Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home (page 2)

Tag Archives: restrictive covenants

Civil Practice – Jurisdiction – Federal Remand — Res Judicata – Discovery – Attorney’s Fees & Costs – Real Property – Restrictive Covenants (access required)

Bald Head Association v. Curnin Even though defendant appealed the federal district court’s remand order, he did not seek a stay of the remand order until seven months after its entry and five months after the state-court order that gave rise to this appeal; moreover, the Fourth Circuit denied defendant’s motion for a stay. The superior court had jurisdiction to enter its orders dismissing defendant’s counterclaims and allowing plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Amendment – Homeowners’ Association President – Fiduciary Duty (access required)

Taddei v. Village Creek Property Owners Association, Inc. Even though paragraph 33 of the Village Creek restrictive covenants says the covenants can only be amended to bring them into conformity with town ordinances or actions, paragraph 3 says the covenants are effective for 20 years with automatic 10-year renewals and that the covenants can be amended before any term. The covenants were properly amended pursuant to paragraph 3.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Homeowners’ Association – Powers – Assessment Uses (access required)

Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Drez Although the plaintiff-homeowners’ association has the authority to buy the development’s recreational amenities and to collect assessments from its members, it does not have the power to use those assessments to finance its purchase of the recreational amenities. We affirm judgment on the pleadings for defendants.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Amenity Fees – Unenforceable – Golf Courses (access required)

Watford v. Midsouth Golf, LLC Since a community’s property owners are not permitted to sue to enforce the community’s declaration of covenants, the property owners are not third-party beneficiaries of the declaration, and the golf course owner cannot require them to pay amenity fees. We affirm summary judgment for the property owners.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Assessments Authority – Civil Practice – Collateral Estoppel – Prior Collection Action (access required)

Snider v. Tull’s Bay Colony Property Owners Association, Inc. In a prior action by the defendant-property owners’ association to collect an assessment against the plaintiff-owners, the trial court ruled that the restrictive covenants in plaintiffs’ deed did not give the association authority to impose assessments. Although the association amended its bylaws to apply the Planned Community Act to the parties’ subdivision, the association is nevertheless collaterally estopped from imposing assessments. We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the association. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Single-Family Residential Use – Bed & Breakfast (access required)

Lyles v. Turner Where defendants use their home as a bed and breakfast for short-term paying overnight guests, defendants’ guests are independent persons who share only the place where they sleep and take their meals as would boarders. Defendants’ operation of a bed and breakfast is not a “single family residential” use of their property; therefore, it violates the restrictive covenants in defendants’ deeds. We affirm summary judgment for the plaintiff-neighbors.

Read More »

Real Property – Assessment – Golf Course Maintenance – Restrictive Covenants (access required)

Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Midsouth Golf, LLC The trial court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant breached the restrictive covenants by closing a golf course since the covenants required the defendant to operate and maintain two golf courses located in the residential community. We affirm judgment for plaintiff.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Record Notice – Tort/Negligence – Negligent Misrepresentation — Civil Practice – Appeals (access required)

Barfield v. Matos Even though the seller mistakenly told the buyer that the land he was buying was not subject to any restrictions that would prevent him from farming the land, since the restrictive covenants on the land were filed with the Register of Deeds, the buyer’s reliance on the seller’s misrepresentation was not reasonable. We affirm summary judgment for the third-party defendants. We lack jurisdiction to consider the defendant/third-party plaintiff’s arguments related to the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment for plaintiffs.

Read More »

Real Property – Restrictive Covenants – Equestrian Community – Pet Goats (access required)

Steiner v. Windrow Estates Home Owners Association, Inc. The restrictive covenants for the parties’ neighborhood prohibit livestock (other than horses) and permit household pets; however, the covenants do not define “livestock” or “pets.” Using the ordinary meanings of these words, since plaintiffs’ Nigerian Dwarf goats are kept for pleasure rather than for profit or utility, they are pets and not livestock within the meaning of the restrictive covenants. We affirm summary judgment for plaintiffs.

Read More »

Labor & Employment – Contract – Restrictive Covenants – Civil Practice – Preliminary Injunction (access required)

Aeroflow, Inc. v. Arias The non-competition clause in the employment contract between plaintiff and its former employee is unenforceable because it attempts to restrict the former employee from too many types of jobs; plaintiff has failed to show that its former employee acquired and misused trade secrets; plaintiff has not shown that firing a sales representative for not meeting his goals is a termination “for cause” within the meaning of the employment contract, so plaintiff has not proven that the contract’s non-solicitation provision applies; and the former employee discussed an outside opportunity with one of plaintiff’s current employees, who did not quit, so plaintiff has not proven it was damaged by a breach of the employee-interference provision of the contract.

Read More »