Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Thursday, April 02, 2020











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Get 1 free year community website and email newsletter hosting from Community123.com!
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: dog biting homeowner...
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 12:10 PM  
Hey everybody, we've had a recent (confirmed) incident of a dog - on a leash - biting one of our homeowners on the arm. Because of this, our Association has presented the dog's owner with a 10 day notice for dog removal.

Our governing documents say:

"Pets must be kept in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of Residents of other Units. No pet may be permitted to bark, howl, whine, screech, or make other loud noises for extended or repeated periods of time. Any pet that has previously attacked or bitten a resident, guest, tenant, or other individual must be removed from the property within ten (10) days of such action."

From what i am hearing, the dog's owner will be pleading the case to the Board that the 10 day notice be rescinded and the dog be allowed to stay. Seems pretty slam-dunk to me that the Association is acting under proper authority; however, sometimes things are not always as they seem.

Any comments or other's experience with this...thoughts, suggestions? - what do u think?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 12:20 PM  
Jim,

Even animal control doesn't make the dog be removed for one bite.

My suggestion:

Compromise, dog must wear a muzzle when walked on common areas or in the unfenced yard of the property.

BTW: Was animal control called?

If they were, what was their determination?
If they were not, why not (as they are trained to evaluate these things)?
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 1:41 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 12:20 PM
Jim,

Even animal control doesn't make the dog be removed for one bite.

My suggestion:

Compromise, dog must wear a muzzle when walked on common areas or in the unfenced yard of the property.

BTW: Was animal control called?

If they were, what was their determination?
If they were not, why not (as they are trained to evaluate these things)?




Sure do appreciate your response Tim - and i had been thinking along the same lines as you.

Seems like you are saying that our governing documents should not apply in this case....right? Also, sounds like you are saying that each dog should be given at least two bites before the dog is asked to be removed...correct?

I saw the photo of the bite and it was pretty nasty. An elderly person was bit. My guess is that the severity and the seriousness of the bite had something to do with the Board's decision. What do you think?

I understand that there was some discussion about reporting the incident to city personnel; however, it appeared to be felt that our governing documents were sufficient in detail to provide guidance about how this should be handled. Interesting stuff...huh?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
PitA


Posts:0


04/02/2016 2:34 PM  
ABSURD

A dog outside its' owner's control (albeit leashed) bit someone.
The bitee, instead of calling police and/or animal control, complains to the HOA!?
The HOA has CLEAR governing docs regarding the removal of a dog which bites.
The dog's owner whines and moans.
The HOA contemplates 'caving'.

Like I stated: ABSURD

however

The attorneys WILL get new cars from this issue.
PitA


Posts:0


04/02/2016 2:35 PM  
ps.

even money bet this is a 55+ community
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 2:50 PM  
Posted By PitA on 04/02/2016 2:34 PM
ABSURD

A dog outside its' owner's control (albeit leashed) bit someone.
The bitee, instead of calling police and/or animal control, complains to the HOA!?
The HOA has CLEAR governing docs regarding the removal of a dog which bites.
The dog's owner whines and moans.
The HOA contemplates 'caving'.

Like I stated: ABSURD

however

The attorneys WILL get new cars from this issue.




Lighten up PitA...lol...

There's no consideration being given for the HOA caving. I'll let you know if there are any attorneys getting involved. Am guessing that anything is possible, but i'd be surprised if any legal action is needed. At this point in time, it's just a discussion issue...lol..

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 2:51 PM  
Posted By PitA on 04/02/2016 2:35 PM
ps.

even money bet this is a 55+ community




I'd be willing to bet a $100 bill. When can i expect to receive my $200...lol...

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 3:32 PM  
Jim,

What I am saying is that the Board is likely untrained to determine if the animal is dangerous or not. Animal control has that responsibility and authority.

I take it from your response that the issue was never reported to animal control.
That simply doesn't make sense.
Animal control has the authority to fine, quarantine, evaluate and determine what should or should not happen to the animal (including death). Failure to report the incident to animal control may, just may, be letting a dangerous animal continue to live with zero controls put in place. This action may end up allowing the animal to bite someone else. Sure, your development may be safer because you made the animal someone elses problem.


In my County, there are specific laws regarding animal bites.
Expecting your County is the same, you should let that guide your policy.


Expecting that your citation is a policy resolution and not within the CC&Rs, I honestly don't think that your Association has the authority to force someone to remove the animal from their home. Of course, to test such authority, legal action would be required. Owners who see their pets as their children are more likely to seek legal action.

Therefore, if the citation is a policy vs. a covenant, I would recommend seeking a legal opinion if that passage would withstand a legal challenge. I suspect, just as with rental restrictions, it will depend on what document the language is in. It might also depend if you are within a condominium or detached homes.

Tim
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 3:44 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 3:32 PM
Jim,

What I am saying is that the Board is likely untrained to determine if the animal is dangerous or not. Animal control has that responsibility and authority.

I take it from your response that the issue was never reported to animal control.
That simply doesn't make sense.
Animal control has the authority to fine, quarantine, evaluate and determine what should or should not happen to the animal (including death). Failure to report the incident to animal control may, just may, be letting a dangerous animal continue to live with zero controls put in place. This action may end up allowing the animal to bite someone else. Sure, your development may be safer because you made the animal someone elses problem.


In my County, there are specific laws regarding animal bites.
Expecting your County is the same, you should let that guide your policy.


Expecting that your citation is a policy resolution and not within the CC&Rs, I honestly don't think that your Association has the authority to force someone to remove the animal from their home. Of course, to test such authority, legal action would be required. Owners who see their pets as their children are more likely to seek legal action.

Therefore, if the citation is a policy vs. a covenant, I would recommend seeking a legal opinion if that passage would withstand a legal challenge. I suspect, just as with rental restrictions, it will depend on what document the language is in. It might also depend if you are within a condominium or detached homes.

Tim




Appreciate the response Tim. You may be correct in it being a better route to make a report to the city animal control and allow things to develop from there. Regardless of what has happened so far, this is probably a good idea. If this were done, we'd still have to be concerned with the wording in our DCC&R.

Never thought about us possibly making the dog another person's problem by this action. I agree, that is certainly a possibility here. Sure hope that doesn't happen.

Unfortunately, the wording i cited above does, in fact - come from our DCC&R. One of our Board members pointed this out to the rest of the Board and i have confirmed it. In our condominium, it takes a 2/3 majority at a membership meeting to make a change to our DCC&R. So, in this case, a legal challenge would be a legal challenge to DCC&R wording.

Gonna be interesting to see how this floats out - huh?

oljim, in texas


Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 3:45 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 3:32 PM

Expecting that your citation is a policy resolution and not within the CC&Rs, I honestly don't think that your Association has the authority to force someone to remove the animal from their home.




I'd like to add that this is the case with some of our policy resolutions.

We have a resolution that allows us to impose monetary penalties for covenant violations.
However, imposing such penalties is beyond the Board's authority because it wasn't in the CC&Rs.
It had always been beyond the Boards, but all the Associations were doing it that way.
Then a few years ago someone challenged their Board and the courts ruled.
Such a policy was indeed beyond the Boards authority.

