The Perils of Covenant Enforcement!
Posted on 04. Aug, 2011 by briankoeberle in Real Estate
Most planned communities in Pennsylvania are governed by a set of restrictive covenants that govern the use of each individual lot owner’s property. Covenant enforcement can fall on the homeowners association, as well as individual lot owners if they so choose. A recent Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Big Bass Lake Community Association v. Warren, sheds some light on the perils of overreaching by some associations in covenant enforcement.
In the Big Bass Lake case, lot owners began a landscaping project in front of their property that included a stone retaining wall approximately 2 feet high and 50 feet long, and a raised ground planter. Shortly after the project began, a representative of the homeowners association informed the lot owners that the landscaping and stone wall interfered with the Association’s utility easement and road right-of-way in violation of certain restrictive covenants. When the lot owners refused to remove the stone wall and landscaping, the Association sued. The trial court issued a permanent injunction and ordered the lot owners to remove the landscaping and stone wall. The trial court found that the landscaping and stone wall violated the Association’s utility easement and right-of-way in violation of the restrictive covenants in question.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction. The Court also held that the Association had failed to show a clear right to injunctive relief due to the fact that the Association had not proven a violation of the cited covenants. The Court concluded that the covenants did not prohibit landscaping projects within the utility easement, and did not prohibit the lot owners from using the road right-of-way, as the covenants specifically gave lot owners in the development the right to use the roads.
Homeowners Associations might want to take note that covenant enforcement should be narrowly tailored to avoid both costly litigation and big headaches.
