Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! Not All Animals Will be Considered Household Pets Under Illinois Law.
Not all condominiums and common interest communities permit owners to have pets. In fact, some community associations have no pet policies in place. However, when a condominium or common interest community association does allow owners to have pets, the pet policy contained within the association’s governing documents should be clearly stated, as to avoid the possibility of multiple interpretations. Although the Court ultimately ruled against the owner as it pertained to his specific pet, the court’s decision in Lakeshore Hills, Inc. v. Adcox, 90 Ill. App. 3d 609 (1980) highlights the importance of having well-drafted pet policies in place.
Background: Owner Has Pet Bear
Ed Adcox purchased his lot in a subdivision in 1979. By purchasing a lot in the subdivision, Mr. Adcox was required to comply with the restrictive covenants which were recorded against the lot. At the time Mr. Adcox purchased his lot, a restrictive covenant existed that permitted residents to keep only household pets on their property, not those raised for commercial purposes. However, the term “household pets” was not defined. As such, Mr. Adcox proceeded to keep a 12-year-old, 575-pound Canadian black bear as a pet.
In 1980, after Mr. Adcox purchased his lot, the restrictive covenant was amended to specifically exclude from the category of “household pets” bears, as well as certain other animals, such as lions and pythons, “usually found caged in a professional zoo.” After the amendment took effect, the development where Mr. Adcox’s property was located filed a lawsuit against Mr. Adcox, seeking a preliminary injunction from the Court, ordering Mr. Adcox to remove his pet bear from his property.
At the trial in the case, the trial testimony disclosed that at least one other resident kept an unusual animal, a creature part wolf and part dog. The testimony also revealed that the other residents were divided in their feelings toward Mr. Adcox’s bear; Mr. Adcox’s direct neighbors had no fear of the bear, whereas other neighbors did. At trial, it was disclosed that Mr. Adcox was an experienced animal-keeper and kept his bear in a cage within a cage. Mr. Adcox testified that his bear was gentle and had no animosity toward humans, including young children.
At trial, the focus of the case was not on whether the restrictive covenants were enforceable, but rather whether the bear’s presence violated the restrictive covenant that was in place at the time Mr. Adcox purchased his lot. After the trial, the court ruled against Mr. Adcox and found that having a pet bear violated the restrictive covenant that was in place at the time Mr. Adcox purchased his lot in 1979, and that having a pet bear constituted a potentially dangerous situation. Mr. Adcox appealed the trial court’s ruling.
The Appellate Court Rules Against Mr. Adcox
The Appellate Court found that the trial judge correctly ruled that the bear’s presence violated the restrictive covenant, which was in place when Mr. Adcox purchased his property, even though at that time, the term “household pets” was not defined. In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Appellate Court found that although only the amended version of the restrictive covenant (passed in 1980) expressly excluded bears, the language contained in the original restrictive covenant limiting pets to “household pets” was narrow enough to exclude bears. The Appellate Court ruled that a bear is not a domestic household animal and the potential threat of harm to the public outweighs any inconvenience to Mr. Adcox. In its ruling, the Appellate Court stated as follows:
The trial court simply acknowledged that it is contrary to the nature of people to live with or in the immediate vicinity of bears. It is likewise contrary to the nature of bears to live in a cage in a yard busy with the incidents of suburban life. The injunction seeks to recognize the normal propensities of each. The bear, named Yogi, lacks claws, fangs, and is a fifth-generation captive. Yet Yogi is a bear and not a domestic household animal.
Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Why This Case Matters for Condominium and Common Interest Communities
Pet policies should be clearly written within the condominium or common interest community association’s governing documents to avoid any uncertainty among owners. Although the court in the Lakeshore Hills, Inc. v. Adcox case ultimately found that the bear was not a “household pet,” the phrase “household pet” was still open to interpretation, as it was not clearly defined. By having a clearly defined pet policy in place, it provides clarity to all owners and potential owners as to what pets will be allowed within the community. Furthermore, having a clearly defined pet policy in place enables the Board to enforce the pet policy with more confidence knowing that the pet policy and enforcement action would more likely be upheld if ever challenged in court by an owner. Pet policies should include language pertaining to restrictions on pet types, pet sizes, number of pets, along with rules for pet registration, leash requirements, waste disposal, nuisance behaviors, and liability of owners for damage or injury caused by their pets. Simply put, the goal for any pet policy should be to avoid ambiguity.
At Hirzel Law, PLC, we regularly advise and assist condominium associations and common interest communities in reviewing, revising, and/or drafting pet policies. If your condominium association or common interest community association would like a thorough review of its pet policy, or have a new pet policy prepared, please contact us for assistance.
