#Injunction breaking hoa covenants trial

X Research source You certainly have the right to sue the HOA for not fulfilling its obligations. Lawsuits can be expensive and time-consuming. During the consultation, you can ask the lawyer questions which will better prepare you to represent yourself.Ĭonsider the costs of a lawsuit. However, you can still meet with an attorney for a half-hour consultation. You might not have the money to hire a lawyer.They should be able to give you concrete information regarding your case.

They should not waiver or be unsure of themselves. In addition, ask specific questions about your case and gauge their knowledge based on how they answer. Ask how many years they have been practicing, how many cases they have tried, and what their success rate is. Always ask the attorney you speak with about their expertise in this particular area of the law.You should also ask other people who live in your HOA if they have ever sued the HOA and whether they would recommend their lawyer.To find a lawyer, you can contact your local or state bar association and ask for a referral.CC&Rs can be very confusing and complicated and you do not want to pay an attorney to learn a new area of the law. It is important that you find an attorney with experience suing HOAs.The lawyer can tell you about these rights so that you can bring your strongest case possible. For example, many states have laws specifically related to HOAs. An experienced attorney can advise you about your rights. You should meet with a lawyer before filing the lawsuit. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.Meet with an attorney. This site and any information contained herein is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The court issued an injunction against the Bonds requiring them to remove the improvements, and also found that the Bonds’ action against the other property owners was barred by the doctrine of laches because they sat on this right for such an extended period of time. Property owner acquiescence toward the minor alterations in violation of the covenants did not equate to an overall waiver of the right to enforce the covenants. In contrast, the Bonds’ vast improvements were structural in nature and encroached on general common areas of the association. The court held that although there had been alterations made in violations of the covenants in the past, they were non-structural and were made to the limited common areas. In deciding whether or not to issue an injunction, the court will balance the equities involved to ensure that great detriment will not fall on one party with only minor benefit to the other. Included in the right to enforce, is the ability to seek an injunction requiring the property owner to repair or remove improvements made in violation of the association’s restrictive covenants. On appeal, the court looked at the Horizontal Property Act and stated that the bylaws and covenants should be strictly enforced. In addition, the court denied both parties’ requests for injunctive relief and dissolved the initial temporary restraining order granted against the Bonds.

#Injunction breaking hoa covenants trial

The trial court determined that both the Bonds’ improvements and the other property owners’ improvements were approved by the Board, albeit some impliedly. Although the master deed required board approval and a majority of property owners’ assent to make alterations or improvements to the common elements, since inception the association’s policy was to only get approval from the board. In return, the Bonds filed an injunction against the other property owners seeking to have them remove additions that had previously been made to their condo units. The Board approved the application, but several property owners brought suit against the Bonds seeking a temporary restraining order and to enjoin them from further construction. In the Kneale case, the Bonds submitted an application to extend their condo by 2,200 feet, which would extend the unit into the common elements of the Condo Association. Subsequent and more substantial violation.” 1994), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that party’s waiver of the right to object to a minor violation of aĬovenant does not result in waiver of his right to object to a Inconsistency or looking the other way can create a defense of waiver or estoppel for the errant homeowner to use against the association in court. Association boards must be vigilant to consistently enforce the association’s CCRs and bylaws.