dogs if everyone does not start properly cleaning up after their fur babies. That link could give her more info to send to their members.

You are correct Tim. It is in our By-Laws.

Joyce