Countryside South Homeowners Ass'n v. Nedved

#24409-rev & rem-JKK

2007 SD 70

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CRAIG NEDVED, Defendant and Appellant.

* * * *

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

HONORABLE A. P. FULLER
Judge

* * * *

JASON M. SMILEY of
Gunderson, Palmer, Goodsell &
Nelson Attorneys for plaintiff
Rapid City, South Dakota and appellee.

RICHARD E. HUFFMAN
MICHAEL V. WHEELER of
DeMersseman Jensen Christianson
Stanton & Huffman, LLP Attorneys for defendant
Rapid City, South Dakota and appellant.

* * * *

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON MAY 21, 2007

OPINION FILED 07/11/07
#24409

KONENKAMP, Justice

[¶1.] A homeowner sought to build a storage shed in a community governed

by restrictive covenants. His request was denied, not because the proposed shed

violated any specific provision of the covenants, but because it violated size

limitation rules enacted by the homeowners’ association committee. In circuit court,

the decision was upheld and an injunction was issued. Because the committee

exceeded its powers when it adopted the new rules and denied the homeowner’s

request based solely on those rules, we reverse and remand.

Background

[¶2.] Craig Nedved purchased a home on April 30, 1996. The home is

located in the Countryside South Subdivision, Pennington County, South Dakota.

On March 18, 1994, the Countryside South Homeowners Association, Inc.

(Association) adopted the “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions,

Countryside South Subdivision” (Covenants). They were recorded on April 4, 1994,

with the Pennington County Register of Deeds. At some point after Nedved

purchased his home, the Association’s Architectural Control Committee

(Committee) adopted its “Architectural Control Committee Additional Rules,

Regulations and Guidelines” (Rules and Regulations). These Rules and Regulations

state that they apply to Article VII of the Covenants. They were adopted “to provide

the Architectural Control Committee and Homeowners additional information and

guidelines regarding interpretation of the covenants.”

[¶3.] The rule pertinent to this case provides:

Several homeowners have requested approval of yard sheds.
The covenants provide little in the way of guidance to the
-1-
#24409

Architectural Control Committee and homeowners regarding
sheds. Sheds shall not exceed a footprint dimension of 10’ x 12’.
The finish and roof [sic] the shed shall be consistent with the
color, style and materials used on the home. The walls shall not
exceed 7’ in height and the shed shall have a typical 4/12 pitch in
the roof. All sheds constructed prior to August 15, 1999 have
been approved and are hereby grandfathered.

Nothing in these rules indicates when they were adopted.

[¶4.] On February 28, 2006, Nedved submitted a request to the Committee

to build an L-shaped 16’x18’ shed on his property. The minutes from the committee

meeting state that “[t]he Board immediately took the position that the size of [the]

structure was not in compliance with the covenants of the development. . . . It

would not be approved unless modifications were made to his proposal to bring the

size . . . into compliance with established guidelines.” Jay Hoffman, the president of

the Association, wrote to Nedved informing him that the Committee considered his

request and had no “choice but to deny it as inconsistent with the covenants and

architectural control guidelines. It is simply too big. . . . The board has already

decided via the architectural control guidelines that a shed larger than 10’x12’ does

not satisfy these standards.” On May 24, 2006, board member and attorney,

Pamela Snyder-Varns, wrote to counsel for Nedved stating, “The Board stood by its

decision to deny [Nedved’s] request. The shed is simply too big. Please consider

this written notice of the Board’s decision.”

[¶5.] In July 2006, the Association learned that Nedved had leveled a

building site for his proposed shed, spread gravel, and placed forms to pour a slab.

Because the Association believed that Nedved intended to build in violation of its

decision, the Association sought a temporary restraining order. The circuit court

-2-
#24409

granted the order and set the matter for a hearing on whether a permanent

injunction should issue.

[¶6.] The parties submitted stipulated facts along with briefs in support of

their respective positions. The Association argued that under the Covenants and

subsequently adopted Rules and Regulations, Nedved’s proposed shed was “too big.”