BTW: There were other issues involved as well. See:

Reston’s Shadowood condominiums make new Va. case law, can’t fine owners for rule violations Washington Post article

The actual ruling is attached

Attachment: 14245166771.pdf

JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 3:48 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 3:45 PM
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 3:32 PM

Expecting that your citation is a policy resolution and not within the CC&Rs, I honestly don't think that your Association has the authority to force someone to remove the animal from their home.




I'd like to add that this is the case with some of our policy resolutions.

We have a resolution that allows us to impose monetary penalties for covenant violations.
However, imposing such penalties is beyond the Board's authority because it wasn't in the CC&Rs.
It had always been beyond the Boards, but all the Associations were doing it that way.
Then a few years ago someone challenged their Board and the courts ruled.
Such a policy was indeed beyond the Boards authority.

BTW: There were other issues involved as well. See:

Reston’s Shadowood condominiums make new Va. case law, can’t fine owners for rule violations Washington Post article

The actual ruling is attached




I totally agree Tim, that - if the wording was only a policy resolution - this wouldn't make sense. In my mind's eye, the fact that the wording is included in our DCC&R changes things considerably. What do you think?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 3:50 PM  
Looks like we crossed our posts.

With the citation being in the CC&Rs, then (in my opinion) it is enforceable.

I've always stated that the Board does not have the authority to waive a covenant unless the CC&Rs give them that authority. Therefore, regardless of the desire, you may have no choice in the matter.



I've posted before that I'm in the process of rewriting our pet policy because it doesn't require animal control to be involved. The rewrite requires any attack to be reported to animal control prior to the Board becoming involved. The Board will then take it's que from animal controls determination of the situation. Again, the reasoning is that they are more trained then we are in evaluating such situations.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 3:56 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 3:50 PM
Looks like we crossed our posts.

With the citation being in the CC&Rs, then (in my opinion) it is enforceable.

I've always stated that the Board does not have the authority to waive a covenant unless the CC&Rs give them that authority. Therefore, regardless of the desire, you may have no choice in the matter.



I've posted before that I'm in the process of rewriting our pet policy because it doesn't require animal control to be involved. The rewrite requires any attack to be reported to animal control prior to the Board becoming involved. The Board will then take it's que from animal controls determination of the situation. Again, the reasoning is that they are more trained then we are in evaluating such situations.




Yes agreed Tim. I have come to the same conclusion - that we have no choice in the matter.

And yep, i believe you are right-on in saying that animal control needs to be involved in this situation. If this was a requirement in our governing documents, i bet things would end up being much better for everybody.

Thanks for helping me work through this.

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 3:57 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM [emphasis added]

Our governing documents say:

Any pet that has previously attacked or bitten a resident, guest, tenant, or other individual must be removed from the property within ten (10) days of such action."





Jim,

Actually, in rereading your citation, it appears to me that their is some grey area.

One interpretation can be that if the dog has bitten previously and bites again, they must be removed.

Another interpretation is that no dog may be on the premises that has ever attacked (regardless of when it was).

The problem is the word "previously"

Does it mean it happened before the hearing?
or
Does it mean it happened before the current incident?


TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 4:01 PM  
Also, keep in mind that if an intruder entered your home and your pet bit them protecting you and your property, per your CC&Rs and the current interpretation that your one member is using, you would have to get rid of your dog.

Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

I think that may be the reason why the word previously was used.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 4:11 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 4:01 PM
Also, keep in mind that if an intruder entered your home and your pet bit them protecting you and your property, per your CC&Rs and the current interpretation that your one member is using, you would have to get rid of your dog.

Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

I think that may be the reason why the word previously was used.




Good thinking - appreciate both of your previous posts Tim - thanks for pointing this out!

jim

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:7044


04/02/2016 6:03 PM  
By now, this dog has "previously" bitten someone. I don't see it as a "grey" area, but the wording is awkward.

I do not see why animal control ever needs to be involved when the HOA has reasonable rules about dog bites, dogs on leashes. I don't believe that your board lacks the proper training, Jim, in this confirmed case. I don't believe an outside agency needs to be consulted.

My own feelings, though, are that a muzzle will solve the dog biting problem. I wonder if someone on your board could ask the victim if that would a satisfy him? My concern would be that the victim demand the board follow the CC&Rs.

Our HOA does has the authority to have dogs removed (enclosed elevators can be frightening when confronted by a vicious "seeming" dog), but I'm certain that one incident wouldn't lead us to remove the dog UNLESS we had confirmed evidence that the dog had lunged at others in our common areas, i.e., had a record of aggressiveness.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/02/2016 6:37 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM
By now, this dog has "previously" bitten someone. I don't see it as a "grey" area, but the wording is awkward.

I do not see why animal control ever needs to be involved when the HOA has reasonable rules about dog bites, dogs on leashes. I don't believe that your board lacks the proper training, Jim, in this confirmed case. I don't believe an outside agency needs to be consulted.

My own feelings, though, are that a muzzle will solve the dog biting problem. I wonder if someone on your board could ask the victim if that would a satisfy him? My concern would be that the victim demand the board follow the CC&Rs.

Our HOA does has the authority to have dogs removed (enclosed elevators can be frightening when confronted by a vicious "seeming" dog), but I'm certain that one incident wouldn't lead us to remove the dog UNLESS we had confirmed evidence that the dog had lunged at others in our common areas, i.e., had a record of aggressiveness.




Hi Kerry - appreciate your response. My guess is that the elderly woman would be satisfied with the muzzle idea. I believe it'd likely be a workable idea...if the wording of our DCC&R allowed some flexibility on this.

Right now, it's mainly our Board members who feel that we should abide by our governing documents - and i believe it'd be a difficult argument to make to advise the Board not to follow its own DCC&R. And of course, seems to like our homeowners would likely question the Board (and rightfully so) if our DCC&R was ignored. What do you think?

Sure do appreciate all of you helping to work through this matter. Very interesting stuff...

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/02/2016 6:37 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I do not see why animal control ever needs to be involved when the HOA has reasonable rules about dog bites, dogs on leashes.




For one thing, that is their job.

Do you think that the Board should act as police officers when a human attacks a human?
Of course not. Main reason is, they are not trained in that area.
Have you been trained to determine if an animal is acting as if its rabid?
Have you been trained to determine if an animal is dangerous or simply protecting it's family?
Have you been trained to safely capture and detain a "dangerous" animal?


I do not understand why a Board member feels the need to do the job others are paid and better trained to do.




Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I don't believe that your board lacks the proper training, Jim, in this confirmed case.




To determine that a bite occurred? No, they don't need training on that.
To properly determine why the bite occurred is what they need training for.


Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I don't believe an outside agency needs to be consulted.




How about to document the issue.
This way if it happens again, elsewhere, there is documentation of a prior instance.

How about the authority, if needed, to order the dog tested for rabies?
The Board doesn't have this authority. The County does.

How about, if needed, to determine if the dog is a danger to all and needs to be put down?
The Board, per Jims citation, only has authority to make the issue someone elses problem.
The County has the authority to eliminate the danger.

