Our family owns a lake property on a private lake, which is governed by an association. The land that my father purchased in 1991 is not now nor ever has been part of this association. Over the last few years that association has been creating new regulations on the lake that everyone is supposed to abide by but has never been forced to do so until this year. This year before being given our boat stickers, which show the patrol that we are property owners, we must sign an agreement. The agreement states that we must abide by all regulations, we are responsible for any of our guests behaviors, we must pay all fines against either us or our guests, and finally we must agree to allow the lake patrol the right to board and search our vessel whenever they deem it appropriate to maintain our boating "privileges." First of all, being that we are not part of the association, must we abide by any of these rules. Secondly, isn't there some kind of violation of rights involved here. I feel like this association is continually getting bolder in violating our rights every year.

Well, there are certain factors here. The main one is who owns the lake. If it is, as you stated, a private lake, then even though you may have bought property prior to the establishment of the association, the lake itself is under the control of the association. If you wish to use the lake, then you have to abide by their rules.

Other than the right of the patrol to board without good reason, I don't think the rules you cited are too onerous. They seem to be aimed at making sure everyone can enjoy the lake.

Oh yes, they are overstepping their boundaries by quite a lot. Even if it is a "privately owned" lake, all that usually means is that there is no public access, it does not mean that the citizen's of the lake replace the police & coast guard. Any and all boating regulations are set by the state/country. Sure your association can create a book of guidelines to safe boating, but demanding the right to board your boat?? Only Police or Coast Guard have that right! Also if it is a private lake why do you need stickers to identify Property Owners Boats? Shouldn't they be the only boats on the lake.

You have no obligation to join this Association, and if I were you I would start calling up some local government representatives to start the ball rolling on your personal rights & freedom's being comprimised. I am also on a private lake, where may are laying out guidelines about noise, boating, etc. But if there is ever a problem, we call the cops, not the president of the association.

Regarding the association itself, and how they can possibly think that they have the right to decide who gets boating "privileges" and deeming you responsible for your guests etc. I would try very hard to find out who their insurance provider is. All Lake Association's should have insurance, and if they do, I can promise you that their provider would be none to happy with them and possibly even pull the policy . By putting themselves in the shoes of "Lake Police" your association has effectively made themselves responsible for everyone's safety on the lake, which will make them liable for any injuries.

I have been part of Lakefront Property Owner's assocaitions before and there is always a nut or two. Sounds like the nuts have taken over your lake. Feel free to private Message me about this. I could go on forever about what they are doing and how totalitarian their actions are.

Last thought. No one controls your actions but the law! And a bunch of overzealous cottagers are not the law!

For a lake to be truly private, you better be the only one on it or be willing to deal with others. People on lakes own the property on shore. Not the lake itself. Imagine you have bought property in a gated community. "Private" so to say. You can't go to your neighbours and start demanding that everyone in the neighbourhood allow their vehicles to be searched as they use the roadways! There are certain human rights here. If his neighbours want to control everything on the lake than maybe they should find a private pond!

Yes, as the above poster said, only the police and coast guard have a right to board your boat, so that is why the association is having you sign that right away so their security guards can check for violations.

They may get around this by seeing if the local police will swear in the security as special police ( if your state has that) which gives them police power but only on that property.

But often in gated community yes residents under bylaws are given tickets by security people for speeding and other traffic violations, that are paid to the association.

But if the associatoin owns the lake, they can set the rules to who gets to use it, I think these are excessive rules to a point ( good for safety but could be abused) but I believe they may be within their legal rights to require this of anyone that uses the lake.

I owned lake front property before but was not in the association, I could not use the lake, unless I paid dues ** I could fish from my land but not have a boat dock or use a boat on the lake.

A private community can hire their own police force. They can have their own laws. I have to strongly disagree with Hundalei. I used to work for a company that developed vacation properties. They bought up the land and dammed up a stream to create a lake. The lake was private, use only for property owners, who paid dues to maintain the shared community areas. They had a number of rules for example, no gasoline motor boats on the lake.

It is certainly not onerous for property owners to be responsible for their guests. Their insurance carrier is probably behind some of those clauses.

The Constitution guarantees due process. Therefore the boarding issue would probably not hold up in court. But everything else is within the rights of the Association.

Thank You for your posts we appreciate the info. We are not necessarily concerned about most of the other regulations, however the one regarding boarding our boat is particularly disturbing to us. What would be the solution to obtaining the stickers for the boat that they require. Essentially they are forcing us to sign over our rights if we want to continue to boat on the lake. The told us at the association meeting that they will fine those of us who do not comply with all regulations including the boating stickers. If the fines are not paid they have threatened to put a lien on our property. What is the solution and can they do this. Thank you.

Thank You for ur posts we appreciate the info. We are not necessarily concerned about most of the other regulations, however the one regarding boarding our boat is particularly disturbing to us. What would be the solution to obtaining the stickers for the boat that they require. Essentially they are forcing us to sign over our rights if we want to continue to boat on the lake. The told us at the association meeting that they will fine those of us who do not comply with all regulations including the boating stickers. If the fines are not paid they have threatened to put a lein on our property. What is the solution and can they do this. Thank you.


Did anyone find out who actually owns the Lake?

I disagree with an earlier post about only the Coast Guard being allowed to board boats - that argument becomes moot once the OP signs an agreement which ALLOWS and PERMITS the Association's security officers to board boats. The other choice is (apparently) not to sign and not to use the lake.

In my area I am aware of a private lake which has now decided no jet skiis - not now, not ever. Came out of the blue BUT the lake is privately owned and so the owner gets to make the rules.

