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.
Well, are you PLAYING MUSIC? ~heh
Ah.............poor baby...........I didn't realize the world rotated on your azz!
I remember when this was a free country.
Addiction???? Gosh, one would think you were talking about pot, meth and coke.
Will you pray for those addicted to Pepsi as well?
How about praying for those that are addicted to the gym and running 10 miles a day!
All "kinds" of addictions, you know!
Well, then she had better pray doubly hard for me! I just love a cold pepsi along with a cigarette! : )
hehe! I know it!
And me too. I LOVE my coffee!!!! One could say I am "addicted" to coffee because coffee and cigarettes are ME!!!
With our HOA, there is only one provision that controls the inside of your home and involves window dressings since they can also be viewed from the outside as well as the inside. It doesn't exactly regulate the type of window dressing as much as it states that you must have them (i.e., no sheets).
But again, I think this is off point. If the other residents can smell odors coming from another unit, they should take it up with the builders. That's where the real problem is. If smoke can breach a unit, then food odors can as well. At what point will the majority decide to prohibit the cooking of certain foods because they don't like those smells either?
Here's what I think is a close analogy. Let's say every unit has a dishwasher. Using this appliance is not a necessity, just like smoking is not a necessity. It is a choice. Now suppose there was a mistake in the electrical wiring to some dishwashers, causing them to trip breakers serving other units. Would it make more sense to prohibit the use or dishwashers or to make those responsible for the installation fix the problem?
You smoke I presume?
"That's because smokers are less educated and younger than non-smokers. It figures that they would make less money. As people get smarter and wiser with age they are less likely to smoke."
I find that to be exactly the opposite here in NV. The younger people (after years and years of brainwashing) don't smoke, yet the older people ALL smoke. Funny, they said if we smoked we would never reach a ripe old age..
Smokers less educated? Sound like more of that brainwashing I was talking about. I guess you feel that if you say something long enough it magically becomes "true"
Over half of people who have ever smoked eventually quit. Only 8% of people over 65 smoke.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/AdultCigaretteSmoking_FactSheet.htm
Gosh! Actually it's none of your business.
But I would fight this smoking issue whether I smoked or now!
And guess what? I am fighting for future rights for YOU. Think about it.
So I take it that you will fight for my right not to breathe a smokers smoke?
Why are you reluctant to state our smoking behavior?
You are quite willing to state your political behavior, your opinions about other peoples arguments.
Enjoyment of smoking does not preclude addiction to nicotine.
One can enjoy that which one is addicted to. Actually alcohol and drug addicts say the same thing. They deny addiction and say they just enjoy a toke and a drink.
Then kick him out.
Woops! Never mind, you already did that.
This is a man who apparently takes his marriage vows very seriously
DENIAL!!! You're an addict.
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.