Pet Policy Dispute

Hi JeannaL, can you check the HOA's Covenants to see exactly what they say on the subject and quote this back to the group?

One problem your HOA will have is the fact that it overlooked this for nine years. Legal counsel where I live is that, if eight years go by with a violation being unenforced, then the HOA will be on shaky ground trying to enforce the covenant subsequently. Unfortunately, you may have to get an attorney involved. I say: Fight this by formal letters for as long as you can. Say to the HOA: This dog goes toward enjoyment of our home. Niine years have gone by, and the HOA said nothing. Why all of a sudden after nine years is the dog a problem?

I may be stating the obvious, but I'd get her weighed in a documented way. Perhaps a vet can sign off on the weight after putting the animal on a scale at their office. Something you can present to prove the animal is under weight (assuming that turns out to be the case. )

in re the 9 years- The board may not have overlooked this for nine years. It could very well be there simply was no complaint filed for 9 years. However, the way I see, it you have at least three options.

1. Get rid of the dog. People always say their pets are their children and yada yada yada. I hate to sound heartless but the covenants have not changed, you broke the rules taking the dog in.
2. Explain to the Board how long you've had the pet and ask that they allow you to become compliant through attrition. My fellow Board members would allow this. They may ask you pay a small fee/fine while you have the pet.
3. Try the certification the others are suggesting. I'm not sure that would pass with my Board after owning the pet for 9 years, and you not having a medical condition requiring the pet, but it's certainly worth a shot.

I work in mental health and have one parent who is a clinical psychologist. The distress of having to give up an animal after nine years, can indeed be traumatic enough to require emotional support.
You know they have grief groups that meet due to a loss of a pet, right? Yes, losing a pet - either do to death or re-homing can be that stressful.

I am not advocating doing anything illegal, I am advocating doing what's right for the OP.

I may have jumped the gun a little on that one.

I hope she comes back and clarifies for us.

PRECISELY

Is this a violation of CCR's or just BOD Rules and Regulations? CCR's are attached to your property title and will hold more weight in a Court. Rules and Regulations are implemented by a handful (i.e. Board) and can be more easily challenged because they must be fair and reasonable. If this is a recent (after obtained pet) Rule and Regulation then potentially the BOD needs to "grandfather" any owners who have current pets. Potentially we need more information.

The Dog wan't "OKAY" for nine years. It was wrong when they got it. But she's gone so it doesn't matter.

Oh, I see. You mean the OP hasn't made any additional comments and you consider the subject closed.

As it has only been a little over a week, it is possible she is still reading.

But we are not talking about the endless possibilities in life; we're talking about an HOA rule. And yes, I maintain that any rule on the books that can be violated for nine years (if that is indeed occurring) with no need for action by the HOA or demonstrated harm to others doesn't need to be a rule and should be axed rather than enforced.

Snort ... Douglas and others please post where the OP stated was in CCR's??? The OP stated received a "policy violation" which most likely refers to the "Rules and Regulations". AND the OP has yet to respond to my question as to whether or not it was in CCR's or R&R and if was R&R was the rule imposed AFTER they obtained the pet. It appears the OP was not aware of the policy prior to receiving the violation letter and which makes me believe was implemented AFTER they obtained the pet. If that was the case the HOA should have grandfathered their current pet ... until such time in future they loose. After all the dog is potentially more than the 9 years old stated because it is a rescue and been there for 9 years. Sorry ... those facts make me believe was a recent R&R change.

Thank you for the obvious!
Snort~ please read the 8th and 9th posts on this thread. We already determined that we are guessing as to whether or not it’s in the covenants.

Then go look at #2 in the third post. It mentions attrition, and that’s what I would propose to my board if this were in my HOA. But the Board doesn’t have to go that route.
So, yes, we all know that we don’t know if it’s in the CC&R’s or just rules and regs. All of my comments are contingent on the pet policy being a covenant.

She may not come back. If it’s indeed a covenant, and others have filed a complaint, her dog will most likely have to be rehomed. It’s sad, but once people file a complaint, the Board must act.
You can have a board that doesn’t enforce for years, then all it takes is one person to take legal action and the whole thing becomes Tauric Ka Ka.
The easiest action for a board to take is always inaction. But it’s not the correct action when dealing with covenants.

Please don't compare pets to signs. Not apples to apples. Unless you allow other covenants to be ignored since you ignore the signs.

Can an HOA issue monetary penalties for violations to covenants concerning pets? In essence, people simply pay more than others because of their pet?

When you say pets are rules that HOA's cannot enforce in court, what about, and I know this is way off topic, a person who has started a rescue in their home, but keeps them as pets. The Covenant says 2 pets maximum, and the homeonwner has 8. Should the HOA begin enforcement?

The best scenario is the HOA enforcing it all along to prevent this from happening in the first place.

Running a business out of your home is not allowed in my HOA. An animal rescue, while a 501c3, is still a corporation, and I don't believe would be allowed. If however the HOA has no rules about this, then I can see it going to court.

The off-topic nature of the question is rather baffling. Clearly the OP, adopting a stray or rescue dog, is not operating a rescue.