How about proper protecting the individual who was bitten by providing proper procedure and documentation for any future legal action for medical bills?



Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

My own feelings, though, are that a muzzle will solve the dog biting problem.




I agree.
However, you give the indication that one bite and your out is a reasonable rule even though there may be extenuating circumstances or other options (muzzle).


Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I wonder if someone on your board could ask the victim if that would a satisfy him? My concern would be that the victim demand the board follow the CC&Rs.




So you are saying that the Covenants is clear that the dog must leave the development and (perhaps) move into yours.
However, you are also saying that the Board should simply not enforce the covenants after a complaint has been made and, instead, try to arbitrate a resolve between the victim and the owner.
If there is no grey area, then what liability issues are there to the Association if they do not follow the CC&Rs and the animal bites someone else? Would you be willing to risk such liability for your Association?








PitA


Posts:0


04/03/2016 4:55 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 3:32 PM
Jim,

What I am saying is that the Board is likely untrained to determine if the animal is dangerous or not. Animal control has that responsibility and authority.

I take it from your response that the issue was never reported to animal control.
That simply doesn't make sense.
Animal control has the authority to fine, quarantine, evaluate and determine what should or should not happen to the animal (including death). Failure to report the incident to animal control may, just may, be letting a dangerous animal continue to live with zero controls put in place. This action may end up allowing the animal to bite someone else. Sure, your development may be safer because you made the animal someone elses problem.


In my County, there are specific laws regarding animal bites.
Expecting your County is the same, you should let that guide your policy.


Expecting that your citation is a policy resolution and not within the CC&Rs, I honestly don't think that your Association has the authority to force someone to remove the animal from their home. Of course, to test such authority, legal action would be required. Owners who see their pets as their children are more likely to seek legal action.

Therefore, if the citation is a policy vs. a covenant, I would recommend seeking a legal opinion if that passage would withstand a legal challenge. I suspect, just as with rental restrictions, it will depend on what document the language is in. It might also depend if you are within a condominium or detached homes.

Tim




Matters NOT. The dog BIT. Case closed.

Any pet that has previously attacked or bitten a resident, guest, tenant, or other individual must be removed from the property within ten (10) days of such action."

JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 5:21 AM  
I believe that Tim hit the nail on the head (for me anyway) by saying...

"So you are saying that the Covenants is clear that the dog must leave the development and (perhaps) move into yours.
However, you are also saying that the Board should simply not enforce the covenants after a complaint has been made and, instead, try to arbitrate a resolve between the victim and the owner.
If there is no grey area, then what liability issues are there to the Association if they do not follow the CC&Rs and the animal bites someone else? Would you be willing to risk such liability for your Association?"

Tough situation - all caused by a homeowner willing to make attempts at managing a big, stout dog who appears to be willing to take a nasty bite out of an elderly person's arm. Given the current circumstances, I believe it's risky for the Association to do anything other than follow its own governing documents.

Thanks to everybody who has responded to my original message. You have helped lots!

oljim, in texas

P.S. Oh yes by the way PitA, where's my $200 bucks?...joke,joke,wink,wink - ..lol..

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/03/2016 6:01 AM  
Jim,

You have to do what you think is best for the Association.

As I have pointed out, I believe that the citation can be interpreted differently then one bite and you're out. I suspect that you have also met the animal and know if it's worth seeking a legal opinion on the interpretation.

Either way, you have to do what is best for the Association.

Having the victim contact animal control may resolve the issue for the Association or, at the very least, document the issue for others that the Association may be placing the burden on when the animal is removed from your development.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 6:17 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/03/2016 6:01 AM
Jim,

You have to do what you think is best for the Association.

As I have pointed out, I believe that the citation can be interpreted differently then one bite and you're out. I suspect that you have also met the animal and know if it's worth seeking a legal opinion on the interpretation.

Either way, you have to do what is best for the Association.

Having the victim contact animal control may resolve the issue for the Association or, at the very least, document the issue for others that the Association may be placing the burden on when the animal is removed from your development.




Excellent advice Tim. And yes, i know the animal. He is stout, muscular and impressive - and not small.

Unfortunately (as a side note), the dog is a rescue dog who was abandoned by a previous owner. Sad situation...there's no telling how that poor dog has been treated in the past.

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/03/2016 7:50 AM  
I do not understand how a leashed dog biting someone is now the fault of the dog owner. Why doesn't the person who got too close to the dog have any responsibility? The leashed area is the dog's safe area, anyone invading that space is on dangerous ground, in my opinion. The owner did what they were supposed to under the rules. Can someone explain what I am missing here?
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 8:04 AM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 7:50 AM
I do not understand how a leashed dog biting someone is now the fault of the dog owner. Why doesn't the person who got too close to the dog have any responsibility? The leashed area is the dog's safe area, anyone invading that space is on dangerous ground, in my opinion. The owner did what they were supposed to under the rules. Can someone explain what I am missing here?




Hi Allison - interesting questions...and very worthy of discussion. Here are some thoughts...

- i don't believe a leashed area is within a dog's safe area. In the common areas of a condominium, I believe the safety rights of our homeowners trump the leashed rights of a dog. Do you disagree?

- leashes are not what they used to be. Expandable-length leashes now provide much more freedom for a dog to roam and control its area. I believe this is better for the dog; however, it lessens the ability of the owner to control where the dog roams.

What am i missing here?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/03/2016 8:26 AM  
The owner, or the responsible person walking the dog, is responsible for the dogs actions.

As Jim pointed out, there is a big difference in a 6 foot leash and one that expands to 15 or 20 feet. I have a beagle doxin mix that I walk on an expandable leash. Even though I pay attention, there are times that that small dog can pull the leash out of my hand if it goes after a squirrel.

Regardless of what length the leash is, there is a responsibility to warn others that the dog jumps, is skiddish around people they don't know, is over protective, was previously abused, etc.

All animals can bite and, as you have pointed out, sometimes others fail to realize that.
Typically, when you are walking an animal, unless you are being attacked, any bite to a human is considered unprovoked.

BTW:

I found an interesting link on this topic:

Dog Bite Laws in the United States

If you click on the State, you see the applicable laws.
Keep in mind that this site addresses the State level statutes.
Typically, each County and/or municipality may have additional applicable statutes.

Here is what it says for Texas:

Texas does not have a Dog Bite Statute.

Generally, a dog owner will not be found liable for damages the dog causes, unless the dog is vicious and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the viciousness. If the animal is vicious or has aggressive tendencies and the owner has knowledge of that propensity, the owner is subject to liability under the law of strict liability. If an animal is non-vicious, the owner may still be subject to liability for his or her negligence in failing to attempt to end an attack.

Dangerous Dog Statute

A “dangerous dog” is:

a dog that makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and the attack occurs outside of the dog’s enclosure; or
a dog that commits unprovoked attacks outside of its enclosure that cause a person to reasonably believe the dog will attack and cause bodily injury.

