Owner of Bobcat Violates Restrictive Covenants in Housing Development

Lineberry v. Riley Farms Property Owners Ass'n., 2006 Ark. App. LEXIS 393 (Ark. Ct. App. May 24, 2006)
A woman purchased property in a subdivision which had restrictive covenants that prohibited property owners from keeping exotic animals, and also required those who wished to fence their property to have the fence approved by the Association's Architectural Control Committee.

The plaintiff in error applied for permission to build the fence, and about that time it became known she had a bobcat. She was asked to remove the bobcat and set her fence back from the property line, but did neither, and a complaint was filed in the county court. A jury returned a verdict for the Association and the court ordered the landowner to pay substantial attorney's fees.

The landowner argued that the determination of 'wildness' should be made on a case by case basis, but the appellate court found that the trial court's use of the Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 506 definition, although arguable, was supported in law and not an abuse of discretion.