Neighbors Nuisance Dog

[carolinagirl58]

Why not send her a copy and remind her that her buildings are out of compliance and ask her if she REALLY wants to peruse this or just let it go? When she realized that she is opening a big can of worms that will affect HER too, she may let it drop.

 

[tabmom2]

The original owner has passed away, they were written in 1995 for 20 years, so they will be up in 2015 and they all come off. So it could be worse. But I'm not giving up my babies cause someone else broke the law, and has a lawyer in their pocket and is trying to whip it out whenever the dont want to live with consequences. I am trying to be quiet and not cause any more friction and let the neighbor dig her own hole.

This forum is wonderful. I sure do appreciate the time that everyone has taken to respond, it has helped put my mind at ease!

 

[zzGypsy]

Quote:
if indeed they have buildings that break the restrictions you are all required to adhere too, that may be leverage.
it won't stop them from suing you over the dog (they can sue, even if they don't have legitimate cause) and the chickens. but it may give you leverage to countersue over their violations. sometimes a threat of counter suit may be enough to prevent them from proceeding.

but my guess is it won't because they're likely getting free legal support courtesy of the BIL.

you may need a lawyer before this is done.

however, I'm with the folks that are saying you need to know the local laws - you are very much in the dark until you have that.

 

[tabmom2]

Here is the Law: Under Tennessee Codes, I have already received a copy of the covenant restrictions. So I am not needing legal advice.

39-14-205 Intentional killing of animal.
(a)(1) A person who intentionally or knowingly unlawfully kills the animal of another, with the intent to deprive the owner of the right to the animal's life and without the owner's effective consent commits theft of that animal and shall be punished under § 39-14-105.
(2) In determining the value of a police dog under § 39-14-105, the court shall consider the value of the police dog as both the cost and any specialized training for such police dog.

(b) A person is justified in killing the animal of another if such person acted under a reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to such person or another or an imminent danger of death to an animal owned by such person. A person is not justified in killing the animal of another if at the time of the killing such person is trespassing upon the property of the owner of such animal. The justification for killing the animal of another authorized by this subsection shall not apply to a person who, while engaging in or attempting to escape from criminal conduct, kills a police dog that is acting in its official capacity. In such case the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to such person.[/b]

I understand this. My concern is the covenant restriction issue, and I am not seeking "legal" advice from anyone. Just some support on the matter from fellow chicken lovers. I am having a wonderful time reading the responses from others who have thoughts regarding this. It has blessed my day! Your time has been well spent to make the troubles of one reformed city girl, who lives in the country pretty happy!

 

[tabmom2]

Here are more Tennesseee codes:

44-8-413. Injury caused by dogs; civil liability; exceptions; limitations

(a)(1) The owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable control at all times, and to keep that dog from running at large. A person who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in or on the private property of another.

(2) Such a person may be held liable regardless of whether the dog has shown any dangerous propensities or whether the dog's owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities.

(e) As used in this section: (1) "Owner" means a person who, at the time of the damage caused to another, regularly harbors, keeps or exercises control over the dog, but does not include a person who, at the time of the damage, is temporarily harboring, keeping or exercising control over the dog.

(2) "Running at large" means a dog goes uncontrolled by the dog's owner upon the premises of another without the consent of the owner of such premises, or other person authorized to give consent, or goes uncontrolled by the owner upon a highway, public road, street or any other place open to the public generally.

Now once I get this restriction mess straightened out, we will be in good shape.

 

[tabmom2]

Thank you to all of you. I am moving this to the index that takes care of the ordinances.

BIG THANKS TO ALL OF YOU!

 

[zzGypsy]

that's clear enough...
here you go:
your neighbors are jerks! as is the BIL lawyer, who if he were a decent guy would be telling them to pay for the chickens and shut up about the rest lest the covenants come back to bite them in the butt too.
sorry about you having to shoot a dog because it's owners were idots.

 

[bobbi-j]

I would suggest finding an attorney yourself and letting them deal with it. Yep, it'll cost you (unless somehow they can get the neighbor to pay it) a bit, but I would think well worth the piece of mind. Your attorney can find out the regulations to know if your chickens are "against regulations" or not, and also send the neighbors their own official threatening letter! Hope everything works out for you!

 

[goldfinches]

Did you get a copy of the restrictions when you purchased your house? If not, ignorance onthe law usually is no excuse, but you may have a leg to stand on. But, your best is to hang their pole barn over their heads, it's worth a lot more $$ than any dog lawsuit, I'm sure.

 

[seminolewind]

Surely your neighbors are aware of those laws...........or are they real stoopid. Yeah that's it. Stoopid.