One of the questions I frequently get from clients is about the legality of pet restrictions in CC&Rs. When searching for a dog friendly condo complex it is important to study the CC&Rs of the Homeowners Association. Look closely at when the CCR&S were adopted and if there are any revisions. According to the Thompson bill no common interest development governing document created, entered into, modified or renewed on or after January 1, 2001 may prohibit a homeowner from having one pet. Since this law is not retroactive, it is important to look for the date of adoption or modification. If the Homeowners Association had CC&Rs in place that have not been modified before January 1, 2001 they are legally able to restrict pet ownership.
Subsequent to the adoption of Civil Code §1363.03, which "had the effect of modfied governing documents ... throughout the state," the pre/post Thomson Law issue (insofar as the adoption date of CC&Rs is concerned) no longer applies .
For further information, please see "Pet Restrictions Deemed Void By Legislative Counsel" @ http://davis-stirling.com/wordpress/?p=83
This Web page reads, in part, as follows:
"Opinion of Legislative Counsel. The Office of Legislative Counsel reviewed the underlying statutes affecting pets. It reviewed Civil Code §1360.5 and concluded that the Legislature’s broad intent was to give all owners the right to have pets. Counsel then reviewed Civil Code §1363.03, a law enacted last year that requires homeowner associations to adopt election rules. The Office of Legislative Counsel further concluded that election rules mandated by the Legislature had the effect of modified governing documents as defined by Civil Code §1360.5(e), thereby voiding pet prohibitions throughout the state. The opinion letter concluded with:
. . . it is our opinion that, under Section 1360.5 of the Civil Code, the adoption of a rule by a common interest development to comply with the election requirements of Section 1363.03 of the Civil Code renders unenforceable a provision of the governing documents of that development that prohibits the keeping of at least one pet."
Comments(1)