In many gated communities the community Police can and do enforce their own set of "rules." I've seen the easements for community roads cover these situations.

This is another one where I think I would consult with an Attorney - someone has to check the various title searches and easements and the OP "probably" is not the only property owner who is disgruntled.

Your options are to comply and get the stickers, or fight them in court on the grounds that they are violating Constitutional law against unlawful search and seizure and suspension of due process.

Depending on how serious they are, such a fight can become expensive. However, I think you will win, but ONLY on the boarding issue. I think the rest of the regs are reasonable.

Again, thank you for the responses. Please continue to post if you have further suggestions. The facts seem to say that we are pretty much being forced to comply. There was another man who was not part of the association at the lake who wanted to add on to his house on his own property. He first asked permission and was denied, but did it anyway. In the county of the lake you do not need a permit to add an addition to a home. The association sued him for not following the guidelines despite the fact he was not part of the association. The association has already spent 90,000 dollars trying to force this issue and the other man approximately 40,000. We don't believe that we have much of a choice in the issue anymore. We are not willing to go that far. It's real shame because we used to be able to call this place god's country because only natural law and morals were the guidelines to follow. Now these new association members have ruined it. Again, thank you and any other suggestions will be helpful.

I think a lot of this depends on who owns the lake. If it is owned by the association, then you have really only two options: follow their rules or not use the lake. You would be using it as a guest, and the owner can put any restrictions that he wants on what guests can do.

Frankly, I think you are over-reacting to some extent. As I've said, except for the issue of boarding (which, admittedly is a major issue and an anethma to me), the other regs seem designed only to protect the peace and quiet of the lake.

The issue of the guy adding on to his house, maybe the changes he was making would affect the ecological and aesthetic nature of the community. There are two sides to every story. From where I sit, I see the association trying to protect the character of the community and pleasure of using the lake. How would you feel if you were out on the lake peacefully fishing and a party boat whizzed by making a lot of noise, throwing beer cans in the water, etc. Wouldn't you want the boat owner held responsible for the actions of his guests?

Two thoughts come to mind. I would consider contacting a Constitutional Law professor at the nearest law school. Ask if they would be willing to write a letter to the association stating their opinion on the constitutionality of boarding regulation. Maybe that will put a scare into the association. Or you can contact the ACLU. They LOVE to get involved when constitutional rights are being curtailed.

All I can say is Thank the Good Lord I live in Canada where our rights & freedom's are respected. My family has been cottaging for 100 years. I have been part of our lake association for 25 years. I have never heard of anything that so violates a person's rights and freedoms, but then again I live in the True North-Strong & Free. I have asked my parents & grandparents about this post and all shook their heads laughing at how anyone could be so unreasonable or feel that they have the right to control others. Associations are there to set guidelines, not laws. If I were you Erbusch I would get the hell off that lake and cottage somewhere where your neighbours respect your rights. As for the gated community example I used, again in Canada, the only people who are allowed ot patrol and hand out tickets is the cops. I wouldn't stop for a private security guard. How do you know they just didn't slap on a security hat!

I have asked my parents & grandparents about this post and all shook their heads laughing at how anyone could be so unreasonable or feel that they have the right to control others.

I'm curious as to what you feel is so unreasonable? Or where there is actually controlling going on.

Clearly the issue of boarding someone's boat is way over the top. But other than that, what's so unreasonable? Is it unreasonable that you should be responsible for the actions of your guests? It is controlling to not allow you to use private property if you don't agree to assume such responsibility? I don't think so. I would feel more comfortable in a community that I know cares about the rights of its members.

As we informed in the last post the regulations regarding protection of the lake are in no way a problem. We completely understand and respect those decisions. However, as we also said their use of force... requiring all land owners, association members or not, to sign over their civil liberties and rights in order to obtain the right to use the water on which our land sits... is unacceptable to us. Essentially what is happening at the lake is that wealthy individuals are obtaining property and becoming board members in the last few years. These people are now trying to create restrictions that do not necessary benefit anyone and in essence take away some of our god given rights. The issue currently at hand is an issue however is not the main issue here. The main issue here is this is just the beginning. If we continue to allow this type of behavior from this association where is it going to end. What is difficult is that the association is not afraid to take anyone to court whether they will win or lose. The before mentioned case involving the main adding to his home is a good example. The association was informed prior to the case that they could not possibly win. They then turned and fired that attorney who informed them of this, hired three more, and when to court where the supreme court ruled against them. They are now continuing to pursuit this guess... and who do you think is paying for it. We are, through our annual dues which increased this year because of it. It is simply sickening. Thank you again though, we appreciate the responses. Any suggestion is helpful.

First, other than the issue of boarding, I don't see any signing away of civil liberties. Second, if you object to the changes in the association, run for the board. If you think the board is being too restricitve, get other property owners together and file a class action. There are laws that can be used to reign in an over the top HOA.

As for the other owner, tell him to sue the HOA for mailicious prosecution. If he can get an affadavits from the first lawyer and then show they continued to harass, he may be able to get his attorney costs back.

As we informed in the last post the regulations regarding protection of the lake are in no way a problem. We completely understand and respect those decisions. However, as we also said their use of force...requiring all land owners, association members or not, to sign over their civil liberties and rights in order to obtain the right to use the water on which our land sits...is unacceptable to us. Essentially what is happening at the lake is that wealthy individuals are obtaining property and becoming board members in the last few years. These people are now trying to create restrictions that do not necessary benefit anyone and in essence take away some of our god given rights. The issue currently at hand is an issue however is not the main issue here. The main issue here is this is just the beginning. If we continue to allow this type of behavior from this association where is it going to end. What is difficult is that the association is not afraid to take anyone to court whether they will win or lose. The before mentioned case involving the main adding to his home is a good example. The association was informed prior to the case that they could not possibly win. They then turned and fired that attorney who informed them of this, hired three more, and when to court where the supreme court ruled against them. They are now continuing to pursuit this guess...and who do you think is paying for it. We are, through our annual dues which increased this year because of it. It is simply sickening. Thank you again though, we appreciate the responses. Any suggestion is helpful.


