Posted on 11/17/2006 10:46:11 AM PST by TheKidster
GOLDEN, Colo. -- A judge has upheld a homeowners association's order barring a couple from smoking in the town house they own.
Colleen and Rodger Sauve, both smokers, filed a lawsuit in March after their condominium association amended its bylaws last December to prohibit smoking.
"We argued that the HOA was not being reasonable in restricting smoking in our own unit, nowhere on the premises, not in the parking lot or on our patio," Colleen Sauve said. The Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association was responding to complaints from the Sauves' neighbors who said cigarette smoke was seeping into their units, representing a nuisance to others in the building.
In a Nov. 7 ruling, Jefferson County District Judge Lily Oeffler ruled the association can keep the couple from smoking in their own home.
Oeffler stated "smoke and/or smoke smell" is not contained to one area and that smoke smell "constitutes a nuisance." She noted that under condo declarations, nuisances are not allowed.
The couple now has to light up on the street in front of their condominium building.
"I think it's ridiculous. If there's another blizzard, I'm going to be having to stand out on the street, smoking a cigarette," said Colleen Suave.
For five years the couple has smoked in their living room and that had neighbors fuming.
"At times, it smells like someone is sitting in the room with you, smoking. So yes, it's very heavy," said condo owner Christine Shedron.
The Sauves said they have tried to seal their unit. One tenant spent thousands of dollars trying to minimize the odor.
"We got complaints and we felt like it was necessary to protect our tenants and our investment," said Shedron.
The Suaves said they would like to appeal the judge's ruling but are unsure if they have the money to continue fighting. They said what goes on behind their closed doors shouldn't be other people's business.
"I don't understand. If I was here and I was doing a lawful act in my home when they got here, why can they say, 'OK, now you have to change,'" said Colleen Suave. "We're not arguing the right to smoke as much as we're arguing the right to privacy in our home."
Other homeowners believe, as with loud music, that the rights of a community trump the rights of individual residents. The HOA is also concerned that tenants will sue those homeowners for exposure to second-hand smoke and this could be a liability issue.
The couple said that they would like to unload their condo and get out of the HOA entirely, but they are not sure if the real estate market is right.
Yes, very strange.
Cities are usually run by a mayor and city council made up of people with various viewpoints elected from different part of town and are at least in theory accountable to the electorate and often governed in some sense by state and federal laws. HOAs on the otherhand are usually a small of group of busy bodies with too much time on their hands, and an overwhelming desire to make everyone conform to their view of the world.
HOAs are elected local gov'ts. They have powers under a charter from all of the homeowners. You may not like who gets elected, but that's what they are.
SD
He breathes on the steering wheel.
I know it! I know it!
You certainly can.
But if you advertise your willingness to sell your property to the general public, the rules change.
You can't say you are willing to entertain bids from the general public and then discriminate against bids from the general public.
If tomorrow I decide that I want to sell my home, but only to a person who attends my local parish I can certainly do so.
But it has to be a one-on-one transaction.
I have a HOA. I bought anyway because it isn't enforced. Sometimes I see stuff that irritates me but I keep my mouth shut because as long as my neighbor doesn't complain about me then......
These people were there for 5 years before it became an issue..............
Personally I think the HOA went after the wrong people - they should have gotten together and gone after the builders.
We lived in a townhouse for 11 years, and to say these were poorly constructed would be an understatement (the builder has a notoriously rotten reputation, and these units were more than 20 years old when we bought) and never once did we notice odors from our neighbors or vice versa. Roaches and rodents, yes, odors never.
The "nazis" who run HOAs are duly elected officials chosen by their constituents.
The only difference between HOA officials and municipal officials is that HOA officials have a much more legally restricted scope of what they can or cannot do.
Calling them "nazis" is silly hyperbole.
Your argument is interesting, but not terribly convincing.
It is true that the free market doesn't always mean that you can have everything you want at any time. Such is life. That doesn't mean that you were "forced" at all.
It's leftist logic.
Well, I guess you still love him and I hope you two can sometimes laugh about it....I know sometimes my wife would say, "I felt terrible today, I just know you were out there somewhere somehow having fun!"
Ah so I see, your property rights are the most important issue when you stand to benefit financially and to hell with the property rights of anyone else.
What a hypocrite
Homeowners associations are like little governments, but without even the minimal checks and balances on arbitrary and capricious behavior that governments have.
Ok, that makes sense. I guess I'm coming from the perspective of a developer selling lots. I would imagine that a one on one transaction like that without a listing would allow the freedom to not sign into a HOA unless you're not allowed to sell your own property to someone else unless they concede to a covenant.
If I own land I should be able to do anything I want within the law.
Calling them "nazis" is silly hyperbole.
Not if you've been on the wrong side of one.
What is your point?
Nobody has to buy a condo with a HOA. Even if I think it is a better deal, I am no obliged to buy into it.
I don't think there should be an option to opt out if one is a resident. When you buy the property, you opt in. HOA's would have no clout if opting out was the case. And if you buy into one, you expect it to do its job.
One can buy a property as nice as any without a HOA so there is no "forcing" here.
If your flatulence is so pervasive that it was seeping into the unit next door to yours then I'd suggest you have greater problems than worrying about personal freedom. lol
HOA powers to steal away your property are definitely leftist. It is as leftist as eminant domain abuse used by cities to increase tax revenue.
Your friend was renting. Not the same as owning. Do you expect her to be allowed to stay once it is converted without paying?
I don't know about conversions but the owner who owns the building can convert and shouldn't have to accommodate renters past their lease. If they don't want to buy or cannot afford to buy, well they do what renters do. They move. There is no free lunch.
Second, for most people (as evidenced by the premium placed by the market) those rules are not rights to be signed away, but rights to be gained.
Only if you're a fool.
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.