Skip to comments.
HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home
Judge Upholds Homeowners' Association Order
TheDenverChannel.com ^
| 11/16/06
| TheDenverChannel.com
Posted on 11/17/2006 10:46:11 AM PST by TheKidster
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 761-776 next last
To: TheBigB
Sounds like it may have been after-the-fact... Oh, the anti-smoking rule was certainly after the fact.
What wasn't after the fact was the HOA agreement, which almost certainly spelled out that the bylaws of the HOA could be amended at any time and that the new bylaws could be imposed on all residents by simple majority vote.
21
posted on
11/17/2006 10:54:47 AM PST
by
wideawake
("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
To: wideawake
You have an excellent point. I specifically looked in neighborhoods with no sort of HOA or convenant when I bought my first house a number of years ago so that nobody could tell me what I can or can't (legally) do with my property.
To: TheKidster
this ruling against personal freedom and property rights in favor of "the common good".
Everyone bought in knowing that this could be changed by a vote. Granted, it seems unreasonable to restrict what goes on in side that is not detectable by others (smoking with the windows closed.)
But if these smokers had confined themselves to that, the restriction would never have passed.
And a ruling by a government judge that the homeowners did not have this power to set their own rules would be the REAL "ruling against personal freedom and property rights."
I can certainly understand how patio tobacco smoke smell could easily be a nuisance to other homeowners.
23
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:09 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: TheKidster
They should just continue to smoke in their unit and make sure they are never caught red-handed, since I doubt a search warrant would ever be issued for something so petty. They could also keep a pot of boiled cabbage constantly going on the stove. That has a unique smell the neighbors would enjoy. By the way, how do you prove "smell" in a court of law? And why isn't the manufacturer of the dwelling responsible for cross-ventilation problems? And why are the other residents living in joined housing if the private acts of their neighbors are so offensive?
24
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:23 AM PST
by
Niteranger68
(Big winners of election 2006: Democrats, terrorists, MSM, Hollywood, anti-war protestors, etc.)
To: wideawake
If it wasn't in the rules when they bought into the HOA, they should have been grandfathered in because those were not the terms they agreed to when they moved in..
Methinks the Courts need to move to cut the teeth out of HOAs...
25
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:41 AM PST
by
Schwaeky
(Welcome to America--Now speak English or LEAVE!)
To: 3AngelaD
I can't wear perfume now. My boss is allergic to it and he can still smell it on me from several days before. I can only wear it if he's going to be out of the office for awhile. When it's a real allergy, then it's legit.
26
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:47 AM PST
by
twigs
To: TheKidster
Dead people can't smell.......
(for the Grammar police:to be absolutely correct in the wording, replace smell with detect odors)
27
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:50 AM PST
by
bert
(K.E. N.P. Rozerem commercials give me nightmares)
To: 3AngelaD
Coming up next: perfume. You will not be able to wear it in public, then it will be forbidden in your own home.
Only if you buy into a community that allows such a restriction.
28
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:54 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: wideawake
They had the personal freedom not to buy into an HOA property and they had the personal freedom not to voluntarily cede part of their property rights to the HOA.
Fair enough. However, it wouldn't have immediately occurred to many people that this particular property right had also been ceded - or that a court wouldn't overturn this rule.
To: wideawake
Sometimes, for particular zealots, the very fact that someone somewhere is doing something of which you don't approve, reinforces perceptions of that act's impact on you. TRANSLATION? Morelike the 'affected' tenant's protestations are false - equivalent to the old people in Florida lying about the ' ooh so confusing' ballots, etc. Regardless, the affected tenants (the smokers) should sell their unit and move somewhere else that assholes don't live.
30
posted on
11/17/2006 10:55:59 AM PST
by
Gaffer
To: TheBigB
If the non-smokers outnumber the smokers, they can get away with that. Fortunately, our HOA is just alive enough to avoid seizure by the management corporation. They haven't had a quorum for a meeting in seven or eight years. I've heard there's someone in the back of the development keeping chickens (WAY against the rules) but haven't taken the trouble to check it out, because I DON'T CARE. Every now and then some gung-ho guy gets on the Board, but he's always beaten down in a couple of months.
31
posted on
11/17/2006 10:56:33 AM PST
by
nina0113
To: RacerF150
Wasn't it James Joyce who had cabbage cooking in his literature as a symbol of the poorer class?
32
posted on
11/17/2006 10:56:42 AM PST
by
twigs
To: Teflonic
They should take a long vacation after filling their unit with a ton of dead fish. See if their neighbors prefer that smell.
And they would be liable for all the damages that causes.
What ever happened to being considerate of your neighbors, and not subjecting them to your personal smells?
33
posted on
11/17/2006 10:56:54 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: TheKidster
My husband smokes in the garage and now my car stinks.
34
posted on
11/17/2006 10:56:54 AM PST
by
Alouette
(Psalms of the Day: 119: 97-176)
To: TheKidster
Hard case. I am all for property rights but HOAs and Condo Associations trump them. I also understand that you do NOT have the right to damage or devalue another's property.
I know I would go crazy if smoke from my neighbor's unit was coming into my condo. I can't even stand a hotel room that has been smoked in.
35
posted on
11/17/2006 10:57:14 AM PST
by
cwat212
To: Schwaeky
If it wasn't in the rules when they bought into the HOA, they should have been grandfathered in because those were not the terms they agreed to when they moved in.. The terms they agreed to when they moved in were that the HOA bylaws were subject to amendment.
They have no legal grounds to claim exemption.
36
posted on
11/17/2006 10:57:15 AM PST
by
wideawake
("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
To: TheKidster
I agree with you except one thing, they knowingly moved into a place that had a "Homeowners Association." When I bought my estate 20 years ago, the #1 disqualifier of the property search was homeowner associations or covenants, conditions or restrictions dictated by someone other than me, outside of regional zoning regulations.
Those things have no place in America. They're full of little Napoleon's and snotty busybodies.
To: TheKidster
I think the HOA has the right to ammend the bylaws, but I would think the couple would have been "grandfathered". This is hideous in that it basically forces the couple to sell their place and move.
To: TheKidster
Most people would gladly trade their freedom for the right to manage their neighbor.
39
posted on
11/17/2006 10:57:46 AM PST
by
marron
To: Beelzebubba
Only if you buy into a community that allows such a restriction.
Correction: only if you buy into a community that has the inclination to PASS such a restriction in the future, and also has fine-print in their covenants to allow such a restriction to hold up in court.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 761-776 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson