Interpretation of the term &quot;fully enclosed area&quot; My HOA in Colorado USA, has the following rule Each Lot shall provide a fully enclosed area for containment of trash, garbage or other garbage, and each Lot at all times shall be kept in a clean, sightly and wholesome condition and grass and weeds shall be kept mowed. No trash, litter, junk, boxes, containers, bottles, cans, implements, machinery, lumber or other building materials shall be permitted to remain exposed upon any Lot so it is visible from any neighboring Lot or from the street, except as reasonably necessary during the period of construction. The Board of Directors, through its agents and employees, shall have the right and duty to enter upon any Lot and remove such unsightly objects and materials at the expense of the Owner, and upon due notice to the Owner and failure of the Owner to comply with this Section, such entry shall not be deemed a trespass. The cost of such removal shall he chargeable by the Board of Directors to such Owner, by Individual Assessment in accordance with Paragraph 5.3(c) hereof. The board has recently started to enforce their interpretation that this means that our garbage cans must be hidden from view of the street. I can not come to that same interpretation based on this language. I think the cans themselves are &quot;fully enclosed areas&quot;, and do not need to be hidden from the street. What is the board required to enforce it's interpretation of the rules? If I disagree is my only option to sue the board if I am cited by the board for violation? Additional questions: If I fly a drone above the street and can see the board president's trash can, can I request that the president be cited for violating this rule? If I have photographic proof that the board has not enforced the rule in this interpretation since 2007 (when google street view imagery became available in my area), does that change the answer to the above questions?
Fully enclosed area means being inside something, likely a non-see-through fence. You will not convince anyone that a trash can is &quot;fully enclosed; it is a container, which is called out. Your chance of litigating this successfully is approximately zero unless your goal is to spend money and force the HOA to do the same. You can certainly ask what the expectation is or examples that meet the requirement. Your ability to fight your issue by citing other installations is limited unless they are forcing you to do something other homes are not required to do. &quot;I can see your can with a drone&quot; will not let you leave your trash can out.
You have to take the General Notes part in its full context. The relevant clause says The term “Common Area” as used herein means all portions of the Project except the Units, and without limiting the generality of the forgoing, all structural projections within a Unit which are required for the support of a Condominium, gas, water pipes, all sewers, all ducts, chutes, conduits, wires and other utility installations of the structures wherever located (except the outlets thereof when located within the Units)… The most proximal expression is "wires and other utility installations", so construing "outlets" as covering gas, water, sewers, ducts etc. would be contrary to the interpretive principle known as the Last Antecedent rule. Nothing in the context requires a broad-scope interpretation of the "outlet" exception. This being in the US, courts would use ordinary English usage to understand what an "outlet" is, that is, even if "you could argue" that something is an outlet, the term "outlet" is used in the context of buildings to refer to an electrical outlet. The way this works is that you would need to get an expert witness to testify as to the common meaning of "outlet" in this context. There are two approaches to doing that. One is to get testimony of a contractor, as to what they mean when they say "outlet". However, contractors speak a special language (and not consistently so), and it's dubious that either party of a contract could have understood "outlet" in a special way shared by contractors. So the other approach (exemplified by Heller) is to call on a language and usage expert. A DIY approach is to google things like "sewer outlet", "electrical outlet" and so on, to see if you get many hits. You do not have a sewer outlet in your unit. You might have a water outlet if you work on cars and brought one inside the unit, but clearly context dictates that that is not relevant. The way courts resolve these matters is to determine what the ordinary meaning of a term is, and set aside specilized and technical meanings. See for example Nix v. Hedden where SCOTUS ruled that a tomato is not a legal fruit, because scientific definitions notwithstanding, a tomato is clearly a vegetable in common usage. Note that I am specifically addressing the question you posed, about "outlets". IO believe that attention to "outlets" is misguided. Focus should be on the regulation about "the HOA not being responsible for water leaks between units or interior damage", which is what they are invoking. By your description, the hole in the pipe which constitutes the source of the leak was behind the wall. The problem is that "between units" can have two very different meanings, one being "from one unit to another", and the other is "which takes place in the area that exists between units". Since you do not own the area behind the walls (presumably: property descriptions can be less than totally clear), there was no leak from one unit to the other. There was a leak which took place in the space between units. The definitions for the project clearly indicate that such behind-the-wall stuff is "common area". If a breech in the drain pipe occurs outside the wall and leaked into the unit below, that would be a leak outside the common are, and would be a leak between units in the "from one to the other" sense, although the water would have to pass through the common area. But if it originated on the other side of the wall, it originated in the common area which is always present between units. Suppose, being devil's advocate, that you own not just the stuff inside the walls but also the stuff behind the walls, up to the next unit's walls. But if you apply that analysis of property boundaries, then the adjacent unit's property is the stuff inside his walls and between, up to your walls, so unless you are very special, you don't own the area between the walls. So to reiterate, "outlet" is a irrelevant. What matters is the interpretation of "leak between". Under neither interpretation of that expression is a leak behind the wall the responsibility of the person "upstairs".