Sounds like 99% of all condo boards -

I see no choice here for you other than legal action. Maybe it's a civil liberties question and an Attorney can get involved for a reduced fee on that basis.

I see no other "out" - I think the info and advice which have been posted are sound.

What I feel is so unreasonable is that the association is taking the place of the police. Why is it this man's responsibility to pay any fines that his guests might encur? For what would one get a fine? Who decides who gets fined & what if there is a disagreement as to the guilt or innocence of one's actions? This is what police and laws are in place for. This association sounds like a bunch of vigilantes.

As for private security guards anywhere, gated community, lake, whatever. Up here they are in place pretty much to scare away the unwanteds OR call the POLICE if there is an actual problem. They do not ticket, arrest, anything outside of an extreme event. After all they are only armed with a flashlight!

Anyway it is clear that not many on this post agree with me. All I know is that up here, no one owns the lake, and no one can set the rules. People can agree to guidelines, but voluntarily. To force someone to either sign something they disagree with, or take away their freedom to enjoy their property within the scope of the LAW is just ludacris. Especially when these "association rules" did not exist when the land was purchased.

Scott, the answers to your question are yes and yes, unless the laws are being broken in which case call the POLICE. Not your lake association president. It is not up to us to police each other, and doing so will lead down bad roads.


That's my 2 cents.

What I feel is so unreasonable is that the association is taking the place of the police. Why is it this man's responsibility to pay any fines that his guests might encur? For what would one get a fine? Who decides who gets fined & what if there is a disagreement as to the guilt or innocence of one's actions? This is what police and laws are in place for. This association sounds like a bunch of vigilantes.

As for private security guards anywhere, gated community, lake, whatever. Up here they are in place pretty much to scare away the unwanteds OR call the POLICE if there is an actual problem. They do not ticket, arrest, anything outside of an extreme event. After all they are only armed with a flashlight!

Anyways it is clear that not many on this post agree with me. All I know is that up here, no one owns the lake, and no one can set the rules. People can agree to guidelines, but voluntarily. To force someone to either sign something they disagree with, or take away their freedom to enjoy their property within the scope of the LAW is just ludacris. Especially when these "association rules" did not exist when the land was purchased.

Scott, the answers to your question are yes and yes, unless the laws are being broken in which case call the POLICE. Not your lake association president. It is not up to us to police each other, and doing so will lead down bad roads.


That's my 2 cents.


You did understand that this is a privately-owned lake, right? This is not Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, wherever you are. This is a privately-owned lake. No one is walking into her house and turning off her TV (or whatever).

The OP's enjoyment of her property is not being taken away - her enjoyment of the private lake may or may not be taken away. Two different things.

Buzzing around on a private lake is NOT a right, it's a privilege.

What I feel is so unreasonable is that the association is taking the place of the police.

Scott, the answers to your question are yes and yes, unless the laws are being broken in which case call the POLICE. Not your lake association president. It is not up to us to police each other, and doing so will lead down bad roads.

That's my 2 cents.

The Police have their limitations. That's why private communities employ private security. This is not uncommon, at least in the states. There is nothing wrong in that. And I see nothing wrong in a host being responsiblke for his guests.

Yes, in and around many areas, I don't know if they still have them but in metro areas there used to be armed merchant patrols that would police merchant areas. I know of manny communities that are not a city, but have private police forces.
I know of few places that have private police but the police get sworn in by a local police force as some agreement they have

But as for as signing over your rights, the HOA ( or even some housing districts in historical areas) can tell you what color you can paint your home, if you can have any yard decorations.
I know of one where you can not have a pick up truck parked outside the garage, you can not leave your garage door open longer than so many minutes and never over night. Some of the gated communities require even your guests to check with security before they can enter.

But you sign away rights when you get a drivers license, you agree to take a breath test if they request you to. And you can lose your licesne if you refuse, even if you had not had one drink.

Maybe I need to get more in dept about the lake. The lake was originally farm land. It had 26 natural springs on the property. In the 1970s the owner saw potential for profit in the land. He dammed up one end of the spring and allowed the basin of his land to fill with water. He created, purposely in the original abstract for all of the land a clause that said that all land owners could decide after 1988 whether they would remain association members. My father bought the property shortly there after in 1991. The land had never been resigned to the association and the abstract clearly states this. The original land owner since then has sold off all of the property. There is no one single property owner, or company, or group that owns the lake. We, the people of the lake, as a collective, own the lake and the association is a representation of 500 families out there. However, there are about 100 that have never signed back into the association. The problem this year is that they are intentionally trying to trick or force us into joining the association. The paperwork they sent us list 5 new rules put forth this year that we must agree to in order to obtain or boating stickers to use the lake. 1.) We agree we have a copy of the rules and fishing book. 2.) We have read and understood the rules 3.) We understand that rules apply to guests as well and they we are responsible and liable. And this is where we are really bothered. 4.) That as condition to granting boating/fishing "privileges" we agree that representatives at any time can board our vessel for inspection and failure to grant permission will result in suspension of our boating/fishing privileges for the season. 5.) That upon violations of any regulations we agree to pay all fines assessed by the association. First of all, #s 4 and 5 are of particular concern. 4 because of the boarding issue and due process and everything that we have already discussed and 5 because we believe that agreeing to this particular rule we are essentially more or less agreeing to become members of the association. This rule does not apply to regulations on water alone, but on the land that we OWN as well. In other words, forcing us to join the association when legally we do not have too. We don't see a problem with any other regulations other than the last 2. We believe that they are trying to force the remaining 100 non association members into the association. Our main point here is that we believe that the creation of this paperwork and these rules are an attempt by the association to force us in. The reason we are afraid of this has nothing to do with the lake but the fact that if we are part of the association we are absolutely forced to obide by their rules both present and future. We don't appreciate the idea of being in that position. It's a vulnerable position and one we hope to avoid. We need to know if they can legally force us off the lake if we do not agree to this paperwork with these new laws, particularly the last 2. Any suggestions are helpful and thank you again for your responses

