Jodi And Timothy Burr Sued By Homeowners Association To Remove Sign Supporting Son In Marines

It hasn't been a banner year for the Burr family of Louisiana, and now they are being sued by their homeowners association for flying a frontyard sign supporting their son who's in the Marines.

The Gardens of Southgate property owners group in Bossier City, La., filed a lawsuit against Jodi and Timothy Burr this month because the couple has refused to take down a streamer that reads "Our son defends our freedom" and that violates the neighborhood's ban on signs.

The development's covenants stipulate that "[n]o sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot." But Jodi Burr told The Huffington Post that she's had signs outside her home since they arrived in 2006 without any problems, and that other neighbors have gotten away with breaking the rule in the past.

"The restrictions have been in place, but not enforced at all," the 41-year-old public school teacher said. "I try to stay away from the word 'discrimination,' but there is definitely selective enforcement of the covenants."

She and her husband installed the professionally designed sign in January to honor their 20-year-old son Corey, a lance corporal in the Marines deployed to combat in Afghanistan.

"They don't know what's in a mother's heart to have a son deployed," she said. "It was very difficult for me ... The best way for me to deal with it is to have an outward display of our pride. We have not received one single piece of criticism about our sign."

The war over words began in February, when the homeowners groups sent the Burrs a letter telling them to take down the 3 feet by 6 feet banner praising Corey. But there was no mention of the two other signs already in the yard that said things like "Burr Family Est. 1990," according to Burr.

The homeowners group apparently sensed that they were staking an unpopular position with the salvo, because the letter said the group "appreciates the message on the sign," according to court documents.

The attorney representing the Gardens of Southgate declined to be interviewed, but told the HuffPost via email that his clients have not singled out the Burrs.

"The [homeowners association] is consistently asking others to remove signs -- as recently as the last two weeks they have sent letters to two residents on the same issue," Geoffrey Westmoreland said. "Information being disseminated to the contrary is simply not accurate."

Quick Poll

Should the family be forced to take down the sign?

Yes! Rules are rules.

No. Get off their lawn!

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Pro-bono lawyers Lane Pittard and Bill Kindig are representing the Burrs, who feel that the homeowners association is attacking their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.

The Shreveport Times reported about the lawsuit on Saturday.

The controversy is unfolding in an area with many active members of the military and veterans. The town is near Barksdale Air Force Base in northwestern Louisiana, and the homeowners group estimates that at least 25 percent of residents in the subdivision "are military."

But they didn't back down from pressuring the Burrs to remove the sign. Shortly after the first letter, the group sent a delegate -- who happened to be an active Air Force member -- to meet face-to-face with the family and find out why the sign hadn't budged.

That confab ended in an impasse however. A series of letters flew back and forth with the homeowners association demanding that the sign be taken down while the Burrs requested meetings to resolve the dispute and possibly change the rules created by the developer.

The homeowners association president T.K. Mastny -- who is also the president of the Republican Women of Bossier -- didn't return calls from The Huffington Post.

Comments

[Lou Irmisch]

12:50 PM on 08/26/2011

My dad put a huge sign in his front yard for my first leave home from Afghanistan (I'm talking the big yellow ones that they put out in front on grand opening stores.) My dad's neighbor complained and took him to court, it lasted all of five minutes when the people who live across the street and the neighbor on the other side of my dad's house came up and handed the judge receipts from their portion of the sign (the thing cost like $1k and they all pitched in since I went to school with their kids and they wanted to do something cool). My point in all this is how many of the neighbors are actually complaining and how many are damn proud to have a Marine on their block? To the Burr family SEMPER FI!

[ForVivi]

06:10 PM on 08/05/2011

For those who say, "Rules are rules":

Somehow many have forgotten about the "spirit of the law" and are enslaved and enslaving in the name of man-made rules, which are imperfect. Somewhere I heard that "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath". I believe that if we don't recover our compassion, we will lose our humanity.

[Hacked Ewe]

04:32 PM on 08/02/2011

Here is some information, the personal names of the Registering Agent and Directors for THE GARDENS OF SOUTHGATE ASSOCIATION, INC.:

Domicile Address:
6850 KLUG PINES ROAD
SHREVEPORT, LA 71129

Mailing Address:
C/O WILLIAM L. MAYFIELD
P.O. BOX 5369
SHREVEPORT, LA 71135-5369

Registered Agent(s)
Agent: WILLIAM L. MAYFIELD
Address 1: 6850 KLUG PINES ROAD
City, State, Zip: SHREVEPORT, LA 71129
Appointment Date: 2/25/2005

Officer: BRIAN DEAN MAYFIELD
Title: Director
Address 1: 6850 KLUG PINES ROAD
City, State, Zip: SHREVEPORT, LA 71129
Phone: [phone]
Other Address: 9402 Stonebriar Cir, Shreveport, LA 71115

Officer: WILLIAM L. MAYFIELD
Title: Director
Address 1: 6850 KLUG PINES ROAD
City, State, Zip: SHREVEPORT, LA 71129
Phone: [phone]
Other Address: 9402 Stonebriar Cir, Shreveport, LA 71115

Officer: B. BRUCE SIMON (also a licensed residential builder)
Title: Director
Address 1: 1014 NORTH POINTE CIRCLE
City, State, Zip: SHREVEPORT, LA 71106
Phone: [phone]
Other Address: 1034 N Pointe Cir, Shreveport, LA 71106

[Andman0121]

11:24 AM on 07/31/2011

You can't have signs in your yard. This is very simple.

[KJLSanDiego]

01:29 AM on 07/30/2011

As much as I want these parents to be able to support their son, HOA rules are there for a reason, to maintain the property value of the neighborhood.
Why not get something made for their car(s)?

[columbusbuck]

08:53 PM on 07/29/2011

If I lived in that neighborhood, I'd have a problem with the part of the sign that says,

"Our Son Defends Our Freedom"

Because, honestly, while I'm sure he's an honorable soldier and he is working at the direction of our country, the "Freedom" part just doesn't apply. It's a misnomer.
I'd want to put up my sign that says, "Our Soldiers fight Bush's Wars"

[bgangwer1981]

03:19 PM on 07/29/2011

hang the darn thing on a pole and call it a flag. As long as its not diplayed like a sign, it is somthing else.

[jttanabehm]

09:19 AM on 07/29/2011

I understand the rules, but come on. the Mother is probably worried to death every day that somthing might happen to her son. And that was a way for her to express her feeling for him. im sure they could have made that exception. Im also willing to bet most of the neighbors didnt care anyway. Im an active duty military member stationed overseas for the past three years, and i know my mother worries too, and expresses herself in someway.

[dcstory]

04:44 AM on 07/29/2011

This country was founded on democracy and personal freedom and that has been slowly restricted ever since. But that was mostly from apathy. Yes rules are rules but rules are ever evolving. The HOA is made up of the homeowners and everyone has a vote. Nobody paid attention untill after 9/11, and now people think should be able to show their patriotism or support of a defender (loved one) of our way of life. They just need to attend the HOA meetings , campaign and get people in their complex together and vote to change it if the majority wants. HOA 's are not a dictatorship, they are a democracy. Attend the meetings and vote for changes that fit the world as it is today. Our military is fighting for our democratic way of life. So, everyone in an HOA . . . use your right to vote (change it) or or you get what you got.

[Aaron Calhoun]

04:20 AM on 07/29/2011

"Pro-bono lawyers Lane Pittard and Bill Kindig are representing the Burrs, who feel that the homeowners association is attacking their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression."

So then if these two lawyers are successful, no sign anywhere will be able to be restricted unless it's those restrictions explicitly stated as exceptions under the "freedom of expression" clause? (hate, "fighting words", slander, etc)

Because if one's First Amendment right to freedom of expression cannot be abridged even when the method / location of expression has been expressly disallowed by mutual agreement of the involved parties, then that pretty much means a ton of HOA rules are likely unconstitutional - house colors, status / content of yard(s), display of signs, etc.

I dunno....it all sounds like it can be summed up with: "You made a deal, now stick to it."

[Hammer0311]

01:21 AM on 07/29/2011

sadly the letter of the law gets away from the spirit of it when it was passed

[tracerhaha1]

05:05 PM on 07/28/2011

HOAs are a bunch of busybodies telling other people what they can do with theeir property.

[DanInAustin]

06:07 PM on 07/28/2011

It's appealing to some. That's why they choose to live in places with HOAs. I'm guessing you live in a place without one and laugh at those people. Nothing wrong with that, either.

I'm somewhat on the fence, personally - I could see living somewhere with a fairly permissive HOA. I don't want to live next to an overgrown yard or broken-down cards on blocks, but I don't want to be bitched at for leaving my garage door open.

[tracerhaha1]

05:17 PM on 07/29/2011

Acctually I live in a place with a HOA.

[dcstory]

04:49 AM on 07/29/2011

Only because you let them . . . . When was the last time you attended a HOA meeting? They don't have to be other people. If you don't take an interest to change things, you get what you get. Start taking an active part.