Legal Responsibilities of Dog Owners

Dangerous dogs must be kept in a secure enclosure. The secure enclosure must be a fenced area or a structure that is locked, capable of preventing the entry of the general public, including children, capable of preventing the dog from escaping, and clearly marked as containing a dangerous dog. When the dog is not in the enclosure, it must be restrained at all times on a leash or in the immediate control of a person.
A dangerous dog owner must register the dog with the local animal control authority.
A dangerous dog owner must maintain liability insurance coverage of at least $100,000 to cover damages for bodily injuries caused by the dog.


AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/03/2016 9:35 AM  
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?
MichelleK5
(New York)

Posts:161


04/03/2016 9:43 AM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




I'm wondering the same thing. Generally, dogs don't just walk over to a stranger and bite them.

Personally, I think It's up to the town/county to decide what to do, not an HOA. A dog, is part of a family, the hell I would ever let my HOA dictate under what circumstances I would have to remove my pet. Again, I think the actual law needs to be addressed.

I own a vacation/weekend property that's in an HOA. Ours is a house, we own the land. My HOA has no rules regarding pets and that's one of the things they got right. If a dog bites another owner, get the proper authority involved and leave it between the owner and the party that got bit, not the HOA.

Sometimes, boards don't seem to realize where to draw the line. They don't need to get involved or address every.single.issue that will ever arise.
I understand that sometimes they may need to,but when it comes to pets, they better be very careful.
Because if one day, they get an owner like me- this would go to court. If I lost? I would appeal for as long as I could, (I believe state level) and make them spend $$$$ defending their position for years.
There would be assessments, and when you start making home owners pay more, they start voting you out.

But that's me, and that's because I love animals, own two dogs and am heavily involved in rescue. I understand that if a dog bites, it doesn't automatically mean it's vicious or it would happen again. I don't believe most boards have enough experience to make any kind of educated guess when it comes to these types of situations. That's why you have professional/legal agencies that need to be involved.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 10:01 AM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




Allison - i understand what you are saying about getting more details; however, what is your recommendation in view of the wording of our DCC&R? You are bringing up the possibility that our Association should ignore our governing documents...right?

Am i understanding correctly?

There is no dispute that the bite occurred (unprovoked) and the wound was not insignificant. If i had received such a bite, i'd have gone to the emergency room to get it treated. This elderly woman chose not to go to the emergency room - and, as far as i know, has treated it successfully herself and it is not infected. Very fortunate outcome in this case; however, not sure such a fortunate outcome will be seen if this dog bites another homeowner when it is being walked in the neighborhood.

Allison, sure do appreciate you giving your opinion on this subject....very helpful.

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 10:04 AM  
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/03/2016 9:43 AM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




I'm wondering the same thing. Generally, dogs don't just walk over to a stranger and bite them.

Personally, I think It's up to the town/county to decide what to do, not an HOA. A dog, is part of a family, the hell I would ever let my HOA dictate under what circumstances I would have to remove my pet. Again, I think the actual law needs to be addressed.

I own a vacation/weekend property that's in an HOA. Ours is a house, we own the land. My HOA has no rules regarding pets and that's one of the things they got right. If a dog bites another owner, get the proper authority involved and leave it between the owner and the party that got bit, not the HOA.

Sometimes, boards don't seem to realize where to draw the line. They don't need to get involved or address every.single.issue that will ever arise.
I understand that sometimes they may need to,but when it comes to pets, they better be very careful.
Because if one day, they get an owner like me- this would go to court. If I lost? I would appeal for as long as I could, (I believe state level) and make them spend $$$$ defending their position for years.
There would be assessments, and when you start making home owners pay more, they start voting you out.

But that's me, and that's because I love animals, own two dogs and am heavily involved in rescue. I understand that if a dog bites, it doesn't automatically mean it's vicious or it would happen again. I don't believe most boards have enough experience to make any kind of educated guess when it comes to these types of situations. That's why you have professional/legal agencies that need to be involved.




Michelle, i agree with much of what you have said; however, it seems as though you are recommending that our Association does something other than following the wording of our governing documents. Am i understanding correctly? What do you think?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 10:09 AM  
Excellent information you have provided Tim. Thanks sooo much for the references!

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/03/2016 10:11 AM  
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/03/2016 9:43 AM

Sometimes, boards don't seem to realize where to draw the line. They don't need to get involved or address every.single.issue that will ever arise.




100% agree.
Additionally, that one statement could be a thread of it's own.

JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 10:19 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/03/2016 10:11 AM
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/03/2016 9:43 AM

Sometimes, boards don't seem to realize where to draw the line. They don't need to get involved or address every.single.issue that will ever arise.




100% agree.
Additionally, that one statement could be a thread of it's own.





Agreed Tim...lol...

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
MichelleK5
(New York)

Posts:161


04/03/2016 1:08 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/03/2016 10:04 AM
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/03/2016 9:43 AM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




I'm wondering the same thing. Generally, dogs don't just walk over to a stranger and bite them.

Personally, I think It's up to the town/county to decide what to do, not an HOA. A dog, is part of a family, the hell I would ever let my HOA dictate under what circumstances I would have to remove my pet. Again, I think the actual law needs to be addressed.

I own a vacation/weekend property that's in an HOA. Ours is a house, we own the land. My HOA has no rules regarding pets and that's one of the things they got right. If a dog bites another owner, get the proper authority involved and leave it between the owner and the party that got bit, not the HOA.

Sometimes, boards don't seem to realize where to draw the line. They don't need to get involved or address every.single.issue that will ever arise.
I understand that sometimes they may need to,but when it comes to pets, they better be very careful.
Because if one day, they get an owner like me- this would go to court. If I lost? I would appeal for as long as I could, (I believe state level) and make them spend $$$$ defending their position for years.
There would be assessments, and when you start making home owners pay more, they start voting you out.

But that's me, and that's because I love animals, own two dogs and am heavily involved in rescue. I understand that if a dog bites, it doesn't automatically mean it's vicious or it would happen again. I don't believe most boards have enough experience to make any kind of educated guess when it comes to these types of situations. That's why you have professional/legal agencies that need to be involved.




Michelle, i agree with much of what you have said; however, it seems as though you are recommending that our Association does something other than following the wording of our governing documents. Am i understanding correctly? What do you think?

oljim, in texas





That's exactly what I'm suggesting, Jim. You're in a tough spot. Follow your CC&R's, and depending on the dog's owner, get ready for a fight. Forgo, and the other owners may decide to take action.

I just know what I would do, and that would be to work out some kind of agreement between the actual parties involved. THEN- I would make a push to amend my CC&R's.
My HOA has done it three times. When I asked why they were amended, I was told "to reflect the changes in the community over the years." Makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, and this is strictly my opinion as I wasn't there but- the fact that that the lady who was bit chose not to get medical help, is very telling.
Her wound/wounds, while I'm sure painful and unpleasant, didn't require professional treatment. Serious dog bites end in stitches, antibiotics and broken bones. They don't end with the person going home, putting on some neosporin and a band-aid, then calling it a day. Just sayin' ;)

AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/03/2016 1:22 PM  
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/03/2016 1:08 PM
Posted By JimR24 on 04/03/2016 10:04 AM
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/03/2016 9:43 AM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




I'm wondering the same thing. Generally, dogs don't just walk over to a stranger and bite them.

