Change in Texas law concerning backyard chickens

[aart]

Might depend on the state.

Could be..HOA have contracts that can say anything and if one signs to be beholden to the contracts specifications...well.....

 

[Blooie]

Some HOAs dictate what kind of plants can be in the landscaping to whether or not the homeowner can fly a flag. But the bottom line, as far as I've been able to ascertain from my research into this, once the home-buyer signs on that bottom line he/she is bound totally to the covenants in the contract, regardless of what the rest of the citizens of a community or state are allowed by law to do on their properties. Once you sign your name on that dotted line, you are bound by each and every provision of that contract, even if later on you decide that this rule or the other is "unfair".

 

[Kiki]

I am going to use the following as an example.
This BYC law died in the House but it was very similar to this law that did pass in the state of Texas.

 

[Kiki]

It would have prohibited rules that would not allow someone to keep at least 6 hens.

 

[Blooie]

Wow! That's really interesting, Kiki! Thanks!

 

[Kiki]

Wow! That's really interesting, Kiki! Thanks!

I wish I could explain what this law would have been if it passed...better but I can't find the words to do so.

It would not have allowed HOA's to make rules that would not allow someone from owning at least 6 hens.
That is the best I can come up with.

 

[Kiki]

BUT it's doesn't matter!
LOL
The bill died!

 

[ronott1]

Some HOAs dictate what kind of plants can be in the landscaping to whether or not the homeowner can fly a flag. But the bottom line, as far as I've been able to ascertain from my research into this, once the home-buyer signs on that bottom line he/she is bound totally to the covenants in the contract, regardless of what the rest of the citizens of a community or state are allowed by law to do on their properties. Once you sign your name on that dotted line, you are bound by each and every provision of that contract, even if later on you decide that this rule or the other is "unfair".

contracts that contain illegal content are not binding. An extreme example is a contract that says you have to kill someone.

Signing a contract does not change a law. State law trumps city law and city law trumps HOA rules. Federal is iffy because Federal law can only be used in areas dictated by 10th amendment

 

[Kiki]

contracts that contain illegal content are not binding. An extreme example is a contract that says you have to kill someone.

Signing a contract does not change a law. State law trumps city law and city law trumps HOA rules. Federal is iffy because Federal law can only be used in areas dictated by 10th amendment

THIS is what I've been trying to say...that State law overrules HOA's rules.

 

[Blooie]

I can’t imagine any law firm putting provisions into an HOA that actually violates state or federal laws anyway, so that kinda goes without saying. My understanding was that they could dictate how the property was maintained and what the property could be used for. This has been eye-opening!