Here are some recent examples of typical conflicts between HOAs &
individual members within the HOA government; these show how ignorant &
churlish HOAs are on average. Some of these cases are more crazy-ass as
than others, but none are 100% reasonable either. I've not picked out the
cases that make HOAs look the stupidest -- they are NEVER in court for
reasons other than those which are churlish & picky & vendetta-driven
suing over tiny things. These cases really are representative of how far
these nutball HOAs will pursue things of little or no real consequence or
value. The cases really do "at biggest" amount to hating someone's
basketball hoop or television antenna, or even dumber shit. What HOAs need
is a way of fining jerkwad HOA activists who harrass their neighbors to
the point of dragging them into courtrooms over nothin'.

Village of Pheasant Run Homeowners Association v. Kasto in Texas took one
of their homeowners to court for violating architectural restrictions AND
WON. What was Kasto's courtroom-worthy crime? Painted the front door blue!
Seems the HOA had an enforceable regulation requiring written permission
to paint your house under any circumstance whatsoever, in part or in
whole, a good color or a bad color. Without written permission, they can
punish you. And will.

Turudic v. Susan Estates Homeowners Association in Oregon, the HOA tried
to define what was an appropriate pet, banning certain breeds of dogs for
instance. So one of their members had two tame cougars. Well ha ha, the
court said HOAs cannot pass rules against pets. (The State could, but
hasn't.) I recommend everyone annoyed with their dumbass totalitarian HOA
get themselves a really big wild animal for a pet! That'll fix those
racist wouldbe stormtrooping arseholes.

Here's a weird one. A bill was introduced into the into the Maryland House
Committee that would permit individuals within HOA districts to put up the
American flag if they wanted (some HOAs ban flag displays!). The
legislation, however, was rejected, so in Maryland still, if you want to
put a removable flag on the front of your house for the 4th of July, Labor
Day, Memorial Day, D-Day, or because Bushy is waging war, for any reason
whatsoever -- the HOA can enforce their rule saying you can't. This is a
weird one to me because HOAs are usually such conservative racist entities
one would expect them to encourage even the Confederate flag. I live in a
military town, where the idea of banning the American flag is truly alien!
So even conservative patriots aren't safe from HOA assholiness.

A new ammendment to the Maryland Condominium Act permits incorporated
housing entities to pass new regulations without a quorum. Now that one
crazy **** who is trying to rule everyone else's life doesn't have to have
ANYone agree with him -- he just has to discourage you from showing up at
the meeting in which he decides it's from now on illegal for you to grow
tomatos.

Chestnut Real Estate Partnership v. Huber. In an incorporated retirement
community someone had the audacity of putting up a garden shed. The
covenant said no structures could be built -- none, not even a small one
for some tools. The court upheld the incorporated partnership's regulation
& furthermore transferred to the retiree all court costs -- so Huber had
to get rid of his garden shed AND pay the corporation attorneys $27,000.
The judge said it was not necessary to prove any harm or injury or damage
or to show that the garden shed was in any way inappropriate other than
the Huber in buying into the enclave had agreed to build no buildings.
Note at least this wasn't a HOA per se, it was one of the other types of
legal entities Vox has kept miscontruing as HOAs -- but I couldn't resist
including this example of the amazing injustice successfully executed even
by the lesser-empowered corporations.

In Woods Homeowners Association v. Muravchik, the HOA sued because a
member was in violation of a ban against having signs anywhere on any
property. In this insane case the "sign" was a self-employed member's
company logo on the side of his van. Parking the van in his own driveway
constituted a "sign" on his property. Case upheld! Curiously the HOA had
neglected to ban signs on the street, so until they managed to add another
draconian regulation, poor Muravchik (the court pointed out) could park on
the street so long as he did not violate city ordinances (the city did
also ban signs on the street, but unlike the crazyass HOA did not include
a company logo on a van as a "sign.") The HOA was royally cheezed off that
they could only stop him from parking on his own property.

