Andy wrote:

Actually where iam from Maine you would be held accountable as well as
you gave him help or advice in doing something you know is against the
home owners rules. for where he lives. they could take him and you to
court or he could just take it down and they do nothing

I'm offering no legal advice, but I strongly suggest you see a competent
lawyer admitted to the bar in Maine about this. It's hard to see just how a
3rd party not contractually bound to the terms of a CC&R can be reached
legally. There's no cause of action available with the possible exception
of an attorney who completely mis-understood and gave really poor advice
about Maine law, advice so poor that it constitutes malpractice.

The property owner of property subject to a Covenant, Condition or
Restriction can be reached legally under contract law, but not others.
CC&Rs are treated as contractual obligations even if truthfully, most people
don't realize they're entering into such a contract.

I'll be honest, I don't see how a 3rd party can be sued under existing US
law over a contractual obligation of another. If Maine has such a legal
system, I'ld be really shocked.

On Feb 20, 9:15�am, Art Clemons wrote:

I don't see how a 3rd party can be sued under existing US
law over a contractual obligation of another.

I'm not a lawyer either.

But it *might* be possible to go after the thrid party legally if and
only if it could be shown that the third party knew of the existence of
the contractual obligation from the beginning, and willfully conspired
with the property owner to violate it.

But that's a very hard thing to prove in many cases.

For example, suppose A hires the B Fence Company to put up a fence on
A's property, in an area where fences don't require building permits or
inspections. A tells B where to build the fence.

But it turns out that A misunderstood where the property line is, and
the fence is built on C's property. (C was away from home and doesn't
see the fence until the job is done).

I don't think C can sue B over the fence; instead, C has to go after A.
C can also remove and sell the fence - it is now C's fence because it
was built on his property. A still has to pay the B Fence Company
because the contract is between the two of them, and as long as B built
the fence where instructed by A, that part of the contract
wasfulfilled.

Not an exact analogy but you get the idea.

While I'm not a lawyer, things like this prove the need for thorough
research before signing anything. Being told at closing that there are
CC&Rs is way too late, IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
While I'm not a lawyer, things like this prove the need for
thorough research before signing anything. Being told at
closing that there are CC&Rs is way too late, IMHO

Which goes back to my original point behind all this.
We as Amateur Radio operators must take the time to
fully research a piece of property before we buy it.

And we've got to understand that having a license does
not give us a free pass on violating signed contracts.

Sadly, I see way too many "Look how I got around the CC&R
I signed with my stealth antenna installation."

Seeing these repeatedly published in a national magazine
makes me wonder if there's actually some tacit approval of
this.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi


--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.â€
�
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com