Whitney Woods Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Steagall
2025 Ohio 2784
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Whitney Woods Homeowners’ Association sued Kenneth and Benita Steagall for violating various restrictive covenants in their residential subdivision, including unapproved improvements, unapproved signage, and open storage of materials.
- The Association tried to resolve the issues informally, then issued violation notices and began imposing fines after alleged noncompliance continued.
- The Steagalls (who are Black) filed a HUD complaint alleging the Association discriminated against them in its enforcement; HUD found no reasonable cause.
- The Association levied a special assessment to cover legal fees from the HUD defense, which the Steagalls refused to pay.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in part for the Association, ordering the Steagalls to comply, allowing a $500 assessment, but finding the Association could not charge other HUD defense costs; both sides appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of Restrictions | Association did not waive enforcement rights; violations unique | Widespread nonenforcement means Association waived right | Association did not waive; insufficient evidence of widespread violations |
| Entitlement to Declaratory Judgment | Violations existed, summary judgment proper | Factual disputes require trial | Sufficient evidence for summary judgment; no genuine dispute |
| Permanent Injunction Standard | Statutory right removes need for irreparable harm showing | Traditional injunction standards must apply | Injunction appropriate regardless; irreparable harm and no adequate remedy shown |
| Attorney Fees for HUD Claim | Declaration allows full recovery of HUD defense fees | Only enforcement actions under declaration allow fee shifting | Only proportionate share for special assessment allowed, not all HUD defense costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Driscoll v. Austintown Assocs., 42 Ohio St.2d 263 (1975) (restrictive covenants are strictly construed against restriction, favoring free use of land)
- Dixon v. Van Sweringen Co., 121 Ohio St. 56 (1929) (restrictive covenants will be upheld if not against public policy and part of a general scheme)
- White Co. v. Canton Transp. Co., 131 Ohio St. 190 (1936) (waiver as voluntary relinquishment of a known right)
- Nottingdale Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Darby, 33 Ohio St.3d 32 (1987) (contractual attorney fee-shifting provisions are enforceable if reasonable)
- Berger v. Van Sweringen Co., 6 Ohio St.2d 100 (1966) (reasonable covenants in planned communities are enforceable)