This is different if each of several 100 land owners in their deeds all show claim to a share in the lake ( good and bad since it also makes you liable for law suits from the lake, but that is another story) But if you are by deed part owner of the lake, then I doubt they can force their rules on you If they own in whole the lake it would be different.

I would want to see the covenant that setup the association and how deeding was handled. How does your survey and deed read? Do you own the property up to the shoreline or to the middle of the lake or what? What mandate was the association given to protect the property? There are a lot of questions here. What is said about people who opt out of the association? What responsibility or obligations do they have? In a situation like this an association is a good idea, because there are common facilities that need to be tended so everyone should share.

But an association, as it often does, can get too big for its britches and oversteps its bounds or sensibility. The real problem here is clause 4. Its unconstitutional and I don't believe it would survive a court challenge. But to challenge it means violating it getting fined and then going to court over it.
Clause 5 is a concern only if it gives the association the right to impose any fine it sees fit. If there is a schedule of fines, that makes a difference.

I stand by my suggestions to contact a Constitutional Law Professor to get a written opinion or to contact the ACLU.

I am handling a case right now that involves lakeside property. I will explain how the law applies in this case and you can see if it parallels your situation.

My clients own a house and property on a private lake. Their property line ends at the shoreline of the lake. A neighboring property owner owns a portion of the bed of the lake, including that portion where my clients' property ends. My clients have an easement from the neighbor for their deck, which extends from their house (on the property line) out into the bed of the lake.

One part of the lake shore was developed into condos. The condo association owns the bed of the lake in that area. They started a lake association as well and tried to get everyone around the lake to join it. About half of the lakeside property owners are members and the other half are not. The lake association has rules and regs about using the lake but it has been established by law and court cases that they cannot control the use of the lake by non-members. As long as the non-members have access to the lake by deed (such as by owning property on the lake) then they have the right to use the lake without restriction other than state laws. That's because the lake association may own part of the lake bed, but NO ONE OWNS THE WATER.

As long as the property owner has access to the lake over property that is not association property then they can use the lake as they see fit without being subject to association rules. If they can only access the lake via property owned by the association then they have to comply with the association's rules. So the big issue here is how you get to the water.

If you can get to the water without going on association property then the association should not have the right to control your use of the lake. I suggest that you speak to a real estate attorney in your area to confirm these things and then have the attorney start writing letters to get the association off your back.

Lisa has come to the rescue here (as she often does) with a very definitive answer.

However, there still remains the caveat of enforcement. You can find local laws that back up what Lisa is saying (that if you have lakefront property, your use of the water is no subject to the association). But if the association tries to fight you in court, they will probably lose but it will get expensive.

There is also another issue. While you may have lakefront property. You may have to use association owned or maintained roads to get to that property and that may have an effect on what Lisa is saying (Lisa?).

There is also another issue. While you may have lakefront property. you may have to use association owned or maintained roads to get to that property and that may have an effect on what Lisa is saying (Lisa?).

If the association owns the roads that they use to get to their property then the type of use will be governed by the documents that grant them access. If the documents only talk about road use and nothing else then they should still have the right to use the lake without being subject to association rules.

I do understand that it is a private lake. I have been cottaging on a private lake for my entire life, and family has been there for 100 years. But as I mentioned before Private to me means no public access. Only property owners allowed. That still doesn't give any amount of property owners the right to tell others what rules they have to obey. The only situation I see any of this being reasonable is if one person owned the lake. Than they could be held liable for what people are doing on their property and would be able to set rules to prevent that. But that is obviously not the case here as there are multiple property owners.

A host can be held responsible for their guests to a certain point, but not criminally or financially. Up here we even have it in our seatbelt laws. Anyone over the age of 16 is responsible for buckling themselves up, if they do not, they get a ticket, not the driver of the car. The reason?? People cannot be held responsible for the actions & decisions of other grown adults.

And oh my goodness if Security guards have less limitations and more ability to control than the police I am scared of wherever that is true.

A host can be held responsible for their guests to a certain point, but not criminally or financially. Up here we even have it in our seatbelt laws. Anyone over the age of 16 is responsible for buckling themselves up, if they do not, they get a ticket, not the driver of the car. The reason??? People cannot be held responsible for the actions & decisions of other grown adults.

In the US, a host can be held financially responsible for the actions of their guests. Most common example is if you have a party, serve alcohol, and someone drives drunk home from that party and gets in an accident (especially one involving an innocent third party), that person can sue the host for not cutting the person off before they got drunk, and for allowing the drunk person to leave the party in that state. And yes, car drivers can be ticketed if their passengers do not buckle up.

The only situation I see any of this being reasonable is if one person owned the lake.

A host can be held responsible for their guests to a certain point, but not criminally or financially.

