JohnM3
(Florida)
Posts:208
 |
| 11/14/2007 4:14 PM |
|
Hey folks back off a minute. 100 percent of the CC Rs in Florida were written by the developer who built the PUD. Not by the HOA. Try and change them they are a train wreck to change. In ours to change just 1 line it takes 90 percent of the members. Do the math 305 member families with 1 vote each. Do the math. Now onto the board they did not write the ccrs they have to by law enforce them FL720 is very direct on that issue. If they choose not to enforce the rules they can be sued for selective enforcement. Please for the love of God dont tell me people would not sue there HOAs or Condo Boards there are more Lawyers in Florida than all of china, japan Germany and England put together so don't go there with me. Sorry mam 1 of the dogs has got to go.
By the way how do you know that her neighbors did not report her. How did you think the Board found out about the 2nd dog? Let me clue you in after 19 years on a BOD I have seen some of the sweetest people come to a BOD Monthly Meeting and eat there neighbors alive with stories beyond your wildest dreams. Or how about they buy the house then come to the next meeting and demand the 60 foot high trees behind there house get cut down. Why they did not see them when they looked at the house to buy it.
I am sorry for the BOD put in this position by this ladies family. Remember her family did this not the BOD. Lets keep the blame game into proper proportion. |
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 11/14/2007 6:00 PM |
|
All this talk about MUST FOLLOW THE RULES is fine - if that's what is unilaterally done. Anne tells us her mother's board picks and chooses which rules they want to enforce. Therefore there should be no problem bringing in the media. The board brought it upon themselves by selective enforcement.
HOA demands pet dog of seriously ill and dying resident must go. Story at 10!
Take it to the media Anne.
Harold |
|
|
|
|
DJ1
(Ontario)
Posts:456
|
| 11/14/2007 10:22 PM |
|
Perhaps it is you JohnM3 who should 'back off'. Anne said "Now what my problem is the Condo board has made rules that unit owners are allowed to have two pet's under 20lbs. either 2 cat's or 1 dog and 1 cat."
IF the board has put in place some new rule, or interpretation thru their bylaws AS OPPOSED to what the CCR's say, it is the BOARD that may have put themselves in this position. Until Anne provides more details it is impossible to say whether the Board is just doing their job, or whether they overstepped by adopting an 'interpretation' which isn't supported by the CCRs.
Posted By JohnM3 on 11/14/2007 4:14 PM
Hey folks back off a minute. 100 percent of the CC Rs in Florida were written by the developer who built the PUD. Not by the HOA. Try and change them they are a train wreck to change. In ours to change just 1 line it takes 90 percent of the members. Do the math 305 member families with 1 vote each. Do the math. Now onto the board they did not write the ccrs they have to by law enforce them FL720 is very direct on that issue. If they choose not to enforce the rules they can be sued for selective enforcement. Please for the love of God dont tell me people would not sue there HOAs or Condo Boards there are more Lawyers in Florida than all of china, japan Germany and England put together so don't go there with me. Sorry mam 1 of the dogs has got to go.
By the way how do you know that her neighbors did not report her. How did you think the Board found out about the 2nd dog? Let me clue you in after 19 years on a BOD I have seen some of the sweetest people come to a BOD Monthly Meeting and eat there neighbors alive with stories beyond your wildest dreams. Or how about they buy the house then come to the next meeting and demand the 60 foot high trees behind there house get cut down. Why they did not see them when they looked at the house to buy it.
I am sorry for the BOD put in this position by this ladies family. Remember her family did this not the BOD. Lets keep the blame game into proper proportion.
|
|
|
|
|
DJ1
(Ontario)
Posts:456
|
| 11/14/2007 10:27 PM |
|
This advice from previous post may apply
"RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:3243
08/12/2006 12:43 AM Quote Reply
Pat, the CC&Rs supercede the By-laws so the committee member is correct for those cases where the By-laws do not agree with the CC&Rs. By-laws are usually used to define the organizational structure not to address problems. In Colorado By-laws do not have to be filed outside the HOA. Within a couple weeks all member should have been provided a copy of the newly amended By-laws.
