Enforceability of Pet Walking in Common Areas

Started by NpB • 40 replies • 779 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

CC&Rs state that pets must be walked off the property. Does this literally mean an owner may not physically walk their pet, presumably a dog, on the property, or does it refer to pets urinating/defecating?

This rule has never been enforced. Since it has never been enforced, it this rule unenforceable now?

I personally think it is silly that interpreting the rule strictly, you have to drive or carry your pet off the property before you can walk it.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Wow... Anyways it means to keep them off people's yards. Maybe not use bathroom on common property etc... It doesn't mean you must pack your dog up and take them off site. Just don't need them cross yards. Use the sidewalk if you have one.

You and your neighbors can vote to get rid of rules that do not apply or make sense. Just follow the process on how to make those changes. You don't have to enforce something no one feels needs to be enforced just because "it is written".

Former HOA President

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Literally, I think it means that your pet has to run around and do its business in your own yard, period. (I'm assuming this is an HOA. If it's a COA, then I hope the dogs learn how to use the toilet.)

In practice, even if the restriction is still enforceable after all these years, I don't think it's enforceable from a practical standpoint. If pets are allowed, then pet waste will be an issue - and I'm sure the board has more urgent items on their plates than Pet Poop Patrol.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Perhaps you could post the applicable portion of the CCRs that say this?

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

I'm not a pet owner, so I thought I would ask what the literal meaning is. Property per the CC&Rs mean all the common property--not solely people's privately owned front yards.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

And, perhaps if we read the language, we could determine the meaning - in context.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Or, is this hypothetical?

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Folks, just so you know, I will be ignoring GeorgeS21, as I believe that poster is a professional troll and agitator, since I already answer his question very clearly in my OP.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

MODERATOR: IS THERE A WAY SOMEONE CAN BAN OR LIMIT GEORGES21's posting privileges.

This poster almost always trolls my posts and rarely anyone else with hypo or real and asks me to cite the CC&Rs. I am not annoyed psychologically by this person's posts, I just think this posters posts clutter this forum and are trolling and unproductive.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Again, nPB - you did not answer anything - all you did was post a situation - without providing the language from the related, and mentioned, document.

Clearly, there is enough evidence to question some of your posts.

I try and be fair, but when you continually ask questions, then refuse to provide the language related to the circumstance - I am suspicious of the circumstance - and, whether it is real or hypothetical.

Please do the work needed to pose these sorts of scenarios - and, then someone can reasonably, and with the information needed, provide input.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Folks, again GeorgeS21 always doubts my posts and rarely anyone else.

I clearly answered his question in my OP. I

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 7:31 AM
I

... snip ...
Property per the CC&Rs mean all the common property--not solely people's privately owned front yards.

Not necessarily. We're trying to interpret legalese, and we'd have to see exactly what your CC&Rs say (including how "property", "common area", and other things are defined, as well as the exact text of the pet restriction). Without that, we're just guessing.

In the absence of more info, I'm out...

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 7:42 AM
Folks, again GeorgeS21 always doubts my posts and rarely anyone else. I clearly answered his question in my OP.

No, you did not. One of the biggest sins of newbies (sic) like yourself is a failure to quote verbatim the covenant(s) in question. Once the covenant(s) in question are posted, this often changes the answers people post. Newbies often are not proficient in the lexicon of condos and HOAs. Several of the veterans here can cut through condo/HOA lexicon confusion like a knife through butter.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

You did not ... please post the applicable portion, in appropriate context - ya know - paragraph numbers, sentences and paragraphs, etc.

Otherwise, I for one, believe you are simply:
1. making these up
2. restating something you might have read about other communities
3. misremembering what you read about your own community

Post the excerpt, please.

And, btw - I would think it OK for a one time visitor to stumble along as you have - but, you post often. And, even offer advice. And, even those infrequent visitors see the utility of actually reading the reference material, rather than a partial summary.

JohnT38 (South Carolina)
Posts: 1,631

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GeorgeS21 on 10/02/2020 7:39 AM
Again, nPB - you did not answer anything - all you did was post a situation - without providing the language from the related, and mentioned, document.

Clearly, there is enough evidence to question some of your posts.

I try and be fair, but when you continually ask questions, then refuse to provide the language related to the circumstance - I am suspicious of the circumstance - and, whether it is real or hypothetical.

Please do the work needed to pose these sorts of scenarios - and, then someone can reasonably, and with the information needed, provide input.

I'm going to go one step further and say it's simply impossible to state with accuracy any opinion or conclusion when someone posts something as vague as "CC&Rs state that pets must be walked off the property". All of us have been around the block to know that interpreting HOA governing docs is difficult to say the least. Often times it ends up that what appears obvious is not.

If the OP wants a real answer than he/she should be willing to put in the minimal effort that is required to quote the actual CCR.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/02/2020 7:46 AM

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 7:42 AM
Folks, again GeorgeS21 always doubts my posts and rarely anyone else. I clearly answered his question in my OP.

With all due respect, I am not a newbie.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 8:27 AM
With all due respect, I am not a newbie.

You are in my book.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/02/2020 8:28 AM

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 8:27 AM
With all due respect, I am not a newbie.

You are in my book.

