Opinion
No. CV03 040 47 38 S
October 16, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
The plaintiffs are unit owners in the defendant Northbrook Condominium Association, Inc. and seek a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing an enactment providing that leashes for dogs shall not exceed 20 feet in length. The plaintiffs assert that the declaration of condominium provides that dogs shall be restrained by leash or other comparable means and that the limitation of leashes to 20 feet constitutes an amendment to the condominium declaration and that such an amendment requires a vote of 66 2/3% of the unit owners. The plaintiffs therefore assert that the limitation of leashes to 20 feet was enacted by the Board of Directors and therefore is invalid and cannot be enforced. The plaintiffs further assert that they own a dog who is accustomed to playing frisbee in a secluded area of the condominium association and that the limitation of a leash to 20 feet would prevent them from exercising their dog in the manner in which they have done in the past.
In considering such a request, the court proceeds with caution because a temporary injunction, is not generally appealable. Stamford v. Kovac, 228 Conn. 95, 99 (1993) "A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of the court, granted at the outset or during the pendency of an action, forbidding the performance of the threatened acts described in the original complaint until the rights of the parties respecting them shall have been finally determined by the court . . . The plaintiffs, to be entitled to such relief, must show: (1) probable success on the merits of their claim; (2) irreparable harm or loss; and (3) a favorable balancing of the results or harm which may be caused to one party or the other, as well as to the public, by the granting or denying of the temporary relief requested." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleet National Bank v. Burke, 45 Conn. Sup. 566, 570, 727 A.2d 823 (1998). Our Supreme Court has impliedly acknowledged that the requirements for a temporary injunction are (1) the plaintiff had no adequate legal remedy; (2) the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury absent and injunction; (3) the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits; and (4) the balance of the equities favored an injunction. See Waterbury Teachers Assn. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 230 Conn. 441, 446, 645 A.2d 978 (1994). The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and protect the moving party from immediate and irreparable harm until the rights of the parties can be determined after a full hearing on the merits. Rustici v. Malloy, 60 Conn. App. 47, 56, 758 A.2d 424, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 852, 762 A.2d 903 (2000). A trial court is afforded broad discretion in deciding whether to issue an injunction. Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., 239 Conn. 515, 534, 686 A.2d 481 (1995). Bruno v. BBC Corp., 202 Conn. Sup. 646 (J. D. Ansonia/Milford) (Grogins, J.)
Article 9(e) of the declarations provide, in part, as follows:
except that dogs, cats or other household pets not to exceed one per unit may be kept in the units subject to the rules and regulations to be adopted by the Board of Directors . . . All such dogs, cats or household pets shall be restrained by leash or other comparable means and shall be accompanied by an owner at all times.
The minutes of the Board of Directors meeting indicates that a pet rules clarification was unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors and accordingly the unit owners were notified by letter that the word "leash" contained in Section 9(e) of the declarations was not defined and accordingly the Board of Directors had therefore adopted a "clarification" which provides in part that "Leashes or comparable restraints for dogs, cats or household pets shall not exceed 20 feet in length."
In Meadow Bridge Condominium v. Bosca, 187 Mich. App. 280, 466 N.W.2d 303 (1990), the court noted, at page 281, "that a rule or regulation is a tool to implement or manage existing structural law, while an amendment presumptebly changes existing structural law." In Beechwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, 448 So.2d 143 (Fla.App.) the court adopted, at p. 1144, the following test "provided that a board enacted rule does not contravene either an express provision of the declaration or a right reasonably inferable therefrom, it will be found valid, within the board's authority."
In article 9(e) of the declarations acknowledge that rules and regulations may be adopted by the board of directors with respect to household pets kept in the units. The use of the word "restrained" is not defined in the declarations. The enactment of the 20-foot provision is certainly not inconsistent with the use of the word "restrained" in the declarations and appears to the court to be implementing the intent contained in the declarations that animals be "restrained" animals.
Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction is hereby denied.
William B Rush, Judge
10/14/03