Expert: Michael Troy - 8/7/2007

Question
QUESTION: Section 11.04 Signs.  No sign or other advertising device of any nature shall be placed upon any part of the Property except as provided herein.  Signs and other advertising devices may not be erected, placed or maintained on any Lot or any portion of the Common Property unless approved in writing by both the ASC and Developer as to color, location, nature, size and other characteristics.  In no instance will an Owner be allowed to erect or maintain a “sale” or “rent” sign to advertise the resale or rental of a Lot or dwelling within the Property, in the 75 foot buffer zone or along the shoreline.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer, its successors, nominees, and assigns shall be allowed to place and maintain signs in connection with identification or information anywhere on the Property and along the shoreline.

Those are the rules for the neighborhood for signs.  I've read that since it is a homeowners association if they ban 'all signs' we have to obey.  But since they allow some "unless approved in writing by both the ASC and Developer as to color, location, nature, size and other characteristics." wouldn't that make it unconstitutional?  They don't have guild lines as to what signs get approved.  No where does it say what they would approve.

ANSWER: I cannot guarentee what a court might say, but that sort of pre-approval requirement in other contexts has been struck down with great regularity.  As an attorney, I would not want to try to defend that rule in court.

- Mike



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Do you have the names of some cases (or links too em) where that sort of pre-approval was struck down?

Answer
The illegality of pre-approval doesn't come up much because it is so clearly established.  Here is a 1952 Supreme Court case that addresses the issue:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=495

I hope this helps!
- Mike