If you have a dog

[Kelena]

kalakoa,

It is easy to get this confused. If a regulation says a dog must be on a leash off of your property, it means just that. Private roads are not YOUR property. Technically, those roads belong to the association and not to any individual. The association is a separate legal entity. Persons in the association cannot, for example, take their hibacxhi and put it in the road and have a party. And they can't take their unleashed dog into the road without violating county regulations.The road belongs to the association, of which they are a part, and not to them.

See how nice I am? I do feel like flaming somebody though because I haven't had my coffee yet. So bait me again.

[KeaauRich]

Kelena,
Just a point of clarification re:who owns the roads - it varies among the subdivisions. In Orchidland,it is my understanding that the property owners in fact do own a fractional share of the roads. The association maintains them (Orchidland residents, insert your own snarky comment here...), but doesn't own them. This has no bearing on the "dogs in the road" situation discussed in this thread, but may be a consideration in other, future threads.

[Kelena]

Yes, all members have an interest in the roads, much in the way that I own, say, one share of Apple stock. Certain rights come along with that, including the right to vote on what the company should do or in the case of a road or other assocation-owned property, the right to use the road. But the company and/or the association is usually regarded as a completely separate legal entity. When you leave your driveway, you are stepping out NOT onto a road privately owned by you, but onto a road privately owned by your association, in which you have an interest.

You literally do not own the road. The Association does. That's why it is the Association that is on the hook for millions for road maintenance in HPP. And then you pay a fee to the Association, with a check made out to that association.

Not sure how it works in Orchidland. But it is common for the members of an association to be said to own a "fractional" share in a community asset, let's say a playground. That entitles you to use it. But usually ownership is maintained IN THE ASSOCIATION. When I stop being lazy, I will review my docs, but that is generally how it works.

HPP roads are nominally (that is, in name only) private as against the rest of the world. But I do not own these roads. And neither do my neighbors. The association does. Private road does not mean you can do whatever the hell you want regardless of County Regs in that road. It is not YOUR private road. It is, at best, OUR private road, owned by the entity of which we are a part.

Of course, in Hawaii, property rights are very confusing because of what I call a tribal overlay. That's another topic.

[kalakoa]

From some other thread: some "roads" are actually just a piece of real estate in the shape of a road, which is jointly owned by the users, in which case the dog isn't "off your property" until it leaves the subdivision.

Not defending the irresponsible owners here, just pointing out yet another example of the vagueness -- some of the subdivisions are developed enough that people (especially mainlanders shopping for real estate, hahaha) mistake them for a "residential area", which is mostly not the case... and as always, State and/or County will gladly take whichever side is easiest for them.

[Carey]

You would need to look at the descriptive narrative for the parcel data (most surveys include the narrative), most likely the property owned by the property owner is well defined...

There are cases in this county, where the subdivision land is commonly owned & the house structure is the real property of the owner (this is the case with the multi acre "condominium" subdivision inc. the ones in the Kaloko area...) in those cases, the property may be defined only as the house....all other lands may be the condominium property.... or it may be that there are descriptive covenants that give rights & privileges to the condominium property owners.... I seriously doubt any allow the dog to roam the entire subdivided lands...

If you find one, it would be interesting to see how the wording is....as it would seem that if a dog could roam, so could the neighbors, the kids play sets, patio furniture, workshop, pop-ups & everything else should, by your reasoning, be able to use this space

[kalakoa]

Almost; a proper condominium probably has CC&Rs for the dog.

[TomK]

Quick update on my situation - this evening while driving in and out of their driveway, my bad neighbor has been shouting obscenities. This happens when he's at the closest point to my house (I don't have the energy to describe the geography). He's either shouting at his car, a passenger or my house. I called one of the good neighbors and mentioned this. I now have the police case number, the name of the officer involved and the knowledge that the police wanted to be told if there was any retaliation or escalation of the situation.

Right now I don't know for certain the obscenities were aimed at me so haven't called the police, that might be counter-productive. On the other hand, although I think the dogs are still there, there has been no barking this evening so they seem to be restrained for now, which is all we ever wanted. The other neighbors have also switched on all their outside lights for the time being, just in case this escalates - show of support I think plus a sign that we're all on alert. Jeeze, I love those neighbors!

Carey - thanks so much for the advice you offered a few posts above. Really appreciate that. I do have one question though:

quote:

---

Definitely involve the landowner...believe it or not, if they are notified of the dangerous dog & do nothing, they, as the land owners, have liability. If there is a property management, they should also be involved... and I do mean INVOLVED. most likely the dogs are not complying with the rental agreement... most have boilerplate inclusions against dangerous/unlawful activities & if the police have been involved, most likely the lease has been broken!

---

I know every lease will have different rules, but in general if a renter breaks the lease, can they be evicted immediately or do they still have to be given notice?

I only ask because I'm trying to figure out what might be going on next door but am not planning on asking them!

Thanks again, everyone!

Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/

[dmbwest]

Maybe dey reading Punaweb ? : )

aloha,
pog

[TomK]

Pog - I truly hope they are! Maybe that'll be the way they learn how they've pissed off every one of their neighbors?

PS. Would anyone mind if I start writing "neighbour" rather than "neighbor"? You wouldn't believe how much this is screwing my head!


Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/

[Carey]

Tenants in Hawaii have a lot of tenant rights vs most of the states, and the state handbook outlines both the landlord and tenants rights & obligations.

Pages 17, 18, 19 cover this scenario - for the eviction process to begin (actually here it s a court case, the landlord must sue for possession), there may be a 10 day prior notice for correction needed, or, "The landlord may sue immediately to evict the tenant and need not give the tenant time to correct a rule violation when:
A. A tenant violates state or county laws relating to health and safety;
B. A tenant or the tenant's friend or family member purposely destroys or extensively damages the rental unit or any part of the premises;
C. The breaking of a house rule causes or threatens to cause injury to a person."

link to the Handbook (or Book of reasons on why not to be a landlord in the State of Hawaii):
http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/landlord_tena...ndbook.pdf

Added: POG, I know what you mean, when I was working for a company that was taken over by the Brits, all of the sudden there was colour, boots on cars & hospital lost the.... totally odd stuff started to happen...