Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: readthecontract; smoking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 761-776 next last
To: xowboy
And exactly what is it about you that makes you NORMAL???

He doesn't intentionally inhale burning leaves.

661 posted on 11/20/2006 6:37:38 AM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: xowboy
And exactly what is it about you that makes you NORMAL???

Normal people know enough not to inhale smoke.

That is of course normal people younger than 55 or so when the truth came out about tobacco.

People older than that didn't have the truth, so cannot be called abnormal. Their addiction isn't their fault.

For those young enough know the truth, and still chose to take up the filthy and hazardous addiction, how can they possibly be normal?

Would deliberately holding a gun to you head and playing Russian Roulette be considered "normal"?

Same thing.

662 posted on 11/20/2006 6:37:49 AM PST by Mogger (Independence, better fuel economy and performance with American made synthetic oil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

My wife and I lived in a condo above a smoker. When she smoked, our condo smelled like an ashtray. We had no choice whether or not to be exposed to it.

We moved after 2 months, but perhaps not everyone is able to do so.

If you don't see the problem smokers can cause, then you're just blind.


663 posted on 11/20/2006 6:39:39 AM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

In newer homes or apartments the problem may be solved more easily. Older places are a different story.

Years ago I lived in a beautiful old apartment building. The man below us was going through a divorce and every night drank and smoked himself to sleep. We used up rolls of duct tape around the radiators and pipes and every crack we could find.

We tried to ask him nicely to use a fan to blow the smoke out his windows. His response was, "Open your own windows." I tried to explain the chimney effect to him but to no avail.

I'm not sure what he was smoking but it really really smelled bad and the smell got into the drapes and furniture and our clothing. I am sure he had no idea how bad it smelled.


664 posted on 11/20/2006 6:40:18 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

" Calling for unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo."

Are you saying the referendum process in several states is seditious?

Are you saying a political movement that would champion an amendment to the US Constitution to implement a national referendum would be sedition?

Have you ever heard of CA Prop 13? Are you opposed?


665 posted on 11/20/2006 6:41:27 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Smokers are the only minority group on earth that it's OK to discriminate against.<>How are these people being discriminated against?

Tobacco smoke is noxious and destructive. For people who enjoy smoking, that's fine. I don't care.

I have zero interest in harassing smokers, or restricting what they do.

However, if they are destroying the furniture and clothing of neighbors, they have to stop doing so. That's not discrimination. It's just common sense.

666 posted on 11/20/2006 6:44:31 AM PST by Jim Noble (To preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Theo
They do not see they bring this on themselves. If smokers took more care not to offend they would not be in this fix. Instead they find a God given, Constitutional, inalienable "right" to smoke anytime anyplace that just does not exist. Their behaviors brought this into the political spectrum where it legitimately can be debated and legislated. I think the drug makes them irrational. They must feel cornered. I know smokers that say they would die without a dose. My only objection is they want to take a way my right to vote/lobby on the issue.
667 posted on 11/20/2006 6:48:28 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

I can see that. I have a friend who lives in Germantown in a multiple-unit dwelling. The cigarette smoke from a person smoking in an adjacent unit really did get into their unit.


668 posted on 11/20/2006 6:53:04 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Mashed potatoes, gravy, and cranberry sauce! Wooooooo-oooooooo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I lost my sympathy for smokers thirty years ago.

A neighbor smoked and fell asleep in his downstairs living room. The house burned. He got out. His five kids and wife, all sleeping upstairs, died.

At the funeral, he was smoking and continued to smoke.

I knew then it was not just a habit, but an addiction. And probably a worse addiction than most.


669 posted on 11/20/2006 6:56:12 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida
"-- SUPER MAJORITIES RULE --" so claim certain misguided freepers:

"-- What makes a government a republic or a democracy, and how does this distinction relate to politics today?

Democracy as a form of government has been described as a "mobocracy," because it represents mob-rule, or the unbridled will of the masses.
In short, a simple majority has unlimited power to restrict or eliminate the rights of any minority or individual citizen.
-- In reference to the dangers of unbridled majority rule, the Framers had repeatedly warned against the "excesses of democracy."

Thus the Framers of our Constitution decided in peaceful assembly in 1787 to create a representative republic under a written Constitution. "The American Experiment" as it has been called, was the first time a government had been instituted in which the common people retain the majority of their rights and the ability to govern themselves, while at the same time the minority and individual were protected from the arbitrary or selfish desires of the masses.

The principal instrument which accomplished this was the Constitution, the supreme law of the land which formed our government, and provided the standard by which all subsequent laws are measured."

We are all pledged to support & defend the Constitution. - Calling for unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo.

Are you saying the referendum process in several states is seditious?

What gives you that idea? -- Read the above for 'what I said'; defending unbridled majority rule is akin to sedition, imo. ..

State referendums are 'bridled' by both Article VI and the 14th Amendment, are they not?

