Hidden Hills Community, Inc. v. Rogers
Louisiana Court of Appeal
869 So.2d 984 (2004)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Hidden Hills was a residential community that was subject to certain building restrictions. One of these restrictions was that property owners in the community were required to keep their properties “reasonably neat and clean.” Frank Rogers (defendant) owned a house in the community. Rogers had painted his house with unusual colors in an unusual design and had some decorations hanging from trees on his property. In late 2000, however, the quantity and character of the items Rogers placed outside of his house changed. Roger put thousands of objects around his house, including plastic bottles, political signs, appliances, lawnmowers, animal skulls, toilets, caution tape, banners, and many other bizarre items, placed on the ground, elevated on poles, and suspended from trees. After the neighbors complained to the Hidden Hills community board (the board) (plaintiff), Rogers put even more items outside. The board sued Rogers in September 2001 for violation of the “reasonably neat and clean” provision in the community’s building restrictions. The trial court held in favor of Rogers, determining that the state of Rogers’s house did not violate the restriction. The board appealed. During the appeal, Rogers claimed that the restriction had been extinguished as to his property by prescription.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gremillion, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