And oh my goodness if Security guards have less limitations and more ability to control than the police I am scared of wherever that is true.

An association is a legal entity. If the association owned the lake it would be the same as if a single individual did. You live in a town, the town sets laws like an anti-littering law. You are required to abide by that law by virtue of your residing within the town. You pay taxes to the town which goes towards paying for police officers to enforce the law. What you are missing is that a HOA has very little difference between that situation and a town. As long as the HOA is a recognized organization then they can levy and collect dues (taxes) and make laws governing use of their facilities.

If a homeowner (or town resident) doesn't like it they can move, elect different board members (town officials), file suit against the HOA or run for office themselves.

A host can certainly be made responsible for guests, I believe Canada has similar laws to what we have in regards to serving alcohol to a guest and being responsible for their actions.

Who said that security personnel have less limitations and more control? Security personnel simply enforce the rules. They are a hired police force just like the ones the town hires.

Aaah everything is so different in the US. Yes a person can be held responsible if a guest leaves their party drunk, but only if that host purchased & served them the booze, and most of us have personal liability clauses in our home insurance that protect us. If your throwing a big party like a wedding you get extra insurance to cover your butt. What you do not do is sign an agreement with all your neighbours (notice the u) that if you or guest make any noise/drink/disturb any of them that you will pay them a fine!

Anyway It seems that Lisa hit the nail on the head that I have been trying to hit. As long as you own property that has lakefront, you have right to use the lake however you please, within the law. No one owns the water. You are not your brother's keeper.

The Police have their limitations. That's why private communities employ private security. This is not uncommon, at least in the states. There is nothing wrong in that. And I see nothing wrong in a host being responsiblke for his guests.


To answer the question about who said that Security guards had more freedoms and less limitations than police.

Did I miss it or have we never heard the answer to who owns the lake? I've read a lot of this discussion and everyone is entitled to his opinion but a HOA has way more authority than Hundalei thinks and it doesn't matter what country. I think Scott pointed out early on how a developer buys property, dams up a steam and creates covenants. Those covenants are laws and they are approved by the local or state government. My association has their own building code and enforcement department above and beyond the county building department. We have the right and legal authoority to approve ot deny builing permits and plans. Judy pointed out its pretty much like a condo board, they have legal control over many of the things folks are calling personal freedom or rights. You chose to join in or not but once you are in a HOA you have given up some freedoms.

Well sorry but that is not my experience. On this side of the border the township (municipal government- which is elected!) sets the rules on building, when where and how, they set the bylaws, and the police patrol the lakes not security guards. If it were any other way I would leave. There are lakes throughout the province that have been specifically dedicated by the townships as boat free lakes, power free lakes (everyone on solar power) etc. The key though is that those rules for those lakes are set in place by government, for government owned lakes. Anyone looking for that lifestyle can go to the township find out about one of these "green" lakes and buy the property from the government. It is not an HOA or POA setting these rules. It is the government.

Ballengerb1 - You are talking about developers and developments and the rules that they set. Also about condo boards where hundreds of people can be sharing a building. Not rules for privately owned properties with individual's owning individual building's.

Also no I do not believe we have heard who actually owns the lake.

Until we know who owns the lake it is impossible to determine a final answer, so thanks for clearing that up. I own lake property and sit as a member of the HOA so I have years of direct experience. The HOA is very similar to an incorporated city, and like cities they can make laws, hire security and levy fines. I think you may not fully see the authority of a HOA or city, they can make rules for private property. If you live in a city I think your city government has established rules regarding your private property such as zoning nad building code, is this not true for you?

I do live in a city, and our elected government officials make our rules. I cottage in Muskoka and also have years of direct experience. 25 years of my own. My mother has been Membership chairman and Treasurer for 40 years, my father has been president for 20 years out of the past 40. My grandfather was president for as many years in his day, and my great grandfather started the association. I hope that outlines my POA experience enough for people to understand that what I am saying is what happens up here.

The HOA's & POA's here can only provide guidelines. Generally a lake association is to help with environmental stewardship programs, keeping the lakes clean, water testing, educating the members about pollution and environmental health of the lake, providing info on safe boating & swimming and organizing community events for everyone to come & enjoy & get to know each other. They cannot turn their guidelines into law especially regarding boating, building, or conduct of guests. Those laws are set in place and enforced by the government and police. Are your POA's for profit organizations?? Everyone's referring to them as a legal entity when I am used to them being a group of volunteers.

I'm of the opinion that all POA's should spend a lot more time on the environmentnd and let the cops deal with the rowdies & improper boat users.

I agree with your last sentence 100% and that's why I ran for board position. I wish Judy would come back and explain things from a lawyer's point. I know this will sound argumentative but it is not, HOA can make guidelines if they want but they have legal authority to create rules, regulations and laws for the common properties as well as private properties. You live in a city and the lected officials make rules and laws,how is this not exactly like a HOA. We are elected officials and we make laws. I agree we should do more environmental regulating but we are finding that people who pollute the lake don't follow rules.

I guess how a city is different from an HOA up here is that the HOA are volunteers, not for profit, not incorporated, not paid, etc. Also the HOA does not provide services like a city would - water, sewage, power, garbage pickup, mail delivery property taxes etc. This is where I see the difference. HOA should be there to help guide the homeowner's to a healthy happy life on the lake. The lake is already in a township with a government and police that have set rules. Why exactly is another one needed to do the same thing? Lobby the government and have the laws changed, why does the association need to take their place as the "enforcers".

