Heather Lake Assn. v. Billiter
2017 Ohio 8387
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Heather Lake Association is a homeowners association created by a recorded Declaration of Covenants covering lots in the Heather Lake subdivision; the Declaration expressly authorized the Board to promulgate parking regulations.
- The Association adopted an unrecorded Design Review Manual (May 12, 2001) that prohibited parking of commercial vehicles on lots except for limited exceptions.
- David and Kimberlee Billiter purchased Lot 37 in 2001 and parked a commercial vehicle outside their garage multiple days per week; they received written demands to comply.
- The Association sued (Dec. 23, 2015) seeking injunctive relief and attorney fees for violation of the parking restriction; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted Association’s motion and denied Billiters’ motion (June 2, 2017) and later entered a consent judgment awarding reasonable attorney fees and costs (June 28, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Association’s parking restrictions enforceable against the Billiters? | The Declaration authorized the Board to adopt parking rules; Billiters had constructive notice and violated the restriction. | The restriction is unenforceable because it arises from an enabling provision and an unrecorded Design Manual; Billiters lacked notice; the rule is vague. | Enforceable. The Declaration unambiguously granted authority to adopt parking regulations; purchasers have duty to inquire and were on notice. |
| Must restrictive covenants be recorded or expressly run with the land to bind subsequent owners? | The recorded Declaration, which created the general plan, put purchasers on constructive notice of rules adopted under its authority. | The Design Manual was unrecorded and thus cannot bind later purchasers. | Recording of the Declaration (which authorized rules) gave notice; Board’s rule, promulgated under that authority, was enforceable against purchasers who had notice. |
| Is the Board’s enabling language impermissibly vague or open-ended such that rules would be unenforceable? | The enabling clause is a valid delegation to the Board to set parking regulations; language is not indefinite. | The delegation is too open-ended and could permit arbitrary restrictions. | Not vague here; courts construe covenants against restrictions, but the language was sufficiently clear to enforce parking rules. |
| Are attorney fees recoverable for enforcement of the covenants? | Declaration’s enforcement clause allows assessment of enforcement costs and attorney fees; such contractual fee provisions are enforceable if reasonable. | (Implicit) Fees are not recoverable absent statutory or contractual basis. | Recoverable. The Declaration provided for enforcement costs and attorney fees; trial court properly awarded reasonable fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 697 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio 1998) (principles for construing covenants and giving effect to parties’ intent)
- Houk v. Ross, 296 N.E.2d 266 (Ohio 1973) (where deed restriction language is indefinite, adopt construction that least restricts land use)
- Nottingdale Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Darby, 514 N.E.2d 702 (Ohio 1987) (contractual attorney-fee provisions in association documents enforceable if reasonable)
- Driscoll v. Austintown Assoc., 328 N.E.2d 395 (Ohio 1975) (Ohio disfavors restrictions on property use; strict construction against restraints)
- Bove v. Geibel, 159 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1959) (restrictive covenants strictly construed against limitations on property use)
- Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 463 N.E.2d 655 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (purpose of accelerated calendar to allow brief, conclusory appellate decisions)