It is the Declaration of CC&R's which becomes effective when properly done and filed with the County. This is the controlling document for restrictions and the violations thereof. Are you sure there are different Declarations of CC&Rs for each section of your development? If so, why weren't the Declarations amended to become the same for all sections?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Borcherding
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
DARCO Property Management (Colorado)
(303) 925-0150
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal
WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
08/12/2006 2:36 PM Quote Reply
Pat,
You may have an Article in your Bylaws named INTERPRETATION that reads something like this:
"In the case of any conflict between the Articles of Incorporation and these Bylaws, the Articles shall control; and in the case of any conflict between the Declaration(CC&R's) and these Bylaws, the Declaration shall control."
|
|
|
|
|
AnneH1
(Florida)
Posts:14
|
| 11/15/2007 4:21 PM |
|
I want to thank everyone. I am doing alot of research & learning alot from all your comments. My mom still has the dog, so what happens when we reach the max. fee of $1,000.00?
To all the people who think we need to get rid of them, I have offered SEVERAL solution's. I offered to take him home at night & drop him off in the morning. I offered to just pay the max fee right now. Now they want to make a rule NO VISTING ANIMALS.
Like I said before this board picks and chooses rules to enforce. Last night at the meeting they were talking about having to add more lights to the pool area (reg. by law)or they need to make a rule and post a signs "no swimming after dusk". They laughed & made jokes that the pool inspector won't be checking at night so they will just let everone know. AND NONE OF THE BOD'S wanted to sign the paper to send to inspectors, so they let one of the unit owners sign it. They made a rule no feeding the duck's one of the BOD'S still feeds them!
As far as how do I know a neighbor didn't report the dog, well, first of all I asked the board & NO letters have been written! Even if a letter was written it must be done under oath. The unit's above & beside my mothers' unit are vaccant(and have been for many month's).
The BOD'S aren't following proper procedure as far as returning written concern's and following proper procedure before trying to applying fine's.
Here's the real kicker, the 3 previous members & myself are the only one's who ran for the board, so guess what, I'm the new VP,LOL. I am atleast 20 years younger than them so look out!
I have also contacted the media & ADA as suggested by some of you.
Please continue with your comment's until this is final.
Annie
|
|
|
|
|
AnnaD2
(Florida)
Posts:335
|
| 11/16/2007 4:38 AM |
|
| Hi Annie, I have been reading your topic replies with great interest. I, too, own a condo in Florida. Our original rules said NO PETS. PERIOD. The board a few years back changed the rule to : pets, 15 pounds or less who are 100% INDOOR pets are allowed. So I must ask you---does the little 5 pound dog ever go outside? We have owners here who have small dogs who are trained to "go" on doggie pads. They're specifically made for indoor dogs to do their business. We have owners here who have small dogs and no one even knows it!!! No one ever sees them. If your mom's smaller dog is never seen, why couldn't she just say it's "gone"? I know, I know, people will come after me about ethics and fibbing. But maybe if the dog seems to have "disappeared" all the fuss will die down. Yet at this point (if the media has been notified) it may be too late. It sounds as if you've all been very "upfront" and are working very hard to keep this out in the open and resolved. I wish your family a peaceful resolution. You don't need this stress. |
|
|
|
|
AnneH1
(Florida)
Posts:14
|
| 11/17/2007 7:22 AM |
|
| As far as I can tell the original doc's just state 2 pets. The board further broke them down making the rule 2 cats or 1 cat & 1 dog. |
|
|
|
|
LindaC3
(Florida)
Posts:526
|
| 11/17/2007 7:44 AM |
|
| AnneH1..... Here we go again...another condo taking "written recorded documents" and changing the wording to suit them........Seems to be the rampant thing to do here in FLorida..When will they ever learn... If the recorded docs state simply 2 pets ,,,under what authority are they allowed to then make a RULE stating either 2 cats or 1 dog 1 cat.....I remember awhile back RogerB posted about rules changing or amplifing the recorded docs...maybe he will read this and post to you...Hope your Mother is fairing well....Please remember that all this stress will affect her cancer.....As Norman Cousins tell those of us who survived the big C laughter and positive attitude will see us thru...You are on my C prayer list.......And yes as an 18 yr survivor of advanced cervical cancer... attitude indeed does see us thru...... LindaC3 |
|
|
|
|
DJ1
(Ontario)
Posts:456
|
| 11/17/2007 8:07 AM |
|
| Maybe RichardD and JoeW1 will also offer up some useful advice as to you as to what to do when a Board oversteps the CCR's cause so far just telling you to accept whatever they DICTATE just reinforces their incompetence with what they are trying to do and who knows what else they will try to do! It is one thing to expect owners to live by the CCR's that are registered, it is another thing to expect owners to bend to the will of a Board that doesn't know what it is doing. |
|
|
|
|
AnneH1
(Florida)
Posts:14
|
| 11/17/2007 8:43 AM |
|
Linda
yes I know about the stress & pos. attitude. It is very important you are rite, I hear what you are saying & again I thank you! Congradulations on your cure! Thank you for your prayers! xoxo
Annie |
|
|
|
|
LindaC3
(Florida)
Posts:526
|
| 11/17/2007 9:17 AM |
|
AnneH1...... I recieved the following info the other day..Not sure if you are in this area of South Florida but the State is sponsoring group meetings with the ombudsman to hear complaints of your nature so they can get their ducks in a row so to speak for the next Legislative Session...Interesting things ARE taking place in Florida with regards to Condos and HOA'S....It's all fine and dandy that we have these statutes to refer to , but if they do not contain any " beef" to back them up then they are basically useless..... Best of Luck and keep us all up to date.....and to all, may you and yours have a wonderful Thanksgiving... LindaC3
FLORIDA CONDOMINIUM OMBUDSMAN CALLS FOR
ANNUAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS MEMBER ROUND-UP
IN PEMBROKE PINES
November 15, 2007
Dear Friends and Members,
make sure you make a note on your calendar on this date:
Saturday, December 8, 2007 -- 10:00 A.M. until 1 P.M.