First, When I said the police have limitations, I was referring to manpower limitations. The police, all over the world, are less concerned with preventing crime then with punishing law breakers. Its just a fact of life in a non police state. Private security guards in private development are just the opposite. They are more concerned with preventing problems then catching criminals.

The point you seemingly fail to grasp here is that an HOA or a POA is, in effect, a government. They have elected officials, they have a "constitution", they have rules that govern the use of the property they oversee. Unless they abuse the power they have, I don't see why you are so adamantly opposed to them. I'm not a big fan of them, myself. But having spent many years in a Co-op complex where my mother spent time on the Board of Directors I am familiar with both the good and bad. That HOAs/POAs do serve a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is greatly needed.

I wonder how much experience you have with HOAs/POAs, because I can't imagine they would be as hamstrung as you claim. As ballenger said, at least in the US, they can have the power of a small local govt. While most board members are volunteers, the HOA may provide a number of services like water/sewer, grounds maintenance, road paving, power, garbage pickup and more.

As to WHY they need to exist, is because the town can't provide the level of services they want. It may be cheaper and most likely faster for a HOA to fix its own potholes then depend on the town. In a large development, a water/sewer district may have been created. During the big blackout in NYC back in the 60s, my Co-op had power because we had our own generating plant. So, the HOA provides a level of service, especially in a luxury community, that residents are willing to pay for.

Lisa that was a good post. That was what we have been told before by attorneys and always believed as well about the water not being owned by anyone. However, I myself contacted the Department of Natural Resources(DNR) where I live to find out whose water it was and who governed it. They answered my by saying that it is a private lake, owned by the association, and that they govern it. However, at a sports show that we have gone to another DNR official told us that very same thing that you posted. That the water is owned by the state. The land beneath may be owned but the water is owned by the state. As far a driving to the land we own the roads were just county roads, however this last year the association gathered money to have the roads made nicer with chip and seal to stop the dust. I don't know how or why they would do that if they didn't own the roads. I think they got us there.

I agree Scott. The previous post states "HOA are volunteers, not for profit, not incorporated, not paid, etc." Except for the incorporated part the same thing can be said for a city. Our HOA is actually starting steps to become incorporated but that's not our issue here. You are totally correct to say a HOA is a level of government. I wonder if the original poster will return to answer the question of lkae ownership, that is key. In every lake HOA I have encountered the HOA owns all the way around the lake, lakelocked I guess is a term. Some folks own to the water line, others 50' of common property geenway and many just have a view but all are governed bythe Board of Directors of the HOA, POA in my case.

See guys this is the problem. We can't figure out who owns the lake. The original owner owned the property. He established an association. He allowed people to either leave or remain in the association in 1988. So much of the land never signed back into the association. He then sold off all his old land. So who then now owns the lake? We have no clue. Besides that the DNR has told us the state owns the lake, but at the same time seem to not want to get involved and say it's the associations. We can't get any answers from anyone. Early I told you about the lawyer that represented the lake that got fired. My father spoke with him and he said that they are about 95% bluff out there, so we are thinking of "testing the waters" so to speak.

I'm not against them in general. As you must have read, I have been part of one for a long time. I'm just against the ones that take it too far. You can read in my above post what I find different between an HOA and a Government. And we still have not determined if the association or the property owner has control in this particular situation. I'm going to get a little uppity here but maybe because our government actually governs and sets rules, and our police actually go out and police and that's why our POA's & HOA's do not have to turn into vigilantes! That might piss you all off, but I really do not understand the need for associations to be doing everything that government & cops should be doing. Food for thought.

First read Lisa's response. I think you will find your local laws similar to her's. But I did ask very specifically, what does your survey show. Also what are the covenants under which the HOA was established? What are its by-laws.

I agree that they are probably a lot of bluff. Anyone who thinks they can establish rules that countermand the Constitution (due process, unlawful search and seizure) is truly bluffing or has delusions of grandeur.

See guys this is the problem. We can't figure out who owns the lake. The original owner owned the property. He established an association. He allowed people to either leave or remain in the association in 1988. So much of the land never signed back into the association. He then sold off all his old land. So who then now owns the lake? We have no clue. Besides that the DNR has told us the state owns the lake, but at the same time seem to not want to get involved and say its the associations. We can't get any answers from anyone. Early I told you about the lawyer that represented the lake that got fired. My father spoke with him and he said that they are about 95% bluff out there, so we are thinking of "testing the waters" so to speak.



Someone, some place knows who owns the Lake - the tax assessor, it's on a title search, someone -

I think, yes, I would line up some other people to test the waters (so to speak... ) but I think it could be expensive.

Lisa's "opinion" is without a doubt the one to go with - she's handling a similar situation and she never, ever posts off the top of her head. If she posts it, she knows it.

Are there really cities out there that are not for profit? You must be kidding me right? And the Mayor is a volunteer? He doesn't get paid? No one working for the town gets paid?? Come on now. What about the essential services. Nobody mentioned an HOA providing sewer services yet?

As opposed to your situation I have never encountered a lake where the association owns the land. This is actually the first time I had heard of this. Up here, you own the land or the government does.

As for you Erbusch I wish you the best of luck It sounds messy & complicated being that the DNR can't give you the same answer twice.

but I really do not understand the need for associations to be doing everything that government & cops should be doing.

No one is saying they should be doing "everything", but its clear that HOAs/POAs exist to provide a level of services beyond what local govt can provide. Lets use anoither example. Would you expect your town to mow your lawn? If you had a pond on your property, would you expect the town to kep it clear of algae and other plants? Of course, not, that would be your responsibility. In a development, there are common areas that need to be maintained, that's why you have a HOA.