The Association claimed that under Article VII, section 5, for Nedved to be

permitted to build his shed the Committee must approve the “quality of

workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing structures

and . . . location with respective topography and finished grade elevation.” Because

the Rules and Regulations required that the shed not exceed 10’x12’, the

Association asserted that Nedved’s request violated the Covenants.

[¶7.] Nedved, on the other hand, averred that the Association rejected his

proposal only because the shed exceeded the 10’x12’ requirement in the Rules and

Regulations, not because it violated the Covenants. And because the Association

exceeded its powers when it adopted the Rules and Regulations, the Association’s

decision to deny his request was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.

[¶8.] In the court’s memorandum decision, later incorporated into its

findings and conclusions, it ruled that there was nothing in the Covenants

restricting the Committee from adopting the Rules and Regulations. Specifically,

the court stated, “As the Board of Directors changes from time to time and as the

Architectural Control Committee changes from time to time, the interpretation of

this covenant may well change from time to time.” In granting a permanent

injunction, the court concluded that the Committee could rightfully adopt new rules

-3-
#24409

and the Association’s decision to deny Nedved’s request was not unreasonable,

arbitrary, or capricious.

[¶9.] Nedved appeals asserting that the court erred when it granted the

permanent injunction because (1) the Committee exceeded its authority when it

adopted the Rules and Regulations, (2) the decision to deny his request was

unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and (3) his shed satisfied the Covenants as

it was in harmony with the external design of existing structures. Since the court’s

decision was based on stipulated facts and because covenants are essentially

contracts, we review these questions de novo. Harksen v. Peska, 1998 SD 70, ¶11,

581 NW2d 170, 173 (citing Spring Brook Acres Water Users Ass’n, Inc. v. George,

505 NW2d 778, 780 (SD 1993) (citing Baker v. Wilburn, 456 NW2d 304, 306 (SD

1990))).

Analysis and Decision

[¶10.] The primary question here is whether the Committee exceeded its

authority when it adopted the Rules and Regulations without following Article X of

the Covenants. Article X requires a 75% vote of the members before the Covenants

can be amended. It also requires that any approved amendment be recorded. 1 The

Association asserts that there exists an inherent power to adopt these rules.

Specifically, it contends that because Article VII allows the Association to establish

1. Article X of the Covenants states, “This Declaration may be amended during
the first twenty (20) year period by an instrument signed by not less than
seventy-five percent (75%) of the Lot Owners, and thereafter by an
instrument signed by not less than sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%)
of the Lot Owners. The Amendment must be recorded.”

-4-
#24409

the Committee, implicit in that is a power to promulgate guidelines “to flesh out the

language of the Covenants by limiting the size of sheds, among other things.”

According to the Association, “[i]t is important for a body such as this, with a

membership that changes from time to time, to have an aid such as the [Rules and

Regulations] to help apply the restrictive Covenants on a fair and consistent basis.”

[¶11.] A covenant is a contract between the governing authority and

individual lot owners. Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 633 SE2d 78,

84-85 (NC 2006) (citations omitted); see also Wilson v. Playa de Serrano, 123 P3d

1148, 1150 (ArizCtApp 2005) (citations omitted). It “represents a meeting of the

minds and results in a relationship that is not subject to overreaching by one party

or sweeping subsequent change.” Armstrong, 633 SE2d at 84-85 (citations omitted).

Because restrictive covenants are contractual in nature, we ascertain the intent of

the parties at the time they contracted. Prairie Hills Water & Dev. Co. v. Gross,

2002 SD 133, ¶26, 653 NW2d 745, 751 (citation omitted); Piechowski v. Case, 255

NW2d 72, 74 (SD 1977); see also Villas West II of Willowridge v. McGlothin, 841

NE2d 584, 597 (IndCtApp 2006) (citation omitted); Riss v. Angel, 934 P2d 669, 675

(Wash 1997).

