0

Colorado house bill 21-1310 was signed on 2021-07-01 and became law. It limits the rights of HOAs to regulate flags and signs. Specifically it says:

THE ASSOCIATION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE , CONTENT - NEUTRAL SIGN REGULATIONS BASED ON THE NUMBER, PLACEMENT , OR SIZE OF THE SIGNS OR ON OTHER OBJECTIVE FACTORS.

Based on the news articles about the law at the time (9News) (Westword) it seems to me the lawmakers who wrote it intended to force HOAs to allow at least some signs, but I know what lawmakers intend and how courts interpret them are often not aligned.

My question is: Is a blanket ban on signs "reasonable", my guess is that no one knows yet and it will have to be litigated. What would that ligation look like from an owners perspective? (e.x. Owner is told their sign violates policy, owner refuses remove sign or pay fine, owner sues HOA (possibly with the help of the ACLU) for violations of HB 21-1310, court decides definition of term "reasonable" in context of that lawsuit)

1 Answer 1

1

Reasonable has been defined for almost 200 years

It is those actions that a fictional reasonable HOA would take in the circumstances.

In the context of a law that allows restrictions on signs by number, placement, or size a blanket ban is likely to be unreasonable.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .