973 N.E.2d 597
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- HOA and Meador dispute dues/assessments under covenants for Country Squire Lakes.
- Covenants require mandatory HOA membership and payment of specified dues/assessments.
- Community experienced financial/management problems and demographic shifts reducing revenue.
- Meador stopped paying for Lot 619 and sought declaratory judgment and abrogation relief.
- Trial court abrogated Meador's dues obligation, allowing voting; HOA appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly abrogated Meador's dues obligation. | Meador: radical changes justify abrogation. | HOA: covenants require continued payment despite changes; no radical destruction. | Abrogation not supported; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bob Layne Contractor, Inc. v. Buennagel, 158 Ind.App. 43, 301 N.E.2d 671 (1973) (change in condition not sufficient to defeat covenants in area)
- Sorrentino v. Cunningham, 111 Ind.App. 212, 39 N.E.2d 473 (1942) (covenants enforceable for benefit of all lot owners despite changes)
- Brendonwood Common v. Franklin, 403 N.E.2d 1136 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (radical change not shown to defeat covenant)
- Villas West II of Willow-ridge Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. McGlothin, 885 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind.2008) (enforcement of restrictive covenants when unambiguous)
- Hrisomalos v. Smith, 600 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (restrictive covenants may be enforced despite public policy concerns)
- Cunningham v. Hiles, 182 Ind.App. 611, 516, 395 N.E.2d 851, 855 (1979) (restrictive covenants not radicalized to destroy original purpose)