Jordan Price lawyers successfully defended a claim brought by owners in a Raleigh subdivision against their homeowners association seeking a ruling from the court that their lot was in compliance with the restrictive covenants of the community and that the homeowners association had unlawfully levied fines against the owners. The trial court rejected the owners’ arguments and the Court of Appeals recently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The covenant at issue in Schwartz v. Banbury Woods was a parking restriction that required boats, trailers, campers and all similar property to be parked in a screened area which is approved by the Architectural Committee in accordance with rules governing such items adopted by the Board of Directors of the homeowners association. A dispute arose with respect to the owner’s parking of a 2004 Tioga motor home on their lot and eventually the homeowners association levied fines against the owners in accordance with Chapter 47F of the General Statutes. The owners sued arguing that the fines were invalid and arguing that their 2004 Tioga motor home was not a camper or similar property in accordance with the covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowners association and the Court of Appeals affirmed stating, that it would “defeat the plain and obvious purposes of [the parking] restriction” to adopt the owner’s argument that the 2004 Tioga motor home was not a camper or similar property requiring screening. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the levying of fines stating that the homeowners association had complied with the procedures of N.C.G.S. § 47F-3-107.1. You may read the Court of Appeals opinion here. banbury-woods-case.pdf