Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date

7-2-2022

Case Synopsis

This case addressed the extent of a common-interest-community homeowners association’s power to adopt rules restricting the use and design of individually owned properties. The Court concluded that public policy favors the adoption of section 6.7 and 6.9 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes. 2 These sections explain that homeowners’ associations do not have the implied power to impose use or design on individually owned properties. The governing documents of the association must expressly authorize the imposition of restrictions to do so. These restrictions are subject to a “reasonableness” requirement.3 The Court also acknowledged that neither party addressed whether the respondent’s exercise of its design-control power was reasonable-a central tenant of section 6.9. The Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to appellant’s claims for declaratory relief and remanded the case back to the district court to consider whether respondent’s rules are reasonable under sections 6.7 and 6.9 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS