Interpreting HOA covenants

[j_doyle]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WV

Disclosure: After only a month, I am not popular with my HOA. I have promoted an attitude of ‘ live by the intent of the covenants and not the letter of them.’ This worked fine, until i disagreed with a number of the covenants. I am now looking for poorly phrased rules that I can identify for the HOA. The idea is that when they see the unintended consequences that rational thoughts will prevail. Better to arbitrate than litigate.

The covenant I am currently dissecting is:


“ 7. (c)
Not more than one domesticated animal ( excluding dogs and cats ) per three acres shall be permitted per lot, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Directors of the Property Owners Association, provided that no pigs or pig pens are allowed within the subdivision. Operation of any laying hen, broiler houses, or other poultry business is prohibited. Pets and domesticated animals must be fenced or otherwise prevented from roaming. “


Pigs are mentioned no where else in the covenants. I read this rule to allow me to have 3 (or more) horses on my 5 acre lot. If and when a covenant is written that does not allow pigs or pig pens in the subdivision, I be limited to 1 horse on the 5 acres.


Am I reading this correctly ?

I think what they wanted is:
Not more than one domesticated animal ( excluding dogs and cats ) per three acres shall be permitted per lot.
Pigs and Pig pens are not allowed in the subdivision.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WV

Disclosure: After only a month, I am not popular with my HOA. I have promoted an attitude of ‘ live by the intent of the covenants and not the letter of them.’ This worked fine, until i disagreed with a number of the covenants. I am now looking for poorly phrased rules that I can identify for the HOA. The idea is that when they see the unintended consequences that rational thoughts will prevail. Better to arbitrate than litigate.

The covenant I am currently dissecting is:


“ 7. (c)
Not more than one domesticated animal ( excluding dogs and cats ) per three acres shall be permitted per lot, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Directors of the Property Owners Association, provided that no pigs or pig pens are allowed within the subdivision. Operation of any laying hen, broiler houses, or other poultry business is prohibited. Pets and domesticated animals must be fenced or otherwise prevented from roaming. “


Pigs are mentioned no where else in the covenants. I read this rule to allow me to have 3 (or more) horses on my 5 acre lot. If and when a covenant is written that does not allow pigs or pig pens in the subdivision, I be limited to 1 horse on the 5 acres.


Am I reading this correctly ?

I think what they wanted is:
Not more than one domesticated animal ( excluding dogs and cats ) per three acres shall be permitted per lot.
Pigs and Pig pens are not allowed in the subdivision.

I do not believe that you are interpreting it correctly at all. I see nothing in that covenant that even remotely gives you the right to have 3 or more horses on your 5 acre lot. I read it as giving you the right to have 1 horse. What you think they wanted is exactly what the covenant actually says.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WV

Disclosure: After only a month, I am not popular with my HOA. I have promoted an attitude of ‘ live by the intent of the covenants and not the letter of them.’ This worked fine, until i disagreed with a number of the covenants. I am now looking for poorly phrased rules that I can identify for the HOA. The idea is that when they see the unintended consequences that rational thoughts will prevail. Better to arbitrate than litigate.

The covenant I am currently dissecting is:


“ 7. (c)
Not more than one domesticated animal ( excluding dogs and cats ) per three acres shall be permitted per lot, unless otherwise approved by the Board of Directors of the Property Owners Association, provided that no pigs or pig pens are allowed within the subdivision. Operation of any laying hen, broiler houses, or other poultry business is prohibited. Pets and domesticated animals must be fenced or otherwise prevented from roaming. “


Pigs are mentioned no where else in the covenants. I read this rule to allow me to have 3 (or more) horses on my 5 acre lot. If and when a covenant is written that does not allow pigs or pig pens in the subdivision, I be limited to 1 horse on the 5 acres.


Am I reading this correctly ?

I think what they wanted is:
Not more than one domesticated animal ( excluding dogs and cats ) per three acres shall be permitted per lot.
Pigs and Pig pens are not allowed in the subdivision.

How about pigheaded HOA members? Any mention?

 

[STEPHAN]

It is of cause your decision how you handle things with the HOA, but I would keep in mind that there might be a way to handle things more smoothly if you have only been there for one month. You might want to life there for a long time and that is not fun in a hostile environment.

You might win this battle but loose big time.

 

[j_doyle]

Thanks for the responses

I thank all for their responses.

The intent is clear even if the wording is not.


And yes, any fight with a home owners association might be a battle won, but almost always a war lost.

The real problem is that what I want to do is in clear violation of the covenants.

I want to have travel trailer on the property year round. The covenants say no more than 4 months at a time, and no more than 6 months a year.

I use the trailer on weekends. I will not build a house on the property for at least 5 years. Most of the land in the subdivision is undeveloped

I guess the rational thing to do is to nicely explain to them that they would be much less happy with any of the simple and permitted options.

 

[FlyingRon]

I don't know what part of the covenant you think is confusing or ambiguous.

You can have any numbers of dogs and cats (unless it is restricted elsewhere).
One animal for every three acres you own unless otherwise approved. If you have five acres, that means 1 2/3 animals. Since fractional animals are not possible, you get one.

No pigs or pig pens.

Most poultry appears to be prohibited.

I have no idea how you think there is any actual permission or intent to have more than 1 horse on your lot.

 

[j_doyle]

The intent is not at all in question

The question I had was not really about the intent of the covenants. The question was one of how the law interprets apparent comma splices.

The consensus here is that if the statement can be viewed as a comma splice, it should be viewed as a comma splice.

By logical extension, this also answers any debate about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment should be viewed as a comma splice. The phrase, " ... ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.� should stand on its own.


I am in Section 3 of the development. The covenant for Section 2 is simple and clear.

Example: " No pigs are permitted in the development."

Such language eliminates any possible confusion. I wish our development had not seen the need to add complexity to the covenant.

Again, I thank all for their help for this victim of growing up in a house filled with English majors.

 

[quincy]

... Again, I thank all for their help for this victim of growing up in a house filled with English majors.

I see how "7c" can be interpreted the way you have interpreted it, j_doyle. You could have a great career as an editor.

I feel sorry for your HOA.

 

[j_doyle]

Most use another term ...

... many have and use more colorful terms for my interpretation of written English.

It actually comes from training to deal with learning issues ( dyslexia and the like.)

When sentences get complicated, I diagram them. After 20+ years, it is a fairly quick and painless mental process. Many people predict what a sentence will say, without actually reading what is written.

This is where law and unintended consequences become interesting. English is such a wonderful, expressive, playful, flexible, and frustrating language.

And yes, I get advance copies of proposed covenant changes from my residential HOA. They have found it much easier to get my view on the changes before, rather than during, the annual general meeting.

 

[quincy]

... many have and use more colorful terms for my interpretation of written English.

It actually comes from training to deal with learning issues ( dyslexia and the like.)

When sentences get complicated, I diagram them. After 20+ years, it is a fairly quick and painless mental process. Many people predict what a sentence will say, without actually reading what is written.

This is where law and unintended consequences become interesting. English is such a wonderful, expressive, playful, flexible, and frustrating language.

And yes, I get advance copies of proposed covenant changes from my residential HOA. They have found it much easier to get my view on the changes before, rather than during, the annual general meeting.

A lot of law is trying to determine the intent behind the language used. That is the reason why you have "legal definitions" for words like shall and will and may.

When there is more than one interpretation possible - when the words or the particular phrasing or the punctuation used create ambiguity - the debates over which interpretation should rule can be interesting (and sometimes silly, as with Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is").

My sentences, by the way, often require diagraming.