Barking dog and threat of attorney involvement.

We have had over the last year or so a couple of complaints from one single homeowner in regard to his neighbor below and having barkding dogs. I also support a comfortable peaceful environement in our condo buildng. I owned dogs, I know how hard this can be ( maybe that is why I own cats now..ha ha ) None the less....

This homeowner and his neighbor have been at it for a few months. We as an hoa can show some involvement in regard to noise issues and some steps the homeowner with the dogs has taken to deal with the issue at hand. ( this is about 6 months ago )

Our HOA President coincidently lives a door or two over by the reported dog barking. NO other units have complained. IN fact neighbors have written the board to say that they do not hear barking etc.

The orignaly complainer now notified us that he was kept up until about 1am with dog barking and that this was a week ago. He stated he wants to get his attorney involved.

As bizarre as this sounds. I usually support those who's peace is being disturbed, but nobody else in the immediate area has complained nor do they hear dogs barking.... it's hard to intervene when there is no proof of his claim.

Attorney or not... it's a tough case to pursue on an HOA end or legal is it not? I also am a fan of contacting animal control if there is an issue with nusaince barking.. but nothing on the level has been done either.

Francesca,

Is he threatening a lawsuit against the HOA or the neighbor with the barking dog? More info please!

he isthreatening to sue both homeowner and hoa. NO convenants have been violated. No other complaints about the dog itself. However, the owner of the dog has gotten very volatile messages taped to her door from the neighbor.

or a 'quiet enjoyment' type clause?

Mary, with all due respect, I disagree.

If the dog is a continuing nuisance with noise to a member, then the member who is hearing it should be able to both document it and record it.

If the member can do both, that, to me, would be sufficient evidence that a nuisance or noise violation is occurring.

Our documents don't state the minimum number that have to observe or be bothered by an annoyance for it to qualify.

If it is impeding on even one person's enjoyment of their home, then the offending homeowner should bring the problem under control.

The key is, however, verification.

Again, if the homeowner who is being offended can document and record the violation, thereby verifying its existence, then, if such a clause exists in the governing documents, the board should move to enforce.

Michele,

If the board were to allow this taped documentation to determine if there is a noise violation, I can think of all sorts of ways that a mean-spirited person could provide this "proof". For one thing, he could tape his own dog barking and claim it was the neighbor's dog. Or he could tape the neighbor's dog barking one time and record that over and over. I can think of more scenario's, but I think you get the picture. My city has a barking dog ordinance and 3 neighbors must also attest to the barking. You cannot just rely upon the person making the complaint. There are a lot of mean-spirited people in this world! Just my opinion, of course.

I would send the complainer a letter from the HOA stating that the BOD has investigated the problem and asked other neighbors who deny hearing the dog and that if the problem repeats they should contact animal control or the police to document the incident.

By saying our county does not have such an ordinance, I meant it does not require a minimum number of people to complain about excessive dog barking for it to be an issue. One is enough, if it can be confirmed.

No, it's not hard to imagine that there are people like that.

They are all over.

On the other hand, I can attest to how stressful excessive barking is.

I also know that it's not uncommon for others to simply dismiss it or say it's not a problem, when really it may be.

I expect this will get much farther out of control before it gets better.

It's easy to dismiss things as "vendettas." However, maybe the vendetta arose from the dog owner's ignoring all requests and attempts to keep the dog from excessive barking. I don't know that it did, but it's at least conceivable.

Don't underestimate what someone stressed and pushed to the breaking point may do.

I would recommend an unbiased, third party conduct a meeting of all parties to see if this can't be worked out.

FrancescaMm which came first, the tit, or the tat?

Dog annoys the H out of me, so I become less tolerant of other things neighbour is doing, start sending them letters, etc..

I think at this point.. we will have our hoa atty speak to the individual on our behalf. If he is seeking legal counsel he has the right to do so. I don't know what tit or tat went first, but our hoa has a letter from this homeowner filled with personal infomation.. and opions like.. "she is the most ignoratn rude person ever" " I have tried to speak to her and she ignores me" "this person thinks she is too good and that nothing can touch her" "living beyond her means".. etc. etc etc..

Mary, Don't you just love it with people that threaten lawsuits? It makes me laugh..let them take their best shot and when they learn what the initial retainer will be they seem to fade away. If they were really serious they would get their attorney to notify the hoa.

Ellen,

Whether the neighbours hate each other or not doesn't change that they have reported violations which is the function of the board to address. It is irrelevant that neighbours hate each other when, as you admit, there were violations. Hatred doesn't negate the BOD's duty to act.

"Initially we tried to act on the violations but it became apparent it wasn't about the violations (which both were guilty of) but their hatred of each other."

Dwight,

What you describe is called "pitting neighbor against neighbor" and what the proponents of "no HOAs" often use to describe the pitfalls of living in an HOA.

DJ,

I agree with you! But, in this particular case, the h/o must prove the barking dog is a nuisance. Whether the neighbor is being vindictive in her complaint or whether it's a valid complaint is the issue at hand. I think some of the comments made in this thread have gotten off-topic. A barking dog complaint is something that requires proof b/4 the BOD can act on the complaint.

OooOOoooOOo!!!

Thanks, DJ, we need this right now for 2 such developing cases.

We've been having the person make notes of the dates/times, but I'm going to "borrow" some of their commentary!

Mary, 3 neighbours!!!!

That raises all sorts of other issues and discredits the process imo.

What if there are not 3 neighbours close enough, or 2 happen to be hard of hearing etc etc. You're going to ignor a legitimate complaint because a person can't get other (apathetic) neighbours to go along with a complaint? Wouldn't be the first time someone will whine/bi*ch but leave it to others to make a formal complaint.

The person complaining may be more sensitive to noises but that shouldn't disqualify their complaint. Loss of enjoyment is subjective enough as it is. Same could apply to smells or other complaints.

Michele, I agree, and think it is a good idea to make the person complaining do a diary or some other work. It will help minimize frivolous complaints cause it may not be worth the time and effort UNLESS you are really bothered by the barking. There is a certain threshold you have to be annoyed by before a person complains...generally speaking.

DJ,

I didn't write the City code, just relaying it. Frankly, I don't know what the policy of my HOA is; guess I should ask since I'm now on the Advisory Board.

Wow.

I have no reply to this other than I hope a more reasonable board addresses this at a later date.