In Craninger v. Overbrook at Flower Hill Homeowners Association, the HOA
destroyed the private property of Craninger (a basketball hoop) because he
had placed it in an area used by children as a playground, but basketball
hoops were banned on HOA common property. The court held that the HOA did
have the legal right to keep children from playing basketball in the
playground area, but did not have the right to destroy private property,
so made the HOA pay Craninger $320 so he could buy a replacement which,
however, since it could only be used on his own tarmak, was of no use to
the neighborhood children who had used the one the HOA destroyed, those
small-minded vicious & par-for-the-course Voxamatic types!

In Montgomery Village Foundation v. Ellis, a Home Association (not a
Homeowners Association however) sought to enforce in the courts a
regulation banning private trucks. Montgomery Village Foundation is an
enforcing agency serving a number of Homeowner & Home Associations & Condo
Associations, & do not do this unless members of the neighborhood involved
insist. But once committed, they didn't care if the regulation was
nonsensical. The covenants did permit vans, Winebagos, huge honking-ass
utility vehicles -- but all Ellis had was a small pick-up truck. The court
found that the regulation was stupid & unenforceable since giant RVs were
permitted, & Ellis's tiny pick-up was a new & well-kept & on no rational
basis of any harm to anyone. The courts' decision, however, didn't mean
incorporated housing areas couldn't ban EVERYthing bigger than a Lovebug
&make EVERYone get rid of their vehicles, but only going after Ellis's
little pick-up was not going to be allowed.

In the FCC case of "The Matter of Victor Frankfurt," in Illinois, a
Townhouse Association sued to force Victor to remove his television
antenna, on the trumped up basis of it violating a safety regulation of
the Association. This was one of "Take your antenna down or we'll sue
you!" cases that made it to the FCC, another in Arizona regarding a fixed
signal antenna for wireless internest access. In both cases the
Associations were informed their regulations in no wise effectively
addressed safety issues, & if the antennas were in FCC compliance, the
Association could not force an antenna to be removed.

In Paytas v. Edgewood Community Association, an intransegent Home
Association would not stop demanding Paytas remove a stationary basketball
hoop from his property. Paytas was able to document 28 cases of basketball
hoops in the neighborhood that no one complained about. The court found
there was no physical reason to distinguish between the one which was
installed on a pole stuck in the ground, from the others which were
mounted on weighted stands, & yet another Basketball Hoop War was found to
be the result exclusively of HOA unreasonableness & in this case a very
unwise attempt at selective enforcement. The court disapproved of the
selective enforcement, however, & if the unreasonableness had been evenly
applied to everyone, they could've gotten away with it.

In Fairland Park Homeowners Association v. Gebreyese, a homeowner
installed a skylight which so damaged the neighborhood it took three years
for anyone to even notice. Then the HOA decided the skylight violated
architectural restrictions & took Gebreyese to the county commission. The
Commission concuded that the HOA did have the right to limit skylights but
since it took them three years to even notice, Gebreyese had three years
to either remove the skylights or move them to the back of the house where
HOA gripers couldn't see them.

Inverness Forest Association, Inc. v. Notter. Notter replaced four of her
windows with better ones, but failed to get written permission from the
HOA. Though there was nothing wrong with the new windows, the HOA had
protocol to uphold, & took it to the Mongomery county commission, which
ruled that sure enough, that was HOA protocol, & Notter had to restore the
inferior windows.

In D¹Aoust v. Quince Haven Homeowners Association, the HOA's ban on
architectural changes was extended to include window decorating that
looked like stained glass. Since the decoration was visible from the
street it was not permitted. The Mongomery County Commission again
concluded the HOA could indeed restrict window decorations in someone's
private residence!

By contrast, in Vojciech Fizyta v. Quince Haven Homeowners Association,
the HOA's attempt to restrict decorations inside a homeowner's house, but
which were not visible from the street, was deemed unenforcible.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/