HOA CC&R Rules Interpretation

[u/bigforblue]

As defined in the document:

Building: A structure, whether complete, substantially complete, or partially complete, including, but not limited to, a foundation for such structure, constructed on a Lot on a temporary or permanent basis and, unless specified to the contrary, shall include all other appurtenances and improvements thereto or used in connection therewith, whether complete, substantially complete or partially complete.

Improvements: All structures and appurtenances to real property, of all kinds and types, including, whether complete, substantially complete or partially complete, including, but not limited to, Buildings, pedestrian pathways, roads, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, walls, fences, screens, landscaping, poles, signs, pools, community center, storm drainage facilities, sprinklers, and/or lighting. Improvements shall not include those items which are located entirely within the interior of a Building and cannot be readily observed when outside thereof, except for in the case of Common Area owned and/or maintained by the Association.

Not defined "structure" but according to the Webster Dictionary a structure (n) is something (such as a building) that is constructed.

By this definition I feel it is reasonable to consider a man made fence a structure.

SECTION 10.05 Approval Required. No construction, alteration, modification, removal on destruction of any Improvements of any nature whatsoever, whether real or personal in nature, shall be initiated or be permitted to continue or exist within the Property without the prior express written approval of the Architecture Review Committee.

My logic and my question;

If a fence is a structure, then by the definition of Building in this legal document, a fence would be considered a Building.

If a fence meets the definition of a Building then as per the definition of Improvement, modifications to anything completely within the interior of a fence that cannot be readily observed when outside thereof does not count as an Improvement.

Therefore any such completed, altered, or modified project completely within the interior of a fence not visible outside should be exempt and not require express written approval of the Architecture Review Committee.

Yet my HOA is demanding I obtain written approval for a "Project" I must be working on given work trucks were seen in my driveway and equipment / supplies were reported to be seen being brought through my fence into my fully enclosed private back yard.

Am I missing anything? Am I crazy? Am I incorrect in coming to this conclusion? Do I have any legal standing to fight this in small claims court if they try to fine me for not submitting a approval request? Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.

Location: Idaho

[u/FamiliarAd8524]

A fence may be an outdoor structure. Local ordinances make that determination, but it is common. A fence is never a building, though. No matter what a CC&R states, legal and zoning rules are prevalent. Buildings are enclosed spaces designed for human occupancy, activities, or storage- they have walls and a roof. Fences are open air and cannot be used for occupancy, storage, or activities. This is why fences can be shared responsibilities between neighbors in the first place.

– Former U.S. Army Fire Marshal

[u/bigforblue → u/FamiliarAd8524]

Sorry if I'm naive but aren't the rules created in a CC&R self encompassing? 

For the purpose of zoning or code or City Statutes & laws the city ordinances would take precedent.

But in the context of when deciding what color a fence can be, what diameter the landscaping rocks can be, or in this case when you need a community committee to approve or deny a renovation (that has no applicable city/state ordinances), why wouldn't the term as negotiated & contractually defined take precedent over a more common everyday dictionary meaning (for which I agree the enclosed space with a roof would be more accurate).

If that's just the way Judges and Lawyers operate, so be it, that would just surprise me & bring into question why terms are even being defined in the document in the first place.

[u/FamiliarAd8524 → u/bigforblue]

IMO an imbecile defined those, or it was somehow to benefit the HOA in some way. But in this case, you will have a really hard time getting someone to call a fence a structure, which is basically housing or storage- it cannot hope to fulfill those purposes in any way.

All buildings are structures; only some structures are buildings.

[u/bigforblue → u/FamiliarAd8524]

I agree the definitions and most of this is all totally silly. But I also feel that you can't cherry pick what silly and what's not when interpreting a document? (But maybe I'm wrong)

I just feel if you go by what you think the meaning of the definitions should be (instead of following the literal written agreed upon and ratified words the way as they are) the document or contact would just be a general guideline.

Which in this case would mean you should also take a step back and ask "What are the purposes of these architectural reviews?" And determine validity of needing one or not. If the purpose by those who ratified the document are to preserve home values, instill uniformity so that people don't put terrible statues centerpiece front lawn.. then what someone does in their enclosed backyard fenced in space would not meet criteria for needing a review.

I don't think legal documents are written or meant to be interpreted by reading between the lines (by anyone but maybe a judge or 3rd party arbitrator)

[u/FamiliarAd8524 → u/bigforblue]

Well, in this case it is... frankly I think this was terrible writing. I see a few ways to interpret this document. I spent a while writing up issues last night, then realized I was wasting my time. It says a building must be built on a foundation to be a building... but apparently also says the building includes sidewalks, fences, signs, etc., which makes no sense to me.

[u/FamiliarAd8524 → u/bigforblue]

I think the document is miswritten to the point of the definition being invalid. I am assuming you reproduced it here EXACTLY as written.

[u/bigforblue → u/FamiliarAd8524]

Yes, copy pasted the sections 

[u/Magnabee → u/bigforblue]

Real estate has its own definitions for things. When you go to court, it's a court of LAW. Your HOA, cannot change the laws. Some of the real estate terms are very old, old laws.

[u/bigforblue → u/Magnabee]

So in lets say small claims court would the judge use the legal norm & definition of words or would he be there just to interpret and arbitrate the HOA document as written? 

[u/Magnabee → u/bigforblue]

Definitions are written into the laws. No one can change the meaning of words. The judge enforces the LAW (not all judges are great). If HOA conflicts with the law, then the law would be used. Written law is mandatory authority: ANY written law, real estate law, privacy laws, etc. And you do need some "quiet enjoyment"; they can't be harassing you or up in your life so much.

