Chateau Village North Condominium Ass'n v. Jordan
CO · Colorado Court of Appeals
Member win · pets-animals
What happened
Pamela S. Jordan owned a unit in Chateau Village North Condominiums. The declaration allowed the association to prohibit or limit animals by rules; the administrative rules required written permission from the managing agent or board to keep pets. Jordan applied to keep two cats and presented a resident petition at a board meeting. The board denied the application under a blanket 'no pets except grandfathered' policy and sued for a mandatory injunction when she refused to remove the cats. The trial court granted the injunction and attorney fees. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding the board acted arbitrarily by applying a blanket ban instead of considering individual applications under the discretionary permission rule.
What the court (or agency) held
Where association rules allow pets only with written board permission—not a recorded absolute ban—the board must consider individual applications reasonably and in good faith. Denying Pamela Jordan's cat application solely under an internal blanket 'no pets except grandfathered' policy, without individualized consideration, exceeded the board's authority and was arbitrary. The court of appeals reversed the permanent injunction and attorney-fee award against her.
Why this matters for members
If the published rule is discretionary permission, the board cannot silently convert it into an unwritten absolute ban. Individual applications need good-faith consideration.
What the member did
Applied in writing, sought neighbor support, and appealed the injunction as arbitrary exercise of discretionary pet-permission rules.
Questions for the board
- Do our pet rules create absolute bans or discretionary written-permission standards?
- What individualized factors do we document when denying a pet application?
- Are grandfather exceptions applied consistently with written criteria?
Questions for a lawyer
- Did the board follow the discretionary permission rule or an unwritten blanket ban?
- What record shows individualized, good-faith consideration?
- What remedies follow an arbitrary denial under a permission-based pet rule?
Citation
Chateau Village North Condominium Ass'n v. Jordan, 643 P.2d 791 (Colo. App. 1982) (1982-01-14). Colorado Court of Appeals. Outcome chip: fair-housing hub / secondary. Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/chateau-village-north-condominium-assn-886064566
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.