In the board’s discretion: Enforcement of pet restrictions
The most significant legal authority in Georgia regarding pet restrictions is the Georgia Court of Appeals case of King v. Baker. The case is also extremely important in setting forth the broad discretion and authority of an association’s board of directors.
The facts of the case begin with the Kings purchasing a house on two acres so they could build kennels and breed dogs. Unfortunately for the Kings, however, a restrictive covenant recorded against their newly purchased property stated that no animals, other than a reasonable number of generally recognized household pets, could be kept on the property and that no structure for the housing of any animal would be allowed. The covenants additionally stated that the subdivision’s control committee, which is akin to a homeowners association’s board of directors, had the discretion to determine whether a number of animals on a property was reasonable.
Nevertheless, shortly after purchasing the property, the Kings built twelve permanent kennels with concrete pads and six-foot chain link fencing for a pit bull and sharpei breeding business. The pens were visible to their next-door neighbors, the Bakers. The Kings additionally had eight to fourteen dogs on the property. As you can imagine, the Bakers were not too happy with this situation. The Bakers tried to resolve the covenant violation with the Kings and through the subdivision’s control committee, but when that was not successful, the Bakers sued the Kings. During the litigation of the case, the trial judge ordered that the Kings could keep no more than two dogs on their property and that all kennels, concrete pads, and fencing were to be removed. The Kings appealed.
The Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and pointed out that the restrictive covenant stated the subdivision’s control committee was to determine in its discretion whether the number of animals on a particular property was reasonable. The appellate court explained that the covenant plainly vested the decision as to what was a reasonable number of dogs in the discretion of the committee and in no one else. The trial judge thus could not enlarge upon this right by making a determination of two dogs as being a reasonable number of household pets on a property. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the mere fact that the control committee had not acted in determining a reasonable number of dogs did not give the trial court authority to act for the committee. Accordingly, the part of the order and injunction prescribing the number of dogs the Kings could keep was set aside by the Court of Appeals. The case was then remanded back to the trial court in order for the subdivision’s control committee to determine a reasonable number of dogs that could be kept on the Kings’ property.
The King v. Baker case is extremely important because it not only established the enforceability of pet restrictions, but it established a strong precedent for the authority of a subdivision’s control committee, which we often encounter as an association’s board of directors, to enforce use restrictions. The case thus cemented that trial judges may not circumvent the authority of a board or committee and institute their own discretion in matters specifically delegated by the governing documents to the board or committee.
As in King v. Baker, most planned communities have restrictions concerning the way property may be used, including, but not limited to, pet restrictions. The ability to enforce those restrictions in the reasonable discretion of a board or committee is paramount to the successful operations of a community.