HOA Restriction on Sale/Lease Signs in Yards

We are an HOA of 435 homes. A Petition was recently circulated and obtained 10% to require a Special Meeting of Homeowners to vote on whether or not to rescind the covenant which currently restricts real estate for sale and for rent signs to inside a window in the front of a home. One person has been the initiator of the petition and subsequently has distributed flyers in support of his position. The flyers have cited, among other things, a US Supreme Court special ruling that "...sign regulations cannot prohibit the posting of "for sale" signs and states that location plays an important role in the display of these real estate signs, which cannot effectively and cost efficiently be achieved by any other method of advertising." He also cites case law (he is not a lawyer)in a number of cses to demonstrate why homeowners should vote to change the covenant. There is no citation given. The homeowner even attached a copy proxy form and has encouraged homeowners to give him their proxy. The homeowner contends that the majority of homes that sell are sold due to a yard sign. Does anyone have any experience with Sale Signs, or know of this "Supreme Court" ruling? I have been through dozens of Declarations of CCRs and have seen all manner of language pertaining to real estate signs, but I have not come across any information that a Supreme Court ruling makes these covenants illegal.

Patricia,

I'm sure there are planned community assn's that have restrictions on for sale signs; however, I believe the majority are condo assns. The AZ statute that Harold quotes only applies to planned communities. Are you in a condo?

I have not heard of a US Supreme Court decision regarding this issue. I would think the US Supreme Court would have much more important issues to deal with! Perhaps this h/o is mistaken in saying it is a US Supreme Court decision; perhaps State Supreme Court or Appellate Court. I would ask him for documentation on this.

Patricia,

You're right, it has nothing to do with real estate signs. It has to do with displaying a sign saying: "For Peace in the Gulf" - a free speech issue. Now I can understand why the US Supreme Court got involved.

"An ordinance of petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content-based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.

Held:

The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech. Pp. 4-16."

Indeed Brad, maintaining home values is touted to be THE function of HOAs. Usually if the CC&Rs limit for sale signs, it is because the original developer put it there to hamstring competition and avoid potential buyers of HIS homes from wondering why there are for sale signs if this is such a great and desirable community.
If you are enforcing this covenant just because it is there, it should be sent to the members to decide if that's really what they want. In Arizona it doesn't matter, even if the members would want to keep it, because our statute starts out with that wonderful phrase "notwithstanding any provision in the community documents."