Nevermind, you posted while I was posting.....
Just like Fletch, you have assumed about a dozen facts not in evidence.
Local War Hero Told To Remove Flagpole - WRIC Richmond News and Weather -The homeowner's association doesn't explicitly forbid flagpoles but they must be "aesthetically appropriate". Short flags are allowed on porches, but Barfoot says that's not the way he was raised to respect the flag.
But the Sussex Square homeowners' association says the flagpole violates the neighborhood's aesthetic guidelines and ordered him to remove it by 5 p.m. Friday or face a lawsuit.
Just like Fletch, you have assumed about a dozen facts not in evidence. You don't know the terms of the agreement; they may not say what the HOA claims or they may be vague to the point where reasonable minds can differ. You also have no idea whether they are void as a matter of law. Somehow, I doubt that the good veteran signed an agreement he knew prohibited him from a freestanding flagpole and now want to renege.
Your "principle" is based upon a ton of assumptions, none of which have any demonstrable basis in fact.
Nevermind the moral argument that what the HOA is doing is flat out wrong. Just because the HOA may have a legally enforceable right doesn't mean that they should or morally can.
Before you go start making conclusions of contract law, perhaps you should actually read the contract and have some sort of education in contract law.
Joe
Since when did not knowing all the facts keep anyone in this forum from giving an opinion? We'd lose 90% of the posts here.
I'll take exception to your last statement however. I assume you're a lawyer? I find that lawyers look at the law a little differently than laypeople. An example is when my father died. He was on his third wife (my mother was his first) and my sister and I had been estranged from him for many years prior to his death. One of my uncles is an attorney, and tried to convince us that we deserved some of my father's things. For one, he had an extensive gun collection that I would have loved to get my hands on. My uncle was flabbergasted and irritated that we refused to take legal measure to acquire what my uncle insisted we had a legal right to. Without discussing it, and not knowing the other felt that way, we both told my uncle not to pursue the matter, that his current wife should be his sole beneficiary. You see, my uncle, who understood the law quite well, understood that we had a legal right to a portion of that property. We, as laypeople, understood that we had no moral right to that property.
Nevermind the moral argument that what the HOA is doing is flat out wrong. Just because the HOA may have a legally enforceable right doesn't mean that they should or morally can.
I don't need training in contract law to understand how to conduct myself when I've entered a contract.
That said, I concede you point about assuming facts not in evidence. Be assured I'll be watching your posts like a tiger waiting in the tall grass for a time when you slip up in a similar way.
On second thought, it isn't so much not knowing the facts as accepting one sides without reason that bothers me. Just because the HOA claims in a letter it has certain legal rights certainly doesn't mean they actually do.
Apparently you missed the part in my post where I said:
I am 100% with you that just because you legally can doesn't mean you should.
Agreed, but we don't know the terms of the contract.
Go for it! Thats why you'll find my posts full of "in my opinions" and "assuming everything that X said is true" 's. I didn't get a law license for the fun of it!
Best,
Joe
Just like Fletch, you have assumed about a dozen facts not in evidence. You don't know the terms of the agreement; they may not say what the HOA claims or they may be vague to the point where reasonable minds can differ. You also have no idea whether they are void as a matter of law. Somehow, I doubt that the good veteran signed an agreement he knew prohibited him from a freestanding flagpole and now want to renege.
Your "principle" is based upon a ton of assumptions, none of which have any demonstrable basis in fact.
Nevermind the moral argument that what the HOA is doing is flat out wrong. Just because the HOA may have a legally enforceable right doesn't mean that they should or morally can.
Before you go start making conclusions of contract law, perhaps you should actually read the contract and have some sort of education in contract law.
Joe
just a thought here. Isnt there something called the "Freedom to Fly Act of 2005". Bush signed it into law on July 24,2006,if Im not mistaken. Not sure if it can apply in this situation,but it might be worth a look.
A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy,
or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive
possession or use.
So I guess the question is what constitutes a "substantial interest."Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use
that is inconsistent with--
(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States
Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or
use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to
such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or
(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time,
place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States
necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium
association, cooperative association, or residential real estate
management association.
I am in my 4th HOA and they have their good and bad points; it is the uneven enforcement that bothers me. In this case the HOA is not saying this resident cannot fly the American flag; it sounds like they are only saying he can't have a big flag pole in front of his house. I would guess he can fly it from the porch and probably could have a flagpole in the back yard. Its like them saying you can have vehicles in your driveway, just not junkers up on blocks. The flag is not the issue, the large unsightly pole in the front of a residental house is. Look up Don's guns and see what he put in his front yard.
I believe many of these rules are chicken poop but when you move into these developments you sign a agreement to follow the rules. Selective enforcement is what gets these HOA's in trouble; they look the other way with the flagpole guy and then his neighbor starts keeping a junk car in his driveway and the guy across the street has fifty lawn ornaments on his front yard. If you don't want to be restricted like this buy land or a house out in the country. My guess is there is probably more to this story than we are told.