Court reviews whether a home owners' association properly amended its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues

GRAND VALLEY LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. DENNIS BURROW (Tenn. Ct. App. December 28, 2011)

Appellant, the owner of several lots in a subdivision managed and maintained by the Appellee home owners association, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the question of whether Appellant owed an increase in dues and fees on his lots, and the denial of his counter-claims for fraud, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, outrageous conduct, and invalidity of the restrictive covenants on grounds that these causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or the doctrine of laches.

We conclude that the Appellee followed the correct procedure in amending its restrictive covenants to increase the amount of dues. However, because the trial court did not make findings, as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04, concerning the grounds for its application of laches, we cannot review the question of whether Appellant's counter-claims were properly dismissed. Vacated and remanded.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/grandvalley_122811.pdf

Court Reviews the Use of Real Property in a Common Interest Community

R. DOUGLAS HUGHES ET AL. v. NEW LIFE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2011)


In this dispute concerning the use of real property located in a common interest community, we have concluded that summary judgment based on the amendments to the restrictive covenants was not appropriate. We also find that the new owner has the authority to act as developer.


Opinion available at:

http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/hughesr_050211.pdf

Court reviews whether homeowner's fence violates restrictive covenants of their subdivision

MICHAEL D. HERSHEY ET AL. v. WALLACE CATHEY ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2010)

This is an action to enforce a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a subdivision. The trial court found the defendant homeowners erected a fence without having obtained proper approval from the Architectural Control Committee, that the fence was in violation of restrictive covenants, and that the fence must be removed. We have determined the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings that defendants failed to obtain the necessary approval to construct the fence and that the fence is in violation of restrictive covenants; thus, we affirm.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/hersheym_072710.pdf