{"id":3061,"date":"2022-11-17T22:46:10","date_gmt":"2022-11-18T04:46:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=3061"},"modified":"2022-11-17T22:46:10","modified_gmt":"2022-11-18T04:46:10","slug":"lake-naomi-club-inc-v-rosado-pa-commw-ct-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/11\/17\/lake-naomi-club-inc-v-rosado-pa-commw-ct-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Lake Naomi Club, Inc. v. Rosado (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Lake Naomi Club, Inc. v. Rosado, No. 1164 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2022)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Homeowners associations for private, planned community filed an action seeking to permanently enjoin resident from residing in his home based on associations’ restrictive covenant prohibiting individuals required to register on Pennsylvania sex offense registry from residing within the community. Following a bench trial, the Court of Common Pleas declared the covenant void as against public policy, denied associations’ request for injunctive relief, and denied associations’ motion for a new trial.<\/p>\n

The homeowners associations appealed.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Court of Common pleas decision, holding that as an issue of first impression, the private, planned community\u2019s restrictive covenant was void as against public policy. In so holding, the Commonwealth Court concluded that SORNA and the Sentencing and Parole Codes establish a public policy that the regulation of released sex offenders is controlled by state law and may not be controlled by local ordinances or restrictive covenants.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n