Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Dennis Burrow
376 S.W.3d 66
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Grand Valley Lakes subdivision owner Burrow challenged the March 1998 amendment increasing dues and fees.
- Amendments were adopted under the restrictive covenants, with Shearin previously holding the bylaws could not control amendments.
- Notice of the March 21, 1998 special meeting was sent to all owners and by bylaws voting was by lot with one vote per lot.
- Votes at the meeting totaled 1,044 in favor from 1,056 votes cast, with 1,888 members in good standing; developer Valley Development held many lots.
- Burrow counter-claimed for fraud, TCPA violation, outrageous conduct, and invalidity of covenants; Grand Valley moved for summary judgment on limitations and laches defenses.
- Trial court granted Grand Valley’s summary judgment, then later denied Burrow’s partial summary judgment; court also awarded Grand Valley attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest, and ultimately vacated and remanded for lack of Rule 56.04 findings on laches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the March 1998 amendment properly adopted under the covenants? | Burrow argued the amendment violated the covenants’ procedure (as in Shearin). | Grand Valley argued the amendment followed the covenants’ procedure and bylaws guided interpretation. | Amendment followed the covenants; majority vote sufficed; remand on counterclaims only. |
| Are Burrow’s counterclaims time-barred by limitations or laches? | Burrow contends limitations or tolling saved claims. | Grand Valley asserts claims were time-barred or barred by laches. | Remanded for Rule 56.04 findings on laches; uncertainty on tolling requires remand. |
| Did trial court err in granting/altering the judgment without clear grounds? | Burrow argues improper grounds for summary judgment and lack of articulated reasoning. | Grand Valley asserts proper grounds existed but were not stated. | Remanded for compliance with Rule 56.04; grounds must be stated. |
| Is the award of attorney’s fees proper under the covenant/bylaws? | Burrow argues American Rule; fees improperly awarded. | Grand Valley contends fee provision in amended covenants supports fees. | Remanded for Rule 56.04 compliance; not decided on the merits. |
| Is prejudgment interest proper where disputes existed? | Burrow claims punitive, improper where reasonable dispute existed. | Grand Valley seeks prejudgment interest under contract/record terms. | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with Rule 56.04. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cary & Shearin, 897 S.W.2d 262 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994) (restrictive covenants govern amendment procedure; by-laws considered for gaps)
- Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) (courts must articulate grounds under 56.04; transcript may illuminate grounds)
- Hicks v. Cox, 978 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (contract interpretation and ambiguity in covenants by standard rules)
- Parks v. Richardson, 567 S.W.2d 465 (Tenn.Ct.App.1977) (construction of restrictive covenants; ambiguity resolved against restriction)
- Waller v. Thomas, 545 S.W.2d 745 (Tenn.Ct.App.1976) (restrictive covenants strictly construed in favor of reasonable use)
- Turnley v. Garfinkel, 362 S.W.2d 921 (Tenn.Ct.App.1962) (avoid expanding covenants by implication; rely on language)