Personally, I think It's up to the town/county to decide what to do, not an HOA. A dog, is part of a family, the hell I would ever let my HOA dictate under what circumstances I would have to remove my pet. Again, I think the actual law needs to be addressed.

I own a vacation/weekend property that's in an HOA. Ours is a house, we own the land. My HOA has no rules regarding pets and that's one of the things they got right. If a dog bites another owner, get the proper authority involved and leave it between the owner and the party that got bit, not the HOA.

Sometimes, boards don't seem to realize where to draw the line. They don't need to get involved or address every.single.issue that will ever arise.
I understand that sometimes they may need to,but when it comes to pets, they better be very careful.
Because if one day, they get an owner like me- this would go to court. If I lost? I would appeal for as long as I could, (I believe state level) and make them spend $$$$ defending their position for years.
There would be assessments, and when you start making home owners pay more, they start voting you out.

But that's me, and that's because I love animals, own two dogs and am heavily involved in rescue. I understand that if a dog bites, it doesn't automatically mean it's vicious or it would happen again. I don't believe most boards have enough experience to make any kind of educated guess when it comes to these types of situations. That's why you have professional/legal agencies that need to be involved.




Michelle, i agree with much of what you have said; however, it seems as though you are recommending that our Association does something other than following the wording of our governing documents. Am i understanding correctly? What do you think?

oljim, in texas





That's exactly what I'm suggesting, Jim. You're in a tough spot. Follow your CC&R's, and depending on the dog's owner, get ready for a fight. Forgo, and the other owners may decide to take action.

I just know what I would do, and that would be to work out some kind of agreement between the actual parties involved. THEN- I would make a push to amend my CC&R's.
My HOA has done it three times. When I asked why they were amended, I was told "to reflect the changes in the community over the years." Makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, and this is strictly my opinion as I wasn't there but- the fact that that the lady who was bit chose not to get medical help, is very telling.
Her wound/wounds, while I'm sure painful and unpleasant, didn't require professional treatment. Serious dog bites end in stitches, antibiotics and broken bones. They don't end with the person going home, putting on some neosporin and a band-aid, then calling it a day. Just sayin' ;)





I agree with this, some rules make no sense and deserve to be challenged. Your rules do not take into account that the victim might have been the party responsible for the dog bite. Rules can be challenged, this is what appellate courts are for! HOA's should address these challenges accordingly.
MichelleK5
(New York)

Posts:161


04/03/2016 1:48 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/02/2016 6:37 PM
Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I do not see why animal control ever needs to be involved when the HOA has reasonable rules about dog bites, dogs on leashes.




For one thing, that is their job.

Do you think that the Board should act as police officers when a human attacks a human?
Of course not. Main reason is, they are not trained in that area.
Have you been trained to determine if an animal is acting as if its rabid?
Have you been trained to determine if an animal is dangerous or simply protecting it's family?
Have you been trained to safely capture and detain a "dangerous" animal?


I do not understand why a Board member feels the need to do the job others are paid and better trained to do.




Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I don't believe that your board lacks the proper training, Jim, in this confirmed case.




To determine that a bite occurred? No, they don't need training on that.
To properly determine why the bite occurred is what they need training for.


Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I don't believe an outside agency needs to be consulted.




How about to document the issue.
This way if it happens again, elsewhere, there is documentation of a prior instance.

How about the authority, if needed, to order the dog tested for rabies?
The Board doesn't have this authority. The County does.

How about, if needed, to determine if the dog is a danger to all and needs to be put down?
The Board, per Jims citation, only has authority to make the issue someone elses problem.
The County has the authority to eliminate the danger.

How about proper protecting the individual who was bitten by providing proper procedure and documentation for any future legal action for medical bills?



Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

My own feelings, though, are that a muzzle will solve the dog biting problem.




I agree.
However, you give the indication that one bite and your out is a reasonable rule even though there may be extenuating circumstances or other options (muzzle).


Posted By KerryL1 on 04/02/2016 6:03 PM

I wonder if someone on your board could ask the victim if that would a satisfy him? My concern would be that the victim demand the board follow the CC&Rs.




So you are saying that the Covenants is clear that the dog must leave the development and (perhaps) move into yours.
However, you are also saying that the Board should simply not enforce the covenants after a complaint has been made and, instead, try to arbitrate a resolve between the victim and the owner.
If there is no grey area, then what liability issues are there to the Association if they do not follow the CC&Rs and the animal bites someone else? Would you be willing to risk such liability for your Association?












THANK YOU! I didn't read this post before. Bravo, well said.


JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 3:58 PM  
Excellent dialog about this difficult issue. Thanks for everybody's helpful comments and opinions.

I sure do appreciate having this discussion forum available to us (THANK YOU HOATALK.COM!)- and for the opportunity to be involved with all of you!

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:7044


04/03/2016 4:42 PM  
Ya' know, Jim, that phrase "has previously" could be a way to sentence this dog to a muzzle IF there have been no other confirmed complaints of aggressive behavior from it. Downright removal seems harsh and it's NOT perfectly clear that that's what your docs mean. We get "free" phone calls to our HOA attorney included in our annual retainer. Do you, Jim?

If we take the current violation as "previously" then the dog does have one more chance, it seems to me.

But your board has been made aware of this hazard, which like any other hazard, needs to be dealt with somehow. The muzzle can be one step, a non-expandable leash could be a second. "Probation" for a year, including any confirmed aggressive behavior, e.g. lunging, suddenly turning, baring its teeth and snarling at a person or another pet could be a third, etc. Any of those would get the dog banned.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/03/2016 5:19 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 04/03/2016 4:42 PM
Ya' know, Jim, that phrase "has previously" could be a way to sentence this dog to a muzzle IF there have been no other confirmed complaints of aggressive behavior from it. Downright removal seems harsh and it's NOT perfectly clear that that's what your docs mean. We get "free" phone calls to our HOA attorney included in our annual retainer. Do you, Jim?

If we take the current violation as "previously" then the dog does have one more chance, it seems to me.

But your board has been made aware of this hazard, which like any other hazard, needs to be dealt with somehow. The muzzle can be one step, a non-expandable leash could be a second. "Probation" for a year, including any confirmed aggressive behavior, e.g. lunging, suddenly turning, baring its teeth and snarling at a person or another pet could be a third, etc. Any of those would get the dog banned.




Hi again Kerry - sure do appreciate your comments. We don't have a "free call arrangement" with our attorney agreement; however, there is now some discussion about our President having a discussion with him this coming week. I am now understanding that the homeowner who owns the dog has requested a sit-down with our Board to discuss this. This could possibly be happening sometime this coming week....not sure. Gonna be interesting to see how this turns out.

Kerry, your comment about the term "previously" used in our documents is well taken. There has been more discussion about this consideration - although the individuals involved in this discussion appeared to be pretty slam-dunk certain that the intent of our governing documents did not give latitude for the necessity of a "second bite" allowance. My guess is that lots of this had to do with the bloody arm wound photo, the frailness of the elderly person receiving the bite and the stout, muscular stance of the dog. I am now hearing that others in our community are now expressing concern about the safety of their "exercise walk-abouts" in our community. We are a small tight-knit condominium neighborhood - with short private streets - without lots of space amongst us...so it's difficult to argue with their concern. Interesting stuff...huh?