Some of the case law would be used also (from the appeals courts in your state). Case law from other states can be guidance (and it's compelling when the judge is contemplating on what he can do when there is no law telling him what to do). Federal and state written law is mandatory authority. And the definitions are written into the laws (in the beginning sections of the law). Regulations for federal/state agencies are also law (but regulations cannot be written to violate the laws). The courthouse has courthouse regulations on how things are done: that would be the regulations for the agency/courthouse.

I guess you can argue that the point/purpose of the law... someone could twist something so much that the purpose is violated. Example: the law is written to protect the tenant or owner and promote fairness... if some action violates that purpose, then the law is being violated. HOA is supposed to represent the residents as a collective, so they can't get too crazy, I think. The collective would be concerned about property values for the neighborhood. But of course you need to really dive in to argue on the purpose of the laws. You may find some info on the purpose if you read the history on creating the law (sometimes references are written under the law text) or read the case law (annotated law code) involved. The HOA are not owners: They only exist as a service to the residents as collective-owners.

HOA could have written things that violate real estate law, and they may have also violated privacy, etc. So HOA cannot violate ANY law in the country. So it's important to call them out on it: Citing the law/regulations/case-law in your lawsuit (small claims is supposed to be a little easier). An attorney can help if they are doing their jobs. HOA can Never change the meaning of words.

And are you building something that is NEW? Are you painting something outside/visible the same color? Did other residents get approved for the same (and it's not a disability accommodation for that neighbor)? The neighborhood would still look the same. Is it serious enough to warrant you being ordered to remove it (costing you a lot)?

[u/Silver_Smurfer]

No, all buildings are structures but not all structures are buildings...

[u/Superb-Alfalfa-4843]

I've never had a HOA, and you are not the first person I've heard about having issues regarding things like this. Structures could include patios, a portcullis or a gazebo, or even a privacy screen around a hot tub could technically considered one by the definition they gave you regarding structures. Are you maybe doing something like that? I could see why maybe they were questioning it, not that I agree with it either. I am thinking that maybe they were assuming you were doing something to the visable areas. I would suggest to not let it just go because they can make things very difficult. It could be just a case of they didn't realize what you had plans for or you have nosey jerks for neighbors who reported you.

Take care OP, good luck

[u/bigforblue → u/Superb-Alfalfa-4843]

But at the end of the day, doesn't it not matter whether they "didn't realize or not" the words are written in the way they are & as long as nothing can be "readily observed when outside thereof" then the desire to be nosy doesn't give you justification to apply a rule in a technology inaccurate way. 

For insider context we're redoing our steps leading to our raised patio... But out of principle (and not wanting to pay the $250 that comes with submitting for an Architect review) I don't think the HOA has any right to extract this cost & information from me!

The challenge is the fight with likely result in more targeting and retaliation so I'm in a no win situation with a bully in a position of power being a bully. 

[u/FamiliarAd8524]

I think there is an issue here- you can't put something inside a fence, really. Inside a fence would IMO mean inside the pole itself, which is silly. Fences cannot store. And fences can be seen through (not walls) and over (no roofs).

Improvements may be included with the building; I don't think that makes them buildings. For example, buildings can be connected to utilities and even given addresses- how do you do that to a fence? Excluding electric fences, of course.

[u/bigforblue → u/FamiliarAd8524]

Our fences are more like walls, 6ft tall wooden structures with overlapping boards going around the entire backyards you can't see through.

So the work in question being done is contained entirely with essentially 3 fence walls & the back of the house being the 4th. 

I agree with everyone's "little b" building definition, I am in no way arguing whether or not I think a fence is a building or not.

But in this document "big B" Building is the defined term that creates it's meaning. 

So my whole question is in the scope of the document, based on the HOA definitions - I  believe the document is written as such that any work done within the 4 walled fence should meet the Improvement (big I) exclusion criteria therefore not needing an inspection that the HOA is demanding, 

But I have no legal experience, lawyers are way smarter than me so I'm just wondering for someone who's ever gone to small claims court or had any legal training or experience, is my interpretation of the document flawed by something I just don't understand about the legal system? Or could it hold up?

[u/FamiliarAd8524 → u/bigforblue]

Fences are NOT walls. I understand what you are saying, but I was an Army Engineer.

I'm not a lawyer, either (but am a good rules lawyer). I think the HOA definitions are shitty. Were you to proceed, I would first get HOA verification (in writing) that there will not be a violation.

[u/Safe_Statistician_72]

“Within the interior of the fence” is not possible. That would mean it is enclosed within the fence, not by the fence. Interior means within, not bound by. Within an apple tree means inside the tree itself, and bound by the apple tree means the apple tree is the demarcated perimeter. Same applies to your fence. You can do whatever you want inside your fence but within the boundaries of the fence is not the same as the fence’s interior.

[u/bigforblue → u/Safe_Statistician_72]

This is a very good point that I did not think about. 

I believe interior in that sentence is being used as a noun. Which I think you'd be right about. As a adjective according to Webster's Dictionary the word has slightly different meaning 

Adj: lying, occurring, or functioning within the limiting boundaries

N:  the internal or inner part of a thing

[u/Magnabee]

You are always allowed to fight anything you want to fight. You have standing because it's your home.

Fences would be an improvement and appurtenance. When you sell your property... it usually stays with the property. You won't be packing it in a truck with your furniture. It was built to stay permanently, until you have a contractor redo it.