Dog fight in gated community
Thanks to Fred Pilot for this link. It seems that once again the pit bull lovers are defending their imaginary right to own dangerous dogs.
The owners of a pair of pit bulls have sicced a lawyer on two men who've tried to keep their dogs out of the gated Brentwood community.
Byrd and Anne Cain filed a lawsuit against James Carroll and Miles Hession on July 13, claiming the men, who are former board members of the community's homeowners association, have invaded their right to privacy, made misrepresentations about them and "wrongfully used the legal process against the Cains in order to accomplish an ulterior purpose."
The lawsuit is the latest in a neighborhood feud that began in 2006, when the association's board of directors banned specific breeds of dogs, such as pit bulls, Doberman pinschers, rottweilers and chow chows. The board later took court action to force the removal of the Cain's pit bulls, which had been declared "a nuisance" by the association. Anne Cain said her dogs have never attacked anyone.
Circuit Court Judge Jeff Bivins declared the board could not prohibit a particular type of dog but ruled that the homeowners association's governing documents gave them the power to specifically prohibit the Cain's dogs.
1 comment:
Although I'm no fan of pit bulls the reality is that there are plenty of "non-pit bull" dogs that have seriously wounded, maimed, or killed people. The bigger problem I have is allowing a private corporation the power to unilaterally impose an "ordinance" in this fashion on property that is not owned by the private corporation. That is by far the egregious aspect of this. The homeowners did not purchase property subject to the restrictions that the "board" wants to impose. What happens when the "board" decides that homeowners should not be permitted to drive particular cars, to own guns, or to eat particular foods and why should ANYONE be bound by the determinations of such a private corporation?
The result in this reveals the process that the HOA should have had to go through in the first process. Get a court determination regarding the dogs before being able to have them removed under some "safety" provision of the restrictive covenants. Instead this board decides that they are going to "outlaw" complete dog breeds based upon the beliefs of the board members.
Post a Comment