It depends on what state this is. In Washington state, there is a form that sellers must fill out, and section 3 addresses sewer connections. This matter could have been disclosed – the allowed answers are &quot;yes; no; don't know&quot; (or NA). These are sellers disclosures, and Zillow / Redfin are free to be unreliable (I personally know that they are wrong about square footage). A real estate agent also doesn't become liable for being misinformed. Assuming your state has this or analogous question, &quot;No&quot; means that you were told (doesn't matter if you didn't notice it), and &quot;Don't know&quot; means you're gambling. Let's say that the answer was &quot;Yes&quot;. Still, you can't necessarily sue (and win): you would have to prove misrepresentation (fraud or negligence) and not innocent error. You could do this by, for instance, proving that seller had the septic tank cleaned out some years earlier. Perhaps an action against buyer's inspector is possible, since that's nominally what they might have been hired to find out. But that is only true if checking the sewer connection can reasonably be considered part of the deal, so you have to look at the contract with the inspector (and the inspector's report).
No. Just because some building is "owned by the public" or State, doesn't mean it's public property. A state's national guard installation comes to mind immediately. State workers' offices are not public places. Airport hangars/buildings/runways. You can't just go hang out in the DPW garages.
There is no federal prohibition against sexual discrimination in public accomodations. Colorado has an applicable state law, which covers "any place of business engaged in any sales to the public", where "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful ...to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ...sexual orientation...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods...". No provision exempts lemonade stands. Churches etc. are specifically exempted: "'Place of public accommodation' shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes". Sex discrimination is allowed "if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation", an argument that can't reasonably be made in the described case. It is also not obvious that running a lemonade stand is a business (the courts will not admit unsubstantiated Wiki assertions as evidence). It would be relevant to wonder what constitutes a "business" under Colorado law. E.g. is a business license required? In Colorado (US) law, it has not been definitively decided whether there can be a religious exception to the anti-discrimination law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided without answering that (the state showed clear religious intolerance in its handling of the case). We do not know how a similar case will be decided: Arlene's Flowers was handed back to the state court with the instruction "do it again" (with nothing more than a mention of Masterpiece Cakeshop). The court cannot establish certain beliefs and practices as "valid religions" (Establishment Clause); the proxy expression that is used is "deeply held belief", which includes atheism. The relationship of the issue to the First Amendment is uncertain.