The POA and HOA issue gets complex because they can run a muck and be a pain if a few bad folks get elected. However that does not change the Boards legal autthority. The POA is needed because there frequently is no city around these lakes. In our lake the DNR does own the lake but we have authority to make rules regarding the use of the lake such as speed, size of boat, number of boats per property. DNR will not ticket people who break our rules so we have our own security who can. Our laws must be as strick or more strick than the state or DNR laws. If they say 50 mph is OK we can say no, only 40 mph. We can not say 60 mph is legal.

See guys it just different up here. The town does provide everything we need. I wouldn't pay my taxes if it didn't. The police do actively patrol the waterways. We have a boater's license so that everyone behind the wheel is trained. The police put up speed limit signs on our lakes. Also would like to mention that there is no large city nearby. It is a rural area, but that doesn't mean the town gets to slack out on our roads etc. When there is a private road that needs to be cleared/repaired then the occupants of that road pay for it. Not the whole lake.

Yes Scott, anything on my own property I would be responsible for. As far as common grounds, if on private land ( although common area on private land sounds like an oxymoron to me) than yes it would be great for the HOA to get together and keep it clean. But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish. As I stated before Environental Stewardship should be the main purpose. Also my lake does not have a common area. It is all privately owned properties & cottages, no parkland, so I do not have experience in caring for the common land. I actually have never seen privately owned common land. Up here, especially in cottage country the land is either privately owned or it is crown land (government owned). All of our parkland is government cared for.

Not only do I cottage in Muskoka but I also live on a small kettle lake here in the city, we have 2 associations on the city lake, both entirely geared to environmental protection. Check out www.musselmanslake.com or Clear Lake Property Owners Association (http://www.clearlakemuskoka.com) to see what Canadian POA's are all about.

As far as common grounds, if on private land ( although common area on private land sounds like an oxymoron to me) than yes it would be great for the HOA to get together and keep it clean. But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish. [/quote]

In the Co-op I grew up in, there were several playgrounds such as basketball courts, swings, etc. These playgrounds were all within the boundaries of the complex. The playgrounds were built for the use of the Co-op residents. So they were common ground in a private development. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for you. If a swing broke or a basketball hoop bent, then fixing it came under the Co-op's maintenance budget. This gave the board the right to establish rules about the use of the playgrounds. If someone was caught vandalizing playground equipment, then they could be held responsible.


But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish.

That's anarchy. According to you, it would be OK if someone decided to use a grassy lawn to try out his new ATV. I'm sorry, if you think you are totally free, you are sadly mistaken. We all have constraints on our lives. Put there by governments, parents, bosses, religion etc. including HOAs.

As far as common grounds, if on private land ( although common area on private land sounds like an oxymoron to me) than yes it would be great for the HOA to get together and keep it clean. But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish. [/quote]

In the Co-op I grew up in, there were several playgrounds such as basketball courts, swings, etc. These playgrounds were all within the boundaries of the complex. The playgrounds were built for the use of the Co-op residents. So they were common ground in a private development. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for you. If a swing broke or a basketball hoop bent, then fixing it came under the Co-op's maintenance budget. This gave the board the right to establish rules about the use of the playgrounds. If someone was caught vandalizing playground equipment, then they could be held responsible.


But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish.

That's anarchy. According to you, it would be OK if someone decided to use a grassy lawn to try out his new ATV. I'm sorry, if you think you are totally free, you are sadly mistaken. We all have constraints on our lives. Put there by governments, parents, bosses, religion etc. including HOAs.

What can I say other than long live the "True North Strong & Free". And I apologize for not putting the words "within the law" after my comment about "common people being free to do what they wish in common ground", like I have after every other post I have put up here but thanks for putting words in my mouth about using common ground to go wild & destroy stuff. Obviously I mean within the law. Also Government owned parklands do not allow motorized vehicles at least here they don't. It is well signed at each park. Right under the sign that tells you not to walk your dog without a leash. Oh yes, and if anyone anywhere was caught vandalizing property they would be held responsible for it. But is it up to the POA. No. Call the cops, let them deal with the vandalizers & then fine them. Establishing guilt though the proper channels seems like an important thing to me and not something a POA would be trained or have the right to do.

Anyway this has gotten way off topic and it appears we will not be agreeing anytime soon. So I leave you with this.

The constraints on my life are set by me & my government, not my next door neighbour.

The constraints on my life are set by me & my government, not my next door neighbour.

I was going to just leave this be until I read that last comment. Because I think it goes to the heart of what you refuse to accept. A HOA/POA is NOT your neighbor putting constraints on your life. It's a representative of an organization that you CHOOSE to join, either overtly or by force of your use of the faclities under the control of the association. You want to live in development or building under the auspices of an HOA/POA, then you agree to abide by their rules. Its your CHOICE!! You don't like their rules, you don't by the house or apartment or whatever.

Oh, by the way, since you are championing Canada as "True North Strong & Free". I have to point out something that is part of Canadian case law. Are you aware that, if someone is caught shoplifting in a store, the store is allowed, in addition to criminal proceedings, to impose a fine of $300-$500 against the individual? This is without any due process or court trial or anything other than the store security (not the police) catching the person.

Doesn't seem like Erbusch has much of a choice now does it? Nor does it seem likes he wants to live under the auspices of an HOA/POA? He can't even get a straight answer as to who has control of the land(this is my biggest issue of the whole thing... how can you buy land tha is under under someone else's control, CONDOS EXCLUDED we are talking about cottages here). It sounds to me like he wants to enjoy his property like a normal law abiding citizen, without having rules & regulations crammed down his neck by an association he does not belong to.

You are right, I refuse to accept your point. I will never understand how POA's have gotten to the point where you are calling them a level of government. Where they are able to enact laws. I sure hope everyone on this side of the line will allow cooler heads to prevail, and not go down that road.

Oh, by the way, since you are championing Canada as "True North Strong & Free". I have to point out something that is part of Canadian case law. Are you aware that, if someone is caught shoplifting in a store, the store is allowed, in addition to criminal proceedings, to impose a fine of $300-$500 against the individual? This is without any due process or court trial or anything other than the store security (not the police) catching the person.


Does that even sound reasonable to anyone? Nothing happens without due process. In order for that fine to come into place they have to prove you were guilty and you have to admit it. If they have proof, they ask you to sign a form admitting your guilt, and attesting as to what took place. Then they are usually nice and let you off with a fine, and an agreement that you will not return to the store. Loads of people will admit to what they did and pay the fine to avoid a criminal record, HOWEVER, if you do not admit to your guilt they cannot make you pay a fine. Security will call the police and it will go through the legal system. If you are found guilty by a court of law, then yes they can make you pay a fine to the store, for cost of security, lost product, etc. Thanks for the laugh though.

And I'm done with the posting. Happy weekend everyone.

This scenario I'm going to give is how I see what is happening. My family bought a house 20 years ago. 20 years pass by without anything irregular happening in the neighborhood. However, over the years some snob neighbors have moved in. Now they represent a majority in the neighborhood and decide to create a neighborhood association. They abide by the laws of the state yes, but attempt to impose they're will on the rest of the neighborhood regardless of how the people that have been living there for 20 plus years feel. They attempt to impose rules that violate your civil rights, and threaten to use the very system that should be upholding our civil rights against us in a law suit. They may not win, however the simple fact is that the majority of the minority here cannot drop 100 grand on a case like this This obviously is not completely accurate of the situation at the lake but I'm sure this can help you all understand how we feel about the situation.

This scenario I'm gonna give is how I see what is happening. My family bought a house 20 years ago. 20 years pass by without anything irregular happening in the neighborhood. However, over the years some snob neighbors have moved in. Now they represent a majority in the neighborhood and decide to create a neighborhood association. They abide by the laws of the state yes, but attempt to impose they're will on the rest of the neighborhood regardless of how the people that have been living there for 20 plus years feel. They attempt to impose rules that violate your civil rights, and threaten to use the very system that should be upholding our civil rights against us in a law suit. They may not win, however the simple fact is that the majority of the minority here cannot drop 100 grand on a case like this This obviously is not completely accurate of the situation at the lake but I'm sure this can help you all understand how we feel about the situation.


If this is correct you have a civil rights lawsuit and Attorneys LOVE to get their teeth into violations of civil rights. Skip the private Attorney and go to someone who handles Civil Rights.

My neighborhood has an association - I don't belong. No particular reason, I just don't like the whole Big Brother concept. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. If they want to get together every couple of weeks and pretend they are Police Officers, that's fine with me.

I do need to correct a statement I made earlier regarding DNR owning my lake. Checked with my GM and she reminded me that the lake is part of the common property owned by the POA but the state and DNR have legal authority on navigateible waterways.

I never thought of what happens when people get together to try to form a POA. The ones I have dealt with all existed from the git go and were created by the original developer. I would not want to create one if it did not exist, they are a pain, that's why I ran for the board, to kick off some goofball who had a Napoleon complex.

They attempt to impose rules that violate your civil rights, and threaten to use the very system that should be upholding our civil rights against us in a law suit.

That's why I've been suggesting contacting the ACLU.

Does that even sound reasonable to anyone? Nothing happens without due process. In order for that fine to come into place they have to prove you were guilty and you have to admit it. If they have proof, they ask you to sign a form admitting your guilt, and attesting as to what took place. Then they are usually nice and let you off with a fine, and an agreement that you will not return to the store. Loads of people will admit to what they did and pay the fine to avoid a criminal record, HOWEVER, if you do not admit to your guilt they cannot make you pay a fine. Security will call the police and it will go through the legal system. If you are found guilty by a court of law, then yes they can make you pay a fine to the store, for cost of security, lost product, etc. Thanks for the laugh though.

Check the case law, I forget the exact cite but its from Hudson Bay Company.

I am sorry if you feel it is not fair or right, but Scott is merely telling you what they do under civil law there. Stores have the right to impose their own penalty without going though the criminal courts ( although money do both) The store will at times allow the person the chance to take care of it though civil process, paying the amount allowed

If the person does not want to pay, and wishes to be sued in court, then yes they have their right to refuse to pay. But that does not stop the stores right to charge it without any additional due process

I understand to a certain extent. But a store having the right to place a fine does not in any way mean they will collect if a person disagrees without "due process". Either a person signs a form admitting guilt and paying the fine or the go through the justive system. Either one is a process is it not? It is not just a store saying hey we suspect you of this and now hand over $500 whether you agree or not. There is a legal process to fines happening either by admission signed or by court verdict.

I understand to a certain extent. But a store having the right to place a fine does not in any way mean they will collect if a person disagrees without "due process". Either a person signs a form admitting guilt and paying the fine or the go through the justive system. Either one is a process is it not? It is not just a store saying hey we suspect you of this and now hand over $500 whether you agree or not. There is a legal process to fines happening either by admission signed or by court verdict.



This has turned into a debate on a message board, complete with posts being pulled - maybe it's time to end the thread. It's no longer legal advice and it's into arguing what people can or cannot do, the powers of the Police and so on.

And I thought you said good-bye, you were leaving... yesterday.

Post Closed