Zinone v. LEE'S CROSSING HOMEOWNERS ASS'N
714 S.E.2d 922
Va.2011Background
- Lee's Crossing in Loudoun County was created in 1999 and is governed by a Declaration subject to the POAA; Merritt/developer reserved unilateral amendment rights in §17(i) of the Declaration.
- The Declaration allowed amendments by two-thirds of the Association or unilateral amendments by the declarant within a time window.
- Merritt amended the Declaration multiple times (1999–2004), extending the period for declarant unilateral amendments.
- Zinone, a lot owner, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages, arguing the unilateral amendments violated the POAA and raised conflicts with §§55-515.1(D) and 55-515.2(F).
- The circuit court granted Merritt/Association partial summary judgment on the interpretation of these statutes; Zinone nonsuited remaining personal claims; on appeal, the court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §55-515.1(D) makes two-thirds voting mandatory for all declarations. | Zinone argues two-thirds vote is mandatory for pre-1999 declarations. | Merritt/Association argue §55-515.1(D) is not mandatory or exclusive given the declaration controls. | Not mandatory/exclusive; declaration governs |
| Whether §55-515.2(F) limits unilateral amendments to the circumstances stated. | Zinone contends §55-515.2(F) restricts unilateral amendments to its listed circumstances. | Merritt/Association contend §55-515.2(F) provides ancillary means and does not eradicate express declaration rights. | §55-515.2(F) does not preclude an express unilateral-amendment provision in a declaration |
| Whether POAA provisions are mandatory constraints or ancillary to a declaration’s terms. | Zinone asserts POAA imposes mandatory constraints on unilateral amendments. | Court should treat POAA as ancillary and respect the declaration's express provisions. | POAA provisions are ancillary; declaration controls when it provides a method of amendment |
| Whether the circuit court’s interpretation aligns with Dogwood Valley and the related statutory scheme. | Zinone relies on Dogwood Valley to read exclusivity into unilateral amendments. | Court found Dogwood Valley distinguishable and supported non-exclusive interpretation. | Dogwood Valley not controlling; POAA allows declaration-based amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Dogwood Valley Citizens Ass'n v. Shifflett, 275 Va. 197, 654 S.E.2d 894 (Va. 2008) (unilateral action limited to specific circumstances; validity of declaration scrutinized)
- Addison v. Jurgelsky, 281 Va. 205, 704 S.E.2d 402 (Va. 2011) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning and language distinctions emphasized)
- Conger v. Barrett, 280 Va. 627, 702 S.E.2d 117 (Va. 2010) (de novo review standard for statutory construction in POAA context)
- Lee's Crossing Homeowners Ass'n v. Zinone, 714 S.E.2d 922, 282 Va. 330 (Va. 2011) (the present decision affirming circuit court interpretation of POAA provisions)