Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
633 S.E.2d 78, 2006 N.C. LEXIS 845, 360 N.C. 547 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Amendments to a declaration of restrictive covenants must be reasonable in light of the contracting parties' original intent. A provision authorizing a homeowners' association to amend covenants does not permit amendments of unlimited scope that impose new and unexpected obligations.
Facts:
- In 1988, Vogel Development Corporation developed The Ledges of Hidden Hills subdivision, recording a plat that designated roads as public and showed no common areas or amenities.
- Before selling lots, Vogel recorded a Declaration of Covenants which restricted land use but contained no provisions for dues or assessments, only mentioning an intent to form a homeowners' association.
- To pay for a new lighted entrance sign, Vogel began including a clause in subsequent deeds, including those of petitioners, requiring homeowners to pay a pro-rata share of 'common expense for electrical... lights.'
- The Ledges Homeowners' Association was incorporated in 1994 and began assessing lot owners not just for the sign's electricity (approx. $7.20/year per lot) but also for mowing private property and snow removal on public roads, totaling $80-$100 per year.
- After some homeowners, including petitioner Vivian Armstrong, challenged these assessments, a majority of the Association members voted in 2003 to adopt an Amended Declaration.
- This Amended Declaration mandated Association membership and granted the Association broad new power to levy assessments for 'the general purposes of promoting the safety, welfare, recreation, health, common benefit, and enjoyment of the residents.'
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners (Armstrong and Moore) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Ledges Homeowners' Association in Superior Court, Henderson County (trial court), seeking to invalidate the amended covenants.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, upholding the Amended Declaration as valid and enforceable.
- Petitioners (as appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the original declaration's amendment provision was sufficient to support the changes.
- The Armstrongs (as petitioners) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowners' association's general authority to amend a declaration of restrictive covenants permit it to create a new, broad power to levy general assessments for common expenses when the original scheme of development did not contemplate such assessments?
Opinions:
Majority - Wainwright, Justice
No. A general authority to amend a declaration of covenants does not permit an amendment that imposes new, broad, and unlimited assessment obligations that were not contemplated in the parties' original bargain. Covenants are contracts, and their interpretation is governed by the original intent of the parties. While declarations may be amended, the power to amend is not unlimited and is constrained by a standard of reasonableness. This reasonableness is determined by examining the original declaration, deeds, plats, and the nature of the community as originally established. In this case, the original development was a simple residential subdivision with no common areas and thus no anticipated common expenses, aside from the later, very specific provision for the sign's electricity. The Amended Declaration, which grants the Association a practically unlimited power to assess fees for broad purposes, fundamentally alters the original bargain and imposes new, unexpected affirmative obligations on homeowners. Therefore, the amendment is unreasonable and thus invalid and unenforceable.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant judicial check on the power of homeowners' associations in North Carolina, particularly for communities not governed by the Planned Community Act. By imposing a 'reasonableness' standard on covenant amendments, the court protects the original expectations of homeowners from being fundamentally altered by a subsequent majority vote. The ruling prevents HOAs from using general amendment clauses as a blank check to impose substantial new financial burdens or use restrictions not contemplated at the time of purchase. This precedent requires courts to scrutinize amendments not just for procedural validity but for substantive reasonableness, balancing the community's need to adapt with the protection of individual property rights and the original contractual bargain.
