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'm all for the rights of non-smokers not to have to smell their neighbor's noxious odors. Cigarette smoke is the worst.
LIberal judges ruling Amerika.
Comrade,
If you lived in a building that was not "leaky" for smoke, you would die before sunlight. (SMILE)
About 25 years, on average.
Tell it to Buffy!
You can catch every ball thrown at you but when you reach catch 22 you is do-do.
And Yes I hate HOA's. They are too restrictive of personal rights.
Lot's of people work hard and some who cannot afford the big home you have have, worked as hard or harder than you. You might want to be more sensitive to that fact.
It started when someone complained about his neighbor waiting till the wind was right to burn his leaves in his backyard blowing the smoke into your house.
True sometimes. WHat have I been insensitive about. A kid here is all in a snit because his renting friend was forced out of an apartment she could not buy by the owner who took the condo public. He seems to think that there is an entitlement on the part of the renter to be given at the price she wants the apartment.
Now I say that is tough. It is not insensitive to know what you have and to try to protect it. And HOA's do that.
You just quote any place where I have been insensitive. I have merely defended those who own property to protect its value and to be proud of their work and good judgement.
Thanks for the ping. I missed this one.
Let me read. and boy, do "I" have a lot of catching up to do!!!
Boy are you wrong.
Just because some state laws forbid certain (dish) restrictions does not mean that any restriction not parrotted by state law is invalid.
The law I referred to, isn't state, my friend, it's fed. That's what really twists the knickers of these micro-Napoleons. Ain't no HOA that supersedes local, state or especially feds.
And another point while I'm destroying your argument, no state is going to ban smoking, you tell me why. If the "tobacco cartel" were smart, they would focus on one state, say, New Jersey, and stop selling their product in that state. The state would howl, it's a cash cow.
It also might be smart for a politician to campaign on banning cigarettes in the state. I mean, if cigarettes are so "evil", why should the state balance it's budget on the lungs of it's citizens. I'm sure there are two or three people who would jump onto that like a lion on a crippled gazelle.
You keep repeating it, but it isn't so.
If you don't like HOA rules, don't buy an apartment or house in an HOA. Simple as that. Nobody is "forced" to buy one, contrary to your bizarre assertion.
You may continue to ignore that distinction if you like, but doing so doesn't help your argument.
"Yes. The anti-smoking jihad has morphed from mild complaints about stale air in airplanes 40 years ago to an increasingly hysterical mood among healthists, misfits, cranks, bed-wetters, yupsters of all ages and control freaks seeking someone, anyone, that they perceive as lower in the social pecking order than they. They have turned anti-smoking into a religious crusade bent on injecting a moral element into the simple, harmless to others, vice of using tobacco products. This attempt to inject sin into the debate has created a feeling of righteousness in it's advocates, a feeling that borders on religious mania in many of its hysterical adherents."
LOL
Thanks for the Ping
Wow -It'll take hours to catch up on this one
Already happened in Boulder, CO. I don't know if the ordinance survived and is still on the books, but a number of years ago Boulder passed an ordinance banning perfumes, colognes, scented aftershave, etc., from public places. They claimed it was to protect those people who are hypersensitive to chemical scents, etc.
Funny thing, though, I don't remember them driving out all the hairy, unwashed, patchouli oil drenched hippies from the mall area.
It's been years since I've been to Boulder, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this ordinance was still on the books.
And another point while I'm destroying your argument
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.