I think you are newbie as well.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnT38 on 10/02/2020 7:48 AM

Excuse me but that language is not vague. What don't you understand about that language?

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Post the covenant(s) and quit wasting people's time.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/02/2020 8:35 AM
Post the covenant(s) and quit wasting people's time.

If you don't like my post, then why do you respond?

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Part of my reason for continuing this discussion is to make certain anyone reading these exchanges knows the difference between hypothetical nonsense, and actual situations that may relate to assisting them in resolution.

The threads provide a great audit trail!

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Five hits come up when googling for the phrase "pets must be walked off the property." All are accompanied by express concerns for droppings/urination/odor.

TimM11
Posts: 354

Posted:

The reason people ask to post the CC&Rs is because the specific wording is very important, along with definitions. It comes up a lot with things like parking, for example, when the definitions of certain vehicle types come into play.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

With many others above, NpB, give us the actual citation--wordd-for-word-surrounded by quotation marks. Or we are not able to help.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

With many others above, NpB, give us the actual citation--wordd-for-word-surrounded by quotation marks. Or we are not able to help.

JohnC77 (California)
Posts: 562

Posted:

This is language from the Rules and Regulations of a former property.

5) Pets are allowed in the building elevators, hallways, lobby, stairways, and parking lot ONLY WHEN CARRIED IN THE ARMS OF THE OWNER OR TENANT. All pets must be carried from the owner’s Unit to the street (i.e., sidewalk). No pet is permitted to walk in the hallways, lobby, parking lot, or any other common area. An enclosed pet carriage with full covering that prevents any external contact (other than the carriage itself) may be used in lieu of the owner’s or tenant’s arms if necessary.

JohnC77 (California)
Posts: 562

Posted:

4) Pets are not allowed in the inner courtyard, first floor recreation room, or any other recreational areas.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

I'm tired of answering what if questions.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

I will add this reality check.

The reality of HOA/COA living is that a board of directors can basically do what they want unless the membership is involved and does the check and balances on the board.

Until challenged, a board of directors may think that they are doing the right thing.

When challenged, a board may or may not change what they are doing.

If a board does not correct their error, the members then have the following options:

1) Gather support and remove/replace the board (via recall or at the next election)
2) Challenge the board via other channels:
If your State has an HOA/COA Ombudsman, make a complaint to them and/or
Speak with an attorney about legal options
3) Live with it
4) See the writing on the wall and move.

One is certainly free to reject this reality and replace it with their own.

NpB (Arizona)
Posts: 605

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 10/02/2020 11:11 AM
I will add this reality check.

The reality of HOA/COA living is that a board of directors can basically do what they want unless the membership is involved and does the check and balances on the board.

Until challenged, a board of directors may think that they are doing the right thing.

When challenged, a board may or may not change what they are doing.

If a board does not correct their error, the members then have the following options:

1) Gather support and remove/replace the board (via recall or at the next election)
2) Challenge the board via other channels:
If your State has an HOA/COA Ombudsman, make a complaint to them and/or
Speak with an attorney about legal options
3) Live with it
4) See the writing on the wall and move.

One is certainly free to reject this reality and replace it with their own.

Completely agree. However, if no one wants to move and there are ego and personality conflicts, there could be endless ideological debates and email "wars."

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

But, still no language, nPB?

JohnC77 (California)
Posts: 562

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GeorgeS21 on 10/02/2020 5:19 PM
But, still no language, nPB?

PUT IT TO REST!

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,061

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 4:14 PM

Completely agree. However, if no one wants to move and there are ego and personality conflicts, there could be endless ideological debates and email "wars."

And who would want to deal with that all the time?

GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpB on 10/02/2020 7:34 AM
I already answer his question very clearly in my OP.

No you didn't.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

John77 uses direct quotes from governing docs frequently. He cites oe here, though Have no idea why. But he defends NpB's secrecy? Strange.

What are your docs exact words regarding dogs, NpB?

JohnC77 (California)
Posts: 562

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 10/03/2020 9:19 AM
John77 uses direct quotes from governing docs frequently. He cites oe here, though Have no idea why. But he defends NpB's secrecy? Strange.

What are your docs exact words regarding dogs, NpB?

AND YOUR POINT?

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Ya know, I’m getting suspicious about JohnC77.

At times, he sounds a lot like a previous poster - with a different name.

I certainly could be wrong, and certainly apologize if I am.

ChrisE8
Posts: 454

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By NpB on 10/01/2020 9:31 PM
CC&Rs state that pets must be walked off the property. Does this literally mean an owner may not physically walk their pet, presumably a dog, on the property, or does it refer to pets urinating/defecating?

This rule has never been enforced. Since it has never been enforced, it this rule unenforceable now?

I personally think it is silly that interpreting the rule strictly, you have to drive or carry your pet off the property before you can walk it.

Does the document define what "walk" means and "the property" means?

If you're not a pet owner and aren't bothered by anyone walking a pet, I don't see the issue.

If it's never been enforced, then it could start being enforced now, but it would need to be enforced consistently.

MarshallT (New York)
Posts: 414

Posted:

Hi,

The rules means to say that pets must be on a leash when leaving the home and walking through the property. If this has been confusing for owners, the board should consider amending it so that it is clearer.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here