And I didn't exactly say that pet policy is unenforceable. What I actually said was that if a HOA took this lady to court, they would lose the case. And I compared it to other court cases in which the HOA exercised poor judgment and excessive dictatorial impulses: banning flagpoles, campaign signs, etc.

What I have observed is that judges hate HOAs that stray from their purview of property upkeep and start making their homeowners subject to petty and burdensome dictates. Or if the HOA has been inconsistent, or tries to enforce fire lanes where the painted curb has faded, etc. They smack them down hard.

And telling the OP to get rid of a dog she's had for 9 years is downright cruel to person AND animal. I would resign from a board before I would have anything to do with that. And if the HOA incurred legal bills trying to enforce it, I would help vote those guys off the board.

Off topic: I could be wrong but I think there's more to it for rescues. Generally, city ordinance limits apply to licensed dogs that are pets. With rescues, it's not one person housing all these animals, but rather a network of foster homes. From what I understand, they are not considered pets under any ordinance until they're adopted.

There is NO medical conditional which requires a 'pet'.

However, an Emotional Support Animal, if MEDICALLY required and MEDICALLY 'certified' to be necessary, is allowed.

Good luck finding a LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other similar mental health professional to write the 'letter of certification' required.

It's really not that hard to do these days.

I know, I've said several times that my comments are based on the pet weight limitation being a covenant. That's my assumption. If it's not a covenant, she can most likely get a variation and become compliant through attrition.

The insurance thing is an example only. Meant to show that just because nobody else knows about it doesn't make it right.

What the HOA's need are people to abide by the rules they agreed to when they purchased.

This is fun, but I doubt she's coming back to clarify any of this.

"Keep in mind that laws were enacted to prohibit Associations from banning flags and campaign signs because prior to those laws, the Association was winning court cases based on contract law. Hence, the legislatures (Federal and State) adopted legislation that trumped those contracts."

But *were* they winning cases on banning flags and signs? Or had the rules simply never been challenged? In the news coverage of these cases, I don't recall precedents being identified. If HOAs were enforcing such rules, it may be that no homeowner had ever challenged them. As soon as the particular case that we did read about made the news, lawmakers jumped on it. Those rules violated a common sense of justice.

"What law trumps an Association's right to restrict weight limits on pets within condominiums?"

I don't know of one. That's why I clarified that I didn't say that pet rules were unenforceable in general; I think they are, although I don't think a weight rule is a good idea. Every dog would have to be gotten after it had finished growing.

(BTW, when I was a kid, my sister got a miniature poodle puppy. He was a purebred and should have grown to no more than 15" tall and 17 pounds. When he reached maturity he was 25 lbs, and he was not overweight. It was actually a very nice size and we didn't mind that he outgrew the breed standard.)

I was talking about that one particular case. Judges do have latitude to render decisions that are *just* even if a rule is violated. DouglasM6 insists that even if no one notices the dog for 9 years or complains, it makes no difference because that's the rule, period. I disagree; I believe it would make a huge difference in court.

By the logic that any rule is unshakeable, Shadowood would still be levying fines for trivial offenses because their rules allow it, and Olde Belhaven would not have gone bankrupt over a stupid sign because they have the right to enforce their size restriction. Nursing homes would not be showing movies to their residents. I don't recall whether the flag case was initially resolved by courts or legislature, I'll admit. But these things typically wind up in court first, and the HOA suffers (in cost and reputation) even before legislation is passed.

Anyway, that's *my* prediction of how a lawsuit would go, based on what I've seen & read. The outcome can't be proved unless it ends up in court.

But I think it would be a very unwise and unjust board that would try to enforce such a rule at the 9-year mark. Definitely a smarter and more compassionate course to allow the dog to live out its remaining years in its home.

People are the problem, not the pets. If I were sitting on the board of her HOA, I would suggest allowing compliance through attrition with a minor monetary monthly fee (assuming of course the Covenants allow it). This would appease 90% of the people out there, including the pet owner, but there's always that one or two that would then go adopt a large dog ...just because you allowed them to have one.

I don't understand the Pitbull reference? Breed restrictions are common due to certain breeds being perceived as dangerous. It has nothing to do with weight and can be easier to enforce.
Weight restrictions are ridiculous as that would mean anytime a pet tips the scale at over 30 lbs (as in this case), the HOA would then have the right to "evict" the pet.

And yes, this would be an easy fight to win, for the homeowner that is.
Especially since the board DID NOT ACT FOR NINE YEARS.
This is a dog- a dog that needs to be let out numerous times a day. They weren't hiding him in their home. Considering this is at least a medium sized dog who goes out to do it's business, it's a reasonable expectation to believe the board did know about him, and still, did nothing for 9 years.

You're making an assumption that the dog is NOT a pit bull. The OP doesn't say what the breed is. My example is simply to show that liability can exist when rules are not enforced, irregardless of the breed.

People keep saying the BOD did not act for 9 years. They may not be required to act until a complaint is filed. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The BOD is not required to run around snooping into people's lives to assure compliance. A complaint may be required. And just because no one complained for 9 years doesn't make it right.