Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Interpretation of Covenants


dbpc2000

Recommended Posts

Who interpets the covenants? Our government documents do not discuss interpetation if documents are not specific or not clear.

Problem: Two renters want to use the lakes & they were denied access by the previous board. The previous board's position is that the covenants would need to be changed. ( I know the process to do this )

The new board feels that our documents are unclear and they feel that Renters are guests of the owners. Paying guests but guests non the less. They also feel that all rights of owners regarding use of common areas should pass to renters. Actually, Renters are allowed to use all other common areas/ ammenities except the lakes.

In the past, prior to the previous board renters have been allowed to use the lakes. In fact. one of the present renters had been using them for almost a year and they took their boat out , then weren't allowed to bring it back in.

Our Covenants state:

USE OF LAKES AND CANALS. The Owners of property in the Subdivision, and the guests of the Owners, may utilize the lakes for any lawful purposes, subject to rules to be promulgated by the Association.

Motor driven boats operated in the lakes shall not exceed idle speed within 150' of any shoreline. The Owners of property in the Subdivision shall not operate motor boats in canals in or adjacent to the Subdivision at other than idle speed. Boats shall not be anchored in lakes overnight, but may be moored to docks overnight. Boats shall not be used as overnight accommodations. Any boat left in the lakes or canals shall be maintained in good condition and good appearance. The lakes within the Subdivision are for the exclusive use of Lot Owners and their guests. Owners shall not operate or maintain in the canals boats with a fixed draft in excess of the draft allowed by applicable governmental permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who interprets the covenants?

Two answers.

1.) If you (i.e., your membership, your homeowners, etc., whoever comprises the organization) had drafted this document ("covenant"), then you, collectively, are to interpret your own rules. It is a unique document of your own creation. All its wording got there by majority vote (or a greater vote).

2.) If the document you mention ("covenant") is legal boilerplate, not drafted by the organization, but drafted by another party, and imposed upon on you, then the document is probably a legal document of some kind, and will require a legal professional to interpret it.

Q. Who wrote up your covenant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who interpets the covenants? Our government documents do not discuss interpetation if documents are not specific or not clear.

Problem: Two renters want to use the lakes & they were denied access by the previous board. The previous board's position is that the covenants would need to be changed. ( I know the process to do this )

The new board feels that our documents are unclear and they feel that Renters are guests of the owners. Paying guests but guests non the less. They also feel that all rights of owners regarding use of common areas should pass to renters. Actually, Renters are allowed to use all other common areas/ ammenities except the lakes.

Is there any language in the covenants that explicitly states this, using the word Renters, and as such differentiating between "paying guests" and non-paying guests?

In the past, prior to the previous board renters have been allowed to use the lakes. In fact. one of the present renters had been using them for almost a year and they took their boat out , then weren't allowed to bring it back in.

Well, here's a case where language can be tricky, and I know this is your own text, but I read this that the renter was allowed to take his boat out on the lake, and was not allowed to "bring it back in" to the shore. This would of course be silly, because by so doing, the renter is stuck using the lake as a penalty for using the lake. I doubt that is what you meant, but it could be interpreted that way. Just an example of how careful choice of words to express an accurate thought can be difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's a case where language can be tricky, and I know this is your own text, but I read this that the renter was allowed to take his boat out on the lake, and was not allowed to "bring it back in" to the shore. This would of course be silly, because by so doing, the renter is stuck using the lake as a penalty for using the lake. I doubt that is what you meant, but it could be interpreted that way.

I think you should interpret the text in the way that makes the most sense, not the least (see p. 570). So I think we can assume that, after using the lake without objection, a renter took his boat out (of the lake), and then was not permitted to put it back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should interpret the text in the way that makes the most sense, not the least (see p. 570). So I think we can assume that, after using the lake without objection, a renter took his boat out (of the lake), and then was not permitted to put it back in.

Yes, that would be sensible. However, if you're going to interpret and assume, I think that illustrates the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any language in the covenants that explicitly states this, using the word Renters, and as such differentiating between "paying guests" and non-paying guests?

No, the word Renters is not used anywhere.

Well, here's a case where language can be tricky, and I know this is your own text, but I read this that the renter was allowed to take his boat out on the lake, and was not allowed to "bring it back in" to the shore. This would of course be silly, because by so doing, the renter is stuck using the lake as a penalty for using the lake. I doubt that is what you meant, but it could be interpreted that way. Just an example of how careful choice of words to express an accurate thought can be difficult.

hmmmm. yes, I see. Of course, I meant the renter took their boat out of the community and wasn't allowed to bring it back in.

Thanks for all your replys. They are so much apprecitaed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...