Quail Village Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Janice Rossell
CA 9131-MA
| Del. Ch. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Quail Village HOA sued homeowner Janice Rossell under 10 Del. C. § 348 for erecting an accessory structure without Architectural Committee approval and allegedly using it to house/encourage feral cats.
- Rossell admits she did not obtain prior Architectural Committee approval and that her structure has a cat door; she testified the door is usually locked and disputed continuous housing.
- Rossell acknowledges many cats on the property (her deposition referenced up to ~28–40 at various times) and has engaged in trap-neuter-release (TNR) activity.
- HOA contends the structure is being used for undomesticated/feral cats and that neighbors will testify the use is a nuisance and offensive or dangerous.
- Rossell argues selective/enforcement waiver of the approval rule, contends she is performing humane feral-cat reduction, and that the deed’s animal restriction lacks a clear standard for approving outside animal housing.
- The Master denied HOA summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes about (a) whether the structure shelters cats continuously and (b) whether cats are "domesticated" vs. feral, and recommended trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HOA) | Defendant's Argument (Rossell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Enforceability of Architectural-approval requirement when no standards provided | Rossell built structure without required prior approval; violation is undisputed. | Rossell raises waiver/selective-enforcement defenses based on other unapproved structures in community. | Master declined to decide waiver defenses on SJ; factual defenses belong to trial. Genuine dispute precludes summary judgment. |
| 2) Whether accessory structure was used as outside housing for animals in violation of animal restriction | Structure is used to house/encourage feral (undomesticated) cats, violating paragraph five and requiring approval for outside housing. | Rossell denies continuous housing; says cat door is mostly locked and disputes characterization as a kennel or continuous shelter. | Genuine factual dispute exists whether structure is used continuously to house cats; summary judgment denied. |
| 3) Meaning/coverage of term "domesticated" cats in the deed restriction | HOA treats the restriction as permitting only domesticated household pets, excluding feral cats. | Rossell argues the distinction is unclear; she asserts TNR and care constitutes non-nuisance, and state law definitions complicate characterization. | Master found the deed does not define "domesticated," creating a material factual and legal question (and pointed to state definitions and keeper rules), so SJ inappropriate. |
| 4) Nuisance / dangerous or offensive use claim under deed | HOA points to 12 residents ready to testify the use is a continuing nuisance affecting neighborhood. | Rossell offers expert support for TNR and argues nuisance is fact-intensive and disputed. | Nuisance is fact-intensive; existence of competing testimony and expert evidence makes summary judgment inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seabreak Homeowners Ass’n v. (name omitted), 517 A.2d 263 (Del. Ch. 1986) (unenforceability of architectural restrictions lacking standards).
- Alliegro v. Home Owners of Edgewood Hills, 122 A.2d 910 (Del. Ch. 1956) (historical treatment of deed restrictions and committee standards).
- Scureman v. Judge, 626 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 1992) (summary judgment burden and standards in Chancery).
- Nash v. Connell, 99 A.2d 242 (Del. Ch. 1953) (summary judgment evidentiary context principles).
- State v. Zimmerman, 228 P.3d 1109 (Mont. 2010) (cases addressing nuisance convictions/conditions tied to feeding feral cats).
- Feeley v. Borough of Ridley Park, 551 A.2d 373 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (house as public nuisance due to severe cat-urine odors).