&quot;Posted&quot; is a Term of Art &quot;Posted&quot; is a term of art in trespass law, specifically meaning that signs forbidding entry have been placed at the borders of a parcel. The page &quot;Properly posted definition&quot; from Law Insider reads: Properly posted means that signs prohibiting trespass—or bright yellow, bright orange or fluorescent paint—are clearly displayed at all corners, on fishing streams crossing property lines, and on roads, gates and rights-of-way entering the land. Or, they are displayed in a manner that is visible to a person in the area. The entry &quot;Posting&quot; in the &quot;Legal&quot; section of The Free Dictionary reads: Posting In connection with Trespass statutes, the act of placing or affixing signs on private property in a manner to give notice of the trespass. The page &quot;The Importance of Posting Property Signs&quot; reads in relevant part: Why should you use posted signs on property? Posting property is a great way to let someone know they have entered private land and they might not be welcome. Using posted signs not only indicates trespassing but also can specify restricted activities. Signs are good for both rural and urban settings as a way to protect owners and their property. ... Most states have specific rules for property signs that must be followed. Some rules may include: Words used: POSTED or NOTICE Sign size: 11&quot; x 11&quot; or 144 square inches Lettering size: minimum of 2&quot; Sign color: purple, bright orange, yellow Sign distance: every 100 feet Some states allow the use of spray paint to mark trees and fences in lieu of a sign. Purple paint is frequently used because it stands out against common natural colors. However, if a trespasser is unaware of this marking method, it would be more effective to use a sign. Check local and state laws to confirm what is needed to properly post legally in your area. Several US states use the term &quot;Posted&quot; in their laws on trespass, and provide that the presence of the word &quot;posted&quot; on a sign has special significance. Maryland maryland Maryland Criminal Law Code § 6-402 (2017) provides that: (a) Prohibited. -- A person may not enter or trespass on property that is posted conspicuously against trespass by: (a) (1) signs placed where they reasonably may be seen; or (a) (2) paint marks that: (a) (2) (i) conform with regulations that the Department of Natural Resources adopts under § 5-209 of the Natural Resources Article; and (a) (2) (ii) are made on trees or posts that are located: (a) (2) (ii) 1. at each road entrance to the property; and (a) (2) (ii) 2. adjacent to public roadways, public waterways, and other land adjoining the property. The law firm page &quot;Trespassing Laws in Maryland&quot; reads in relevant part: Posted Property Trespass A person is not allowed to enter onto property that is posted conspicuously against trespassing. That posting can come in the form of signs that are placed where they can be reasonably seen or by paint marks on trees or posts at the entrances and land adjacent to the property. New York new-york-state The page &quot;Posting Your Land&quot; from the NY Dept of Environmental Conservation reads in relevant part: Trespassing Trespassing is illegal even on unposted property. Instead of posting, a landowner or other authorized person may issue written notice to another individual informing them that they are prohibited from entering the property. The notice must contain a description of the property, what restrictions apply (hunting, fishing, trapping) and the person or persons prohibited from entry. It should be delivered by certified mail or other processes (ex: legal notice in newspaper) to prove that the person was served. At any time, anyone by the landowner, occupant, or other authorized person to leave the premises (posted or not), must do so immediately. Trespassing on areas posted against trespass pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law is punishable by a fine up to $250 and/or up to 15 days in jail. It is a defense to this type of trespass that there are not signs posted instructing people to stay off the property. It may also be a defense that any signs posted in the area are not in the proper place to be easily seen by visitors to the property. Signage Details Hardware and farm supply stores frequently carry signs for posting. Customized signs may also be obtained from local printers. DEC doesn't provide signs to private landowners unless the landowner is a cooperator under the Fish and Wildlife Management Act. In this case, they will be provided with &quot;Safety Zone&quot; signs. Cooperators provide free public access to most of their property in a large cooperative hunting/fishing area. Signs must be a minimum of 11 inches by 11 inches. They also must bear the name and address of the owner, lawful occupant or other person or organization authorized to post the area. The sign must bear a conspicuous statement which shall either consist of the word &quot;POSTED&quot; or warn against entry for specified purposes or all purposes without the consent of the person whose name appears on the sign. These words must cover a minimum space of 80 square inches (about 9 by 9 inches) of the sign. Image from the NYS DEC page linked above (There is a very similar image included in the Wikipedia article &quot;Trespass&quot;.) California california In California &quot;Posted property&quot; is the legal term for property where suitable signs have been placed along the boundary or near it, to informa people tht trespassing is forbidden. But it appears that in CA the word &quot;Posted&quot; need not appear on such signs, the words &quot;No Trespassing&quot; being sufficient. California also makes it a misdemeanor (Under section 602) to enter into or remain on property of another, without any legal right to be there, if one is instructed not to enter, or to leave, but such proeprty is not considered &quot;posted&quot;. California Penal Code section 553 provides that: he following definitions apply to this article only: (a) “Sign” means a sign not less than one (1) square foot in area and upon which in letters not less than two inches in height appear the words “trespassing-loitering forbidden by law,” or words describing the use of the property followed by the words “no trespassing.” (b) “Posted property” means any property specified in Section 554 which is posted in a manner provided in Section 554.1 . (c) “Posted boundary” means a line running from sign to sign and such line need not conform to the legal boundary or legal description of any lot, parcel, or acreage of land, but only the area within the posted boundary shall constitute posted property, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (e) of Section 554.1 . California Penal Code section 554 provides in relevant part that: Any property, except that portion of such property to which the general public is accorded access, may be posted against trespassing and loitering in the manner provided in Section 554.1 , and thereby become posted property subject to the provisions of this article applicable to posted property, if such property consists of, or is used, or is designed to be used, for any one or more of the following: ... California Penal Code section 554.1 provides that: Any property described in Section 554 may be posted against trespassing and loitering in the following manner: (a) If it is not enclosed within a fence and if it is of an area not exceeding one (1) acre and has no lineal dimension exceeding one (1) mile, by posting signs at each corner of the area and at each entrance. (b) If it is not enclosed within a fence, and if it is of an area exceeding one (1) acre, or contains any lineal dimension exceeding one (1) mile, by posting signs along or near the exterior boundaries of the area at intervals of not more than 600 feet, and also at each corner, and, if such property has a definite entrance or entrances, at each such entrance. (c) If it is enclosed within a fence and if it is of an area not exceeding one (1) acre, and has no lineal dimension exceeding one (1) mile, by posting signs at each corner of such fence and at each entrance. (d) If it is enclosed within a fence and if it is of an area exceeding one (1) acre, or has any lineal dimension exceeding one (1) mile, by posting signs on, or along the line of, such fence at intervals of not more than 600 feet, and also at each corner and at each entrance. (e) If it consists of poles or towers or appurtenant structures for the suspension of wires or other conductors for conveying electricity or telegraphic or telephonic messages or of towers or derricks for the production of oil or gas, by affixing a sign upon one or more sides of such poles, towers, or derricks, but such posting shall render only the pole, tower, derrick, or appurtenant structure posted property. California Penal Code section 555 provides that: It is unlawful to enter or remain upon any posted property without the written permission of the owner, tenant, or occupant in legal possession or control thereof. Every person who enters or remains upon posted property without such written permission is guilty of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which he enters or remains upon such posted property.
California state law criminally restricts trespassing via Cal. Pen. 602.8(a): Any person who without the written permission of the landowner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the land, willfully enters any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or who willfully enters upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands, is guilty of a public offense. However, subdivision (c) states exceptions, that this does not apply to: ...(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California or United States Constitution. (There are other exceptions for process-servers, surveyors, and labor union activities). Additionally, anyone who remains on property after having been told to go away is guilty of trespass: simple entering when there is a no-trespassing sign is allowed in the case of religious or political canvassing. So at the state level, a division is made between protected activities (First Amendment issues) and non-protected ones (Commerce Clause issues), where criminal trespass is not applicable to religious or political solicitations. Aliso Viejo limits canvassing thusly: No person shall enter upon any residence or place of business and ring the doorbell, or rap or knock upon any door, or create any sound in any other manner calculated to attract the attention of any occupant of such premises, for the purpose of securing an audience with the occupant and engaging in peddling, solicitation or canvassing in defiance of a notice described in subsection (C) of this section. and subsection (c) says: Notice by the owners or occupants of any residence or place of business of their unwillingness to receive any uninvited peddlers, solicitors, canvassers, or handbills shall be given by displaying a weatherproof card, decal, or sign easily seen from the public right-of-way or the normal entryway to a house or dwelling. The notice must be placed upon or near the main entrance door to the residence or place of business and must state: “No Solicitors,” or words to that effect, with the letters at least one inch high. Solicitors and peddlers, but not canvassers, are also required to have a license. By their definitions, solicitors request things of value, and peddlers engage in commerce: canvassers engage in First Amendment protected activities, including disseminating commercial information (but not making sales). Violation of the code is punished variably, basically at the discretion of the prosecutor (there being a choice between infraction and misdemeanor dispositions). The Santa Monica police say that "There are many legitimate organizations