Pend Oreille View Estates Homeowners' Association v. T.T. LLC and Farner
161 Idaho 188
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Pend Oreille View Estates developed in two phases: Phase I (20-acre tracts) and Phase II (60-acre tracts); separate CC&Rs recorded for each phase.
- Pend Oreille View Estates Owners’ Association (the Association) was formed and its Phase I CC&Rs, Phase II CC&Rs, articles, and bylaws collectively governed assessment powers.
- In 2012 the Association proposed and members approved a bylaw amendment authorizing a one-time special assessment on tracts in both phases to pave roads across Phase I that provide access to Phase II.
- Several Phase II owners (Defendants) did not pay; Association recorded liens and sued for unpaid assessments and foreclosure; Phase II owners counterclaimed for slander/quiet title, injunctive and declaratory relief.
- District court granted Association summary judgment for monetary judgments (and later attorney fees/costs); counterclaims were dismissed. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Association legally levied one-time assessment on Phase II owners | Bylaw amendment, properly adopted by membership, authorized the one-time assessment against Phases I and II | Phase II CC&Rs limit Association to levy assessments only for road maintenance it is required to perform; paving was an improvement not maintenance | Court affirmed: defendants failed to brief/argue that the bylaw amendment could not override CC&Rs; issue waived and summary judgment stands |
| Whether the paving was maintenance (permitting liens under Idaho law) or an improvement (which might preclude liens) | Association treated paving as maintenance/improvement authorized by bylaws and articles; liens recorded under CC&Rs and statute | Paving was an improvement; Idaho Code §45-810 authorizes liens only for maintenance costs, so liens invalid | Court did not decide substantive statute interpretation because defendants did not show that statute would invalidate CC&R/bylaw provisions; monetary judgments remain; statutory challenge not considered on appeal |
| Whether original bylaws prohibited the amendment authorizing the one-time assessment | Association contends amendment process was followed and created exception to original §4.02 | Defendants argue original §4.02 capped special assessments and banned such amendment | Court: amendment was properly noticed and approved; it created the one-time exception; defendants’ contrary argument inadequately developed and waived |
| Entitlement to attorney fees on appeal | Association seeks fees under bylaws and statute as prevailing party | Defendants seek fees but are not prevailing party | Court awarded Association appellate attorney fees under the bylaws; defendants denied fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45, 44 P.3d 1100 (2002) (standard of review and construction of facts on summary judgment)
- Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 119 Idaho 299, 805 P.2d 1223 (1991) (appellant bears burden to clearly show error)
- Bolognese v. Forte, 153 Idaho 857, 292 P.3d 248 (2012) (appellant must present argument and authority for issues on appeal)