Are you saying a political movement that would champion an amendment to the US Constitution to implement a national referendum would be sedition?

If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?

Have you ever heard of CA Prop 13? Are you opposed?

I worked and voted for it. Nothing in prop 13 violates human rights. - Can you agree?

670 posted on 11/20/2006 7:02:03 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

>>STAY AWAY FROM SMOKERS HOW HARD CAN IT BE"


Your reading comprehension must be seriously flawed. This thread is about smoke penetrating the apartment homes of people who don't want to smoke. How can you "stay away" from that?

I will defend your right to smoke but if your smoke enters my home, somethings got to give, and it shouldn't be me!


671 posted on 11/20/2006 7:08:43 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Actually, I read your later posts and I think you are correct.


672 posted on 11/20/2006 7:11:28 AM PST by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

It's an addiction and a habit - and like any habit, you have to take responsibility for it.

I smoke. I need to quit. I will, someday.

However, as I had quit before, I learned how it smells. Smokers cannot smell it. If they could, this thread would not be happening.

Ever since, I use large air filters in my apartment, the large "Ionic Breeze" tower ones (Not that brand, they're just more expensive because they're on TV). I change my filters regularly. People who visit do not complain about the smell, and I don't get the nicotine film over all of my belongings. I want to get one for my car now, too, they work very well.

Even as a smoker, I hate a room full of smoke, and I never have that now. I'd bet if this couple got a decent sized one, nobody would ever know they were smoking. I hate the anti-smoking nazis too, but we smokers have to be considerate with our habit - it's not just a bunch of over-sensitive people, cigarette smoke does stink, we just can't smell it.


673 posted on 11/20/2006 7:12:53 AM PST by ByDesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: Mogger

Thanks for the lecture (unsolicited) I asked what makes you so normal----YOU. I know what my faults and failing are. I don't want you or your likes running my life. BELIEVE ME you would not want me running your!!! Sure I'd find something terribly "filthy" about you. EEWWWW!


674 posted on 11/20/2006 7:15:48 AM PST by xowboy (Those who would give up FREEDOM in the pursuit of HEALTH deserves neither)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign

An honest post and appreciated. THe only disagreement we would have is I don't see the antismoking lobby as Nazis. I really don't.


675 posted on 11/20/2006 7:22:49 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"I worked and voted for it. Nothing in prop 13 violates human rights. - Can you agree?"

I see you use the term 'bridled". The use the US Constitution as the governor. I agree. Laws restricting smoking are either "bridled" of"unbridled". If you feel they are implemented "unbridled" then take it to court. You can challenge the process or the outcome, or both. But until you win in court or the sphere of public opinion (i.e. ballot) box you cannot say smoking laws are illegal. You may not like them, and I support your position to challenge them, but it is a political choice. The concept that smoke is an unbridgeable right is bunk.

Nothing in FL Six abrided rights either.

"If that proposed amendment 'championed' ignoring our individual rights to life, liberty or property, -- you better believe it would be seditious.. - Can you agree?"

Nope, if it was political. I say the rights we have come from good sense and the Constitution. I do not believe "individual rights" are absolute and neither do you. Do you? If you do you have a problem with consistency. Is your right to property superior my right to building codes? property taxes? confiscation? Is your right to life mean there cannot be a death penalty? Does you right to liberty include your right to walk down the street blasting a boom box at 4Am? We are a society of laws. And people have the right to lobby for any law. You cannot support some individual rights and not others. Unless you have a system of laws. I think the supreme right is the right for citizens to make and change the law. This includes amending the Constitution. One thing for sure. We have building codes and safety codes and other common good regulations. Smoking is not protected in the Constitution.
676 posted on 11/20/2006 7:53:52 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

One more thing: I bet YOU have some habits that "I" would find disgusting.



As long as they don't permeate into your life (like the smoke did in this story) you should have no objection.

See the difference?


677 posted on 11/20/2006 8:13:29 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: ByDesign

Good post! Since you were at one time a non smoker and you were able to smell cigarette smoke, you are the only smoker I have ever heard say that they agree that cigarette smoke stinks. I am impressed with your honesty.


678 posted on 11/20/2006 8:16:03 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Smokers are apparently the new "Catholics, niggers, and other undesirables".



I think you are missing the obvious difference.

Smokers are being restricted because what they choose to do has negative effects on others, which is the correct result under traditional principles of "nuisance."

Those other groups were prosecuted because of irrational bigotry, which is wrong.

Smoking stinks, catholics et al. don't.


679 posted on 11/20/2006 8:16:59 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

The check is that if you don't like the "Constitution" (or method of amending) you don't buy.

Guess you didn't read the article - They changed the restriction AFTER the couple bought - duh



Guess you didn't read my post where I specified "method of amending."

That means "changing the restriction after purchase". Duh.


680 posted on 11/20/2006 8:18:19 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson