Rules not enforced

Grandfather them and at the same time request they have 2 dogs/2 cats situation documented (maybe photo, date born)to avoid issues later. That was you keep the peace, and can still enforce any excess above 2 pets.

Rather than getting into a long drawn out legal battle, just view it as the most cost effective way and sympathetic way of handling a situation that should have never been let go this long....PLUS, if any BOD members have a problem with it remind them that the dogs/cats will be long dead vs having a likely had a long costly legal battle well after the animals would have died.

PS a photo/date of birth info will avoid someone replacing a pet with another and then claiming it was the original.

i would love to read the exact wording on your Code/Covenant about pets.

I would bet that it contains enough loopholes to drive a St Bernard through. You had best read and thouroughly understand the rule before you begin enforcement actions, or you may end up on the downhill side of a lawsuit.

Here we go again! What about birds, mice, snakes, (all in the plural)Where in your documents does it give the BOD the right to enter anyone's home to canvass for animals? This has been rightly ignored for so long, and even grandfathering would require home invasion to verify and record because I would certainly not voluntarily provide you with that information or photographs. You are treading on sacred ground here. For some reason most people don't seem to mind having their civil liberties trampled but God help you when you go after their pets. Harold

James - you forgot to say how you were going to obtain the information as to how many animals each homeowner has. And I am sure if you are going to enforce it, you would want to enforce it on all homeowners. I just didn't see anything in the regulation that you quoted giving you permission to enter homes and count animals.
I know an HOA can be sued for not enforcing the rules. They can also be sued for selective enforcement of those rules too. I am just curious how you are going to enforce your animal control rules unilaterally and not selectively. Harold

Harold:

You are correct in many ways.
However! our main issue is multiple dogs. Homeowners who do not have dogs/cats (most homeowners do not) feel they have the right of enjoyment to use their property but, are restricted because of lack of consideration by dog owners not to pick up behind their pets. (odors coming into their property, etc,)
As far as knowing who has how many, and what animals, the dogs are walked to and from the park and common areas.
Cats are not permmited to be outside.
You are correct about going into ones home. You mentioned birds, snakes, etc. I have a 160 gallon aquarium built into a wall in my basement. Probably over a 100 fish. These would not count as part of the pet regulations any more then probably birds would. However! the snake issue would be a problem.
We are in a confrontational dispute at the moment with a homeowner who had three dogs (we forced her to get rid of one) who has retained an attorney for the reason you stated. She feels we are selectively enforcing the rule against her. We have other owners who currently have more then one dog but, who has also accepted the responsibility that goes along with having them.
This lady does not. Thus! problems for those who now either will have to consider moving or getting rid of their extra pet. Can I ask you why you are against
grandfathering?

Jim

I would have to agree a lot with what Jim has stated. What Brain has listed aren’t pet’s, they are insects. None of which requires a leash! Which is required when walking your pet outside. An online dictionary defines a pet to be a domesticated animal kept for companionship or amusement
Unfortunately it would be very difficult to enforce such rules. I don’t have any pets, but many of my friends do. They would be devastated if they were told they only have but two choices, A) move into another community where pets are allowed, leaving behinds this home and this neighborhood. B) Get rid of their pet. I know many that will not consider these choices to be their only options. You would probably get a call from their attorney representing them on this type of issue. You may even get "five minutes of fame" on the six o’clock nightly news.

I don’t know what the answer is, but maybe you can constantly remind homeowners( newsletters, signs) who have pet’s to clean up after them and to respect those who don’t have pets. That way no one is offended and every one is happy. This is not too much to ask of any dog owner. They are expected to clean up after their dogs anyways, so this wouldn’t be something new for them.

I for one don’t want the responsibilities of any pet. I don’t mind cats or dogs, if they aren’t mine. I love to get them all worked up and then I’m able to just leave. I get the best of both worlds. I don’t have to buy food, get them their shot’s. I don’t have to feed them or take them for walks. I don’t have to pick up after them. Why would I want a pet of my own, when I can enjoy all of theirs when ever I want? I get to enjoy the animal while I’m visiting, but don’t have to deal with them on a daily basis.

I think if you just remind homeowners of their responsibilities as a pet owner. Many will not be offended. I’ve realizes that many animal lovers are very sympathetic people; these responsibilities shouldn’t be anything out of the ordinary.

Chuck W.

James C

note where the word PET come into your CC&R's. the one you copied here says very plainly ANIMAL at the first, and only mentions pet in the subordinate clause. So, you yourself are in violation, with your aquarium. You keep more than two fish, fish are animals, your rule says NO ANIMALS, and you are in violation.

"NO ANIMALS, LIVESTOCK, OR POULTRY OF ANY KIND SHALL BE RAISED, BRED OR KEPT ON ANY LOT, EXCEPT THAT DOMESTIC DOGS, CATS OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD PETS, NOT IN EXCESS OF ONE DOG AND ONE OTHER HOUSEHOLD PET, SHALL BE KEPT, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE NOT KEPT, BRED OR MAINTAINED FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE."

