Medal of Honor recipient Sued for flying Flag

[Fargo]

Nevermind, you posted while I was posting.....

 

[IndyGunworks]

Nevermind, you posted while I was posting.....

open mouth insert foot....

sorry buddy, that was too good of an opportunity to pass up. (really i am just trying to shed some humor on the situation before it turns into an arugment and my thread gets derailed then locked)

 

[Fletch]

Just like Fletch, you have assumed about a dozen facts not in evidence.

All I've said is that there must logically be something in the covenants which allows the board to make aesthetic determinations. It seemed a perfectly reasonable thing to assume, considering the facts presented.

Local World War II Veteran Fights Homeowner's Association - wtvr

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.

Local War Hero Told To Remove Flagpole - WRIC Richmond News and Weather -

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.

 

[dross]

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.

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.

 

[Fletch]

The HOA's officer info is starting to appear on the web from public records.

 

[BUCK HINKLE]

They will be hearing from me on friday and on monday, I find it hard to stomach this kind of abuse of the people that faught to give us the rights we have as americans..

 

[Fargo]

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.

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.

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.

Apparently you missed the part in my post where I said:

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 am 100% with you that just because you legally can doesn't mean you should.

I don't need training in contract law to understand how to conduct myself when I've entered a contract.

Agreed, but we don't know the terms of the 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.

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

 

[dross]

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

I'm just a little raw today. Twice I had to make concessions in my arguments. Usually I win so easily!

 

[Fargo]

Hey, it happens to the best of us. I got bent over by a judge today and I'm still a bit peavy about it.....

 

[IndyGunworks]

faught

 

[AndersonIN]

Of course this low life law firm is not answering the phone but they do allow for you to leave a message................CALL NOW and let them know how Americans feel about this!

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is Congress."
John Adams

 

[Phil502]

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

As far as I know none of us has seen the contract, so who's to say what it actually says. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that somewhere in that contract is a clause that says the board has the right to decide what can or can't be done, This would be based on the fact that there is no way a contract like that can cover every contingency.

 

[ratfortman]

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.

 

[dburkhead]

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.

Yes there is. And in part it says:

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.

However, it also says:

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.

So I guess the question is what constitutes a "substantial interest."

 

[IndyBeerman]

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.

I'm trying to figure out the unsightly part of proud MOH recipient flying an American flag on large pole. Does the pole below look unsightly?

Now this is not the MOH's flag and pole, it is mine. I'm proud to display it at 30 feet above the ground. It is not only for my viewing enjoyment, but my neighbors and people that drive by who are proud American citizens who enjoy seeing it flutter in the wind.

Bet this is probably larger than the pole that our MOH has in his yard.
DO YOU think it is LARGE & UNSIGHTLY?

There is nothing, and I mean nothing aesthetic displeasing about this, not now, and never will, heck everytime I come home and round the corner and see my flag on this pole I get a little bit of a goosebumps.

 

[dburkhead]

At this point I'm tempted to stick a large flagpole up in my yard just to see what the reaction would be. (Yes, I have an HOA.)

 

[bigiron]

i called about 45 minutes ago and when i would press any option it would just start over. after doing this three times i gave up and went to the website and there you can send them an email under contact us. to me, email isn't as up close and personal as i tend to be so i'm gonna keep calling. i sure hope common sense sets in and someone in charge sees the disgrace and uproar this has caused.

 

[femurphy77]

I really don't understand how this type of covenant can be enforced. Isn't aesthetically pleasing an opinion? Kinda like one mans trash is anothers treasure! I've been trying to find the name and website of the homeowners association in question. They are the ones who should be bombarded with our letters, emails and calls of outrage. The (scumbag) lawyers are in it for a buck, they don't care what the argument is or the possibility of winning or losing, they are just plying their trade and encouraging fools to spend good money after bad. Let's direct the rage at the correct target, the board members of, and the HOA!!!

 

[Michiana]

He needs to keep fighting using the system in place.

Unfortunately it has nothing to do with right or wrong, sensible or idiotic, it has to do with legal or illegal. I have lived under three HOA’s and one Condo Association and everyone hates the rules and regulations until someone on your street brings a old junk car home and leaves it in their driveway for months with two flat tires.

HOA covenants are usually written by the developer’s attorney to protect the developer and the residents end up stuck with a lot of silly rules when the HOA is turned over to the homeowners after construction. Covenants and bi-laws can be changed but this usually involves a large majority of homeowners, often seventy percent or more to make that happen. Unfortunately most HOA’s have a problem getting a minimum percentage of the homeowners to vote at yearly meeting even using proxy votes. Apathy is alive and well in most communities.

I am sure there are a lot of residents in this community who do not have a problem with the flagpole but when it comes to doing something about it they can’t pry themselves away from their TV’s. Selective enforcement by looking the other way in this situation is as bad as denying this veteran the right to have the pole. He has decided to violate the rules he signed that he would abide by. He probably didn’t even read what he was signing which is more the norm than the exception in these associations. He should put a smaller flagpole off his house and display his flag there while using his celebrity status to get the rules changed or get the existing board voted out of office. Age is against him but I am sure he has a lot of supporters to help make the change.

 

[hornadylnl]

I can't figure out why anyone would want to live in one of these HOA's. I am surrounded by white trash. The only thing that I have a problem with is their literal trash ending up on my property. I may not like their choice of landscaping (junk cars, etc), house color, or whatever but it is their right to do with their property what they want. If you want to paint your house the other pink meat pink, that is your right. Instead, these busybody neighbors have nothing better to do than meddle in your business.