[island fever1]

04:23 PM on 07/28/2011

They should definitely be allowed to keep it up! However, this part of the story was a really cheap shot "The homeowners association president T.K. Mastny -- who is also the president of the Republican Women of Bossier -- didn't return calls from The Huffington Post."

The HOA President does not draw up the laws and agreements that are in the covenants when the home is purchased. Neither does her political affiliation have anything to do with it. It sounds like someone complained to her and she had to respond in accordance with the rules - rules she did not make up. Had she not done this, she would be negligent in doing her duty as the HOA President. Being Democrat or Republican has absolutley nothing to do with this.

It would be nice if both sets of lawyers could get together and come to a compromise by doing what is necessary to amend the by-laws to be able to have signs which show military support; or just have the Burr family's lawyer go into court and whip some butt (figuratively speaking of course).

[DanInAustin]

05:52 PM on 07/28/2011

Her political leanings may not be relevant, but the fact that she's the president of more than one community organization is. It speaks to her level of involvement in local politics and her roots in the community. That sort of background information is routinely included in newspaper articles. It's no different from mentioning that someone coaches his son's little league team, heads the local chamber of commerce, or received an award from the local rotary club.

Stop looking for bias where none exists.

[island fever1]

06:20 PM on 07/28/2011

It appears then, that we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Jennifer Zirn]

04:18 PM on 07/28/2011

I understand that is against their rules, but the home owners wanted to meet and possibly change the rule. I don't see why they can't met and come to some kind of agreement.

[Aaron Calhoun]

04:23 AM on 07/29/2011

They already came to "some kind of agreement"....when they signed off on the HOA rules. The HOA should not now be obligated to meet with a resident simply because the resident has decided they don't like the rules to which they previously agreed.

[Jennifer Zirn]

01:05 PM on 07/29/2011

The rules aren't written in stone, so they could be changed. There would be no harm in agreeing to meet and discuss the sign.

[Mister Neutron]

12:13 PM on 07/28/2011

FTA: 'The development's covenants stipulate that "[n]o sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot."'

If you want to live in a place where signs are welcomed then it's probably wise not to buy a place which explicitly forbids them. I applaud their son's service but getting into a feud with the HOA over something like this is a distraction. Surely there are better ways to honor their son that don't violate the contract they signed. A web page, perhaps?

[Goose8]

02:32 AM on 07/29/2011

It is possible that they lived in that house before her son decided to go into the military (he's only 20). Besides, the homeowners admit that they've seen signs up around the neighborhood.

Also, what does "something like this" mean? I hope it's not implying that being proud of a family member's military service is something that is not important. My father served in Vietnam, an uncle in Desert Storm, a grandfather in Korea, one of my best friends in Afghanistan and I'm proud everyday that they served and that I've had the chance to know them.

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. I do like the webpage idea, but it would be a bit harder to promote. A webpage is only as effective as its function. If it is there to say what the sign said, they aren't going to see much traffic. However, by putting it in their yard, passersby will see it and know their support.

[Aaron Calhoun]

03:55 AM on 07/29/2011

"However, by putting it in their yard, passersby will see it and know their support."

But that's just it: as residents of that community who all signed the HOA agreements, they agreed they wouldn't simply post signs so that passersby could "see it and know their support."

As much as I think it would be great if they lived somewhere that this display of love and pride were not against the rules, they DON'T. As such, they are not entitled to flatly refuse to honor their contractual agreements just because they now have a cause that means enough to them that they wish to display an enormous sign in support of it.

The real problem with the position of the parents is that they would have the rules regarding signage turn into a judgment call on behalf of the HOA...boy, talk about a nightmare...that opens it up to ANY resident posting ANY sign that they feel helps "passersby....see it and know their support."

Then, the HOA gets to weigh in on whether a particular sign is or isn't worthy of display, and then people whose requests are denied can claim that they've been discriminated against...I mean, really...where is it supposed to go from there?

[Aaron Calhoun]

03:56 AM on 07/29/2011

There's really only two choices for the HOA....no sign restrictions, or no signs allowed.

As for the allegation that other residents have displayed signs that may violate the "no signs" policy, that's really a separate issue. If these residents (or any other residents) have a concern about other signs being allowed, then they need to bring THAT matter to the HOA's attention via the appropriate process......but the whole "everyone else was getting away with it so I figure I should be able to do it too" argument is simply not a valid legal argument in light of the pre-existing legal agreements they've already made proscribing such behavior.