Osmond Lane Homeowners Ass'n v. Landrith
2013 UT App 20
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- A 1977 Declaration of Protective Covenants encumbers all lots in the George Osmond Estates Subdivision and contemplates a George Osmond Estates Council authorized to levy assessments for common-area needs.
- Section 6.2 permits general maintenance assessments for health, safety, and welfare, to be used for common-area maintenance and taxes/insurance, with capital improvements requiring two-thirds Council vote.
- Section 6.4 authorizes special assessments for capital improvements with two-thirds Council assent; Section 6.11 empowers exterior maintenance of parcels, including painting, repairs, and other exterior improvements.
- No entity named the George Osmond Estates Council was organized; since 1979 the Osmond Lane Homeowners Association has served as the governing body, collecting dues and performing maintenance.
- Landrith, who bought a home in 1992, paid annual dues but later disputes arose over erosion and a hole at the rear of his property eroded by irrigation into a ravine, prompting Association action.
- From 1998 onward, the Association funded Earthtec to address erosion on Landrith’s property, constructing two retaining walls at a cost >$32,000, billed to Landrith, who did not pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Association had authority to act as the Council under the Declaration | Landrith contends the Declaration does not authorize the Association to act as the Council. | Association argues continued owner acquiescence ratified authority to govern and assess as permitted by the Declaration. | Yes; the Association has authority to act as the Council. |
| Whether constructing retaining walls on Landrith's property was a repair/maintenance or a capital improvement | Landrith asserts the walls are capital improvements, not exterior maintenance, beyond Section 6.11. | Association contends walls fall within exterior maintenance under Section 6.11 as repair/replace of exterior improvements. | Jury questions existence; walls were exterior maintenance, not capital improvements (affirmed to jury). |
| Whether the directed verdict foreclosed Landrith’s theories on exterior maintenance | Landrith argues the directed verdict prevented jury consideration of non-maintenance arguments and alternative repair options. | Association maintains adequate instruction allowed jury to decide exterior maintenance under 6.11. | No error; jury could consider exterior maintenance under 6.11 notwithstanding directed verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swan Creek Village Homeowners Ass’n v. Warne, 134 P.3d 1122 (Utah 2006) (equitable ratification of authority when owners treat association as governing body)
- Props., LLC v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, 269 P.3d 980 (Utah App. 2012) (admissibility/weight of expert testimony in contract/maintenance disputes)
- Dixie State Bank v. Bracken, 764 P.2d 985 (Utah 1988) (attorney fees/prevailing party considerations in contract actions)
- State v. Serpente, 768 P.2d 994 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (contract interpretation—plain meaning and contextual interpretation)