A lawsuit recently filed in Horry County, South Carolina, has HOA Boards across the Carolinas asking an uncomfortable question. If a homeowner breaks a clear rule and someone gets hurt, how much responsibility does the association carry?

That's a fair question to ask. It isn't, however, a question any Board should try to answer for itself. The honest answer depends on the community's governing documents, its enforcement history, and applicable South Carolina law, and it belongs with qualified legal counsel, not a news article.

What the case does offer is a useful prompt: a chance to look at how your own community handles known rule violations, before something similar happens on your streets.

We explore this exact topic, enforcement authority and due process, in *Boards, Bylaws, and Better Governance*, the first volume of the *Lessons from the Neighborhood* series. Learn more at www.LessonsFromTheNeighborhood.com.

What the lawsuit alleges

According to reporting by WBTW in Horry County, South Carolina, a resident is suing a homeowners association and two neighbors after being bitten by the neighbors' pet pig in 2024. The lawsuit states the community's governing documents prohibited residents from keeping the pig, that the association knew the animal was on the property, and that the pig escaped through a broken fence and attacked the resident on a public street.

These are allegations, not findings. Nothing has been decided, and the parties involved haven't yet had the opportunity to present their side in court. What makes the case worth a closer look isn't the outcome, which isn't known yet. It's the pattern the lawsuit describes: a known rule violation, and a claim that nothing was done about it before someone got hurt.

Why this matters beyond one pig

Most communities will never deal with a pet pig. Nearly every community, though, has some version of the same underlying issue: an animal or use restriction written years ago that doesn't quite anticipate every situation a Board will eventually face.

Governing documents commonly restrict "livestock," "farm animals," or animals "not customarily kept as household pets," without spelling out exactly how that language applies to a potbellied pig, a large exotic breed, or an animal a homeowner insists is a companion rather than livestock. That kind of ambiguity is where disputes often start. A rule that seems obvious to a Board in a meeting can look very different to a homeowner who acquired the animal in good faith and never read the declaration closely.

The lesson here isn't really about pigs. It's that vague or outdated restrictions can create exactly the kind of gap this lawsuit describes, a violation everyone assumes is being handled, until it turns out no one followed through.

Enforcement authority has real limits

It's worth saying plainly: an HOA is not a law enforcement agency, and neither the association nor its management company is responsible for guaranteeing personal safety within the community. Boards have the authority to enforce their governing documents. They don't have the authority, or the practical ability, to patrol every yard or supervise every homeowner's pet.

That said, authority that exists on paper but isn't used consistently can become its own liability. If a violation is reported and never addressed, through documented notice, a defined cure period, and real follow-through, that gap can matter later, regardless of who is ultimately found responsible. Reasonable people can disagree about how far an association's responsibility should extend in any given case. What isn't really debatable is that consistent, documented enforcement is safer for everyone than good intentions that were never followed up on.

A pattern we've seen before

We once worked with a community where residents complained for months about a dog that had gotten loose twice already, both times without incident. The Board discussed it at three separate meetings, and each time decided to keep an eye on it rather than issue a formal notice. No one wanted to be the one to escalate a conflict with a neighbor over a dog.

The third time the dog got loose, it charged a jogger on the community's sidewalk. No one was seriously hurt, but the near miss changed how that Board operated. They adopted a simple standard afterward: every reported violation gets a dated, written notice and a defined follow-up, regardless of how minor it seems or how well the Board knows the homeowner. Avoiding an uncomfortable conversation is rarely worth the risk of avoiding it at the wrong moment.

Before your Board reacts

If this story prompts your Board to look inward, that's a good instinct. Start by asking whether your governing documents clearly address animals and pets, including unusual or exotic ones, not just dogs and cats. Ask whether reported violations are documented in writing, with dates and follow-up, or handled informally and left to memory. And ask whether your Board has a clear process for escalating a known violation that could pose a safety risk, rather than treating it the same as a paint color complaint.

Professional management doesn't replace legal counsel, and nothing here should be read as legal advice about this case or any other. Its value is in the follow-through: making sure reported violations are logged, tracked, and escalated consistently, so a Board's good intentions turn into a documented record if one is ever needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an HOA be held legally responsible for a homeowner's pet or animal?

It depends heavily on the specific facts, the governing documents, and applicable state law. Associations generally aren't the animal's owner and aren't automatically liable simply because an incident occurred within the community. Whether a known, unaddressed violation changes that analysis is a fact-specific legal question, so Boards should consult qualified legal counsel rather than assume.

What should a Board do when it learns a homeowner is violating a pet or animal restriction?

Most governing documents establish a notice-and-cure process for rule violations. Boards typically benefit from documenting the violation in writing, following the steps outlined in their documents, and escalating consistently rather than relying on informal conversations, particularly when the violation could pose a safety concern.

Does having a rule against certain animals in the governing documents protect the HOA from liability?

Having the rule in writing is an important first step, but it isn't the whole picture. How consistently and promptly a Board enforces that rule can matter as much as the rule itself. Boards should work with legal counsel to understand both their documents and their enforcement practices.

Paul's Key Guidance

Here's what I'd take from a case like this, regardless of how it's ultimately resolved. Pull your community's list of open or recently closed violation reports and check one thing: does every entry show a written notice and a documented follow-up, or are some of them sitting on an informal understanding that someone is "working on it"?

That gap, between a rule that exists and a rule that's actually being tracked, is where most enforcement risk lives. I'd also make sure your governing documents' animal and pet provisions have been reviewed in the last few years, since a lot of communities are still working from language written before exotic and nontraditional pets were as common as they are now.

Boards don't need to react to every headline. They do need a system that turns a reported violation into a documented one, every time, before it becomes something bigger.

About the Author

Paul Mengert, CMCA®, PCAM®, is a visionary leader, award-winning educator, and transformative strategist in community association management. With over 40 years of experience, he is the founder and CEO of Association Management Group (AMG), an AAMC®-accredited firm that began in 1985 with three Greensboro, North Carolina, associations, and is now a leading, nationally respected management company. Today, AMG serves over 30,000 property owners across the Carolinas, stewarding communities with a combined asset value exceeding $5 billion.

Paul was named a Community Associations Institute (CAI) Educator of the Year and serves as senior faculty there. He is a longtime guest lecturer at Wake Forest University School of Law and teaches in the Harvard Business School alumni program at Queens University, focusing on the intersection of governance, finance, law, and human dynamics.

Paul's influence extends beyond community associations. He has advised the U.S. Department of State on housing initiatives in the former Soviet Union and served five terms as Chair of the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority. Recognized as a "Most Admired CEO" by the Triad Business Journal, Paul is the author of the acclaimed *Lessons from the Neighborhood* book series. Through writing, speaking, and consulting, he equips community leaders with practical frameworks for governance excellence, while preserving the human touch that makes neighborhoods thrive.

Learn more at www.amgworld.com and www.LessonsFromTheNeighborhood.com.

Author's Note: I have spent more than 40 years working with community association Boards and managers throughout the Carolinas. My perspective is based on practical experience in community association management, governance, and Board decision making. I am not an attorney, and nothing in this article is intended to provide legal advice or to substitute for the advice of qualified legal counsel. This article discusses a pending lawsuit reported by a South Carolina news outlet. The claims described are allegations only, have not been proven in court, and nothing in this article should be read as a comment on the merits of that case or the conduct of any party involved. Court decisions and litigation outcomes are highly dependent on the specific facts presented, the governing documents involved, and the legal issues before the court. Boards should review their own circumstances with qualified legal counsel before taking action.