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.
I don't blame them. Cigarettes stink and so does everything that comes in contact with the smoke from them. There is another alternative. They could quit smoking. ;o)
This country is going down the crapper faster than PeeLousy's botox takes effect...
Time to retire and move to the Bahamas...
I'm nicer than you. Yours got fifty times what it deserved.
It never occurs to any of you all that there are things you don't know about, does it?
Amusing. I stated that I have never had a use for HOAs, but those who want them are welcome to them. I stated that they amount to another layer of regulation. Now, you are trying to tell me I don't know about what I need in my life, but you do know? Arrogant jerk. Bet you are on your local HOA board; you have the mind set.
When you live in an apartment complex that converts to condos by slapping some paint on the outside. Especially if that's the trend in the city.
If you are going into a deal for a home with no prior relationship to the neighborhood, well that's a different story. Like most people on here have said, then you have a choice and you better read the fine print and consider the trade off. Then you live with your decision and honor your agreement.
Yes. ;)
Eminant domain happens without prior consent
Others in favor of HOA's would have to disagree with you. You gave the government consent when you elected them, just like you give the elected leaders of the HOA consent.
This is a complete BS ruling. If the HOA reserved the right to buy them out of their condo, that's one thing. Being a nazi is quite another.
You honestly suspect wrong. I have nothign against people choosing to live where there is an HOA, I personally wouldn't because of the horrendous treatment my parents received through the one they had..........and their place was on a golf course on the gulf coast of Florida, so no issue with wealth or quality on my, or their part.
"Mother Earth"? Is that a magazine, or something? Pardon. mathematicians in woodsy cabins are not known for their knowledge of current PC trends.
Did you read the article? The HOA articles were amended after they moved in.
Buncha little dingleberrys that get drunk w/ power b/c they have none in their real lives.
You assume wrong.
Which part? That you didn't feel existing laws, rules and regs were enough of a restriction on your property rights, or that you didn't take more on willingly?
You betcha.
Rigid conformity was never the issue. I lived in a neighborhood of historical houses built in the 1800's to early 1900's. The HOA was established a hundred years ago and worked to maintain the character of the hood. Any dremodeling involving changes in the outside of buildings had to be approved. You had to use slate for roof, that kind of thing. The houses now sell starting at a million bucks for that reason.
The hood I am in now is architect designed houses, no cookie cutters. The HOA exists to make sure people don't build additiions that make the house look inappropriate, don't cut down big trees without a good reason, don't subdivide property, put trailors on property, don't build docks on the lake and don't use motorboats on the lake. People know that when they move in. But there is no mindless conformity just a bunch of people who know what they want and how to preserve it.
And the HOA handles the complaints, they go to court,,who wants to spend his life paying an attorney when a perfectly good elected body will do the heavy lifting.
I honestly suspect that those who have an emotional knee jerk reaction to HOAs have issues with the wealth and quality of living that they represent.
No, you're wrong. I suspect they have issues with Elitists who believe a person's value is in direct proportion to the size of his house, or price of his car, or the size of his boat, or the amount of control he can have over other people's lives.
The Deed restrictions were, "Each home may be occupied by one white anglo-saxon family, members of the local Protestent Church, with the exception that each family may have one female black servant as chattel in residence."
I assume you have no problem with that?
(Obviously, it was not enforced.)
(And oddly, it could not be removed from the deed.)
your hyperbole is really not a good tactic.
People offend me and inconvenience me but they do not make my property less valuable because of actiions that the neighborhood as agreed are bad for everyone's property values and community living.
Nobody destroys anyone. People by and large know the rules and follow them. Grace has nothing to do with maintaining a neighborhood and it is not inconceivable to me or to most people.
If you don't like the rules, don't buy in. Your fried who rented was not entitled to trump the interests of the owner of the property. When you rent, that is the risk.
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.