http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/POLEGAT02_20091202-091201/309031/P0/To pre-empt TAB, the HOA does
not prohibit flagpoles, his pole was determined to violate an aesthetics clause. At the suggestion of one of the posters, I sent a note to the law firm at
http://www.coateslaw.com/CM/Custom/Contact.asp"I just read the report in the Richmond Times-Dispatch indicating that you were representing the Sussex Square HOA in its actions against Col. Van T. Barfoot. I have only one question for you.
How dare you take this action against a retired vet, and a Medal of Honor recipient?
Especially since the VA Code clearly allows his flagpole, to whit:
"55-513.1. Flag display; necessary supporting structures; affirmative defense.
A. Unless specifically prohibited by the association’s rules and regulations or architectural guidelines provided in the disclosure packet required pursuant to � 55-512, the association shall not prohibit any lot owner from displaying the flag of (i) the United States, (ii) the Commonwealth, (iii) any active branch of the armed forces of the United States, or (iv) any military valor or service award of the United States.
B. In any action brought by the association under � 55-513, the lot owner shall be entitled to assert as an affirmative defense that the required disclosure of any limitations pertaining to the display of flags or any flagpole or similar structure necessary to display such flags was not contained in the disclosure packet required pursuant to � 55-512."
Either your firm is utterly incompetent, or venal in the extreme to take money to support - illegally - the HOA's actions.
Shame on you!