Community Associations Institute: Nuisance Dogs Bill - We need your help!: "CAI-CT supports legislation that would provide authority for animal control officers to impound the dog of a resident of a condominium association. Many of our associations have experienced the problem of roaming animals, but in some cases, animal control officers have stated that they do not have the authority to go onto private community association property. In several instances, vicious dogs have terrorized communities because animal control officials have felt they did not have the authority to provide assistance. Proposed legislation would allow for enhanced public safety in all communities."
----------------
OK, but why wouldn't the animal control officer just ask for permission from the condo association to impound the Hound of the Baskervilles that is terrorizing the community? If the situation is that bad, presumably the condo association has been asking for animal control to show up.
4 comments:
The unit owners in a condominium all share in the ownership of the common elements. The problem
in our state is that the animal control officer is empowered to impound a dog roaming "on the land of another." Years ago, the state attorney general issued an opinion that since the dog owner, as a unit owner, has an ownership interest in the common elements, the common elements are the land of another. Based on this reasoning, the attorney general concluded that the animal control officer cannot impound a unit owner's dog even though it's running loose on the common elements while the owner is away, regardless of whether the association asked the officer to act.
Thanks to Mr. Sandler for explaining this strange situation. I have one question. He says the AG ruled, "...since the dog owner, as a unit owner, has an ownership interest in the common elements, the common elements are the land of another." But that would mean the unit owner's dog is subject to impoundment, wouldn't it, since it is roaming the land of another? Perhaps there is a typo here, and it should read, "the common elements are NOT the land of another." The owner has an undivided interest in the entire project (minus his airspace unit), so an owner's dog can never be "on the land of another" in a condo unless he is inside somebody else's unit (using the AG's interpretation, which I think is strange and impractical). This proposed law makes sense given that interpretation.
Mr. McKenzie, you are absolutely correct. I meant to say that the common elements are NOT the land of another.
Post a Comment