HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home
minz.e...@gmail.com
know the answer.
HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home
Judge Upholds Homeowners' Association Order
POSTED: 11:02 am MST November 16, 2006
UPDATED: 12:40 pm MST November 17, 2006
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.
Vance
Vance
http://Cyberblogging.Net
AIM: Cigar.Pi...@GETUSA.ORG
(this is for IM's only, e-mail not checked)
<minz.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163798642.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Greene
between buildings, complaints are minimized. Now if my neighbors would just
control their kids and keep their place clean and the yard mowed....
Tom Greene
<minz.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163798642.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mujin
> news:1163798642.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Just f-ing sick!!! Where with this end?? Unfortunately, I'm afraid i
> > know the answer.
> >
> > HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home
> > Judge Upholds Homeowners' Association Order
What I want to know is this:
The neighbours complained that the smoke smell was seeping through
the walls. How did they prove it? I've lived in places where I had
to restrict my smoking to a single room, and with adequate
ventilation (basically an exhaust fan from the room to outside) you
can hardly smell smoke in the hallway outside the door, provided the
door is closed. And that's with regular indoor dividing walls -
surely the walls dividing condos are more robust than that! I guess
it's concievable if they smoked enough and door/window seals were
bad, but really...
Ed
In all jurisdictions that I know of in the United States, fire-rated
barriers are required between dwelling units of multi-family homes.
These are required to be sealed and prevent fire or smoke penetration
for at least 1 hours (in some states/situations it may be 2 or 3
hours). So what is wrong with the construction of this building?
Otherwise, it is IMPOSSIBLE that they are smelling smoke.
Ed Faerman
-nt@gmail.com Misha
that. Not to mention that sometimes I could smell what people cooking. I did
not think that it was impossible.
Of course, smoke does not penetrate through walls. This is just ridiculous.
However, there is a lot of ways how smoke can make from one apartment to
another. Anyway, you say that there is the requirement to hold smoke at
least 1 hour. Now, what happens when people smoke in their apartment 7-10
hours a day without proper ventilation? Day by day, week by week for five
years. You still think this is impossible for their neighbors to smell
smoke?
The problem with this situation is not that people are prohibited to do
something in their houses. There is a lot of things that we can not do. We
cannot have an open flame, listen loud music and so on. However, generally
it is not that any form of fire is prohibited or any kind of sound is not
allowed. Basically, this is an abuse of homeowner's rights, what is
punished.
What we see here is how the system works. The long way would be to set up
rules and regulations, to specify the safe level of smoke, to make special
requirements regarding ventilation and so on, and, of course, to check
whether the particular building meets fire-prevention requirements. It's
easier to put a general ban.
Frankly, what I think is that smoking couple put in a spot the whole smoking
community. They did not think about other people that could be disturbed by
their smoking. No, they've been thinking that as long as they are in their
premises they could do whatever they want. This was stupid. The solution to
consider their behavior as typical for smokers (rather than abuse) is the
stupidity of the same level, not a tiny bit more. Smoking ban is a direct
implication of this solution.
Misha
Ed wrote
Ed
1. I don't care to smell your barbeque
2. I don't care for cats
3. I don't like what you threw in your garbage can because it smells
4. I HATE the smell of incense, so don't light it up in your house
5. I can't stand air freshners, so don't use those because I might
smell it
6. Babies screaming drives me up a wall
People living in close quarters is always tough. If someone wants to
develop a nonsmoking community, so be it. But don't do it after the
fact.
My .02. I can't see myself ever living in a townhouse, condo, or any
place with a HOA. I would prefer a delapidated trailer in the woods.
I also care more about personal rights and freedoms than property
values. Yes, we should all be courteous and thoughful of our fellows.
But keep out of my business and I will keep out of yours.
Ed
Tim Daneliuk
> I hope they will fight this on up to higher courts.
>
> Vance
>
IANAL, but I don't think they have much of a case. When you buy
property governed by the covenants of a HOA, you agree to those
covenants. Almost always, one of them is something like, "The
board can amend or add rules as needed for the wellbeing of the
community or in the interests expressed by the majority of
homeowners."
More importantly, if - as is claimed - smoke from one home was entering
another home, the annoyed owners do have some legitimate right to
complain and be free of being "forced" to smell/ingest that smoke
they did not produce. For the exact same reason we do not want others
preventing us from smoking, people who do not smoke ought not to endure
being forced to participate, however slightly. Private property, and
the rights that accrue to its owners should be honored for *everyone*.
IMHO, the right answer here would have been for the people smoking
and the people being affected by it to try and work it out together.
Perhaps the smokers could have installed high capacity air cleaners
or invested in better insulation between units or even worked
out where in their home the smoke least affected the other folks.
Failing that, the people who objected should have sued the smokers
not insisted that an entire community be subjected to their demands.
Rights and freedoms only work when everyone gets the same deal...
Personally, if this is the future, if smoking is prohibited in communal
property, then I want similar regulations that prevent stupidity,
laziness, bad manners, bad breath, obesity, poor clothing choices,
all forms of rap "music", and any so forth. Perhaps the best tactic
here is to use the legal precedent to sue for each and every thing
anyone find offensive - only with the absurdity this would produce
will we get people to back off.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk
1) What about condos?
2) What about old construction?
(Though, mostly I think you are right.)
P.S. In structural terms, don't you think we should also outlaw
the morbidly obese - they may be a threat to older construction :)
Corneel Vermeulen
> 6. Babies screaming drives me up a wall
And they smell too :-)
Ducking, running,
--
Corneel Vermeulen corneel....@gmail.com http://pipelore.net/