The Florida Condominium Ombudsman Danille Carroll is inviting all owners and interested parties to the ANNUAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS MEMBER ROUND-UP at the Broward Community College -- South Campus, 7200 Pines Boulevard, Building 68 in Pembroke Pines.
|
|
|
|
|
BarbaraM7
(Virginia)
Posts:86
|
| 11/17/2007 9:23 AM |
|
My sympathies to your situation. Yet, my question is what responsiblity is your daughter taking for buying the dog without checking to see if she could keep it with her Seems rather unfair to her Grandma and Mother to have to bear the rsponsibility for her actions.
In our community we have a lady with asthma and she is allowed to have a window A/C due to her condition, with a Doctor's letter. Any one else in the community can not have the window A/C since everyone has central A/C. I've heard of the Fair Housing Act and Discrimation against Handicap people in such cases as therapy dogs, but the dogs had to registered as "Therapy dogs".
|
|
|
|
|
JC3
Posts:290
|
| 11/17/2007 11:15 AM |
|
Posted By BarbaraM7 I've heard of the Fair Housing Act and Discrimation against Handicap people in such cases as therapy dogs, but the dogs had to registered as "Therapy dogs".
Therapy dogs do NOT have any special legal status. NO dog/animal does.
The _qualified person with a disability_ (QPWD)(as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act) has the right to have animals that have been trained to do tasks that mitigate their disabilities. These trained animals are called service animals, or assistant animals, or perhaps seeing-eye, guide, hearing, or seizure animals.
QPWD's can take their Service animals (almost) anyplace the public can go. People with ESA's are granted certain protections under the Fair Housing Act. People with ESA's do NOT have the right (under the ADA) to take the ESA everyplace.
People with therapy animals have no such rights of any kind. They simply take their animals to various places to offer comfort, help, stimulation, to various people or groups: Nursing homes, hospitals, etc.
A therapy dog is a pet, and the owner is not granted the protection of the ADA or FHA.
|
|
|
|
|
LindaC3
(Florida)
Posts:526
|
| 11/17/2007 12:56 PM |
|
To all... Have we become a society that is so self absorbed in following the rules that along the way we forget about compassion for our fellow neighbor ? Who amongst in our daily lives hasnt broke a rule along the way. Exceeding the speed limit... having 15 items in the 10 item checkout line..etc.....We seem to forget that Rules and Laws were designed to maintain order not create chaos....
Annes Mother dog according to the posts is not a nuisance...This is just another example of " Condo Commando" mentality so prevalent here in florida... Condos associations are always in the news down here in Florida for their flagrant disregard of the the rules.............
As we approach this Holiday Season may we all look deep into our hearts and souls and be thankful for we have and pray for those that struggle with the everyday...
But for the Grace of God go I , as my Mother always told us kids growing up
May Annes Condo Association have a heart...make an exception to the rule and allow her Mother to have a peaceful resolve to this ordeal.....
