Indian Rocks Property Owners Ass'n v. Glatfelter
28 A.3d 1261
| Pa. | 2011Background
- The Indian Rocks HOA governs Ledgedale and enforces covenants requiring written Developer approval for construction to ensure harmony of external design.
- John and Regina Glatfelter purchased a lot in 1980; construction began fall 2003, with the HOA initially approving excavation but later deeming the work substandard under the Covenants.
- The HOA filed an equity action in 2004 alleging Covenant/code violations; after an April 2004 settlement, the Glatfelters agreed to submit a compliant plan, but later failed to comply, leading to a contempt petition.
- Act 92 of 2004 amended the Pennsylvania Construction Code to exempt “recreational cabins” meeting certain safety and documentation requirements, but the HOA passed a 2005 resolution refusing to recognize the exemption.
- The Glatfelters relied on the recreational cabin exemption, submitting a township permit for a two-story vacation home labeled as recreational cabin exempt and provided a recreational cabin affidavit.
- Two settlements governed the dispute: the April 2004 Settlement (compliance with Covenants and UCC) and the July 2005 Settlement (construct in accordance with the rules now in effect and engineering monitoring).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the UCC preemption broad enough to bar HOA rules? | Glatfelter: UCC preempts HOA restrictions on construction. | Indian Rocks: UCC preemption applies to construction standards, not aesthetic harmony or covenants. | Preemption limited to construction standards; not all HOA rules. |
| Does equitable estoppel bar Glatfelters from invoking the recreational cabin exemption? | Association relied on July 2005 Settlement promise to conform to current rules. | Glatfelters argue no estoppel; exemption can be invoked under UCC. | Equitable estoppel applies; Glatfelters precluded from invoking exemption. |
| Does the recreational cabin exemption apply to the Glatfelters’ proposed two-story lakefront home? | Recreational cabin exemption allows broader use; structure could qualify. | Exemption requires narrow use; a 1,700 sq ft two-story home on a lake is not a true recreational cabin. | Exemption not satisfied; structure not a recreational cabin under 35 P.S. § 7210.103. |
| What is the proper interpretation of the recreational cabin definition in light of the UCC’s purpose? | Exemption should be read broadly to avoid absurd enforcement in rural areas. | Statutory ambiguity requires careful construction to avoid undermining safety goals. | Court rejects a broad, impractical reading; defines recreational activity to avoid undermining UCC goals. |
| Should the July 2005 Settlement govern the outcome over the April 2004 Settlement? | April 2004 Settlement controls; Glatfelters breached it by relying on later exemptions. | July 2005 Settlement governs; supersedes the prior agreement. | July 2005 Settlement governs; prior settlement not controlling for this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Indian Rocks Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. of Ledgedale v. Glatfelter, 950 A.2d 1093 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (preemption and recreational cabin issues at Commonwealth Court level)
- Lesko v. Frankford Hospital-Bucks County, 15 A.3d 337 (Pa.2011) (settlements governed by contract principles; new agreement supersedes old)
- Commonwealth v. Markman, 591 Pa. 249, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa.2007) (appellate review considerations)
- In re Milton Hershey School, 590 Pa. 35, 911 A.2d 1258 (Pa.2006) (statutory interpretation framework; de novo review)