"Pets" are not service or comfort animals under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). Community residents or prospective residents claiming a disability and desiring to keep a certain "pet" in contravention of a community's "no pet" or "pet restrictive" policy or rules will generally assert, however, that under either or both ADA or FHAA the community must alter its policy or rule to allow a pet as a reasonable accommodation. Evaluating whether an animal is truly a pet or qualifies as a service or support animal requiring a reasonable accommodation can be complex and confusing and should be undertaken seriously, methodically and objectively with the community's counsel. A wrong guess could be costly. Thus, in all cases where either ADA or FHAA may apply, to avoid possible ADA violations the ADA service animal test1 should be applied first. This is because if the animal qualifies under ADA as a service animal it must be permitted to accompany the disabled resident in all areas where persons are normally allowed to go. If the animal does not meet the ADA service animal test, community management must then evaluate a reasonable accommodation request under FHAA statutes and regulations.

Question. Our community is updating our rules and regulations. Should we include anything about the use of drones flying over people's backyards? Can this be controlled for privacy's sake?

Civil Law. On the civil side (as opposed to the criminal side) of the law, the common law tort concepts of negligence, assault, invasion of privacy (applying the "reasonable expectation" test), and nuisance, still apply, as does the law of trespass to real property. In such cases, the plaintiff would have a right to sue for damages. However, with only limited exceptions, prevailing attorney fees are not available.

Airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), regulates airspace, including that which is above private land. So knowing the state, and federal laws, is critical before using drones.

Conclusion. As you can see, most of these prohibitions are found in one form or another, without the necessity of being addressed in your community rules. However, given their ubiquitous presence, especially by folks who are just hobbyists, I do suggest having some rules. Why? Because if someone was using a drone for their own prurient interests, e.g. flying over someone's fenced backyard, or for harassment purposes, it's far easier for management to take action against the perpetrator for a rules violation, than it is telling an offended or harassed resident to file a lawsuit or criminal complaint.

[1] Oregon law also identifies "critical infrastructure facilities" for which it is a violation of the law to fly a drone over them at an altitude of under 400 feet.

[2] All of which are addressed in the 2016 law.

Question. Our community is updating our rules and regulations. Should we include anything about the use of drones flying over people's backyards? Can this be controlled for privacy's sake?

Civil Law. On the civil side (as opposed to the criminal side) of the law, the common law tort concepts of negligence, assault, invasion of privacy (applying the "reasonable expectation" test), and nuisance, still apply, as does the law of trespass to real property. In such cases, the plaintiff would have a right to sue for damages. However, with only limited exceptions, prevailing attorney fees are not available.

Airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), regulates airspace, including that which is above private land. So knowing the state, and federal laws, is critical before using drones.

Conclusion. As you can see, most of these prohibitions are found in one form or another, without the necessity of being addressed in your community rules. However, given their ubiquitous presence, especially by folks who are just hobbyists, I do suggest having some rules. Why? Because if someone was using a drone for their own prurient interests, e.g. flying over someone's fenced backyard, or for harassment purposes, it's far easier for management to take action against the perpetrator for a rules violation, than it is telling an offended or harassed resident to file a lawsuit or criminal complaint.

[1] Oregon law also identifies "critical infrastructure facilities" for which it is a violation of the law to fly a drone over them at an altitude of under 400 feet.

[2] All of which are addressed in the 2016 law.

On July 26, 1990, President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") were shortly thereafter developed to guide new construction and alterations undertaken by covered entities. The ADAAG establishes the minimum requirements for "accessibility" for disabled persons in buildings and facilities and in transportation vehicles. Your state may have passed parallel laws which may tend to increase the protection of individuals with disabilities, however, this article focuses on Federal ADA compliance.

The eviction process can be daunting to those landlords and managers who rarely, if ever, have been involved in the unpleasant task of trying to remove a tenant from a community. An eviction (formally known as a "forcible entry and detainer" or "FED") is an expedited legal procedure designed to allow landlords to obtain possession of their property through the court system.