Approving buyers under certain conditions - Posted by Keith (OH)

Posted by Nate-WI on September 30, 2005 at 20:59:30:


Are you a PM or selling this home with park approval? Was it legal? I say this. Was it in your agreement? If so then that stands. If not then you have left yourself wide open. Another thing…if a guy has a terrible history with dogs and you tell him that they are not allowed to have any…do you think this guy will listen? I think not. He will either “hide” his pet (how the hell I don’t know) orrrrrrr…he will just flat out get a dog and let it run wild and scream “The park rules say I can have pets!” You say,“Whooooaaa buddy we had an agreement that you couldn’t have any pets, remember?” Owner of the ankle biter says,“No I don’t know what the hell your talking about. I’m within park rules so kiss my grits!” Ok I’m having a little fun here but you get my point? If its a trend then most likely it will continue. Happy dog hunting,


Approving buyers under certain conditions - Posted by Keith (OH)

Posted by Keith (OH) on September 29, 2005 at 21:40:59:

I was running some checks on a couple interested in purchasing a home. Everything looked good (well as good as I expected) except the guys criminal check turned up a handful of “dog” offenses. “Failure to control”, “Dangerous dog”, “Dog not on leash”, etc.

I went ahead and approved them under the condition that they do not have any dogs in the home during the term of the loan. Pets are allowed in the park. Today I started to wonder if that was legal ?
Does anybody else tighten their rules depending on the buyers history ?

Please chime in .


Re: Approving buyers under certain conditions - Posted by James

Posted by James on October 01, 2005 at 01:50:35:


I have responded to such posts on other sites, and I believe here as well explaining the foundational legal system components which spawn your question, and then I shall answer as well.

We live in the USA, obviously, and our traditions and foundations come from the English systems of various forms. Included is the English common law, which is most conducive to a free people. One other system which is erecting some confusion for you is a Napoleonic code.

In the English Common Law, you are free to do those thing which are not expressly forbidden. In the Napoleonic system, the thing you do must be approved in the code, or upon appeal to the Great God Government.

This is where your question is spawned…since you have not seen/done/experienced contractual dog control before, and never have researched it, you start to belive you may not be legal, while it certainly is legal.

No law draws up contracts for parties. You are free to add ANY addendum that is not illegal, such as, lets say, killing the offender (by either party), discriminating on religious or national origins or etc. These things cannot be overridden by contract. RIGHTS are another matter. The dog is a property (dog) ownership rights issue. The parties may certainly give up their rights, and they do it all the time. In the final analysis, in fact, that is all a contract ever is, an agreement to abridge rights by the respective parties.

You may not discriminate on SOME basis’, and you may not overide that by contract. On all other items of issue between parties in a contract you may discriminate, and erect punishments WITHIN the law, however you may agree on the terms. Examples of contractual permissive disrimination are smoking/notsmoking, children/no children, cars by number, hanging drying clothes outside, and etc. This issue is simply a pets allowed/not allowed isssue.

I, myself, live under a contractual limit on my gun ownership. I have freely given up SOME of my gun ownership rights voluntarily, so as to meet the terms of a couple of contracts. I now live within those limits on my rights. I may still own gun(s), however, within stricter limits than I had before I contracted my gun ownership right away. My state is more permissive than I have voluntarily contracted myself into, with respect to my rights.

I recommend that the limit you contracted to be reduced to writing. Writing a paper is NOT a contract, it NEVER is, although well meaning people with good intentions may disagree. They are simply wrong. It is only a good evidence of a contract. A contract exists when a meeting of the minds occurs, and the parties agree.

If you have a contract with the gentleman who is proven to not voluntarily limit his appetite for dog ownership I suggest you erect some proofs of the contract, and then attempt to get it written as this delusion that written cotracts limit him shall probably be most effective in limiting his greed and irresponsibility.

To whit;
If not written, then I would find out the 12 states of the USA which are 2 party states for wiretapping (easy to google), and if you are in a 1 party state, then call him and have a gentle reminder conversation about dogs. He must notoriously, and vigorously DENY such a restriction was in agreement or he agrees to the contract by acquiesence.

If you ARE in one of the 12 2 party states, I would call and annonce the taping, then get verbal agreement that it is ok, then have a long conversation about the various contractual terms, including the dog clause, and add a few punsihments, and find those he agrees to.

Then simply transcribe the conversation, and send it to him for signature, as this will mean something to him. Include a copy of the tape. If he signs or not, the contract exists when agreed to. Remember, this not a RE contract that is verbal, it is taped by law.

What I find interesting is that you have not put any teeth into the clause. You must, in future, add a financial and property punishment to any violation. I suggest that if the dog owner iver gets ANY dog on the property, you are to recieve $100 a month for ALL MONTHS of the contract. Additionally, you are allowed to call animal control and remove any animals found (sign a POA to this effect at closing), and or/ you may physically remove them and surrender to the SPCA at the owners expense, BESIDES your charges.

I suggest you do this with all car parking on any yard space, as I do. I simply suggest that my tenants do not need to TELL me they want me to tow off their cars, the simply SHOW me in a method we have agreed in writing is proof of their wishes; they park the car on the grass. That alone, when added and notorized to the contract is the proof I need to tow with a tow truck. If you fear a tow company may not do a tow, then get their wording suggestions.

Your second question is certainly germaine as well. While checks are legal, you may certainly agree to sell to a person with bounced checks in his/her history by agreeing that no checks are acceptable. You can even limit the payment options to a single type of instrument.

My favorite being Gold Coin, although this is too obtuse to get the average persons’ mind around mentally. The fedreal and state income tax consequences, however, are enourmous.