[¶12.] From the language of the 1994 Covenants, the parties clearly intended

for the Committee to have the power to amend Article VII, section 5. However, this

power exists only when the Committee obtains a 75% vote of the lot owners and the

amendment is properly recorded. 2 Therefore, absent the 75% vote of the lot owners

2. There is only one provision in the covenants that allows for the power of
enacting rules. It is under Article VII, section 10. That provision relates only
(continued . . .)
-5-
#24409

and proper recordation, lot owners are bound only by the restrictions contained in

Article VII, section 5 of the Covenants. See Wilson, 123 P2d at 1150; see also

Raman Chandler Properties, L.C. v. Caldwells Creek Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 178

SW3d 384, 391 (TexCtApp 2005) (if the power to amend exists in the covenants, “the

amendment of a restrictive covenant must be in the precise manner authorized by

the dedicating agreement”) (citation omitted); Barris v. Keswick Homes, L.L.C., 597

SE2d 54, 57 (VA 2004) (express language of the covenants prevents interpretation

otherwise).

[¶13.] When the Committee adopted the Rules and Regulations without a

75% vote of the lot owners, it improperly amended the Covenants. It is immaterial

that the Board and Committee members change from time to time or need guidance

in applying and interpreting the language of the Covenants. There is nothing in the

Covenants that gives the Committee or Association the power to unilaterally adopt

new rules and regulations simply to aid in interpreting and applying Article VII,

section 5. See Johnson v. Dick, 281 SW2d 171, 175 (TexCtApp 1955) (the existing

authority is found in the written instrument). If we were to adopt the Association’s

position that it had an inherent power to amend Article VII, section 5, we would

have to ignore the express language of the Covenants and disregard the lot owners’

right to vote. Had the Association desired the Committee to have the power to

__________________
(. . . continued)
to “Landscaping” and gives the Committee the power to adopt rules and
regulations for the “preservation of natural resources, trees, and grass. . . .”

-6-
#24409

adopt new rules and regulations to aid in interpreting Article VII, section 5, it

certainly could have provided for such, as it did with Article VII, section 10.

[¶14.] The Committee exceeded the authority granted to it by the Covenants

when it failed to comply with Article X before amending Article VII, section 5, to

restrict shed size to 10’x12’. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it held that the

language of the Covenants did not prohibit “the Architectural Control Committee

from enacting rules or guidelines to assist it, and future Architectural Control

Committees, in their interpretation of the covenant.”

[¶15.] The Association also argues that its denial was not based solely on the

Rules and Regulations, but that Nedved’s request was denied because it was not in

harmony with the external design of existing structures. Based on our review of the

record, the Association’s argument cannot be sustained. Nedved and the

Association submitted stipulated facts to the court indicating that Nedved’s request

was denied because the shed was larger than 10’x12’. There was no stipulation that

the Committee rejected Nedved’s request based on the language of the 1994

Covenants. Moreover, there was no stipulation that the request was denied because

it was not in harmony with the external design of existing structures. The 10’x12’

language clearly comes from the Committee’s Rules and Regulations. The denial

was based solely on the Committee’s conclusion that the request failed to conform to

the Rules and Regulations.

[¶16.] As we stated, the Rules and Regulations were not properly adopted

and the Committee was only empowered to approve or disapprove Nedved’s request

based on the language of the 1994 Covenants. The 1994 Covenants permitted the

-7-
#24409

Committee to evaluate Nedved’s shed proposal to determine if it satisfied the

“quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing

structures and . . . location with respective topography and finished grade

elevation.” This evaluation the Committee has not done. 3 Thus, we reverse and

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[¶17.] Reversed and remanded.

[¶18.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, ZINTER, and

MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.

3. In his brief to this Court, Nedved correctly points out that the Committee was
required to assess his proposal to determine whether it was in harmony with
the external design of existing structures and that it “never engaged in any
such analysis.”

-8-