Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Service dog prompts dispute with HOA - WZVN News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral & Naples, Florida

Service dog prompts dispute with HOA - WZVN News for Fort Myers, Cape Coral & Naples, Florida: McKay's boxer "Kane" has been with him since 2009. But his condo association says no pets allowed.

McKay claims neighbors and managers have been giving him a hard time, which now has him locked in a legal battle with the homeowners association to keep his condo.

"They're going wait a minute, no pets. I say, ‘He's not a pet, he's a service dog. I'm an American with disability, I'm covered under ADA,'" McKay said.
So there!


Anonymous Libertarian said...

"I'm an American with disability, I'm covered under ADA"

Another example of the government meddling in the free market.

We need to do something about these laws, so corporations -- like the HOA in this story -- can operate more efficiently.

Without such government interference, the HOA corporation would have been able to foreclose upon and evict McKay years ago, saving his neighbors thousands of dollars in attorneys fees.

Anonymous said...

The HOA attorneys seem to have a penchant for targeting based upon disability, age, and religious preferences.

The disabled homeowners in particular tend to win these cases AND governmental agencies tend to show up to fine HOA corporations that engage in this behavior. Of course, that tends to punish the homeowners and the victim as opposed to the board members and attorneys.

The time has long since come that we need to start disregarding the corporate mask that board members and HOA attorneys rely upon to perpetuate their insidious behavior. The HOA attorneys are not qualifiedly immune - they stir up these cases to begin with. The "HOA" (i.e., board and attorney) were the aggressors, not the homeowner.

In Texas CAI was lobbying to provide absolute immunity to board members which of course would extend ultimately to the vendors that the CAI trade group represents. This is the wrong direction and CAI was not successful in that endeavor. Perhaps this next legislative session, we can pursue legislation to hold board members personally liable along with the vendors. Along with that we'll dispense with the "indemnification" clauses that the management companies try relying upon as they drive the HOAs into the litigation vortex. Oh and one more thing. If the management company or its sister subsidiaries sell bogus insurance coverage (i.e., a $1 million plan that is actually shared with 300 other HOAs unbeknownst to each of those other boards), then we should expect to be able to hold the parent corporation and the insurance cartel liable for the full limits at each HOA.