Turudic v. Stephens dba Susan Estates Residents’ Association
Oregon Court of Appeals
31 P.3d 465 (2001)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Andy and Luisa Turudic (plaintiffs) moved into a low-density residential subdivision, and proceeded to build a sturdy, secure outdoor pen for their two pet cougars. William Stephens dba Susan Estates Residents' Association (defendant) considered the cougars an unreasonable threat to community safety. The association's board charged the Turudics with violating the subdivision's restrictive covenant against nuisances, a term that specifically excluded the "normal or reasonable use" of property for residential purposes. The Turudics made a reasonable offer to address the board's safety concerns by adding security features to the cougars' pen, and applied for a permit to do so. Without explanation, the board denied the Turudics' request and ordered them to tear down the pen and get rid of the cougars. The Turudics sued to prevent enforcement of the removal order. The trial court found that there was no objective basis for considering the cougars unsafe or a nuisance. However, the court also found that keeping cougars was incompatible with residential use and upheld the removal order. The Turudics appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haselton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.