Thanks everybody!

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
MichelleK5
(New York)

Posts:161


04/03/2016 5:59 PM  
The rest of your community needs to mind their own business. Usually people with lives have better things to do than "express concern" over things that have never affected them. These types of things never lead to anything good. Reign in that mob mentality now.



PitA


Posts:0


04/03/2016 7:15 PM  
Liability Statute

Texas does not have a Dog Bite Statute.

Common Law Liability

Generally, a dog owner will not be found liable for damages the dog causes, unless the dog is vicious and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the viciousness. If the animal is vicious or has aggressive tendencies and the owner has knowledge of that propensity, the owner is subject to liability under the law of strict liability. If an animal is non-vicious, the owner may still be subject to liability for his or her negligence in failing to attempt to end an attack.



Based on the above I believe the intent of the CCR wording is to establish '....the dog is vicious and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the viciousness'.

Second strike, dog is gone.

Just like animal control in most areas.

Call animal control so that the dog's propensity IS ON RECORD.

ie. Dog bites for the first time in THIS development. Animal Control is contacted. Previous 'biting' established. Dog is gone even though only one bite in PRESENT development.
BobD4
(up north)

Posts:916


04/03/2016 11:49 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
we've had a recent (confirmed) incident of a dog - on a leash - biting one of our homeowners on the arm. Because of this, our Association has presented the dog's owner with a 10 day notice for dog removal. Our governing documents say:

"Pets must be kept in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of Residents of other Units. No pet may be permitted to bark, howl, whine, screech, or make other loud noises for extended or repeated periods of time. Any pet that has previously attacked or bitten a resident, guest, tenant, or other individual must be removed from the property within ten (10) days of such action."

From what i am hearing, the dog's owner will be pleading the case to the Board that the 10 day notice be rescinded and the dog be allowed to stay. Seems pretty slam-dunk to me that the Association is acting under proper authority; however, sometimes things are not always as they seem.

Any comments or other's experience with this...thoughts, suggestions ? - what do u think?





JimR24 Tx:
1 Powers to enforce immediate disclosure of vaccination records & animal ownership; possible seizure & impounding.

Whether or not your association already had up to date vaccination records, the immediate powers to seize and/or compel disclosure are usually a quicker local animal control/municipal by-law power etc.

2 You cite that the association is moving to enforce a 10 day removal obligation regardless of # 1.

Respectfully there may be sound reasons to put association's insurer on immediate notice.

Presuming the alleged attack occurred within the common elements, you might try checking Texas association law as to "occupiers liability" if the association is either the owner of the venue or the "deemed occupant" for purposes of owners liability.

Also worth checking exactly what the state & your CCRs specify to be the specific compliancing duty of your association.

Unlikely made a guarantor that there will never be bites nor exuberant injuries etc, but it may have a duty to "obtain compliancing" to whatever the standard eg using reasonable means to obtain compliance.

Dog owners may have a tough time recognizing what Rover is capable of, so reminders may not be overkill eg about controlling your animal, filing proofs of up to date vaccinations if required by governance documents etc

JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 4:46 AM  
Thanks everybody for all your valuable thoughts and helping us think through this - appreciate it!

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/04/2016 3:08 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/03/2016 10:01 AM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




Allison - i understand what you are saying about getting more details; however, what is your recommendation in view of the wording of our DCC&R? You are bringing up the possibility that our Association should ignore our governing documents...right?

Am i understanding correctly?

There is no dispute that the bite occurred (unprovoked) and the wound was not insignificant. If i had received such a bite, i'd have gone to the emergency room to get it treated. This elderly woman chose not to go to the emergency room - and, as far as i know, has treated it successfully herself and it is not infected. Very fortunate outcome in this case; however, not sure such a fortunate outcome will be seen if this dog bites another homeowner when it is being walked in the neighborhood.

Allison, sure do appreciate you giving your opinion on this subject....very helpful.

oljim, in texas



Unprovoked does not mean the dog is at fault. Please give details.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/04/2016 3:29 PM  

Provoke, per Merriam-Webster: to cause the occurrence of (a feeling or action) : to make (something) happen : to cause (a person or animal) to become angry, violent, etc.


I would seem logical that if an attack is unprovoked, the animal was either following a command or simply chose to attack for reasons only known to the animal.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 4:17 PM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/04/2016 3:08 PM
Posted By JimR24 on 04/03/2016 10:01 AM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/03/2016 9:35 AM
Are there more details available about the incident? Did it include a long leash? Did the victim try to pet the dog? Did the victim and dog accidentally get too close to each other? What are the details?




Allison - i understand what you are saying about getting more details; however, what is your recommendation in view of the wording of our DCC&R? You are bringing up the possibility that our Association should ignore our governing documents...right?

Am i understanding correctly?

There is no dispute that the bite occurred (unprovoked) and the wound was not insignificant. If i had received such a bite, i'd have gone to the emergency room to get it treated. This elderly woman chose not to go to the emergency room - and, as far as i know, has treated it successfully herself and it is not infected. Very fortunate outcome in this case; however, not sure such a fortunate outcome will be seen if this dog bites another homeowner when it is being walked in the neighborhood.

Allison, sure do appreciate you giving your opinion on this subject....very helpful.

oljim, in texas



Unprovoked does not mean the dog is at fault. Please give details.




Hi Allison - our President has most of the details here, so at this time, i don't have more specifics. I have been researching out state and county regs about this and have found that the definition of "dangerous dog" given. Since the word "unprovoked" was not defined by state and county regs, i searched what other counties have done. I found the below passage on the Travis County (Austin Texas area) regarding the definition of "unprovoked". Hope this helps.

"DEFINITIONS: (A) UNPROVOKED ATTACK: An attempt by a dog to inflict bodily injury on a person in a situation which the dog was not hit, kicked, or struck by the person with an object or a part of the person's body nor was any part of the dog's body pulled, pinched, or squeezed by the person, nor was the dog taunted or teased by the person.
Consideration will be given to whether the person was in the dog's territory on the property of the dog's owner at the time of the attack (e.g. When the dog is confined to the owners property by rope or chain, or when a dog is defending its young on the property of its owner). If at the time of the unprovoked attack the person was in the dogs territory and the dog was confined then any attack will not be deemed an unprovoked attack."

Interesting information - huh?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/04/2016 4:21 PM  
Again, we need more details. I still have to ask why was the woman so close to the dog? How long was the leash? Where did this happen?? Labeling the bite as unprovoked is subjective.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 4:35 PM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/04/2016 4:21 PM
Again, we need more details. I still have to ask why was the woman so close to the dog? How long was the leash? Where did this happen?? Labeling the bite as unprovoked is subjective.




Allison, it seems to me like the Travis County definition provides a pretty good definition of "unprovoked". Do you agree?

The incident happened on the private streets of our common area. I have recently found out that the elderly woman was walking "on an exercise walk" next to the dog and its owner - with the two talking with one another. The leash was an expandable-type....ummm, not sure of the length those types of leashes expand out. Do you know?

