CENTENNIAL, COLORADO - HOA BATTLE -SUPREME COURT CASE

[Tommystrat]

Hey everyone! We are currently battling our HOA over our right to have chickens as "domestic household pets" and after a lot of research we came across a few cases, one by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1970 that supports our cause and I wanted to share it with you!!
https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1970/24283.html

Other court cases in other states can also be used as evidence if there is not a direct precedent in our state:
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...cle_5ba779d5-5e38-5fe8-acdb-ada6b41d2e2b.html

If your HOA prohibits chickens but then makes an exception for domestic household pets, you have a solid argument (and I believe a right) to have chickens as chickens CAN BE domestic household pets under the law. GOOD LUCK!

Thank you for posting these cases. We are involved with our HOA and the "household pets" controversy with our 4 precious hens. Any additional court cases or resources you might be able to direct me to, preferably referencing Montana cases, would be most appreciated. Thanks again!

 

[spnorville]

For those who spoke with attorneys, did you actually file suit against your HOA or did you just threaten? Also, where do you stand now? Do you have chickens?

 

[ColoradoPip]

I fail to understand your issue or how you possibly have a case. Only a lawyer looking to make money (versus winning) takes this on, in my opinion.

You state that the HOA rules clearly say " “no chickens, livestock, poultry except for hereinafter provided." That should be the end of it. It's not ambiguous. They have clearly laid it out. From my perspective you, and/or the lawyer, are reaching for loopholes to justify breaking the rules.

I'm all for changing the rules and hope you keep your chicks one way or another. As slow as the legal system is, the chicks could be gone before your case is finished

 

[spnorville]

I fail to understand your issue or how you possibly have a case. Only a lawyer looking to make money (versus winning) takes this on, in my opinion.

You state that the HOA rules clearly say " “no chickens, livestock, poultry except for hereinafter provided." That should be the end of it. It's not ambiguous. They have clearly laid it out. From my perspective you, and/or the lawyer, are reaching for loopholes to justify breaking the rules.

I'm all for changing the rules and hope you keep your chicks one way or another. As slow as the legal system is, the chicks could be gone before your case is finished

I fail to understand your issue or how you possibly have a case. Only a lawyer looking to make money (versus winning) takes this on, in my opinion.

You state that the HOA rules clearly say " “no chickens, livestock, poultry except for hereinafter provided." That should be the end of it. It's not ambiguous. They have clearly laid it out. From my perspective you, and/or the lawyer, are reaching for loopholes to justify breaking the rules.

I'm all for changing the rules and hope you keep your chicks one way or another. As slow as the legal system is, the chicks could be gone before your case is finished

My apologies - it seems that we may have gotten our wires crossed. I didn’t mean to imply that I intended to fight the HOA or that I thought it was a good idea. I was interested in hearing the outcome from those who had.

 

[ColoradoPip]

No worries! My post was regarding the original post as well as others thinking about taking on their HOA. I mean, it is specifically in their rules, LoL!

I was lucky enough in my last house to have the HOA change their rules (not because of me) and allow chickens. When I left that house I made sure to move somewhere that better accommodates my lifestyle.

I am also interested to hear the outcome!

 

[Slam555]

I fail to understand your issue or how you possibly have a case. Only a lawyer looking to make money (versus winning) takes this on, in my opinion.

You state that the HOA rules clearly say " “no chickens, livestock, poultry except for hereinafter provided." That should be the end of it. It's not ambiguous. They have clearly laid it out. From my perspective you, and/or the lawyer, are reaching for loopholes to justify breaking the rules.

I'm all for changing the rules and hope you keep your chicks one way or another. As slow as the legal system is, the chicks could be gone before your case is finished

We're looking at the same issue and I think lots of folks run into the boilerplate language that says "No animals, livestock, birds, poultry, reptiles or insects of any kind shall be raised, bred, kept or boarded in the Community; provided, however, that the Owners of each Lot may keep a reasonable number of bona fide household pets (including dogs, cats or other domestic animals), so long as such pets are not kept for any commercial purpose and are not kept in such number or manner as to create a nuisance to any resident of the Community." It essentially says you can't have ANY animals ... except dogs, cats, or other household animals, then don't define household animals. The intent isn't to prohibit all animals, it's to establish that they can list only the type of animals they want allowed. They make the prohibition statement moot by subsequently allowing some animals and then not defining what household pets are.

 

[StaceyLRogers]

Hi. I am facing my HOA board in Castle Rock on Monday. Our animal covenant says almost the exact same thing as yours! "Provided, however, that" is a provision that creates and exception thereafter to the initial part of the sentence. My four page argument, in summary, is:

Section 9.19 states "no animals, livestock, birds, poultry or insects, of any kind" but includes the exception in “provided, however, that” animals must be domestic animals” and “bona fide household pets” of which my chickens are; “not kept for any commercial purpose”, and “not kept in such number or in such manner as to violate any zoning ordinance or other governmental requirements or to create a nuisance”. The prohibitive language of “no animals, livestock, poultry…” is excepted after the provision “provided, however, that”. The ambiguity of the phrase bona fide household pets coupled with the specificity of the subsequent exceptions indicates that I am allowed to have hens.​

​

Eliminating the unrelated verbiage from the covenant, it reads: No poultry of any kind, shall be raised or kept in or on any Residential Site; provided, however, that Owners of Residential Sites may keep a reasonable number of domestic animals which are bona fide household pets, provided that (a) such pets are to be kept for any commercial purpose, (b) are not kept in such number or in such manner as to violate any zoning ordinance or other governmental requirements or to create a nuisance.​

​

There is proven community support for pet chickens. Recognize that my hens are my pets therefore permitted.​

I may post an update here after Monday. Cross your fingers for me!

