Rule language resubmitted with county with typo.

It's a shame these days when you can't even get lawyers to type correctly.

In 1991 our HOA had a rule about pets that read exactly as below. In 2004 I found our paperwork which is the most recent rules were "resubmitted restrictions" and it seems to have a 1st grader level typo. Which makes me think the HOA can't read and the lawyer that put it together cannot write English very well.

1991
8.01 No pets shall be maintained or kept on any portion of the property, including within any dwelling unit, other than common household pets such as cats, dogs , goldfish , topical fish and the like, and such birds as canaries and parakeets. No animals, including any of the above , may be kept, bred or maintained for any commercial use upon the property or within a building or structure. In any event, no more than two (2) pets shall be maintained within the boundaries of any lot.

2004's resubmitted rules
8.01 No pets shall be maintained or kept on kept on any portion of the property, including within any dwelling unit, other than common household pets such as cats, dogs , goldfish , topical fish and the like, and such birds as canaries and parakeets. No animals, including any of the above , may be kept, bred or maintained for any commercial use upon the property or within a building or structure. In any event, no more than two (2) pets shall be maintained within the boundaries of any lot.

'on kept' in the first sentence was ADDED , seemingly by mistake.

So unless this is "lawyer talk" , it appears to be a typo, so the big question is .

Would this be something a lawyer would look at , if the HOA went to court and say....well that line reads in the first sentence something that is gibberish which appears to be something a 1st grader put together, I want this case dropped.

If it is , then I think this would be grounds to call for a emergency meeting to have a new lawyer write the sentence accurately and resubmit.

That would be a fish of the moment. You know, a fish you never heard of before that suddenly appears on restaurant menus.

Hate to say it, but it appears that OP has a typo in his title.

Unless a non-tortured reading of the rule would lead to an undesired interpretation...let it go. Except maybe to use when making fun of the lawyer.

Or maybe you can deduct from his bill, at a rate of, say, $1 per typo?

I'm still getting familiarized with this site. Is it possible to search a username to see what he/she has posted in the past?

Unless the typo changes the intent of the document, don't worry about it.

A topical fish is a fish from the topics. I thought everyone knew that!

A court would look at any document for meaning. If the typo makes the meaning unclear or changes the meaning, it could be an issue.

I don't see anything that would justify an emergency meeting.

Good for you Mel.......LOL

These people are @#%@#%@#%@#% Idiots and I'm going to raise so much hell on saturday. Im going door to door getting names and signatures!

Regrettably, and perhaps like others here, I have read a fair amount of submissions by attorneys, including their revisions of governing documents and papers filed in court. Typos and similar mistakes are the rule and I think always have been. It's often a paralegal who does the lion's share of such work. For perfect language, I imagine one would pay more. The again, when the stakes are high, I think the law firm involved takes more care with such submissions and one will pay for this extra care. Also I keep in mind that the Board, not the attorney, is the ultimate signator of the submission to the county. The Board should have said something.

I agree with the others that the extraneous phrase "on kept" is of no legal consequence. Melissa is funny. Noah has a good sense of humor.

I have found mistakes by multiple law firms, multiple attorneys. Though large typographical mistakes (as in the spelling of a party's name) in court submissions result in submitting an amended document.

I have caught minor mis-citing of statutory law, with the attorney-author making the correction. I found one enormous mistake citing simple case law, by a city attorney, that was outrageous. I publicized it to the City Council. I like to think that the city attorney being caught in a substantive lie about the law helped defeat a major, controversial zoning-related proposal. (Obviously my head is still a little dangerously swollen on the latter.) I used nothing more than Leagle.com and Justia.com to check the case law and see that, whoa, how could the city attorney claim this blatant falsehood?

More and more, and largely because of the net, I see the run-of-the-mill attorney as a glorified administrative assistant. The addage, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" dates to the early 1800s. I feel today the addage often does not apply. Legal research today is way way easy in comparison to 200 years ago and even a few decades ago. Granted, complicated cases are way out of most laypeople's league. But the "access to justice" movement was established several decades ago because 'the little guy/gal' could not afford an attorney and was effectively being denied justice. Here at hoatalk, many posters are as knowledgeable about the law as an attorney is. (Though I think all know when to acknowledge their limits and advise the use of an attorney.) I think the whole level of conversation here is very different than it would be compared to say the 1970s, pre-internet.

I think it's curious that Bill Cosby was convicted apparently, largely because of his 2005 civil suit deposition where he spoke of giving drugs to women (sometimes with their consent; sometimes not?). Cosby should have taken the Fifth, and just paid out the enormous settlement he ended up paying anyway. Cosby ought to sue his attorney from that period. I think the point deserves much more analysis. I profane and loathe what Cosby did. But I feel 'the law' may have cheated him unfairly here. Speaking of mistakes by attorneys.

LOL ... I have ran across a number who are not the brightest or sharpest crayons in the box of attorneys. The problem in today’s society is many attorneys will interpret any laws to fit what their “CLIENT” wants to hear vs the “Actual Plain Language” of the Law, which is available in today’s society via the Internet so everyone and their “dog” can read ... And yet we wonder why our Court systems are overloaded with BS lawsuits. We are becoming a society who Ignores the Laws instead of Following the Laws. If this does not change ... it will be potentially our countries future downfall.

Ok . I'll have to look into LexixNexis it seems.

Well I had a victory last night.

And part of it is where the president meeting with county commissioner and it is eminent that their going to try to flag all these offenses that are covered under county. So if this is finally getting on track. I'm happy.

I hated the fact I had to lead a mob to get this in the works.....he even said that he would step down that night, if the "hows" and "whys" of him being appointed the way it did and the skipping of the vote as he should of only held office one month.

I know I can hear it now...."how do you know it was done wrong"

There is nothing in the by-laws, or the covenants that say that a board can appoint a president longer than what the state code 617 says.

So he did not disagree with that, either he caught that after the fact or not, he does not dispute it.

So kinda a nice moral victory as unforgivably I know more about this now that he does.

That says alot. I know very little about all this and he admits "i know more than him about the rules on how a hoa runs". talk about the blind leading the blind.

Well, that's the whole thing which I should have mentioned. LexisNexis is a very expensive service. Each search will incur a charge and if you want to retrieve any of the search results there are additional charges for each one. It's really a service more appropriate for legal professionals than anyone else. They do offer discounts based on volume. If you rack up between $10,000 and $30,000 a month in charges then you'll get a 1.5% discount. It's super expensive. They do have a new service for solo practitioners (e.g. attorneys) that costs $175 a month.

I don't think NexisLexis is what you're looking for. That's why I say legal research can be very difficult to do because court cases, decisions and documents are not freely available for the most part. In Florida the arbitration decisions of the DBPR are online at a state website. Most condo disputes have to be arbitrated by the DBPR so that database provides a wealth of information. But they're not court decisions and, for HOAs, the DBPR only arbitrates election disputes and nothing else.