RonnieP
(Nevada)
Posts:5
 |
| 02/27/2008 9:23 PM |
|
| I was wondering if it is legal to inforce a rule for one tenant or does it have to be for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
RonnieP
(Nevada)
Posts:5
|
| 02/27/2008 9:36 PM |
|
| I need to re fraise the question. The rule and regulation is not in the covenant. Can a decision be made for one tenant. Or will all tenants have to inforce the rule as well. |
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1748
|
| 02/27/2008 10:00 PM |
|
well, you can enforce a rule against one person, if only that person is breaking it. However, you must enforce it against everyone else, if they start to break it too.
|
|
|
|
|
RonnieP
(Nevada)
Posts:5
|
| 02/27/2008 10:17 PM |
|
Let me give an example.
We wan't to have one tenant's dog wear a muzzle. It is not in the covenant.Or a rule and regulation.
Is it possible to have one tenant's dog wear a muzzle with out the other tenant's dogs?
|
|
|
|
|
GlenL
(Ohio)
Posts:1470
|
| 02/28/2008 3:22 AM |
|
| Is this your property and tenant or is it a tenant in the community? If it is your property you can make it a condition in the lease, if the dog is a proven menace you are within your rights to have it removed from the property as a nuisance and can even call the authorities to remove it if it has bitten someone and some communities ban certain breeds such as pit-bulls altogether. Do you want to do this strictly as a prophylactic measure because of the breed and the dog has not yet done anything? |
|
|
|
|
RonnieP
(Nevada)
Posts:5
|
| 02/28/2008 4:43 AM |
|
It is a condo building. Not just one tenant. There is a HOA. I'm trying to figure out if it would be legal to inforce the muzzle on just one dog. There is nothing in the lease or covenant.
It's not a pit bull. |
|
|
|
|
PaulM
(Pennsylvania)
Posts:1347
|
| 02/28/2008 4:59 AM |
|
RonnieP: If you want the dog to wear a muzzle, then there is a problem with the dog's behavior. That's what you need to zero in on. Is the dog a nuisance and a threat to the community and its residents? Is there a nuisance clause in your documents? This is what you must enforce--that the dog is NOT a nuisance, same as if it was a situation of nuisance with anything else.
However, with a ferocious dog, it may be that one's welfare is at stake. I would strongly suggest you find out what your local ordinances are for dogs and request that they and the police get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1748
|
| 02/28/2008 6:16 AM |
|
in general, if you cannot define easily (for example, in this forum) why THAT dog must wear a muzzle and not any other, you aren't going to fare well in the lawsuit when you try to explain it to the judge.
and there will be a lawsuit (or other problems).
|
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:2525
|
| 02/28/2008 6:49 AM |
|
Ronnie,
Clear this up:
It is a condo building. Not just one tenant. There is a HOA. I'm trying to figure out if it would be legal to inforce the muzzle on just one dog. There is nothing in the lease or covenant.
It's not a pit bull.
It is a condo building(If it is a condo building the Control of the Management is the Condo Association.
If it is a HOA the control is the Hoa Association.
If it is a Condo building with own management located in a HOA umbrella association, then the condo serves two masters and the HOA could or could not have control over animals inside the Condo. Generally, the Condo control ends with the condo property, but being a member of the Umbrella Association requires the condo owner to abide by the Association restrictions.
In any event, you are going to run into trouble if you try and apply a rule or restriction selectively. I would suggest you contact your local spca or Animal Control Department and follow what they say. If that doesn't satisfy everyone you may think about putting in a disclaimer of some kind that would relieve the association of any liability with this particular animal. You will need legal advice here and I have no idea if you could do it.
The associations can not be all things to all people and if you allow animals, that does not substitute for what fears some single person may have. If a individual feels threatened, then they should look after their own lives. It is the responsibility of the board to act in a fair rational business manner to protect and manage the real property. (Notice the Real Property term and look it up if you are unsure of the meaning) What they decide about animal control they are responsible for and it sure don't mean ordering individuals to put a muzzle on a dog,
even with cause. How would a rule like, "If your dog bites, he must wear a muzzle at all times," sound to you.
Any county or state laws would prevail |
|
|
|
|
RonnieP
(Nevada)
Posts:5
|
| 02/28/2008 3:08 PM |
|
Hi Robert. You seem to know a lot about this. I never heard of real property. it is a condo building Management is the Condo Association.
There is no state law that require a muzzle. The dog did snap at someone a few months back.
We made a decision for the dog to wear a muzzle and the owner is not cooperating. We are planning to fine him weekly untill the muzzle is worn.
Can you give me your thoughs.
thanks |
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:1748
|
| 02/28/2008 3:13 PM |
|
ronnie, i see some potential problems:
If you do not have a rule about muzzling dogs, you can't fine this person for not muzzling.
If you do not enforce the rule on all owners as the rule is written, you cannot fine this person (no selective enforcement)
if you did not create and propagate the rule correctly, you cannot enforce it. You cannot just "make up rules" and suddenly start issuing fines
|
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:2525
|
| 02/28/2008 3:34 PM |
|
Ronnie is pretty much correct and I would only add the Board should not be in this kind of business. If the Board is going to regulate the ownership of animals, they are stepping in a deep pit. If the dog comits a act that breaks a law of the association, the association can govern. But the law must be there and I am guessing you would have to muzzle all animals with teeth if they are on the property, because they can't just hop over the property to the safety of the home.
My suggestion is for the Board to stay out of it as long as no laws are broken. The Board does this and the next thing some owner that has a phobia about little children will want to keep them in the house.
This is not to say that the Board cannot make a regulation requiring all dogs be muzzled, it is just that it will come with a steep price now or later. |
|
|
|
|
DonnaS
(Tennessee)
Posts:2951
|
| 02/28/2008 3:42 PM |
|
Robert and Brain are correct. The question is about the supposed growl. Who did the dog growl at and was it provoked? Was it leashed and out with it's owner? I know that people get very emotional when it comes to animals and pets. Hopefully, this "growl" was documented and was real enough to create a muzzling rule from the Board.
So the question is can just this one dog be required to be muzzled?. I do feel that unless this dog has been tagged and proven to be dangerous, then the Board to warrant a muzzling rule, all dogs on the property will have to be muzzled. Just because this is a tenant, they cannot be treated any differently than other residents. |
|
|
|
|
RobertR1
(South Carolina)
Posts:2525
|
| 02/28/2008 7:29 PM |
|
You may hjave noticed that Ronnie started this thread with two nearly identical question and animals control was not mentioned in either one. I sort of suspect that the real subject (animals) are already a problem and he looks for reinforcement of what the Board has already acted on. Nothing wrong with that but the first posting did not address the real problems.
I am not sure now how the question should be answered unless we include the Boards action. So, I suggest the Board was ill advised to try and enforce and fine anyone in this situation. If the board had a place here it would be to broker some kind of agreement that can be accepted by everyone, which will not happen, so now the Board should publicaly explain their action, rescind the action and direct any member having an animal are responsible for the actions of that animal, and the Board holds no liability. |
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 02/28/2008 7:44 PM |
|
If this animal is a problem, why hasn't anyone contacted Animal Control? Animal Control is their name. That's what they do. Why does your HOA even want to be involved in something that can be better handled by professionals?
You don't have a rule to muzzle an animal, yet you are going to fine someone? I hope your association has residents with deep pockets that you can assess to pay for the lawsuit.
Sounds like something the media would love to get a hold of. Harold |
|
|
|
|
SuzyC
Posts:0
|
| 02/28/2008 10:55 PM |
|
| I agree animal control for sure. it sounds like a nightmare! |
|
|
|
|