Homeowner Must Pay $102,000 For Flying the American Flag

American Homeowners Resource Center (AHRC) ^ | January 25, 2003 | Shu Bartholomew

[chuknospam]

Homeowner Must Pay $102,000 For Flying the American Flag May have to pay an additional $42,000

January 25, 2003

By Shu Bartholomew (View author info)

Richmond, VA - Breaking News...

Contact Richard and Ava Oulton FAX (804)270-5757

Richard and Ava Oullton were informed by Judge Harris of the Henrico County Circuit Court to be prepared to pay the consequences if Old Glory is still flying on their property on March 1st.

Having exhausted every avenue of appeal, the Oultons ultimately lost the battle to keep their flagpole on their property.

The Virginia Supreme Court's opinion, that people who live in homeowners' associations have very limited freedoms and property rights, was echoed by the United States Supreme Court.

On remand to the Henrico County Circuit Court, the Oulton's were ordered to comply with the wishes of the association or be prepared to go to jail.

They have been ordered to pay in excess of $102,000 to cover the association's costs, with another $42,000 to be decided by Judge Harris at a later date. Included in that award is several thousand dollars to hire a bulldozer, dump truck and several Henrico County Police to remove the 25 foot flagpole and the flag -- by force.

[TomServo]

Agree...

[JoJo Gunn]

If we allow the Flag to be feared as just another pink flamingo "fad" then we get everything we deserve from the Leftist Collaborators.

[freedumb2003]

>>Well, that's a good point, but the fact still remains that not all HOA's are reputable<<

Absoluetly and completely true. And, at least in California, the Davis-Sterling act (which covers common interst living) provides zero recourse if you get a board with power lust.

On another note -- some of the posts in this thread have dealt with whether the flag/flagpole restriction was in the CC&Rs. Doesn't matter all that much, since most rule changes become "law" upon HOA adoption. If the rule was in place before the flagpole was built, there is no recourse. It varies from place to place about what happens when a rule is put into effect ex-pos-factos.

This isn't necessaruly a bad thing. My unit and several others are near the pool in our complex. We had some younger folks move in and they were making noise, etc. until 11:00 pm when the pool closed. Asking them to quiet down was pointless since even low level noise carries due to the way the coplex is designed. We asked for and got a rule change to close the pool at 10:00 pm. The rabble rousers, who are NOT kept awake by their actions, got pretty upset but those of us who are adversley affected retrieved our ability to sleep.

Its all relative -- watch out for the neighbor's purple paint!

[E.G.C.]

Pint well taken. Regards.

[Let's Roll]

It is appalling - I'm in one right now and it's been a real eye opener for me.

The latest bee in the bonnet by a particular group of neurotic old biddies that live here is they want to control how long someone may visit and they want to be sure that your visitor is familiar with the bylaws.

Last year the same group wanted to charge each homeowners share of the "community" water bill - water isn't metered here - by the number of people who lived in the unit. All of these things are difficult to enforce as well as unfair. For example the young couple with two toddlers would seem to use much more water until you realize that so many of the single retirees have a patio full of plants that need serious watering here in the desert. Naturally the biddy group are all single.

They shoved through a limit on rentals even though all the problems, drunken parties etc. are caused by owners. The criteria for "allowing" you to rent your own property are arbitrary and "they" decide if you can do so or not. So if you get transferred and can't sell your place, you better be on the right side of their group.
They want to take a look at the renters insurance which only covers the contents of unit not the structure - again none of their business - and it goes on and on with threats of lawsuits flying about on a weekly basis for some bizarre or frivolous reason.

I have a friend in the property management business and he tells me all of these places are the same. You always get a group that minds everyone else's business and wants to control everyone else's business. My first thought, Destructor, was "this place is run by commissars." All of the biddies have far left bumper stickers on their cars of course.

[VermiciousKnid]

Wild horses couldn't get me to purchase a home built within the confines of one of these "Homeowners' Associations."

Disgraceful...and BTW, I'd like to meet the dimwit who actually complained about the flag.

Regards,

[lavaroise]

There ain't no way. How could this be true to have truth remove the very standard of truth?

The flag and the truths which it defends should know no barrier nor hostile grounds in America. We have to draw the lines folkes. Either they are for or against the terrorists

[A2J]

Why in God's name did they need a bulldozer and a dump truck to remove a pole from a ground sleeve?

It's called "Reconstruction."

[FreeTally]

More likely a personality conflict with this guy. Anyone who would run up a $100,000 legal tab over a flag must have a personal vendetta against the person flying it.

It does sound like alot of money. However, judging by the two pictures, the homes appear to be in excess of $500,000. Wouldn't surprise me if the attorney involved lived in the neighborhood also. If that is the case(and I dont know if it is), then basically if the HOA loses, he is out of his time. If they win, he bills the HOA for all expenses knowing the loser has to pay the fees.