LindaC3
|
|
|
|
|
BarbaraM7
(Virginia)
Posts:86
|
| 11/17/2007 2:13 PM |
|
| Has the community as a whole been approached? The Board is elected by the residents that live there, so the residents should have the decision to make changes or exceptions to their rules in this case, or am I wrong here that the rules of an HOA are written in stone. Let the people speak! |
|
|
|
|
AnneH1
(Florida)
Posts:14
|
| 11/18/2007 6:11 AM |
|
Barb,
funny you should ask, In a very humble way I asked the Pres. if I/we could get a petition signed by all the units owners in regards to this situation. Her response was "feel free to do so you can have me recalled too it won't hurt my feelings". You see, I feel Im dealing with not only heartless people but ingnorant. |
|
|
|
|
BarbaraM7
(Virginia)
Posts:86
|
| 11/19/2007 9:11 AM |
|
| Anne, The response of your President is childish. Put the petition in motion, get Grandma involved and let the Democratic process begin. We'd all be living in flats and having bangers and hash for breakfast if the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence bent under "Imperial" rule. Sounds like the President's feeling have already been hurt because the association hasn't presented her with her crown. |
|
|
|
|
GloriaM
(North Carolina)
Posts:778
|
| 11/19/2007 3:10 PM |
|
Anne:
When I replied to your post I asked the question; "What do your CCR's state" Now I finally see that the CCR's say 2 pets and that they do not distinguish between dogs or cats, just 2 pets.
The rule that the BOD made up falls behind the CCR's, it is the recorded instrutment that stands up in court. Tell the president that the rules of an HOA is not to change the CCR's but is to follow them. If they change them its called an amendment and must be voted upon by the majority of membership.
Rules are to set policy and proceedures in accordance with the CCR's. |
|
Dr. Gloria J. Martinez, CFO
Official HOATalk.com Sponsor
Author of "A Guide to Community Living"
Faith Management Services, LLC (North Carolina)
(704) 799-3791
www.FaithManagementServices.com
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
JohnM3
(Florida)
Posts:208
|
| 11/21/2007 11:19 AM |
|
Dear DJ1; The point I was trying to make was this. All-most all CCRs inthe HOAs are written by the developer not the Board. I was trying to tell you that.
Further this is why I have stated previously is this site for HOAs or condos and cause different assocs have unique problems.
Reference the Omnibudsman its a class a political joke. Keep in mind when you raise your hands to speak first question are you in a condo answer no a hoa . They will telll you sorry you cant speak. Been there before. Then without talking to the other parties ie the BODs they make rules then you have the disaster my community is in cause we cannot enforce code violations.
Contray to popular belief not all BODs are commandos just some. We got 57 different BODs in my city and they all coexist okay
|
|
|
|
|
DJ1
(Ontario)
Posts:456
|
| 11/21/2007 11:49 AM |
|
I have no problem with your latter point John, but you also said "I am sorry for the BOD put in this position by this ladies family. Remember her family did this not the BOD."
The BOD put themselved in this position and caused the problem when they made a rule of 1cat/1dog vs the CRR's that allow 2 pets.
The Lady has 2 pets as the CCR's allow. She didn't cause the conflict. |
|
|
|
|
MicheleD
(Kentucky)
Posts:1702
|
| 11/21/2007 12:58 PM |
|
It's my understanding that the CC&Rs are what restrict not only the number of pets (2), but also the demographic of those pets: 1 cat/1 dog, or 2 cats, and no allowance for 2 dogs.
Not only that, it's also my understanding that the developer drafted not only the CC&Rs but the by-laws as well, and the BOD has done no changes to those specific passages related to pets.
AnnaD is the one who has the CC&Rs that say 2 pets, with no distinction in type/etc., not AnneH, who is the original poster.
Based on that, I do not see where the BOD has overstepped its bounds or misinterpreted and I agree that they have an obligation to maintain the integrity of those CC&Rs by denying this case. I'm sure it's not easy for them, either.
And the claim that they are inconsistent or not enforcing other restrictions is moot. Most likely there is also a clause in the CC&Rs that clarifies failure to enforce one CC&R does not invalidate the others. Most likely that was also written/drafted/copy&pasted by the developer and not the BOD.
|
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 11/21/2007 1:22 PM |
|
| "Most likely there is also a clause in the CC&Rs that clarifies failure to enforce one CC&R does not invalidate the others." I never saw such a clause in any CC&R I've read. That would be pure invitation for legal selective enforcement. Not to mention chaos if one board enforces this particular covenant but not that one, and the next board chooses different covenants to enforce. Harold |
|
|
|
|
DanaA
(Florida)
Posts:116
|
| 11/21/2007 2:22 PM |
|
| This post has a lot of interest! Before anybody gives any more advice, I was struck by the fact that AnneH posted "As far as I can tell,the original doc's just state two pets". Either it says that in the recorded documents, or it doesn't. AnneH: Go to the county records online, and print and read the recorded CCRs and Bylaws. What is the ACTUAL CCR wording regarding pets? Then let us know, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
DJ1
(Ontario)
Posts:456
|
| 11/21/2007 3:40 PM |
|
Posted By MicheleD on 11/21/2007 12:58 PM
It's my understanding that the CC&Rs are what restrict not only the number of pets (2), but also the demographic of those pets: 1 cat/1 dog, or 2 cats, and no allowance for 2 dogs.
Not only that, it's also my understanding that the developer drafted not only the CC&Rs but the by-laws as well, and the BOD has done no changes to those specific passages related to pets.
AnnaD is the one who has the CC&Rs that say 2 pets, with no distinction in type/etc., not AnneH, who is the original poster.
Based on that, I do not see where the BOD has overstepped its bounds or misinterpreted and I agree that they have an obligation to maintain the integrity of those CC&Rs by denying this case. I'm sure it's not easy for them, either.
And the claim that they are inconsistent or not enforcing other restrictions is moot. Most likely there is also a clause in the CC&Rs that clarifies failure to enforce one CC&R does not invalidate the others. Most likely that was also written/drafted/copy&pasted by the developer and not the BOD.
MicheleD, AnneH the OP said "Posted By AnneH1 on 11/17/2007 7:22 AM
As far as I can tell the original doc's just state 2 pets. The board further broke them down making the rule 2 cats or 1 cat & 1 dog."
Further she said in her OP "Now what my problem is the Condo board has made rules that unit owners are allowed to have two pet's under 20lbs. either 2 cat's or 1 dog and 1 cat."
So, AnneH might want to clarify if she means the CCR's says '2 pets'.
Sure sounds like the BOD has made changes to me MicheleD. Perhaps AnneH could clarify if it is the CCR's that say '2 pets' and if is is the Homeowner comprised BOD that has now adopted the '1cat/1dog' bylaw. |
|
|
|
|
AnnaD2
(Florida)
Posts:335
|
| 11/21/2007 4:09 PM |
|
| Thanks DJ1---I never claimed to know what the CC&R's state...I only want to help Annie!!!! That wasn't in my post. I don't know what her docs state. Thanks for clarifying! |
|
|
|
|
MicheleD
(Kentucky)
Posts:1702
|
| 11/21/2007 4:59 PM |
|
Well, aren't you snarky?
I said I was under the impression. I left open the possibility that I was wrong.
And it's very easy to misinterpret people, too. Very often people will say "the board changed" or "the board rules," when, in fact they really mean the original documents.
I had read AnnaD's post about HER CC&Rs and thought you had confused the two.
Sure sounds to me like I might have been mistaken.
Huh? you think? |
|
|
|
|
DJ1
(Ontario)
Posts:456
|
| 11/21/2007 6:43 PM |
|
MicheleD, If we weren't confused some of us sure are now. I certainly wasn't replying to be snarky, if you meant that for me.
It sounded like you might have missed that two things I quoted from AnneH when you said "AnnaD is the one who has the CC&Rs that say 2 pets, with no distinction in type/etc., not AnneH, who is the original poster."
Sorry you read something in my post that wasn't meant. OUCH!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
JC3
Posts:290
|
| 11/22/2007 9:24 AM |
|
Posted By HaroldS on 11/21/2007 1:22 PM
"Most likely there is also a clause in the CC&Rs that clarifies failure to enforce one CC&R does not invalidate the others." I never saw such a clause in any CC&R I've read. That would be pure invitation for legal selective enforcement. Not to mention chaos if one board enforces this particular covenant but not that one, and the next board chooses different covenants to enforce. Harold
You're right, but similar words are in my CC&R's.
|
|
|
|
|
DanaA
(Florida)
Posts:116
|
| 11/23/2007 7:34 AM |
|
| We still need to head from AnneH on what her recorded documents actually state! |
|
|
|
|
RonaldW
(South Carolina)
Posts:900
|
| 11/23/2007 3:25 PM |
|
Posted By HaroldS on 11/21/2007 1:22 PM
"Most likely there is also a clause in the CC&Rs that clarifies failure to enforce one CC&R does not invalidate the others." I never saw such a clause in any CC&R I've read. That would be pure invitation for legal selective enforcement. Not to mention chaos if one board enforces this particular covenant but not that one, and the next board chooses different covenants to enforce. Harold
Oh yea, we've got it. I suspect most do. We have one that prohibits external antennas. The US congress placed severe restrictions on enforcing that one in the mid 1990s so we cannot and do not enforce it. That doesn't invalidate the rest of them by any means.
I firmly believe that all (legally enforceable) covenents must be enforced fairly just to avoid the accusation of "selective enforcement". My views on this have generated some controversy on this forum particularily among those who don't seem to be actoal HOA officers.
|
|
Ron
SC |
|
|