what you can build on how far your septic system has to be from the water supply along a doc can be that you can't raise horses on your property a fairly specific provisions in the covenant system what you can or cannot should be considered i think is another important issue and one that maybe wasn't discussed enough in the briefs that was raised which is that typically when you have a declaration recorded it will tell you specifically what is the private property of the owner and what are the common elements as they're discussed in the case usually it will say something like the areas we might have sidewalks or open areas it was a park and say that's a part of the common elements and here's how we status of the lakes given that this is the only record a document affecting their their right of use is that and you want to but in the proper injuries riparian rights to use them and the only restriction to the use of the lake is the  judge because i think it's unclear if it's i mean is it an association that managers who slate or is it the association that manages the real property of oh what's the about you and that's the language in paragraph ten of the covenants is the only existing language the only record language because any indication that there is an association so there is nothing that i believe that it was strip mined ok and then eventually when it was developed it was converted into a lake all right so it's not even mentioned right period right it's not a part of the navigable water i believe it's was referenced by the trial court's recent legislation on the way the community interest association act which was discussed in the briefs both of those things define what an association is and and oath and i think all he's law explains that an association is created by the recording of a document that creates the association and they have a restriction on property which is really what these associations ours and it was for ization whose job was to restrict  novo here makes them more in the water the only of the only thing that and that you're wire is the reasonable use of the letter right if if my client has the right to use the riparian rights to use it then i believe the only restriction would be in rights i think my plan is standing in the law is that everyone has equal access to water that would have both their property to the extent that they're not unreasonably infringing on the rights of others to use that body of water that's that's  the reason i made that statement and that was my argument but for the association they have any authority to demand my client from use of the lake to assess fines to assess fees things like that there would need to be authority recorded against his real property there would need to be some kind of declaration that they've given the authority to do that it might be that the association cannot prevent my client from using the lake but there's another third party that cook if there is ownership vested somewhere else which is not a record but my claims like of ownership and as if it were believes his lack of my carrying rights would restrict his use that still would not empower the association to do so and what we're asking for is a declaratory judgment that indicates that this is so ca ssion does not have the authority to ban my client from using the letter and their arguments have then this declaration of and that was recorded as given  implied powers this is so c ation to take that action and i think that the case laws fairly clear that these columns need to be construed strictly against the restriction on property and that without without the authority specifically in a recorded declaration association cannot act and cannot restrict someone's otherwise lawful use of their property or their other property rights so what can we do that if we don't know who it's like i believe the quirk in declare that the association does not have the authority to restrict my plans use of watercraft by virtue of the recorded declarations and governs because if there was the authority to do that they would have to be in agre and put it in the water under threat and this organization is going to let me fines against him file a lawsuit try to specifically and join him from taking this action so as part of my complaint and i i believe that all parties  original developer or if it was conveyed at least there's no evidence that it was conveyed any particular person or corporation that we know of so i i understand the concerns of standing with that implied power i'll start regulating the use of a watercraft on the lake any more than it in a restricted decorations christmas time on someone's personal property because it simply isn't provided for in the covenants and there isn't anything in the commons as they can make those kinds of rules which i think would be found in almost every other declaration that would be reviewed and in the present in the other case law so there's no rule making a all real estate his property i would agree that there are typically treated much differently in recorded public declarations and that there's a higher threshold to meet when you're regulating the use of private property but i think north re either first of all you have to establish that it is a common element of which i don't think the declaration provides and secondly of whether some kind of filmmaking authority by an association whose existence i think is implied and not specifically created by association act and that was an accident i think in two thousand and ten which requires that these documents be recorded right but i thought there was a prior statute that required that that th and that it in force and amended these rules many times since the property was purchased and these rules are designed to promote safety on the waterways and prevent overcrowding and use and they exist for the benefit of all members of the pounds argument i've heard is that because the companies were silent because the couple companies did not specifically say you can do this for that there were limited to what's in there and you cannot make rules and regulations but issues affairs can one only have fifty boats and probably in squeeze everybody out you have to be a balance between competing up to the one in where can we waters and you know where we fish somebody has to play the policeman and in this case the police van is the homeowners association and they had vastly easier shoes and as a common interest community they had that reasonable forum to regulate again common areas and there's no question here waterways  the area over which the association how are you not is basically entire subdivision when they sell copies individual glass that's what the owner own all the lakes are part of the general description included documents common interest community as imply power without reasonable rules to govern the use of common property and that's what we're talking about now we don't want to infringe of i'm just repeats right on his own property a common property because of our community and we need to work together on six point seven the calmest of that was david crystal clear that even in the absence of expressed grant of authority like we have here an association enjoy ok basically this is what of that's exactly but it's a party barge that hollow function right ski boat and you know if this was lake michigan then there might be different again they're the results of the rule of never been tested if it's not an issue in this case and in the end if it's not a problem even though there's no case law that that specifically said homeowners association has and by authority there ownership and even though that the companies were silent as to that was challenge them one of the important thing to me in that case is the court does have a general discussion about the difference between  question i have asked this question earlier own and i believe that you said when you first started out that the association started like four years forty years ago yes and that according to statute among other things that communities like this oh um at some point have to bring themselves into conformity that with the requirement that there be a lot of rules and bylaws that my point is if someone has threatened to sue me for use of of any piece of property and i believe i do have a right for whatever reason i'd like to resolve that issue before i buy the boat and put myself at risk of having a lawsuit filed against me else i think really like variance in cases something i cited in my reply brief is that deals with the restrictions of common property if if if it's someone who built a deck on to the common property and the court in that case all of that because the recording covenants did not specifically define that area as own property couldn't regulate it could regulate his use of the dugout and that's where the analysis of the court and was that the these these are creatures of recorded documents they can only do what is contained in the record of doctrines that's the limit of their scope of authority in if there isn't a specific grant of authority they can't act in these recorded covenants do not allow for this organization association or club to prohibit anyone's use of this lady in that regard the i think the for the library my brief and i think maintained by paying these fees so you shall maintain membership by payment so well i think it says that i think you it could be interpreted to mean that if you doesn't pay it his membership will be terminated but he is shunning tainted by payment but if payment isn't named then he's no longer a member but it can also be interpreted to me give the review so see which i think is is the issue that is most important is whether or not this organization can take the action at the front and i think and i think that they can't because there's nothing in the covenants that allows for them to take that action regrettably which has been made obvious from this whole argument that perhaps we should have discovered who holds title to the lake and what restrictions there are specifically on on these lakes