[A2J]

"no structure shall be erected without approval."

And what exactly is the definition of "structure" that was used by the court?

[A2J]

More likely a personality conflict with this guy. Anyone who would run up a $100,000 legal tab over a flag must have a personal vendetta against the person flying it.

Or maybe it's that the patriotism displayed by the homeowner shamed the association's lack of patriotism to the point where they wanted him out.

[NittanyLion]

Or maybe it's that the patriotism displayed by the homeowner shamed the association's lack of patriotism to the point where they wanted him out.

Could be.

[dark_lord]

I can tell you from personal experience (with a condo association) that these HOA and CA get taken over by people who have nothing else to do but try and run everyone elses lives. Plus, you get these old biddies who come and attend the meetings and want to stand up and make speeches and rant about stuff.

In self defense, you have to find a small group of people and run one of your own for the board. Do it yourself. Get on the board and you can then block anything really stupid. Even when the board is dominated by idiots, as long as you can bring the voice of reason, you can block them. You may need to start a CA or HOA "newsletter" (at your own expense). Get someone else to act as the editor, and you can expose all the stupidities. A key thing is that lots of decisions get made without the community knowing about it. Expose them in the newsletter.

For example, in this case, if there had been a HOA newsletter (and website) this idiocy could have been publicized in advance before HOA took these people to court. The other residents could have been notified. The usual stupid stuff gets turned down when a bunch of people who don't normally show up do show up and stare at the board. Suddenly the board votes to "table the issue" or people who show up say they like the flag, and the flagpole doesn't bother them, etc. So....it is possible to "manage" a HOA so that the nazis don't get away with stuff. But you have to participate or bad stuff happens. That is the sacrifice you must be willing to make to live in a HOA or condo association.

Finally, one point I haven't seen addressed by this thread. Some big flagpoles are "silent". Others have these metal clips that bang loudly against the metal flagpole in even a modest wind. That would stir up the immediate neighbors. I don't know if that was a factor here or not, but it could be why there were no defenders of these folks.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

There is an upscale housing plan not far from where I live. The have HOA...one of their 'restrictions' forbids overnite parking of 'work vehicles' (ie, a truck, van anything w/company lettering, tools visible, etc). A man who lives there and switched jobs now has to have a 'work vehicle' (a Ford pickup w/lettering on the door). The busy bodies in his neighborhood were in a tizzy over the truck, and he (to make peace) parked it overnight in a nearby shopping center (and his wife drove him to the truck each day). Due to the all the snow we have been having, the managagment of the shopping center called his place of employment (from the phone number on the truck) and told them to not park their vehicles there overnight or it would be towed. So back in his driveway it landed (with the busy bodies in hot pursuit).

While all of this was going on, the builder of the neighborhood in which he lives was trying (so far unsuccessfully) to change the zoning on a peice of farm land that is for sale to assure that the lot sizes would be larger than 1/2 acre (a moderately priced home builder is also bidding on the land, but would develop as a smaller lot plan and less expensive homes). The upscale developer made a comment (during a public hearing) about the lifestyle quality of the less expensive homes (something to the effect of the riff raff that would build 'cookie cutter' houses). Well...alot of people took offense to his comments (and the lower priced developer was able to purchase a portion of the property in question). The man with the truck got his picture (w/offending truck) in the local weekly paper, and one of the officers of the HOA (who lives in the line of sight of the truck/driveway was intereviewed in the same article (sobbing) about all of the stress this has caused her, and how she worries of her property value decreasing. If only these high mighty types actually thought of how incredibly vapid they sound regarding their 'issues...' The article also printed some of the 'restrictions.' In the strictest of legalese, homeowners can only place seasonal, free standing ornaments (a nativity set, santa, etc.) on their cover front porch...no such display to be placed in the grass, driveway, roof, etc...it was a hoot to read.

[HamiltonJay]

Well, that's what the idiot gets for buying a home in a place and signing up for the "homeowners association" and bylaws that came with it... got no one to blame but himself.

[discostu]

Somebody remind me again: why shouldn't we consider home owners associations inherrently evil?

[TankerKC]

Main Entry: ¹struc·ture
Pronunciation: 'str&k-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past participle of struere to heap up, build.br> Date: 15th century
1 : Anything that the most bitter of resident doesn't like. Also see: Harrasment

[TankerKC]

Or maybe it's that the patriotism displayed by the homeowner shamed the association's lack of patriotism to the point where they wanted him out.

Sure, that's it.

[discostu]

It's 25 feet. That's 2 1/2 stories. If the homes in that area are two stories with attics it doesn't even go above the roof. That's not a huge flagpole.

[stuartcr]

I bet they now wish that they had obeyed the rules that they signed on for.