What do you think?

Allison, what would be your own definition of "unprovoked"? What do you think?

jim

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/04/2016 5:38 PM  
I think that when a dog is on a leash, the area between the owner and the dog is an area that should not be violated. In this case the 2 humans were walking together so I will assume the victim was within the leash area and it makes no difference how long the leash was. I think that the victim took a risk in walking so close and the dog may have felt threatened in his own space (the leash area). Unless I missed it, I suspect since the victim did not go to the hospital and took care of the injury herself, that she did not request the dog be removed. Are you looking for this to be a reason to get this dog removed? I think that the fact that it was on a leash and the victim voluntarily walked inside the leash area, the victim is responsible. That is why we put dogs on leashes; to keep them from running away and to keep they from biting someone. Its like blaming a defendant who has a no contact order on him when the victim deliberately goes to the place the defendant is and then calls the cops to get the defendant in trouble.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 5:51 PM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/04/2016 5:38 PM
I think that when a dog is on a leash, the area between the owner and the dog is an area that should not be violated. In this case the 2 humans were walking together so I will assume the victim was within the leash area and it makes no difference how long the leash was. I think that the victim took a risk in walking so close and the dog may have felt threatened in his own space (the leash area). Unless I missed it, I suspect since the victim did not go to the hospital and took care of the injury herself, that she did not request the dog be removed. Are you looking for this to be a reason to get this dog removed? I think that the fact that it was on a leash and the victim voluntarily walked inside the leash area, the victim is responsible. That is why we put dogs on leashes; to keep them from running away and to keep they from biting someone. Its like blaming a defendant who has a no contact order on him when the victim deliberately goes to the place the defendant is and then calls the cops to get the defendant in trouble.




Interesting perspective on this incident Allison. So, if i am understanding correctly, if a person is within the leashed area of a dog - there would be no circumstance in which the fault would be placed on any other than the victim....right? In other words, if the victim is within a leashed area - the dog is within its right to bite...correct?

And you are correct, the person who was bitten did not ask for the dog to be removed. She decided to report the incident to the Association to be taken care of under the wording contained in our DCC&R. Sounds like you are saying that - in this incident - that the Association is wrong in following its own governing documents...yes?

Thanks for giving your opinion on this....very interesting stuff.

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
AllisonD
(Florida)

Posts:447


04/04/2016 6:10 PM  
If the dog was in a cage and you stuck your hand in the cage and got bit, is it the dogs fault? The fact that the dog was leashed and the person was voluntarily walking within the leash area, in my opinion, holds a lot of weight in the argument against removing the dog. I will be interested in knowing what happens in this case. Would you please keep us posted? I may not post too often but I always read these informative threads.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 6:31 PM  
Posted By AllisonD on 04/04/2016 6:10 PM
If the dog was in a cage and you stuck your hand in the cage and got bit, is it the dogs fault? The fact that the dog was leashed and the person was voluntarily walking within the leash area, in my opinion, holds a lot of weight in the argument against removing the dog. I will be interested in knowing what happens in this case. Would you please keep us posted? I may not post too often but I always read these informative threads.




Yes Allison, i will try to keep you posted. Please know that the direction headed right now is that our Association will be following its governing documents in this incident - which ends up meaning that the dog is to be removed. I recognize that it is your opinion - given the circumstances - that the Association should ignore its governing documents.

My own personal opinion is that your example of a dog in a cage who bites a hand is different from a circumstance where two people are walking within an Association's common area and the dog bites unprovoked. Just my opinion here - will be interested in hearing what others say about this.

Oh yes, by the day - i didn't hear your definition of "unprovoked". The Travis County definition is pretty good, don't you think? If one were were accept this definition as reasonable, your dog cage example would fall outside of the definition of "unprovoked"; therefore falling under the meaning of "provoked". From what i am now hearing now about this incident, what happened in our condo area would fall under the Travis County definition of "unprovoked". Very useful information, i feel - and something very worthy of consideration. The reason this is important here in Texas is that the application of a definition of "unprovoked" is used to determine the designation of a "dangerous dog". And, the reason a designation of "dangerous dog" is important is that - along with this designation - comes a whole host of responsibilities which are imposed on the owner of the dog.

Very interesting subject. Gonna be interesting to see how all this floats out...huh?

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
MichelleK5
(New York)

Posts:161


04/04/2016 7:05 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/04/2016 6:31 PM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/04/2016 6:10 PM
If the dog was in a cage and you stuck your hand in the cage and got bit, is it the dogs fault? The fact that the dog was leashed and the person was voluntarily walking within the leash area, in my opinion, holds a lot of weight in the argument against removing the dog. I will be interested in knowing what happens in this case. Would you please keep us posted? I may not post too often but I always read these informative threads.




Yes Allison, i will try to keep you posted. Please know that the direction headed right now is that our Association will be following its governing documents in this incident - which ends up meaning that the dog is to be removed. I recognize that it is your opinion - given the circumstances - that the Association should ignore its governing documents.

My own personal opinion is that your example of a dog in a cage who bites a hand is different from a circumstance where two people are walking within an Association's common area and the dog bites unprovoked. Just my opinion here - will be interested in hearing what others say about this.

Oh yes, by the day - i didn't hear your definition of "unprovoked". The Travis County definition is pretty good, don't you think? If one were were accept this definition as reasonable, your dog cage example would fall outside of the definition of "unprovoked"; therefore falling under the meaning of "provoked". From what i am now hearing now about this incident, what happened in our condo area would fall under the Travis County definition of "unprovoked". Very useful information, i feel - and something very worthy of consideration. The reason this is important here in Texas is that the application of a definition of "unprovoked" is used to determine the designation of a "dangerous dog". And, the reason a designation of "dangerous dog" is important is that - along with this designation - comes a whole host of responsibilities which are imposed on the owner of the dog.

Very interesting subject. Gonna be interesting to see how all this floats out...huh?

oljim, in texas




Thing is, Jim- Neither you, nor the BOD get to label the dog as "dangerous." You're not the town, the county, animal control, humane society, or the police. Your take on the events mean absolutely nothing. There was never an official report filed, so whatever organization governs this in your county never made that assessment.

The fact that this woman didn't seek medical help also doesn't help your case. You saying "oh it looks very bad" means nothing. My paper cut can look like my finger was gauged with a knife because of all the blood.

If the owner fights this, and there's no previous history for this dog- you will never win.

Your governing docs are ridiculous in this particular case, and I really hope the owner calls you out on it.


Man, my hoity-toity real estate attorney would have a field day with you guys and it would be worth every single dollar.

A girl's gotta pick her battles, and this one strikes the worst kind of chord with me.






JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 7:11 PM  
Posted By MichelleK5 on 04/04/2016 7:05 PM
Posted By JimR24 on 04/04/2016 6:31 PM
Posted By AllisonD on 04/04/2016 6:10 PM
If the dog was in a cage and you stuck your hand in the cage and got bit, is it the dogs fault? The fact that the dog was leashed and the person was voluntarily walking within the leash area, in my opinion, holds a lot of weight in the argument against removing the dog. I will be interested in knowing what happens in this case. Would you please keep us posted? I may not post too often but I always read these informative threads.




