Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Associates, LLC
165 A.3d 193
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Rustle Meadow is a planned common-interest equestrian community with a recorded Declaration conferring broad design-control discretion on the Association (§§10.1(k), 13.1(a)(ii)); purchasers (the Grovenburgs) took title subject to the Declaration.
- The Grovenburgs built a pool (finished 2008) and sought Association approval (2010 onward) to install a pool fence to meet town code; the Association (led by Miller) objected based on a community "visual buffer" the board called a "green zone," typically 15–20 feet.
- The Association requested scaled plans and information; the parties exchanged proposals and negotiations continued for years; the Association never issued a final written approval and later threatened town enforcement; litigation was filed in December 2013.
- At trial the court granted the Grovenburgs’ motion in limine excluding evidence of the unwritten "green zone," found the green zone invalid, entered injunctions permitting the fence, voided fines/liens, rejected the Association’s counterclaims (except denied receiver), and awarded the Grovenburgs attorney’s fees; defendants appealed.
- The Appellate Court held that (1) exclusion of evidence about the green zone was erroneous because such evidence bears on whether the Association reasonably exercised its discretionary design-control authority, and (2) the trial court failed to apply the proper two-part / deferential reasonableness review from Weldy, requiring remand for new trial on most issues (but affirmed as to boundary-marker fines).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for Association discretionary design-control decisions | Grovenburgs argued the green zone was invalid as unwritten; court should not enforce it | Association argued Weldy requires deferential two-part review (authority + reasonableness); evidence of green zone is relevant to reasonableness | Court of Appeals: Weldy governs; trial court failed to apply proper reasonableness analysis and substituted its view—remand for new trial to apply Weldy’s two-part test and weigh reasonableness objectively |
| Exclusion (motion in limine) of evidence about the unwritten "green zone" | Grovenburgs: green zone unenforceable unless in Declaration/land records; exclusion proper | Defendants: evidence of unwritten "green zone" (practice, notice, rationale) is relevant to whether board acted reasonably | Held: exclusion was improper; evidence about the green/visual buffer was relevant to the reasonableness inquiry and to notice; reversal in part and remand required |
| Validity of fines (counterclaim) for landscaping and boundary-marker removal | Grovenburgs: fines invalid because based on unlawful/unwritten green zone | Defendants: fines were proper under Declaration and bylaws after notice/hearing | Held: boundary-marker fines overturned (defendants failed to prove removal); landscaping fines should not have been summarily set aside—trial court made insufficient findings; remand for retrial on landscaping fines and related attorney’s-fee request |
| Special assessment and award of attorney’s fees to plaintiffs | Grovenburgs: trial court ordered assessments/related fees null and void and awarded fees | Defendants: assessment was a proper common expense apportioned per Declaration; trial court lacked basis to void it | Held: trial court erred to declare special assessment null and void (no adequate legal basis); attorney-fee award vacated pending remand and retrial outcomes |
Key Cases Cited
- Weldy v. Northbrook Condominium Assn., Inc., 279 Conn. 728 (Conn. 2006) (articulates two-part review for association discretionary acts: authority under the declaration, then whether decision was reasonable rather than arbitrary or capricious)
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., 8 Cal. 4th 361 (Cal. 1994) (courts defer to association decisions so long as they further community purposes, comply with governing documents, and are not arbitrary)
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, 309 So. 2d 180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) (early adoption of the reasonableness test for association rules/decisions)
- Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn., 81 Cal. App. 4th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (broad design-control covenants may be enforced, but application must be reasonable; notice and community practice can inform reasonableness)
- Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal. 4th 249 (Cal. 1999) (judicial deference to board decisions does not eliminate meaningful review; courts must weigh community objectives)