Ripsch v. Goose Lake Association, 989 N.E.2d 752

Ripsch, a Goose Lake Association member, owns property adjacent to Lincoln Lake, which is part of the Association’s common property

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HOA has implied authority to regulate common property despite lacking express grant	Ripsch: covenants control use only if recorded	Association: implied authority to regulate common property exists and must be reasonable	Yes, implied authority to regulate common property, subject to reasonableness
Whether the Tritoon restriction was a valid reasonable regulation	Ripsch: restriction not in covenants; cannot be enforced	Association: rules on common property may be reasonable even if not in covenants	Yes, regulation deemed reasonable and enforceable

Krueger v. Oberto, 309 Ill. App. 3d 358 (1999) (recorded restrictions not required for all uses; conflict with common property rules)
Cimino v. Dill, 92 Ill. App. 3d 345 (1980) (interpretation of covenants and restrictions)
Westfield Homes, Inc. v. Herrick, 229 Ill. App. 3d 445 (1992) (strict construction not always in favor of free use of property)
Hartman v. Wells, 257 Ill. 167 (1912) (restrictions on use of property principle)
Board of Directors of 175 East Delaware Place Homeowners Ass’n v. Hinojosa, 287 Ill. App. 3d 886 (1997) (broad powers of HOA to regulate day-to-day operations)
Lake Barrington Shore Condominium Ten Homeowners Ass’n v. May, 196 Ill. App. 3d 280 (1990) (distinguishes encroachment in common areas; strict construction not defeat purpose)
Alderson v. Fatlan, 231 Ill. 2d 311 (2008) (riparian rights require ownership of lake bed)
Rodriquez v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 228 Ill. App. 3d 1024 (1992) (riparian rights and entitlement implications)
Vincent v. Department of Human Services, 392 Ill. App. 3d 88 (2009) (avoid absurd results in statutory interpretation)
Tilschner v. Spangler, 409 Ill. App. 3d 988 (2011) (Restatements persuasive but not binding)