# Veteran's Flag Flying May Evict Him **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510 "2003-09-14T04:35:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PlanMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PlanMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlanMan)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/21 "2003-09-17T01:24:10Z")
As I recall from earlier stories, he is not being evicted for his flag pole, but the HOA is going after his property to pay THEIR lawyers for the legal expenses involved in trying to get him to take down the flagpole. So if other home owners put up flagpoles, the HOA could not simply evict (or foreclose) them for the poles, but to recoup the HOA legal expenses in trying to get rid of the new flagpole people. This is the relevant Florida law: > [@](#): > > 720.304 Right of owners to peaceably assemble; display of flag.– > (1) All common areas and recreational facilities serving any homeowners’ association shall be available to parcel owners in the homeowners’ association served thereby and their invited guests for the use intended for such common areas and recreational facilities. The entity or entities responsible for the operation of the common areas and recreational facilities may adopt reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to the use of such common areas and recreational facilities. No entity or entities shall unreasonably restrict any parcel owner’s right to peaceably assemble or right to invite public officers or candidates for public office to appear and speak in common areas and recreational facilities.\*\* > (2) Any homeowner may display one portable, removable United States flag in a respectful manner, regardless of any declaration rules or requirements dealing with flags or decorations.\*\* > (3) Any owner prevented from exercising rights guaranteed by subsection (1) or subsection (2) may bring an action in the appropriate court of the county in which the alleged infringement occurred, and, upon favorable adjudication, the court shall enjoin the enforcement of any provision contained in any homeowners’ association document or rule that operates to deprive the owner of such rights. A think the “flag display” part was passed in 2002, as a result of, if not this particular case, others very much like it. So it looks like he’s covered on having the right to fly the US FLAG. However, the issue of recovering legal fees seems to be the issue now. Is it “right” for the HOA to seek recompense for legal fees for an action they would - now- be prohibited from taking? Even tho’ they began this action before the law was enacted? [sub]i hope this appears, and only once, the hamsters have been eating my posts[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/22 "2003-09-17T01:29:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ricksummon \* > \*\*Apparently, being a “member” doesn’t give him or his neighbors any say in the policies or decisions of the HOA. Otherwise, why would his neighbors sue? They’re “members”, but they’re obviously not suing themselves; they’re suing the guy who makes the decisions. \*\* In a sense, they are suing themselves. As members they get to vote on “the guy who makes the decisions.” Most of the time, there’s an elected governing body of some sort. The members of the association may be in the minority, at least of those who vote. I don’t know if all these people have been attending their homeowners’ association meetings or not, but they should have been doing so. Bear in mind that if there are financial consequences – the cost of a lawyer to respond to the suit, for example – this will be paid for out of every member’s dues. ---
**Author:** ![Jervoise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d2c977/32.png) [@Jervoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jervoise)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/23 "2003-09-17T03:02:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Contractual law CAN “supercede” Constitutional law. I have had to sign non-disclosure agreements as part of my work. That means I have voluntarily surrendered some portion of my freedom of speech under contract. This contract would be upheld and supported all the way to the Supreme Court. The Constitution does NOT impose limits upon private associations the same way it imposes limits upon the government. That’s why I can legally ask damnable proselytes to get off my property and stop practicing their “freedom of religion” on my land. \*\* Help a foreigner out here. You surrendered your “freedom of speech” under contract? I was unaware that you have a right to freedom of speech as enforceable against anyone BUT the government. To my (uneducated) eye, it would appear impossible to surrender a consitutional right to freedom of speech to a private organisation since that right is restricted to freedom from government intervention. Since you (correctly) state that “the Constitution does NOT impose limits upon private associations the same way it imposes limits upon the government”, how then can you claim to “surrender” a portion of your Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom to a private entity? (I understand your main point, however: (with exceptions) statutes can most assuredly be excluded by contractual dealing.) ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/24 "2003-09-17T04:25:40Z")
I have surrendered “absolute” freedom of speech when I sign an NDA. This “absolute” freedom of speech is that same “freedom of speech” that does not apply to libel, slander, etc. The problem is that the poor fellow to whom I responded can’t seem to separate “absolute” freedom of speech from what is actually Constitutionally protected. This is a common mistake in the USA. My right to play loud music ends when my neighbors call the cops to enforce the nuisance noise ordinance. My “absolute” freedom of “speech” has been curtailed without violating Constitutional guarantees of “freedom of speech”. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/25 "2003-09-17T13:09:02Z")
