HOA Restriction

[flakey chick]

I'd get a large dog kennel and dog house. I'd convert the dog house into a coop and keep 3 Banty hens. I would make it look as neat and pretty as I could, and might use shade cloth or lattice screening.

Arm yourself with research about the movement to keep hens as pets. I think bantams are especially pet like and not like livestock. If you had some cute silkies, people driving by might just see them as furry little dogs.

 

[Guinea Goonie]

Quote:
State laws are superior to HOA covenants, as are federal laws and even county & city ordinances.

Sorry, I disagree...

In FL for instance, if you get behind in your HOA payments they can and DO take your home WITHOUT a judge or ANY kind of court appearance.

BEWARE the HOA, especially in FL, TX, NV, CA and Ohio. Funny, these are the worst hit states, hummmmmm.

 

[mistyfeather]

Quote:
State laws are superior to HOA covenants, as are federal laws and even county & city ordinances.

Sorry, I disagree...

In FL for instance, if you get behind in your HOA payments they can and DO take your home WITHOUT a judge or ANY kind of court appearance.

BEWARE the HOA, especially in FL, TX, NV, CA and Ohio. Funny, these are the worst hit states, hummmmmm.

i have pesonaly seen people get thron out for non complience they did try and fight , a judge will favor the HOA . Beacause when you sign before moving in you are stating that you have read/undersood AND AGREE to the terms and conditions!NO MATTER HOW STUPID THEY ARE. thEY DONT CARE IF YOU MISSED THE FINE PRINT EITHER . i know some one who used to be on the board for an HOA , he left because they went to court and evicted some one from their home, WHY? they chose to fly an american flag in their front yard and refused to take it down. They never saw the fine print that stated that you could NOT fly any flag on your property unles it was on a spacific holiday and your neighbors were ok with it. he also sold his house and moved nexed door yo my aunt and uncle in a non HOA neighborhood.the judge ruled in favor for the HOA

 

[GoAngels]

OP here. FYI, I am in California. My reading of the language is that you can have any type of dog, cat, fish or bird as long as they are not being raised for commercial purposes and are reasonable in quantity (another section describes reasonable as 4). I can't see how "bird" would not include chickens. I was more hoping that someone had direct experience with an HOA or was an attorney and could shed more light on this.

Anyway, I have a good relationship with my side neighbors, but I don't know the neighbors behind my house. I know that they do have to warn you before fining you. If I were ever warned, I would just move the chickens to my parent's house.

Just as an aside, judges in California will not enforce fines against homeowners for violating CC&Rs. The only way an HOA could ever foreclose on your home would be if you refused to pay your assessments. This was straight from the mouth of the professional community management company who manages our HOA.

Our HOA generally is pretty hands off with letting people do what they want with their properties. We did have some upheaval recently involving a lawsuit the HOA board got involved in over an access road closure. I was already planning on running for the board so I might just wait until I am on the board to bring this up.

 

[theFox]

OP your reading is flawed.

The part that applies directly is the portion that says poultry are a no no. You need read no further.

In order to get that restriction declared invalid is to present a situation to a judge that shows that they do not evenly enforce it.

My point was you can easily set that situation up.

Insects are also banned, so you file complaints against just about anybody you want to (my suggestion of using the HOA board members as a starting point is to drive home the point), then you or someone else gets a couple of chickens or lizards and have others complain about them.

Guess who they are likely to sanction and who they are likely to not sanction.

That provides the evidence you need to demonstrate improper and selective enforcement of their restrictions.

In this case the HOA violated the agreement. It is a contract and thus bounded by the borders of the document.

You really need to consult with a good lawyer.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
So you want apiaries in your neighborhood on lots that are only 7200 sq ft? I sure don't.

Nope, I want that entire restriction declared invalid due to improper selective enforcement.

If they are selectively enforcing this restriction, then you do indeed have a fair chance of having that provision invalidated.

 

[GoAngels]

Quote:
It also says no animals. But then it goes on to list dogs, cat, fish and birds as being allowed. The key word to me is "except". As in, all of those things are banned except dogs, cats, fish, birds and other usual household pets. I appreciate the viewpoint though as I am sure that the HOA board will take the same tact. I should probably just wait until I am on the board and then work to clarify/change the policy.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Very well stated.

As I mentioned in several posts, laws governing HOAs vary from state to state. As HOAs have become more common, states are making and revising laws to limit their powers. Just as it is illegal to discriminate based upon race or religion, HOA covenants cannot countermand Federal, state or local laws. If state law limits the power of an HOA (such as the flag flying provision mentioned), regardless of what the HOA documents state, state law prevails.

Contract law is enforced through the courts when there is a disagreement. In Arizona fines can be enforced through the courts, but state law requires specific notification and an opportunity for the member to contest the fine. A lein can be placed against the property; however the lein cannot be foreclosed for fines owed. What this basically means is that if ownership of the property transfers (sold, inherited, etc.), the lein (past due assessments and fines) must be satisfied. The HOA's lein is superior to all other leins except a first mortgage (yes, it is superior to a 2nd mortgage). An HOA can additionally bring suit against a member for monies owed, be they fines or assessments. The prevailing party is entitled to have all their attorney and court costs reimbursed by the non-prevailing party. Meaning that if the HOA takes you to court and wins, you pay all of their costs as well as your own. If you win, the HOA pays your costs. Whether an HOA would take a member to court would likely rest upon advice from their attorney as to the liklihood of prevailing or not.

I am not an attorney, but I have been president of my HOA for the past two years, and on the board for 4 years; I am considered our document "guru" and the one who contacts our attorney when we feel we need legal advice. FWIW, we do not have the authority to dictate paint colours or landscaping for homes, our limitations on animals are based upon city code (and if there was ever an issue would let the city enforce the violation). We do require that all animals be caged, cooped or penned in a manner that they do not run at large.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
It also says no animals. But then it goes on to list dogs, cat, fish and birds as being allowed. The key word to me is "except". As in, all of those things are banned except dogs, cats, fish, birds and other usual household pets. I appreciate the viewpoint though as I am sure that the HOA board will take the same tact. I should probably just wait until I am on the board and then work to clarify/change the policy.

That is exactly the right tact. Good for you!

 

[theFox]

Quote:
It also says no animals. But then it goes on to list dogs, cat, fish and birds as being allowed. The key word to me is "except". As in, all of those things are banned except dogs, cats, fish, birds and other usual household pets. I appreciate the viewpoint though as I am sure that the HOA board will take the same tact. I should probably just wait until I am on the board and then work to clarify/change the policy.

Like I said earlier that verbiage is totally useless.

Ambiguous contract language is also grounds for a court to get into the act. However the goal isn't to get the ambiguity resolved it is to get the entire restriction declared moot.

That is why folks writing contracts need to be very specific and not use general terms, they are contradicting themselves in a very large number of cases when they mix the two.

You always go for the weakest standalone clause when trying to show something as being not uniformly enforced.

There was no contradicting language in the rest of the restriction.

I am not a lawyer, however many years ago I did do a lot of contract reviews for compliance.

You'd be amazed at some of the language and non compliance issues.

The devil is in the details it frequently bites back.