 

[StaceyLRogers]

Thank you for posting these cases. We are involved with our HOA and the "household pets" controversy with our 4 precious hens. Any additional court cases or resources you might be able to direct me to, preferably referencing Montana cases, would be most appreciated. Thanks again!

I know I may be a bit late to your party but these are cases I found:
Court rulings whose judges determined that chickens were pets:
Eldorado can raise chickens following appeals court ruling (caselaw; note the included covenant language)

The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed a district judge’s 2014 order prohibiting Eldorado residents from raising hens in their backyards.

The covenants say such animals may only be kept in “reasonable numbers” as pets and not for any commercial use or purpose. But the covenants do not define which animals may be considered “recognized household pets”

A three-judge panel sided with the poultry owners who appealed Macaron’s ruling, but the appellate judges did not decide the question of whether chickens are pets akin to dogs and cats. Instead, writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, cited a New Mexico Supreme Court ruling in a 1996 case that set a precedent for interpreting ambiguous covenants “in favor of the free enjoyment of the property and against restrictions.” But under the circumstances, he wrote, the covenant cannot be enforced to preclude homeowners from keeping their hens as recognized household pets.

The court also took a different view of an affidavit submitted by the homeowners association from a diagnostic veterinarian at Colorado State University who is an expert in commercial poultry populations as well as backyard flocks. She argued that chickens have not historically been considered a household pet, with the “phenomenon” of backyard hobby farmers keeping chickens only arising in the past decade or so. Sutin wrote that her affidavit “confirmed that a substantial percentage of chicken owners keep chickens as pets.”

Pa. family doesn’t have to get rid of its pet chickens, state court says (caselaw; note the included ordinance language)

The simple fact, [Judge] McCullough found, is that Sabatini isn’t falling afoul of a county ordinance that bars the keeping of “agricultural animals” in residential zones [since] Sabatini’s birds aren’t agricultural animals, the judge found. They’re pets, she said.

The Sabatinis don’t sell the birds or their eggs and they certainly don’t eat them, McCullough noted. Every single bird has a name, she wrote, adding that photos show the Sabatinis and their children treating the chickens as pets.

In overturning that ruling, McCullough concluded the Sabatinis aren’t running a commercial agriculture operation and so aren’t violating the ordinance’s ban against keeping “agricultural” animals in a residential district. “The facts illustrate that the raising of the chickens was not commercial in nature. We can discern no fact indicating any type of commercial activity in regard to the chickens,” she wrote.

City Takes West Philly Woman to Court Over Backyard Chickens, She Wins

Unlike in the vast majority of large American cities, keeping chickens as pets in Philadelphia is illegal. But one West Philadelphia woman just proved that you can fight City Hall — at least when it comes to backyard chickens.

The citations piled up, and Hart says she was eventually on the hook for $2,105 plus court costs. In all, she expected the tab to come to more than $3,000 when all was said and done. But instead of entering into a payment plan with the city or just ignoring the repeated late notices, she got a hearing in Municipal Court, where she showed up last week. When she arrived, she walked into the hearing, where she was offered a deal: Pay $350 and this will be over and done with. “But I said no,” says Hart. “I told them that I wouldn’t accept that. I wouldn’t pay anything.”

[T]he court sent Hart down the hall to another courtroom. “I told her that these are our pets,” she says. “I told her that we love them.” And a few minutes later, all of the citations against Hart were dismissed.

But Hart’s small act of civic disobedience may be a sign that judges aren’t willing to uphold the city’s ban on chickens at private residences.

 

[mechtech]

Hey everyone! We are currently battling our HOA over our right to have chickens as "domestic household pets" and after a lot of research we came across a few cases, one by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1970 that supports our cause and I wanted to share it with you!!
https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1970/24283.html

Other court cases in other states can also be used as evidence if there is not a direct precedent in our state:
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...cle_5ba779d5-5e38-5fe8-acdb-ada6b41d2e2b.html

If your HOA prohibits chickens but then makes an exception for domestic household pets, you have a solid argument (and I believe a right) to have chickens as chickens CAN BE domestic household pets under the law. GOOD LUCK!

I know I'm really late to the discussion, but I'm wondering what the results were with your HOA battle.

 

[RojoMarz]

I know I'm really late to the discussion, but I'm wondering what the results were with your HOA battle.

OP hasn't been active since Sep 20, 2020 according to their profile.