Restrictive Covenant Prohibiting Rentals to College Students Upheld

The SPUR at Williams Brice Owners Association, Inc. v. Lalla, No. 2013-001479.

In this recent Court of Appeals ruling, the Court affirmed the lower court’s holding that a restrictive covenant prohibiting the lease of condominium units to students unrelated to the unit owners was valid.

The Association filed the original action as a covenant enforcement suit and declaratory judgment action seeking determination from the court whether the covenant was enforceable and whether the Lallas were in violation. The covenant at issue provided as follows:

The rental of any unit to any student currently enrolled in a two (2) or four (4) year college, institute, or university is strictly prohibited. Additionally, any tenant of any unit shall be prohibited from having any roommate that is enrolled in a two (2) year or four (4) year college, institute or university. Any tenant in violation of this Restriction shall have their lease automatically terminated and shall have thirty (30) days to vacate the Unit.

The Master Deed goes on to create an exception for the children or grandchildren of unit owners who are students and authorizes them to reside with one other student roommate.

The Lallas argued that the covenant should be overturned based on the following grounds: (1) it is unreasonable and unenforceable; (2) it violates the Equal Protection clauses of the South Carolina and United States Constitutions; (3) it violates the Federal Fair Housing Act and South Carolina Fair Housing Laws; (4) it should be nullified on the basis of changed economic conditions; and (5) the Association waived the right to enforce the covenant.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the covenant should be upheld as enforceable as it is binding on the unit at issue and the Lallas failed to demonstrate the covenant discriminates against a protected or inherently suspect class. Neither the Federal Fair Housing Act nor the South Carolina Fair Housing Laws recognize students as a protected class. Both laws protect against discrimination on the basis of familial status, which means a person under 18 being domiciled with a parent or someone with legal custody or the designee of such parent or person having legal custody. The court held that this classification was “wholly unrelated” to the rental restriction at issue.

The court succinctly stated its holding as follows:

[W]e find no error in the circuit court’s ruling that when the [Lallas] became owners of a unit in [The SPUR], they voluntarily and intentionally bound themselves by the restrictive covenants barring the rental of any unit to college students who are unrelated to the unit’s owner. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s ruling that the rental ban provision of the restrictive covenant is binding upon the Lallas.

Emphasis added.

This site and any information contained herein should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Covenant Enforcement: Height Restriction Upheld

Greenbank Beach & Boat Club, Inc. v. Bunney, No. 66308-9-1, Wash. App. Ct., May 29, 2012.

In this case, the association brought suit against Bunney for violating a 15’ maximum height restriction on dwellings within the neighborhood. Bunney submitted building plans for a home six feet taller than the maximum allowed height and these plans were rejected. In spite of this and further attempts by the association to bring him into compliance, Bunney constructed the home as planned.

At trial, Bunney argued that the association abandoned its right to enforce the height restriction by selectively enforcing it. He presented evidence that other homes in the association exceeded the height restriction.  The court determined that the association had not waived this restriction and further found that Bunney acted in bad faith by continuing to build a home that he knew was in violation without attempting to resolve the issue with the association.

As a result, Bunney was ordered to modify his home to comply with the 15’ restriction.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Proposed Gun Range in Posh Condo Penthouse

Here’s an article from the Balitmore Sun about a penthouse unit owner in the Baltimore Ritz-Carlton Residences seeking to obtain a permit to build a gun range inside the unit.  Condo association rules, state laws and local ordinances may prove to be a difficult burden to overcome in getting the firing range approved. 

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Ambiguous Covenant Construed to Permit Pet Bird

Breakwater Cove Condo. Ass’n v. Chin, No. A-1420-09T3, N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., Dec. 2, 2010.

A unit owner at Breakwater Cove kept two birds in her unit. The association informed her that she was in violation of the master deed and her birds were a nuisance to other owners. The Master Deed provides: “No bird, reptile or animal of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept in any unit or anywhere else upon the property except that dogs, cats or other household pets are permitted, not to exceed two in the aggregate, provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose, are housed within the unit and abide by all applicable rules and regulations. No outside dog pens, runs or yards shall be permitted.”

The association pursued alternative dispute resolution with a mediator in hopes of resolving the dispute. When mediation did not resolve the issue, the association sued the owner. The trial court sided with the association, finding that the owner’s birds did not qualify as “other household pets” under the master deed. The trial judge also determined that the birds were a nuisance based on testimony of other owners.

On appeal, the court determined that the pet policy in the master deed was ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible to two meanings. The court held that based on this ambiguity, the covenant did not provide fair notice to unit owners and could not be upheld.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.