Exact same situation happened here in Richmond. The courts held: 1. The property owner was informed, upon purchasing the house, that there were restrictive covenants associated with the property. He was given a copy of them as part of the full disclosure and closed on the property, indicating that he was aware of the covenants. 2. The covenants are legally binding between the property owner and the HOA. 3. The property owner is required to abide by the covenants. 4. The property owner failed to abide by the the covenants and was sued by the HOA. The HOA is entitled to have its legal fees paid by the property owner. These cases are really very, very simple. ---
**Author:** ![Jay\_Belanger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Jay\_Belanger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jay_Belanger)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/26 "2003-09-17T13:29:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 'possum stalker \* > \*\* > America consists of: > … > \*\* That was an impressive description. Well said!!! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/27 "2003-09-17T14:15:56Z")
Another question here is that of who actually owns the land where this guy is parking his flagpole. The HOA apparently maintains it - he said in the linked article that the HOA said it would cost more to cut the grass around the pole. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/28 "2003-09-17T14:52:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PlanMan \* > This is the relevant Florida law: > \*\* (2) Any homeowner may display one portable, removable United States flag in a respectful manner, regardless of any declaration rules or requirements dealing with flags or decorations How is this even constitutional? It seems to me it’s saying, “Rules against expression in certain formats are fine, as long as you agree ahead of time to those rules. But if the **content** of expression is something we like, then rules against it aren’t fine.” I’d love to see someone display a portable, removeable flag with an airbrushed picture of Axl Rose on it in their front yard, and defend themselves using this clause; on what basis could the legislature defend a statute that only allows freedom of expression if you’re expressing patriotic thoughts? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/29 "2003-09-17T15:47:08Z")
From the OP’s link: > [@](#): > > ANDRES: (snip). But the United States Supreme Court has ruled on a case very similar to this in 1995, and said anything that you do on your private property with flags and signs are an expression of your feelings, which is covered under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which I feel is my right to put it up underneath the Constitution, even though the state of Florida has rules that say you can put it up, the top line is the Constitution. I thought that that was funny. Feelings. I can just see the daytime lawyers’ commercials now. “Tell the insurance companies you have a constitutional right to your feelings, sue now!” Anyway, **PlanMan’s** cite of the Florida law regarding Flag usage and rights seems to support the defendant’s claim. Regardless of what the HOA has contracted, the Florida Law looks like it directly supercedes that rule. The defendant (and I don’t care if he’s veteran, a president or a muppet, the law needs to apply blindly) planted his portable flag 5 years ago (based on the assumption that when he said in the link that he’s been fighting this for 5 years). The law cited above is said to be from 4 years after this started. IMHO, the homeowner was purposefully ignoring this contract for the first 4 years and needs to reimburse the HOA for the legal expenses for at least those years. He knew he was going against the contract. He apparently didn’t chose to lobby to have the contract changed or lobbied unsuccessfully. (I think i’m just regurgitating what **plnnr** said, though…) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/30 "2003-09-17T17:46:38Z")
Another question here, especially for any lawyers and so forth in this thread. Let’s suppose the HOA rules _do_ allow for “display [of] one portable, removable United States flag in a respectful manner”, but just not from a flagpole. (For instance, for all we know, they might allow a flag to be mounted on a bracket on your outside wall.) If that were the case, would this HOA policy pass muster with the FL statute, or would the guy have the right to pick the _specific manner_ of his respectful display of the flag? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510/31 "2003-09-18T01:51:02Z")
From my understanding, the flag rule occured AFTER he joined the association. Not sure how that fits into the legal scheme of things. Personnally, I would buy 10,000 flag bumber stickers and give them out to the neighborhood kids. FYI, his legal expenses might get paid for by a fund raiser from the Hannity show. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterans-flag-flying-may-evict-him/201510.md?page=1)