359 S.W.3d 508
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Woodglen Estates Association sought unpaid assessments from Della Joan Dulaney as co-trustee of the Dulaney Trust for seventeen undeveloped lots within Woodglen Estates.
- Declaration governing Woodglen Estates subjects all property, including undeveloped parcels, to assessments; it defines assessments as charges apportioned to each parcel regardless of unit status.
- Dulaneys acquired the seventeen unimproved parcels through intervening owners, ultimately holding them in the Della Joan Dulaney Trust by 2005.
- HOAS audited in 2006, discovered unpaid assessments dating back to 1999, and the Association filed seventeen petitions in 2008 seeking judgments for arrears and foreclosure of liens.
- Trial court directed a verdict for the Association on liability; jury awarded $54,500 for unpaid assessments and interest; on appeal, the court affirmed the directed verdict and damages.
- The court concluded that the developer’s property is not exempt from assessments where covenants are broad enough to include it, and that the Declaration’s assessment provisions apply to both unit and parcel owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the unimproved parcels subject to assessments as parcel owners? | Dulaneys: developer immunity applies; parcels should be exempt. | Woodglen covenants broadly impose assessments on all parcels, including developer-held property. | Parcel owners are subject to assessments; covenants extend to unimproved parcels. |
| Did the Association follow the Declaration’s procedures for budgeting and notices to increase assessments? | Not preserved; budgeting/notice requirements apply to increases and were not followed for undeveloped parcels. | Arguments relate to damages, not liability; budgeting issues affect damages, not liability. | Not reversible; budgeting/notice issues affect damages, not liability; liability affirmed. |
| May the Association foreclose liens without a prior judicial determination of the amount due? | Foreclosure requires court-determined amount before foreclosure. | Petition sought money damages as well; foreclosure was not the sole remedy, so lack of prior determination is not fatal. | Foreclosure procedure not fatal to the judgment; the record showed a money-damages judgment, so no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Pyramid Development Corp., 855 S.W.2d 403 (Mo.App. W.D.1993) (developer not expressly exempt from assessments where covenants authorize them)
- Phillips v. Authorized Investors Group, 625 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.App. E.D.1981) (broad covenants subject all lots to assessments unless explicit exemption)
- Five Star Quality Care-MO, L.L.C. v. Lawson, 283 S.W.3d 811 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (contract provisions govern specific situations and prevail over general provisions)
- Scott v. Ranch Roy-L, Inc., 182 S.W.3d 627 (Mo.App. E.D.2005) (developer rights as personal, not necessarily running with land unless transferred)
- Scott v. Ranch Roy-L, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 401 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (Scott II; authority on transfer of rights for covenants in subdivisions)
- Hoag v. McBride & Son Inv. Co., 967 S.W.2d 157 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (notice and covenants binding on purchasers with notice)
- Whispering Valley Lakes Improvement Ass'n v. Franklin County Mercantile Bank, 879 S.W.2d 572 (Mo.App. E.D.1994) (parcels subject to covenants with notice to parcel owners)