As far as my contention about crickets, roaches, lizards, etc., please realize that for over 4000 years, Japanese have kept crickets as household pets. Cages, special homes, careful feeding... so they can be pets. A friend keeps hissing cockroaches as a pet (why, i don't know, but he does), so roaches and beetles can be kept as pets. Lizards are very popular lately, so are turtles (my neighbor has a turtle in her yard she keeps as a pet).

regardless, you cannot alter the words of the restrictions just because you feel like it. the word is ANIMAL, not pet, and you must abide by that. I can certainly see a lawyer having fun with your board in court, glass houses and all.

What i actually see as the real issue here is NOT the number of pets in a house, or the type, but the BEHAVIOR of the people who own them. I have said it a hundred times before: regulate the BEHAVIOR. People with one dog who let them poop in my yard are no better than people with four dogs who let one poop in my yard. Regulate the behavior! make people clean up after their pet! Enforce the leash laws. Does it really matter if my child were attacked by a pit bull, or a cocker spaniel? Not to me, it doesn't. Any dog who attacks is the problem, not the breed of the dog.

Regulate the behavior, or rewrite your rule to be enforceable. As it is, right now, you cannot enforce it.

I will assume that the animal language is in the CC&R's and not the Rules. If it's in the Rules, then the Rules can not be in conflict with the CC&R's. They can only explain. They cannot add to or subtract from anything in the CC&R's.

Without getting into the merits of the covenant, I would like to offer some food for thought.

The intent of the section on animals seems to be pretty clear, even if the exact wording may be open to some interpretation. It would be a far reach for someone to prove that the CC&R's are not being equally enforced because someone may have an aquarium, pet lizard or bird in a cage.

What is important is how a judge would rule in the event an owner with more than one dog took legal action against the board.

Dogs and cats are recognized as being part of a family, and most people understand that. And that includes the judges that decide the cases. The judges have the power to determine what is "reasonable". That is were the rub lies.

A judge who hates dogs could determine that the CC&R is reasonable and rule for the board. Another judge, who loves dogs may determine the CC&R is not reasonable, and rule for the homeowner.

Any case that goes to court is a crap shoot. No one knows how a judge is going to rule, although I believe the tendency throughout the nation is to lean toward the home owner. Therefore, a board would probably be well advised to not let this type of issue go to court.

If there are any issues with a homeowner over the animal section, my suggestion is to immediately seek the counsel of a good HOA attorney, and follow that advice.

JamesC,

You came here asking for suggestions, and got them. Now you insult the people who have offered you suggestions, apparently because everyone did not agree with your position. That in itself should tell you something. Perhaps many people in your community would have the same opinion as those you've heard here. Anyone can be hardnosed about a Rule, but the question is; Is this the best position for the community, and is the rule legal and enforceable?

I see by your first post that you are quoting a "Rule", and not a CC&R. In my previous post, I stated that a Rule can not be added that is in conflict with the CC&R.s. If your CC&R's do not restrict animals, then the board can not make a rule to restrict them.

Your CC&R's should have a section that states that any Rule may not be in conflict with the CC&R's. A Rule can only be used to explain a CC&R. It can not add to or subtract from it.

What is the exact wording of your CC&R's regarding animals?

The best suggestion that I can offer you is to first make sure that your Rule is not in conflict with the CC&R's. If it is, then the Rule is not enforceable.

If it is not in conflict with the CC&R's, then I suggest you contact an HOA attorney before taking any action against a homeowner, becaue a judge will determine if your Rule is reasonable or not.

Jim wrote: "Before anyone can purchase a home in our community they are given copies of our Declarations. All rules and regulations are very clearly spelled out." When is that copy delivered to them Jim? Is it stuck in front of the buyer at closing and told to sign? Or is it given to the buyer with enough time to really study it to know what they are getting into?
Yes, I live in an HOA Jim, and I doubt anyone lurking or posting here does not - why would we waste our time on a non-issue?
We requested a copy of our declarations before signing to have our house built and studied it for a week before deciding we could live with it. And we do abide by it. Ours, however, is no way near as restrictive as many I've read about here. Many people tho have it shoved in front of them as just another document at closing and told to sign without even realizing what they are agreeing to. Harold

i find it interesting that the original poster claims that he dislikes people who read the rules before buying, agree to them, and then move in and fail to abide by them.

And yet, the original poster read the rules that stated ONLY TWO ANIMALS in the house, bought the home, and now raises a hundred or more animals in the house, in DIRECT VIOLATION of the very rule he wants to enforce on others.

Hypocrisy, thy name is thee.

And courts tend to rule by minimalist means: that is, if the original framers of the law wanted to restrict Dogs only, they would have written it that way. Since the framers of THIS rule chose ANIMALS, then that's what they must have meant. Animals. Not just dogs, but ANIMALS. Dogs, cats, pigs, horses, sheep, ferrets, etc