Bay Breeze Estate Homeowners Association Inc. v. Charles E. Dunham and Lynda R. Dunham
CA 12048-MA
| Del. Ch. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Bay Breeze Estates HOA amended its Declaration (Fourth Amendment, 2014) to restrict motorized vehicles designed for habitation installed on a commercial truck or commercial bus chassis from parking on lots for more than 15 consecutive days or 45 days annually after Jan 1, 2015.
- The Dunhams own a Class A motorhome on an XCR chassis and parked it in their driveway in 2015 for two occasions exceeding 15 consecutive days and a total of 47 days.
- HOA notified the Dunhams in November 2015 of violations and potential fines; Dunhams refused the priority-mailed letter and later received it by first-class mail.
- HOA sued for declaratory judgment and damages; Dunhams countered that (1) the Fourth Amendment was invalid (insufficient votes / untimely challenge under 25 Del. C. § 81-217), (2) it is vague/ambiguous, (3) estoppel, and (4) their motorhome is not on a commercial truck/bus chassis so not covered.
- The parties cross-moved for summary judgment and the Master considered undisputed evidence that the Dunhams’ chassis is XCR (an RV chassis) not a commercial truck/bus chassis.
- Master held the Fourth Amendment’s language unambiguously limits coverage to vehicles on commercial truck/bus chassis, the Dunhams’ motorhome is not on such a chassis, so no violation; granted Dunhams’ summary judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees to them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/timeliness of challenge to Fourth Amendment | HOA: Dunhams are time-barred by 25 Del. C. § 81-217(b) from challenging amendment | Dunhams: statute inapplicable or amendment failed required supermajority under § 81-217(f) | Not reached on statute because dispositive statutory-interpretation issue unnecessary once vehicle-definition resolved; challenge timing not decided on merits |
| Scope of Fourth Amendment (which motorhomes covered) | HOA: amendment intended to cover large Class A motorhomes like Dunhams’ (commercial-type chassis) | Dunhams: restriction applies only to vehicles on commercial truck or bus chassis; their XCR chassis is not commercial | Held for Dunhams: plain text limits restriction to motor homes on commercial truck/bus chassis; XCR is not such a chassis, so no violation |
| Ambiguity of restriction | HOA: intent and industry sources show it covers Dunhams’ coach | Dunhams: language is limiting and must be construed against enforcement when ambiguous | Court relied on plain meaning; construed covenant against enforcement where ambiguous but found text unambiguous in its limitation to commercial chassis |
| Estoppel / reliance | HOA: not applicable | Dunhams: purchased and relied on ability to park RV; HOA estopped from enforcing new restriction | Not necessary to decide after ruling for Dunhams on textual ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniels Gardens, Inc. v. Hilyard, 49 A.2d 721 (Del. Ch.) (restrictive covenants must be construed against enforcement when ambiguous)
- Gibson v. Main, 129 A. 259 (Del.) (common words given their ordinary meaning)