Yes Allison, i will try to keep you posted. Please know that the direction headed right now is that our Association will be following its governing documents in this incident - which ends up meaning that the dog is to be removed. I recognize that it is your opinion - given the circumstances - that the Association should ignore its governing documents.

My own personal opinion is that your example of a dog in a cage who bites a hand is different from a circumstance where two people are walking within an Association's common area and the dog bites unprovoked. Just my opinion here - will be interested in hearing what others say about this.

Oh yes, by the day - i didn't hear your definition of "unprovoked". The Travis County definition is pretty good, don't you think? If one were were accept this definition as reasonable, your dog cage example would fall outside of the definition of "unprovoked"; therefore falling under the meaning of "provoked". From what i am now hearing now about this incident, what happened in our condo area would fall under the Travis County definition of "unprovoked". Very useful information, i feel - and something very worthy of consideration. The reason this is important here in Texas is that the application of a definition of "unprovoked" is used to determine the designation of a "dangerous dog". And, the reason a designation of "dangerous dog" is important is that - along with this designation - comes a whole host of responsibilities which are imposed on the owner of the dog.

Very interesting subject. Gonna be interesting to see how all this floats out...huh?

oljim, in texas




Thing is, Jim- Neither you, nor the BOD get to label the dog as "dangerous." You're not the town, the county, animal control, humane society, or the police. Your take on the events mean absolutely nothing. There was never an official report filed, so whatever organization governs this in your county never made that assessment.

The fact that this woman didn't seek medical help also doesn't help your case. You saying "oh it looks very bad" means nothing. My paper cut can look like my finger was gauged with a knife because of all the blood.

If the owner fights this, and there's no previous history for this dog- you will never win.

Your governing docs are ridiculous in this particular case, and I really hope the owner calls you out on it.


Man, my hoity-toity real estate attorney would have a field day with you guys and it would be worth every single dollar.

A girl's gotta pick her battles, and this one strikes the worst kind of chord with me.










Gonna be very interesting to see how all this floats out Melissa. Will try to keep ya'll posted on the outcome. Sounds like some pretty strong emotions have been struck on this one...[smile]...

I wish you the best too...lol...

jim

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/04/2016 7:37 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/04/2016 7:11 PM

Gonna be very interesting to see how all this floats out Melissa. Will try to keep ya'll posted on the outcome. Sounds like some pretty strong emotions have been struck on this one...[smile]...

I wish you the best too...lol...

jim




Jim,

I believe you intended to say Michelle.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


04/04/2016 7:48 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
"Pets must be kept in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of Residents of other Units.

So if 2 or more residents of other units believe that their peaceful enjoyment has been disturbed, your board is obligated to take action.

Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
No pet may be permitted to bark, howl, whine, screech, or make other loud noises for extended or repeated periods of time.

How loud? How long? If dog can't be "permitted", I guess the board is obligated to silence the dog. Dogs usually make noise when there's a problem - How are you going to prevent it.

Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
Any pet that has previously attacked or bitten a resident, guest, tenant, or other individual must be removed from the property within ten (10) days of such action."

Enough was said previously about the word "previously". So I won't revisit it. What action does must board take if the dog owner refuses to remove the dog? It seems to me that the word "must" puts the burden to remove on the board.

Think it's time to tighten up the language and give your board more options.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 8:08 PM  
Posted By NpS on 04/04/2016 7:48 PM
Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
"Pets must be kept in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of Residents of other Units.

So if 2 or more residents of other units believe that their peaceful enjoyment has been disturbed, your board is obligated to take action.

Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
No pet may be permitted to bark, howl, whine, screech, or make other loud noises for extended or repeated periods of time.

How loud? How long? If dog can't be "permitted", I guess the board is obligated to silence the dog. Dogs usually make noise when there's a problem - How are you going to prevent it.

Posted By JimR24 on 04/02/2016 12:10 PM
Any pet that has previously attacked or bitten a resident, guest, tenant, or other individual must be removed from the property within ten (10) days of such action."

Enough was said previously about the word "previously". So I won't revisit it. What action does must board take if the dog owner refuses to remove the dog? It seems to me that the word "must" puts the burden to remove on the board.

Think it's time to tighten up the language and give your board more options.




Excellent analysis NpS.

Just speaking for myself here; however, i feel that it'd likely be best for the homeowner to refuse to remove the dog so this issue can be brought to a head. IMHO, if the owner of the dog were to refuse to remove the dog, it'd be great opportunity for our board to re-visit the poor wording in our governing documents, call in help from from the animal control experts - and (hopefully) end up helping future boards deal with this subject. This is likely to happen again, and it appears reasonable for us - as a board - to make things more reasonable and easier for future boards.

If we don't use this opportunity to clean things up - and it happens again - the next Board will be under the same "between a rock and a hard place" condition we find ourselves in...[smile]...

What do you think?

jim

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 8:09 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/04/2016 7:37 PM
Posted By JimR24 on 04/04/2016 7:11 PM

Gonna be very interesting to see how all this floats out Melissa. Will try to keep ya'll posted on the outcome. Sounds like some pretty strong emotions have been struck on this one...[smile]...

I wish you the best too...lol...

jim




Jim,

I believe you intended to say Michelle.




Yes i did intend to say Michelle - my bad...sorry.

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:16700


04/04/2016 8:17 PM  
Posted By JimR24 on 04/04/2016 8:08 PM

IMHO, if the owner of the dog were to refuse to remove the dog, it'd be great opportunity for our board to re-visit the poor wording in our governing documents, call in help from from the animal control experts - and (hopefully) end up helping future boards deal with this subject. This is likely to happen again, and it appears reasonable for us - as a board - to make things more reasonable and easier for future boards.





There is no reason why the Board has to wait for someone to challenge the language to have an opportunity to make changes.

This incident, regardless of what the outcome is, should be enough of a reason for the Board to review the language and try to make it easier for a future board.
JimR24
(Texas)

Posts:352


04/04/2016 8:21 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 04/04/2016 8:17 PM
Posted By JimR24 on 04/04/2016 8:08 PM

IMHO, if the owner of the dog were to refuse to remove the dog, it'd be great opportunity for our board to re-visit the poor wording in our governing documents, call in help from from the animal control experts - and (hopefully) end up helping future boards deal with this subject. This is likely to happen again, and it appears reasonable for us - as a board - to make things more reasonable and easier for future boards.





There is no reason why the Board has to wait for someone to challenge the language to have an opportunity to make changes.

This incident, regardless of what the outcome is, should be enough of a reason for the Board to review the language and try to make it easier for a future board.




Yes i understand and agree in principal Tim. However, there's this 10 day period of time hanging over the requirement. Unfortunately, that's only a few days away. If this was in a document other than our DCC&R, it'd make things much easier...huh? What do u think?

Sure do appreciate everybody's advice on this. Sure helps to have individuals like you willing to help out.

oljim, in texas

Lovin' life with my honey!
and, Treasurer of Condo Association
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > dog biting homeowner...



Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement