What counts as a pet?

Question

Consider a hypothetical home owner's association (HOA) with deed covenants that restrict use of the property. Suppose one of the deed convents says the owner can have only two pets. What I am wondering what counts as a pet? For example, I would think a dog or a cat would be a pet. Would tropical fish be considered a pet? What about a mechanical dog? I am hoping that somebody can give me a precise legal definition of what a pet is.

Answer 1

I am hoping that somebody can give me a precise legal definition of what a pet is.

You are out of luck. No one can do that if it is not defined in the HOA governing documents.

If the term "pet" is not defined in the governing documents of the HOA, then the courts will look to the plain meaning of the words and the intent of the drafters of the governing documents as inferred from the HOA context and the nature of the rule and the larger scheme of the governing documents. Does anyone know why it was adopted in the past and how it has been applied in this particular HOA? Any local municipal ordinances regulating pets could be relevant (or even take the issue away from the HOA definition of a pet to the legality of a particular kind of animal in the land use zone and local government jurisdiction where the HOA is located). Landlord-tenant cases over pets could be relevant (but often few such cases generate binding case law precedents).

Generally courts are guided in choosing an appropriate definition by the apparent purpose of a governing document provision using the term.

An HOA board will generally be given deference in trying to define it in a rule by a court if the interpretation is not grossly unreasonable. The reason for the rule articulated by the HOA could also influence a court's interpretation.

There are going to be some cases that are easy: cats and dogs are pets. Mechanical dogs are not pets. Pet rocks are not pets. Girlfriends and children are not pets. Stuffed animals are not pets. A teacher's favorite student who is singled out for favorable treatment is not a pet in the HOA context.

In all likelihood, if there is no definition, the drafters of the governing documents never even considered any cases other than the easy cases.

There are going to be other cases that are not easy: fish, turtles, ants, spiders, birds, ferrets, snakes, lizards, alligators, chickens, wolves, coyotes, big cats, bears, raccoons, cows, and sheep.

If there is a hunting season for it, it is probably not a pet. If it is kept for food or skin or wool, rather than companionship, it is probably not a pet. But non-pet animals might be prohibited for some other reason.

The way the issue presents itself will also matter:

• Is it a court case to declare an HOA rule invalid?
• Is it a dispute over an HOA fine imposed?
• Does it involve an HOA assessment?

The less well defined a term is, the more a fact rich context for the dispute over the meaning of the term, and procedural context matter.

Often, in an HOA, it is better to convince members of the HOA board that you are correct before litigation even begins. Propose that the HOA board adopt a rule that has a definition that you like before the issue gets to the point of litigation and lobby board members and your neighbors to vote for it.

Answer 2

canada

There is no precise legal definition of a pet (or for that matter, any particular term) in the abstract. Covenants are interpreted based on ordinary contract principles. This means that the meaning of a term, such as "pet" will be determined in light of the context, purpose, and the surrounding circumstances of the contract. See Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 33, paras. 48–58.

Answer 3

france

TL;DR: it is hard to prove a negative, but I believe there is currently no definitive definition of what a pet is for the purpose of landlord-tenant law. I suspect that no real-life case will ever hinge on that definition ("if a tenant keeps it, it is a pet"), but cannot prove so.

Preliminaries about applicable contract rules

HoA rules, renting agreements and the like are subject to article 10 of the law about renting:

Sauf dans les contrats de location saisonnière de meublés de tourisme, est réputée non écrite toute stipulation tendant à interdire la détention d'un animal dans un local d'habitation dans la mesure où elle concerne un animal familier. Cette détention est toutefois subordonnée au fait que ledit animal ne cause aucun dégât à l'immeuble ni aucun trouble de jouissance aux occupants de celui-ci.

Est licite la stipulation tendant à interdire la détention d'un chien appartenant à la première catégorie mentionnée à l'article L. 211-12 du code rural et de la pêche maritime.

Except in short-term rentals, a clause that forbids keeping an animal in a home is void ab initio if it concerns an "animal familier". The animal must however not cause damage to the building or trouble its occupiers.

Clauses specifically forbidding the keeping of [attack dogs] are not void.

Hence, you are allowed to keep an animal familier regardless of what the contract says, except attack dogs which may be disallowed. Animal familier is probably best translated as "pet" in English, but the whole question is about definitions, and there are subtelties.

What are the various kinds of animals, legally speaking?

Legal sources

There are (as far as I could find) only two legal definitions that somewhat approach the definition of an animal familier:

• There is a ministerial decree listing all species and sub-species of domesticated animals, and deeming all other animals to be wild for the purpose of the environmental code.
• There is one article of the rural and sea fishing code that describes what an animal de compagnie is: "any animal kept or destined to be kept by humans for pleasure".

There is a non-binding government FAQ page which gives more details, including that "a tame animal (animal apprivoisé) is not necessarily a domesticated animal" and "a pet (animal de compagnie) is not necessarily domesticated, or even tame". Though non-binding to dispute between private parties, government interpretations might still be treated as persuasive in a court. Astute readers will note that even if we take those definitions as legally binding, they still do not define the animal familier!

Note that the list of domesticated animal includes most common pet species, but not all. For instance, there is no serpent on the list, even though it is a relatively common choice of exotic pet.

Probable interpretation

In common language, any animal de compagnie is an animal familier. It is not true the other way around, because animaux familiers include cattle, which is kept for food, wool etc. rather than for pleasure.

I am therefore tempted to put forth the following syllogism:

1. any animal de compagnie is an animal familier
2. the animal kept by the renter is an animal de compagnie (*)
3. therefore, the animal kept by the renter is an animal familier

The problem is that (1) is a bit of a bait-and-switch. Any animal de compagnie that a reasonable person could think about will be an animal familier, but if we are in court arguing about all this, it is probable that the tenant has chosen a fairly exotic pet. It may be argued that this animal is not an animal familier under the broad understanding of the term. Then we go back to arguing what an animal familier is.

(*) I would be entertained looking at a court case where a tenant keeps a cow or sheep (as a source of revenue rather than companionship) in a small Paris flat, but I doubt any such court case will ever occur.

Realistic case

If the HoA or homeowner takes legal action, it is going to be because other tenants complained. In such a case, it does not matter whether the animal is a dog, serpent or extradimensional entity - it is causing trouble to the neighborhood and can justify eviction of its owner.