It is not necessary that conduct be so offensive as to constitute a nuisance in order to justify regulation thereof. If a rule is reasonable the association can adopt it if not, it cannot.
On the contrary, we believe the test is reasonableness. Norman, 309 So2d 180, 182 (Fla App, 1975), which stated:Ĭertainly, the association is not at liberty to adopt arbitrary or capricious rules bearing no relationship to the health, happiness and enjoyment of life of the various unit owners. In making its determination, the Court of Appeals cited a Florida case, Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. The Court stated, “We agree that to discriminate between dogs on the basis of the size alone is unreasonable and arbitrary.” Thus, the co-owner was entitled to keep her dog in the co-owner’s unit. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the co-owner and held that the size or weight of a dog has no reasonable bearing on the potential for problems caused by certain dogs. Kaye Clark, the co-owner, argued that there was a lack of a rational relationship between the height of a dog and the health, safety, and general welfare of the condominium community. 104101), the association implemented rules and regulations that prohibited dogs over 40 pounds or dogs over 18 inches in height measured in a standing position from the floor to the top of the back of the dog. In Bear Creek Village Condominium Association v Clark, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued Ma(Docket No. Thus, Associations should be cautious when attempting to limit the size and weight of pets in a condominium in Michigan.īear Creek Village Condominium Association v. In an unpublished decision from 1989, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that pet size and weight restrictions in the rules and regulations of the condominium were unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. Unfortunately, that person would be wrong. Therefore, someone may assume that if the condominium bylaws or rules and regulations restrict the size or weight of pets, including dogs, that such provisions would be routinely upheld by Michigan courts. The bylaws shall provide, in accordance with section 65 of the act, that all present and future co-owners, tenants, and any other persons or occupants using the facilities of the project in any manner are subject to, and shall comply with, the act, the master deed and bylaws, and the articles of association, and rules and regulations adopted by the association of co-owners. The Michigan Condominium Act Rules further expounds on the fact that all present and future co-owners must comply with the condominium documents.
Specifically, MCL 559.165 states:Įach unit co-owner, tenant, or nonco-owner occupant shall comply with the master deed, bylaws, and rules and regulations of the condominium project and this act. However, there is a provision that states that co-owners must comply with the bylaws and rules and regulations of the condominium. allows for or prohibits a certain size or weight of dogs. Interpreting the Michigan Condominium ActĪs an initial matter, nothing in the Michigan Condominium Act, MCL 559.101, et seq. Of the many permissible pet restrictions, a ‘hot topic’ lately has been whether it is against Michigan law to limit the height or weight of dogs within a condominium association.
AVALON IRVINE PET WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS REGISTRATION
One of the key provisions within the Restrictions section addresses pet restrictions including: the registration of pets with the association, not allowing pets loose on the condominium premises, co-owners must clean the dog’s feces so as not to be a disturbance to others, each co-owner may only have a certain number of pets, etc. When drafting or amending condominium bylaws, the Restrictions section-typically Article VI of the Condominium Bylaws-often garners the most feedback, review or modification.
0 kommentar(er)