that solicit door-to-door, either to sell products and services or to promote a religious, political or charitable cause. However, there are also a growing number of individuals who illegally solicit with the purpose of committing fraud. So when someone knocks at your door, ask the person to produce the required license before he/she begins a sales pitch". The implication is that you have to have a license to engage in "canvassing", which is almost guaranteed to be incorrect (First Amendment thing). The Santa Monica Code says in 6.32.040 that "Every person engaged in soliciting, canvassing, taking orders or peddling of goods, wares, merchandise or services shall pay a license fee in accordance with Section 6.12.010(a) of this Code" (that section however does not demand a fee for activities not generating money, i.e. political and religious disseminations). Santa Monica also limits door to door operations via a signage ordinance: No solicitation or peddling shall be conducted at any place of residence in the City where any sign prohibiting trespassing or solicitation has been posted or displayed. If the sign posted or displayed limits the hours of trespassing or solicitation, no solicitation or peddling shall be conducted at any place of residence in the City during the time period posted or displayed It is of interest that the signage ordinance does not mention canvassing (and canvassing is not defined), but the license law does. So in terms of legal prohibitions, it depends on municipality, and perhaps interpretation of local ordinances. Of course, one can always put up a sign saying "No Religious Solicitations" and hope that persuades the person, and one can sue for damages, if there are arguably any damages. "Do Not Disturb" might be more effective. SCOTUS noted in Martin v. City of Struthers that "Whether such visiting shall be permitted has in general been deemed to depend upon the will of the individual master of each household, and not upon the determination of the community" and ruled that Struthers may not "make this decision for all its inhabitants" (on First Amendment grounds). Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell addressed a licensing requirement (struck down as overly vague and broad) that covered canvassing, and said A municipality has the power to enforce reasonable door-to-door soliciting and canvassing regulations to protect its citizens from crime and undue annoyance. The Court has consistently recognized that a narrowly drawn ordinance that does not vest in municipal officials the undefined power to determine what residents will hear or see may serve these interests consistent with the First Amendment so a license requirement for religious canvassers could be consistent with the SCOTUS stance: if it is narrowly tailored. Subsequently, in Watchtower v. Stratton, the court stated (regarding a licensing requirement) that § 107 of the ordinance, which provides for the posting of "No Solicitation" signs and which is not challenged in this case, coupled with the resident's unquestioned right to refuse to engage in conversation with unwelcome visitors, provides ample protection for the unwilling listener A "No Solicitation" sign then has the desired effect: it is legal to make it illegal to solicit in the presence of a No Soliciting sign. The specific ordinance was not narrowly tailored (to "preventing fraud"); requiring a surrender of anonymity. Other cases such as Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 have overturned anti-solicitation laws as not being narrowly tailored: for instance, solicitations too early in the morning or too late at night are constitutional; and in general, a sign by the owner means "keep out", and the first amendment does not overrule private property rights. It is unlikely that any ordinance mandating "uniform business practices" would survive; the concept is too vague and unlimited, and would be a significant burden on any business. And, of course, religions have constitutional protections that businesses lack.
Here's a bit of Georgia law that is relevant. By law, your apartment shall have installed an approved battery operated smoke detector which shall be maintained in good working order unless any such building is otherwise required to have a smoke detector system pursuant to Code Section 25-2-13. Also, &quot;Detectors shall be listed and meet the installation requirements of NFPA 72&quot;. Furthermore, Any occupant who fails to maintain a smoke detector in a dwelling, dwelling unit, or other facility, other than a nursing home, listed in subsection (a) of this Code section in good working order as required in this Code section shall be subject to a maximum fine of $25.00, provided that a warning shall be issued for a first violation. (note that there is a burden on the occupant, not just the landlord). However, Failure to maintain a smoke detector in good working order in a dwelling, dwelling unit, or other facility listed in subsection (a) of this Code section in violation of this Code section shall not be considered evidence of negligence, shall not be considered by the court on any question of liability of any person, corporation, or insurer, shall not be any basis for cancellation of coverage or increase in insurance rates, and shall not diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or occupancy of such dwelling, dwelling unit, or other facility listed in subsection (a) of this Code section. Whether or not a photoelectric smoke detector is NFPA-compliant is not a legal question, but you could read NFPA's comparison of ionizing and photoelectric detectors here. If we assume (as is reasonable to do) that you install an approved device, then there is no code violation by picking your own device, does not change liability, and can have no effect on insurance rate / cancellation. OTOH, it is conceivable that the lease is written to prohibit any monkeying around with the smoke detector.